"The image of the feminist as a mirthless, hirsute, sex-averse succubus is a friendly-fire casualty of the Republican 'war on women.'"

"It’s a grave loss to conservatives, who have used this faithful foot soldier as a comfortably grotesque stand-in for the real people whose liberties they have sought to conscribe: women."

Goofball rhetoric from Rebecca Traister in the Washington Post.

I mean, it's such a silly collection of words that I'm not sure you're even supposed to try to sort it out. Maybe Traister just wants us to wallow a big comfy bubble bath of words. But I don't care. Despite being a woman, I look for reason and order.

A "succubus" is "A demon in female form supposed to have carnal intercourse with men in their sleep" — OED, first meaning — so what's a "sex-averse succubus"? Assuming some people thought feminists were demons, whoever thought they were demons who sneaked up on sleeping men to have intercourse?  And if one ever did think such a thing, would you picture them doing it without mirth? I'll grant you the hair. I think the demon ladies who fuck you in your sleep probably don't take the trouble to go into the salon for a thorough pre-fuck waxing.

But, anyway, it's good to know — thank you, WaPo expert feminist — that this image is shot to hell by Republicans, who accidentally slayed one of their own. You have this war — the "war on women" — and on one side of it are Republicans, and — within this metaphor — these warrior Republicans shot the grim, hairy, female rapist demon — or, more specifically: her image and said image was one of the Republican soldiers.

And now "conservatives" (presumably these same "Republicans") suffered a "grave loss" because "this faithful foot soldier" — the succubus — had been serving "as a comfortably grotesque stand-in for the real people whose liberties they have sought to conscribe: women." Now you could really get confused here, because the word "conscribe" might make you think of forcing people into the military service, and if the succubus was a fellow soldier to the Republicans and a stand-in for real women, then you might think, what's the loss? Obviously, Republicans want real women on their side.

But Traister is using the word "conscribe" in the sense of "circumscribe." It's really bizarre to choose the less common word "conscribe" over "circumscribe" precisely when you're working the military analogy and the alternate meaning of conscription is likely to suggest itself. Anyway, it's not that the Republicans are trying to conscript real women onto their side in a political battle. It's that Republicans are out to cut back the "liberties" of women, and it's easier to do that, presumably, if you've demonized women.

But the demons were only the feminists, not women more generally, many of whom are Republicans and/or conservatives. Presumably, all women care about their liberty. The argument is over the meaning of liberty and how one person's desire for liberty is to be weighed over the needs and wants of others. In the present-day context, the Democratic Party side of the war on women the "liberty" in question is having one's health care treatments paid for.

If you want to get real, let's get real. Talk straight. Be clear. And then we can see what we're talking about and make rational decisions.