The dust-up started, from what I can tell, when Megan Carpentier was doing a live tweet review of a movie, "Fire In The Heartland," which features Dana Loesch along with several other far right-wing women. Carpentier noted a particularly ridiculous statement from Loesch:
megancarpentier: Haha, Dina Loesch says Palin "split the community" between liberal feminists and conservative women, because Palin is unafraid to be pretty.After some internet sparring, Loesch reiterated the idea yesterday in a tweet:
dloesch: Why no, I don't think that there is a damn thing wrong with discussing how it's not a bad thing for a conservative woman to be hot.So, first of all, Loesch's claim that "liberal feminists" have an issue with "being pretty" is laughable. The vast majority of feminists I've met don't think there's something wrong with "being pretty:" rather, they simply think that women shouldn't be defined by their looks. It's a critique of the all-too-obvious fact that society often overemphasizes the standards for attractiveness in women, and often underemphasizes other abilities.
But Loesch doesn't just get her story wrong, she reveals herself as supporting exactly what most of the feminist movement (both liberal and conservative) has been working to combat for a long time: she appears to think that womens' looks should be used against them in political discourse, and she repeatedly attacks other women based on their looks while implying that this says something about their moral worth. As I've documented, Loesch has a history of this: she previously said that women at Emily's List had "hair lips" and were jealous of Palin, and she suggested that those criticizing her were like "chicks who pad their bras."
And today, while in the middle of ridiculously arguing that liberal feminists place restrictions on women based on their looks, here's what Loesch had to say:
IBTC, as google informed me, stands for "Itty Bitty Titty Committe."
Got that? While bragging about how much more enlightened "conservative feminsts" are compared to "liberal feminists," Loesch claims that the people arguing with her have IBTs (which, according to some societal standards, is less cool than GBTs?). So even as she is arguing that liberal feminists place restrictions on women based on their looks, Loesch attacks the women trying to have a discussion with her based on their looks! Or at least, what she imagines about their looks. Could she be more ridiculous?