Update: Amanda Marcotte forced out

Official Edwards campaign blogger Amanda Marcotte resigned today after all, despite Edwards' previous words of support. No doubt, she was "encouraged" to do so. Word around the campfire is that her review of Children of Men was the final nail in her coffin.

http://pandagon.net/2007/02/11/review-of-children-of-men/

Now obviously this piece has a hardcore feminist slant, but we already knew Amanda was a hardcore feminist blogger. So what was the problem here? There was no disturbing verbal imagery or profanity. Why did this piece shock the sensibilities of those who seem to make careers out of being shocked? Why did a mere movie review necessitate the exit of Amanda from the Edwards campaign?

Was it the comment that "...male dominance [is] inherently damaging and egalitarian relationships between men and women as the only real source of hope"?

Or perhaps it was the disturbing notion "that real love is rooted in egalitarian relationships"?

Such ideas are anathema to the evangelical GOP base, of course. But I have an idea that the sticking point was the following passage:

The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels. But this movie offers an alternative interpretation of the virgin birth—one where “virginity” is irrelevant and one where a woman’s stake in motherhood is fully respected for the sacrifice and hard work that it is.

Ah, yes, the Virgin Birth. The exact same subject that got her into trouble to begin with. (Damn women... why don't they learn to keep their mouths shut!) But you have to consider that maybe there are few concepts more unnatural and anti-sex than the pervasive myth of the "virgin birth." It is fed by, and fuels, the lingering male belief that female sex is dirty and denigrating while male sex is perfectly A-OK -- and ultimately, that a woman's sexuality exists only to serve the sexuality of a man.

Entire books can be written about the subject. Suffice to say that it should be a valid point of discussion, despite the cries of "blasphemy" from the usual humorless Bible-thumpers.

All that said... yes, Amanda could have been a bit more diplomatic with her posts after accepting a paid political job, due to the bland nature of the job.

But it's still a disgrace that we are not allowed to even begin to comment on the roots of anti-woman, patriarchal thoughts without getting crucified by the religious right. Pun not intended... or was it?