Hotel Satire

Dear Satire Expert Gal,

I just don’t know what to make of this "crisis" in the White House. Our government seems to be just another soap opera episode. Shouldn’t we be more upset over the fact that the Clinton administration has demonized welfare mothers, increased the defense budget while cutting social programs, and pretty much cleared the way for a global economy where unrestrained corporations rule über alles?

Signed, I’ve Had It

Dear Twit,

Why are you worrying your pretty little head over welfare and defense budgets? They are not your concern. But thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight on the White House "crisis." I am frankly amazed at the media pundits, et.al. They have missed the main points about the so-called sex scandal. They are: (1) If a man has sex with a gal other than his wife/fiancée, or fondles her or whatever, it’s because SHE ASKED FOR IT. Why has this basic fact of nature been ignored? And this truism applies to all men, even the president. (2) Our economic system is about men making money. And what on earth do you think this money is for? It’s to own things: cars, land, buildings, humidors, guns, and GALS. Duh.

That’s why men want power, for heaven's sake. So they can buy (or rent) goodies. Even that feminist rag Cosmopolitan (April 1998) has grasped this point. "The shocking fact is that the more money a guy makes, the more likely he is to stray. 'I work hard, and I deserve to play hard too,’ rationalizes a married forty-something exec who hires call girls on a regular basis. ‘When you have the money, you say to yourself, Here’s a 21-year-old centerfold I  can rent for a little while. And it’s like, Why not? Who wouldn’t?’, he says.

"‘Money makes men horny.' A 1994 sex survey conducted in Britain shows that top male executives are five times more adulterous than their cash-poor blue collar counterparts."

Yes, we’d like to see Clinton impeached. But not for this phony sex scandal. We’d like to impeach him for not bombing Iran (or is it Iraq?), so we'd have something exciting to watch on TV. So we can be proud and shop for yellow ribbons and other patriotic stuff.

But as I said, none of this is your concern, Twit Gal. You should be figuring out how to look good while being fondled and/or owned. Have you considered buying a corset? They’re back in style. According to the San Francisco Examiner, "'Women are looking for some structure in their lives'," says Autumn Carey-Adamme, proprietor of Dark Garden, a store that specializes in...Victorian lace-up corsetry. 'Because we've been wearing such unfitted clothing for so long, they want something that makes them look a little less androgynous. It's about shape. It's about the emphasis on femininity.... Restrictive clothing brings us out of our heads and back into our bodies.... Body modification is becoming less scary to people.... The sensation of some constriction can be pleasurable...donning a corset can be sooooo pretty'."

Dear Expert Gal,

I love movies, in spite of the fact that they are mostly about guys while portraying gals as murderous sluts and/or supportive appen- dages. But really. Enough is enough. In Titanic, Wings of the Dove, Great Expectations, and As Good As It Gets, the heroine gal requests that the guy paint her reclining and nude. The film portrays this act as liberatory for the gal. I don't get it.

Signed, Confused

Dear Blithering,

How dense can you be? The reason you are seeing these nude sketching scenes and lots of movies that take place in the 18th century before gals had any rights at all is that Hollywood has been taken over by feminists. If, in these scenes, the guy had thrown her down on the couch, ripped her clothes off, attacked or fondled her, and bought/rented her for his pleasure and amusement, not to mention decorative value, that would have been okay. See the "Corset as outerwear" picture, included here, for the proper way to have played this scene: Gal by the sea, clad only in corset, garter belt, and nylons, leaning against a balustrade with crotch meandering its way into not one but two men’s faces. We're talking ASKING FOR IT, we're talking ownership.

Dear Expert Gal,

I was reading the Vogue March 1998 letters section which included the following letter: "...It seems that the feminist in America is she who is a ‘man-hater’ or who rejects all femininity, while her French sister is very much aware of the differences between herself and a man and finds no problem with that. As Simone de Beauvoir believes, in France most women want to be feminine. I think that all feminists should realize that our femininity—our faces, bodies, and style—are great tools rather than chains that bind us.

"I owe you a thank-you to Showalter for her article ["The Professor Wore Prada"], which is proof to me that one can be a woman, feminine, shopper, a makeup-wearing, hair-highlighting, black-stockinged, Gucci-loafered, Tocca-miniskirted femme, who has a dog-eared copy of Le Rire de la medusa sticking out of the pocket of her Kate Spade shoulder bag!"

What’s going on? Isn’t part of the feminist agenda to challenge gender stereotypes, to break the chains of pre-ordained concepts of masculine and feminine; and for gals to be appreciated for who they are, not how they look?

Signed, Concerned

Dear Lesbian,

Nonsense. Plus, you used too many big words in your letter, like "stereotype" and "pre-ordained" and "appreciated." It’s not feminine to do that. Also, the Vogue letter writer missed the point (as well as misinterpreting de Beauvoir). It’s not feminine to quote gal writers, because it’s not feminine for gals to write non-fiction, except about plants (prefer-ably flowers) and animals (prefer-ably domestic cats). Gals can write romantic fiction, or keep diaries or journals about men and how they tick, but that’s it.

It isn’t about whether gals wear lipstick and black stockings. It's about: (1) No matter what she wears, a gal is ASKING FOR IT; (2) How were these items purchased? If a gal buys them with money she’s earned, money that allows her to live independently, then she’s a feminist, i.e., lesbian.

If she buys these things with her husband’s hard-earned money, then she's feminine, i.e., a gal. Speaking of clothes: did you know that "the fashion worlds latest opening isn't a hot new club? It's a side-slashed dress, a peekaboo bathing suit, and a load of other flash-your-skin outfits."

I include a picture from a Vogue ad spread about "independent thinkers" that features actresses who embody the pioneering spirit ("See through"). Are we going to focus on that gal's independent thoughts or what's under that shirt? Also, in "Peek-a-boo," note that it looks as if someone has slashed at her clothing with a machete. Here again, the question to ask is: who's paying for the clothes? If it's the gal herself, then we're talking man-hating feminist. If it's a guy, then he owns her and there's no reason to upset yourself.

Ignore the fact that gals' magazines almost always trash feminism when it interferes with purchases of makeup, clothes, and anything else that advertises in these magazines. That's just free enterprise. Suggesting otherwise is repressive totalitarianism. Just remember: (1) a gal is always ASKING FOR IT, no matter what they guy did; (2) Men earn money to be able to buy and rent gals, and that's that.