I want to share this with you because it’s too good to be missed:

Choice feminism is not feminism: it’s patriarchy in a fancy dress.

Yes, our identities shouldn’t solely rest on our status as wage-earners.  But the reality is that the ability to provide for oneself is integrally connected to one’s FREEDOM as a HUMAN BEING, at least in a capitalist society.  The moment one gives up one’s ability to provide for oneself – however excellent the reasons for that might be – one does give up one’s autonomy, and, at least in part, one’s status as an independent human being.  There’s a reason that women are grouped with children and not with men, and it ain’t because they are conceived of as “equal” to men.

The quiet desperation of the most recent posts on “opting out” is proof that more and more people are seeing the truth of what this brilliant quote tells us. Soon, an embarrassed silence reserved for the particularly clueless will accompany any public mention of choice feminism.

One reason why I hate The NY Times is its readiness to thrust its tongue deep into the ass of whoever is in power. These days, it is trying to help Obama look less ridiculous in the aftermath of the Snowden debacle by publishing silly articles about Russia.

You’d think one could find a million legitimate reasons to criticize Putin. The NYTimes journalists, however, are so inept that they have to manufacture something stupid instead.

In today’s completely idiotic article titled, in the best traditions of the Cold War, “Open the Gulag Gates”, the paper slams what is probably the greatest achievements of Putin’s regime and the main reason why he has such an overwhelming support in the country.

In the 1990s, the FSU countries were engulfed in the bandit wars. Criminals organized themselves in actual armies and fought for control of the newly available private property, claiming the lives of many in the process. There were no authorities in place that could even try to stop them.

Since Putin came to power, the bandit wars ended. There is still a lot of corruption because people insist on paying bribes even when nobody is soliciting any. Still, many of the criminals were put to jail and the corrupt oligarchs were forced into exile.

The NYTimes article stupidly bemoans a higher incarceration rate in Russia for what is called “economic crimes” than for burglary. The country, however, was not ravaged by burglars in the 1990s. It was torn apart by people who were trying to get a slice of the state property that was now being privatized.

The article ends with an egregious attempt to defend Khodorkovsky, an oligarch, a murderer, a mafia boss and a vicious animal who terrorized half of the country until Putin put him in jail. If there is one thing Putin should be praised for is putting an end to this criminal’s freedom. Instead of explaining who Khodorkovsky is, however, the NYTimes journalist suggests that the mafia boss is some sort of a political dissident. Khodorkovsky’s lackeys pay good money to dirty journalists who maintain the myth that he is incarcerated for political reasons. I’m wondering if the author of this article defends corruption because he has a personal reason to do so.

The article takes a very unimportant development (13 people being paroled for their minor crimes) and presents it as some sort of major news. All of this seems to be done to kiss Obama’s ass and possibly get a handout from Khodorkovsky while avoiding doing any actual journalism.

If there was ever a stupid rag, NYTimes is it, people.