Beyond feminism, she may need to brush up on grammar. Today's faux pas features an inquiry about sexually objectifying mothers by “Proud Feminist.”
Here's where I want to know why a Proud Feminist would address this question to Cat's Call. Specter makes Ruth Ann Dailey look like a raging feminist what with her obsessive focus on the most superficial elements of women's lives — dating, clothes and what she terms “Cattitude.” It was all good. Cat played at being a journalist. Jealous other would be journalists bitched and moaned about her good fortune. And feminists did their thing.
Until “Proud Feminist” had to crash through the fourth wall. She asks for advice over taking umbrage at the sexual objectification of mothers. Cat doesn't disappoint. She does, however, answer the wrong question.
[T]here's no inherent problem with women (mothers or not) being viewed as “sexual.”
There is an inherent problem with confusing sexual objectification and sexuality. Viewing a mother as a sexual being is fine. Objectifying her as a sexual thing is not fine. There's a big difference. The difference between a being and an object.
Cat, you should check out Feministing which might help you better understand the distinction. If you are going to continue writing advice for women, we need you to really put some effort into understanding feminist issues. You may not consider yourself a feminist, but you have a responsibility to the women in the region to at least decry sexually objectification of any woman.
Cattitude doesn't justify ignoring the plight of your sisters.