There is a trope, prevalent in articles that attempt to explain why women's behaviour is trending in a particular direction, that conflates feminism both with women attempting to 'have it all' (possibly what the last paragraph you quote is referring to), but also any sense that women might be behaving in a way that was historically coded masculine.

Thus, in the UK, 'feminism' is blamed for the stress women who work full time and have children experience. It is also blamed for young women's perceived penchant for strutting around town in revealing clothing while drinking lashings of booze. This is frowned upon because of its public order implications, but also because young women who are drunk experience rape. Thus, some sections of the British popular press blame 'feminism' for rape and the difficulty of balancing work and family life. I'm sure the irony won't be lost on you.

Less polemical news digests (and the California Office of Traffic Safety) skip the explicit linking of feminism with whatever bad outcome they're talking about, while talking about 'equality' and 'empowerment'. However, because the narrative is so well-rehearsed, it raises a bit of a red flag even when the mentions of feminism are missing. (Although where else would equality and empowerment have come from? Free with a box of Cocoa Pops?)

From
“Younger women feel more empowered, more equal to men, and have been beginning to exhibit the same uninhibited behaviors as men,” said Chris Cochran of the California Office of Traffic Safety.

To
“does seem to be coded language for “Feminism drove Diane Schuler to drink and then to drive,” an anti-feminist myth with dangerous repercussions.”

Is a wild mental leap. Please help me find anything that implies “Feminism drove Diane Schuler to drink."

Immediately preceding the first quote, the original article states:
"Men still drink more than women and are responsible for more drunken-driving cases. But the gap is narrowing, and among the reasons cited are that women are feeling greater pressures at work and home, they are driving more, and they are behaving more recklessly."

Toward the end, this:
"Our society has taught us that women have an extra burden to be the perfect mothers and perfect wives and perfect daughters and perfect everything," Levounis said. "They tend to go to great lengths to keep everything intact from an external viewpoint while internally, they are in ruins."

That's no description of feminism that I recognize. Yet BeckySharper alleges that feminism is blamed in this article? Sorry kids, don't see it.

Sex discrimination, like race discrimination is real and pervasive. But to see anti-feminism behind every rock and tree both dilutes and trivializes any possible corrective action.

As for Diane Schuler and her husband, of whom you said, "A) Schuler was the world’s highest functioning drunk and an amazing actress or B) David Schuler either willfully ignored his wife’s alcoholism or was psychologically incapable of accepting it."

My guess–having seen this first-hand in my own family–is that it was a combination of A) and B). It almost always is. The drunk does a good job hiding it and the spouse does a good job denying that sneaking suspicion that something is Not Quite Right. They do this because if either party did confront the issue, they'd be forced to realize that there was a serious, dangerous, potentially embarrassing problem and they'd have to deal with it. And no one wants to deal with that kind of problem. Denial FTW!

Also, you're probably right about municipalities stepping up their DUI patrols and catching more drunk driveres But, of course, they're shocked, appalled and dismayed to discover that a fair number of those drunks are women.

DUIs cost far more than $1000 a pop. That's just the initial fine. Between court costs, diversion programs and additional fees, the cost here in WA state for the average DUI is $10,000 for a first offense, and it goes up from there. That's money that goes directly to the city/county/state. Where I live, the cops will pull people over at night for purely made up reasons to see if they can get lucky and hit a high-functioning/borderline drunk driver.

(Full disclosure: I haven't had a drink since 1993, so this isn't personal experience, but anecdotal evidence from friends and co-workers who've been through a DUI. This is also a state where you can get a $1000 fine for throwing a lit cigarette out of the window based on someone reporting you on the phone.)

/relurk

You probably wouldn't want to know how many people on the road had a few too many, even in the morning. And especially in the afternoon. Luckily, the other traffic tends to keep drunks more able to navigate after happy hour in ways that are lacking at 2am.

Yeah, but you know, every alcoholic has their own pattern. I would generally say that 9 AM is quite early to be that sloshed, but my alcoholic grandfather got up every morning around 5 AM to go to the bar. He'd worked the graveyard shift in a factory all his life, going to the bar with his buddies right after work, and he kept the same drinking hours in retirement. By 8:00, he was gone (if not usually driving, thank god). My alcoholic grandmother, now, she preferred to stretch her bourbon out through the day.

I have no comment on the substantive aspect of this post (gender). Alcoholism sucks. Killing people sucks. Bad parenting sucks.