-
Website
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-feminism-works.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Mike, I may be dogpiling, but this sentence comes across to me as being both condescending and sexist.
The offending phrases, for me, are from "I've been making concessions" onward. While you don't actually say so in as many words, your choice of language implies the following:
1) While you are, of course, Right, you have been making allowances in order to indulge other people;
2) You are the only person who is trying to calm down the exchanges;
3) You are the only person who is attempting to start a dialog;
4) You should be respected for all of these, since you are a stranger here;
5) It is the responsibility of the other participants in the discussion to ensure you are correctly educated;
6) You are calmer and more focussed than all other participants in the discussion; and
7) You should be socially rewarded for your generosity in being well-behaved toward other participants in the discussion.
It's a lot of work for thirty-five words.
Here's a suggested, more neutral re-wording of the same section:
"I have been conceeding my errors where I recognise them; I have been maintaining a civil tone of exchange, as is appropriate for a guest here; I have been engaging in dialogue."
(If anyone else has suggestions, I'm open to them - this is my best effort on a first draft).
The biggest trigger phrase in your original was the phrase "making concessions". This is used as political doublespeke for the equivalent of giving children dessert if they eat all their greens - it's understood the party making the concessions is being magnanimous, and they didn't have to do so, but are agreeing for their own reasons, and for the good of the other party. So, it's condescending, particularly when followed by the "when I think I'm wrong". The implication is that no matter how much evidence and explanation we provide on a matter where you think you're correct, you will not consider it, because you don't think you're wrong.
"Trying to calm down the exchange" implies the following - firstly that the exchange got heated (which it didn't) and secondly, that you are the only one attempting to take some of the heat out of the matter (or indeed, the only one interested in doing so). This is particularly so when followed by your parenthetical comment, which implies no matter how excited everyone else was, or indeed still is - you imply the other participants are still excited - *you* are now calm, collected and rational. Being calm, collected and rational are all things which are associated within this culture as being "masculine" and therefore more socially deserving of reward, while being "excited" or otherwise emotional is considered to be "feminine" and therefore more socially deserving of censure - one of those artifacts of early Reformation thinking we're only just starting to deal with on a cultural and social level. So that sentence is also unconsciously sexist, too.
Finally, the comment about "actually starting some kind of a dialogue" implies without your presence, there would not be a dialogue at all - something which is factually incorrect, since there was dialogue occurring prior to your arrival on the thread, and there will be dialogue occurring after your departure from it. It disparages the comments which occurred prior to your second comment (which obviously weren't part of the dialogue you started) and also disparages the original post itself. Combined with your masculine online nomenclature, there's a strong implication of a masculine presence being required in order for dialogue to occur at all - which, again, is sexist.
That all of this subtext can be packed into a single sentence is an indication (to me, at least) of how highly affected our language has been by the structures and constructions of the patriarchal context of our society. Thirty-five words is able to pack all of that punch, because enough people aren't aware of the context in which their words are created, connected and used.
I'm not going to say you're sexist, Mike. I'm not going to say you intended to pack in all the subtext I read into a single sentence. What I *am* going to say is this: there's a lot of truth in the biblical adage "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
To hoick this whole screed back on-topic again, this is part of what both Melissa and echidne are talking about - the wilful ignorance of how little things hurt so many different people. A sexist comment about Hillary Clinton (a candidate in a Presidential race in a country I don't particularly like, won't visit by choice, and couldn't care less about, much less live in) hurts me - someone who lives on the west coast of Australia - because it implies to be female is to be lesser. I am female. I do not accept I am lesser to anyone. I do not accept my biological and gender identity should be used as a marker of "lesser" or "socially unacceptable" or "more deserving of social censure". The notion is wrong. It is incorrect.
And in saying it is both wrong and incorrect, I am fighting an uphill battle against centuries of conditioning. In saying a female candidate for political office should not be required to be both the perfect candidate, *and* the perfect woman, *and* the perfect party member *and* the perfect wife, *and* the perfect representative, *and* the perfect mother... in saying this, I am saying it's all right for women to be human, and this is something our culture tries very hard to deny. None of the male candidates are required, by reason of their gender, to prove their suitability for a completely different field at the same time they're required to prove their suitability for the position they're aiming for. Why should a female candidate be expected to be?
That's why I took one sentence of yours apart, Mike: so I could have that microcosm of how sexism, and sexist assumptions, are embedded in our language to show you what a tough battle all women everywhere are facing just getting people to recognise the problem.
I defend Hillary Clinton, because I am defending myself. And Mama Shakes. And my sister. And my girlfriends. And all the Shaker women. And women I will never know. And all the men, especially gay men and bi men and trans men and intersex men, who will be demeaned with misogynist slurs, too.
Melissa said it. I just happen to agree with her one hundred percent.
Your comments read like " I tried to be calm and nice, but you all just keep getting all hysterical and angry" "now now there, its ok"
"GO LIGHTLY!" well at the end of this day and the end of this thread Mike, I am ready to say take your go f'ing lightly and shove it.
Mike, I think part of what you may not be understanding is that we are bombarded with sexist trolls. Constantly. Day in, day out. Every post about sexism turns into a comment thread about racism. Every post about Clinton turns into a comment thread about how she's evil and Obama is better. I mean, Jesus, Liss and the other contributors have now catalogued one hundred and one horribly misogynist attacks on Senator Clinton for having the temerity to run for President, and they're not even counting it all. We get men here trying to "educate" us about things we already understand far better than they ever will every. goddamn. day. Many of us are heartily sick of it and feeling pretty ground under right now.
You may feel people are "talking down to you," but I should tell you if you are here honestly that you sound rather a lot like someone who isn't. Ending that sentence with "lol" is a dismissal of the expressed pain, irritation, depression, and anger a lot of us are feeling over our society's pathological hatred of women - something many of us were previously able to try to ignore in order to preserve our sanity, but which is now being shoved in our face at every turn. When a thread about how feminism works to protect women devolves into yet another lecture about how we should just be nicer, and Hillary's destroying the party, and she's evil, and blah blah fucking blah, well, yes. Some of us get pissed off. And rightfully so.
i sorta feel like i can hear the sound of minds closing.
We also get a lot of Liberal Doodz (TM) come around, tell us how wrong we are, and accuse us all of being an intolerant echo chamber when we (a) aren't interested in engaging yet again or (b) see little point in discussing things that have already been talked about multiple times at this very-easy-to-search blog.
I'm feeling kind of naive today, so I've assumed you're here in good faith. There are ways of entering a community with rather more respect than you've shown - it is not, in fact, our job to "educate you." Many of us are happy to, but you need to demonstrate that you deserve that consideration, because it is not something you are owed.
Criticize her Senate votes, criticize her policy plans, fine. But start talking about how she's "too ambitious" or "she sounds like such a bitch" or "is she even really a woman?" or "why did she let her husband cheat on her?" -- oh HELL no, you did NOT just say that. You're right, I'm not even down with those kinds of personal, sexist (and transphobic) insults aimed at Ann Coulter, who is an individual for whom I have pretty much zero respect (unlike Hillary Clinton, for whom I have tons). Because when it stops being about what she says and does, and starts being about her gender -- that's when it starts also being about me.
Also, just from a pragmatic political standpoint, Hillary Clinton should not quit the race! Right now, the entire country is listening to the Democratic political discourse and no one is paying attention to McCain. This is fantastic. She's a powerful speaker and I want her out there talking as much as possible! The longer the media is focused on the "horse race" between Obama and Clinton, the less they're fawning over McCain.
Ignoring, as it has already been sufficiently dealt with in this thread, the nature of your description, let's deal with its veracity. There is, quite simply, another explanation for why Clinton is addressing at this point the role sexism has played in this primary. Zuzu:
"She's experienced enough in politics to realize that the end game is not the nomination, but the general election, and that the party's inaction on Florida and Michigan hurts the party's nominee -- whether it's her or Obama -- in the general election. I also think that the reason she's bringing up misogyny now when she's pretty studiously avoided mentioning it during the primary is that she realizes that the party needs to start taking it seriously NOW because a lot of her female supporters are pissed off enough not to vote NOW because they feel personally slighted by the party's inaction while Clinton was being attacked for being a woman."
That jives a lot more with her repeated assertions that she wants her supporters to support Obama if he is the nominee and her repeated emphasis on party unity for November. (Example: Clinton says, twenty seconds in: "I think that part of what I have to do [as I continue campaigning] is both continue to make the case for me but also to demonstrate that we're going to have a unified Democratic Party when we finally have a nomination, because it's really important that we win," and then says again, at 2:15, after being asked if "women" (note) are going to be upset if she doesn't get the nomination: "It's one of the closest races we've ever had, and I think that a lot of people are deeply invested in their candidates, so there will probably be disappointment no matter which of us gets the nomination, and then it will be up to us to unify the Party and make sure that we are victorious in November against McCain.")
*Remember to ask yourself what someone's intent is when they are charming you. It's not always bad, but often the intent is malicious, especially if peppered throughout the charm are little red flags (like putting you down). If someone is oh-so-charming and yet can never really hear you and can't seem to respect any boundaries you set and never gets why you're upset when the boundaries are crossed....you are being manipulated for someone else's purposes. They're not really "there"....it is a game and you are not real to them.
Yes, and don't overlook that he attacked ALL of us after Melissa's jab., despite the fact that several people were engaging with him patiently and politely.
"Wow. Girls suck at math."
i'm an obama supporter
Really, Mike? You don't say.
Every candy I unwrap is shit-filled.
This is a fairly large community with many regular posters and a whole lot of people who post less often. The people who show up posting off topic with "hot button" issues are generally responded to as trolls because that is what trolls behave like.
OMG, LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! Dude, there is a 101-part series on this blog about sexism lobbed at one woman. One white, straight, wealthy, privileged American woman who is qualified for arguably the most important job in the world. And the series is less than a year old.
Imagine the shit that the average American woman faces in a lifetime. Now imagine what an average woman in the developing world faces in a lifetime. I've got almost four years of archives that contain the most heinous shit you can imagine -- rape, genital mutilation, breast ironing, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and all manner of abuse and indignity against women all over the world.
In this post, which is about HOW FEMINISM WORKS to address that shit, you have the unmitigated fucking temerity to talk about persecution complexes?! LOL. You unbelievable asshole. It's not a complex if you're actually being persecuted.
No, I won't concede that -- because if you hadn't already behaved a fool in the thread, I wouldn't have presumed you were lecturing the commenters to "tread lightly." But you'd already been a condescending ass, so you created the context in which I misinterpreted what you said.
I wouldn't have responded that way to just anyone; I responded that way to you, based on the way you blustered in here.
Own it.
"Look at me, I'm a guy!! Attack me please!"
See also: The Context
We don't do olive branches here. We do teaspoons.
You seem to be suffering from some cultural poison, there, Mikey, where you are under the mistaken impression that women are supposed to be nice to you. Because women are nice, just so much nicer than men, so warm and welcoming and they make you cookies and wrap you in a blankie, blaaaaaaaaaaaah. It's bullshit. We're under no obligation to be "nice" here, in this safe space, no matter how much we grin and bear it elsewhere.
You haven't earned niceness just by typing in a little box, capice? Fucking deal with it, and stop whining.
And that, dear boy, is such a blindingly infuriating expression of priviege. Coming into a feminist zone, where the topics at hand are, for women, intensely personal, and treating it all as some fucking oratorical exercise, is incredibly fucking rude and arrogant and makes me want to punch you in the face, you clueless fucking nitwit..
I suddently feel like punching somebody. Hard.
I probably f'd that cliche up, I do that, but I think you get the idea.
Not to overdose on sarcasm here, but maybe, - just maybe - we'd be able to have a conversation full of new and exciting shiny ideas if we didn't have to go over basic Feminism 101 shit on every fucking comment thread with trolls and other imbeciles who feel like today! is the day! they're going to explore that "feminism" they've been hearing so much about ! (... FOR THE LAST ~40 YEARS.)
[This isn't necessarily directed at you, Mike. Just a general frustration, after reading that shit with "Jennifer" on the HSW100 thread. Ick.]
So yes, I have to question any man and especially a presidential candidate of being "incorrigibly sexist" if they admit to calling women sweetie all the time.
It's always interesting to me that Obama's gaffe is simply that - a minor sin, evidence of nothing serious - while Clinton's less felicitously-chosen comments imply evil intent (she's a racist!) on her part.
And yet AGAIN, a post celebrating feminism towards all women (even Ann Fucking Coulter!) degenerates into more noise about how evil Clinton is.
I appreciate how patient all of you are with the Feminism 101 lessons. I just don't have the energy. I started off so happy reading these comments, and now I just want to cry.
Let me see if I can help you out. Lots of people think that George Bush sort of looks like a monkey - a chimp, perhaps. His ears stick out kind of funny, and his hairline sort of makes him look like a, well, monkey. No big deal. You can say, "Hey, George Bush looks like a chimp!" and, while some people might think it's kind of rude, no one would call you a racist for saying so, right?
Now, remember the Curious George T-shirt that said "Obama 2008," and how every decent person agreed that was racist? And the asshole bar owner defended it by saying, "Well, Obama does look like a monkey?" The point is, you can say a white man looks like a monkey. If you say it about a black man, you are playing into old, gross, racist images of black men depicted as apes. Decent people who care about not being racists understand this, and get why it's okay to say something about a white person and not okay to say the exact same thing about a black person.
"Temper tantrums" work exactly the same way. Say a man is having one, no big deal. Say a woman is having one, you are playing into old, gross, misogynist images of women depicted as hysterical children.
I really hate resorting to racism to make these analogies, but it seems to be easier for a lot of people to grok.
It means they think you're not really concerned with sexism at all and that you're just trolling to get a rise/excercise male dominance over women. :P
Yes, Hillary did make some mildly racist comments. But that neither means she's dismissing assassination threats, nor does it mean that sexist attacks against her are any less wrong because she's human and made a stupid mistake in the way she framed her public support. (Although she should take it back and try to be aware of her privilege in exactly the same way that sexists should)
Just feeling rather bitter now.
Well, sure. That happens to lots of people, and there's nothing wrong with it, necessarily, as long as one is open to the fact that what one is saying is, in fact, sexist - whether or not you meant it that way. (Melissa's done at least several posts about the limitations of intent when it comes to this stuff.) That's called "being aware of your privilege." Clearly, you've managed to do it with POC to the point that you understand it's not okay to compare a black man to a monkey (and I don't know your own race, so I apologize if I'm making offensive assumptions myself). That's how people learn not to call women "hysterical," and not to say, "That's so gay," instead of, "That's so stupid." That's how we make progress.
It can make a difference to consider who said it and why, sure. But that is the prerogative of the offended party, and it has nothing to do with the fact that what one said was, in fact, offensive.
i'm wondering how would we get to a point where we can get the language back.
I don't think that's possible, in our lifetimes. Sorry.
I should amend that. We all make mistakes. What differentiates someone who is trying not to be an asshole is recognizing that what one said was offensive, understanding why (and finding out, if necessary), apologizing sincerely, and then not doing it again. And yes, there are lots of words and phrases that privileged (by virtue of sex, orientation, race, ability, etc.) people cannot use if they wish not to be assholes. That is the price of privilege - and it's a damn small one.
In matters of language context is everything, and you already know this (although you may not be consciously aware of that). So yes, in some cases who says what is as important as what is said. It's not really any different than the situation that sometimes occurs when two close friends tease each other, but neither tolerates the same teasing from a stranger. That's another situation where permissible language is heavily goverened by context.
Worrying overmuch about what is and isn't permissible and lamenting what you're used to saying that could get you in trouble in some contexts isn't really all that helpful. What helps you more is coming to terms with the fact that no matter how experienced or wise you are there will be times when you say things that will get you in trouble that you did not intend. The answer to those situations is to acknowledge the offense, apologize, explain politely and respectfully that you meant no harm, and move on not using that expression with that audience in the future.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
No, they're not. So it has always been. The nice thing about English with regards to this topic is that it is so word-rich. It's unusual in this respect. It's rare that you can't find a neutral substitution for an offensive expression.
Unfortunately instead of sincerely apologizing and understanding the reaction of the remark, he dismissed his comments by saying he calls everyone that. Though I am sure he never call John Edwards sweetie. Unlike your comment where you can imagine referring to man having a temper tantrum, I can't quite believe you could call another man sweetie. ;-)
Just because it calls for emphasis.
Hey, Liss, who's this "RMMK" running around Shakesville? ;-)
Ohhhhh. Well, why didn't you say so? If unnamed "sources" are "attributed as" saying something, then it must be true!
I don't care who this "hilzoy" is. Anyone who refers to an adult woman as "throwing tantrums" is not a feminist, not a progressive, and not someone whose political opinion I should be expected to take seriously.
she also said the thing about appealing to "white voters" and just now, she made a comment about the robert kennedy assassination that i officialy predict will be the end of her campaign.
"Sexism's important, but not nearly as important as the fact that HILLARY'S A RACIST!!!ONE!!"
Been there, done that, got the teaspoon. It's irrelevant to this conversation, but thanks for playing.
She clarified her statement; she was referring to another primary that went into June and ended when RFK was, tragically, assasinated. But she's Clinton, so let's take it in the worst possible way we can.
What? Of course racism and sexism have to do with each other. They are both fetid systems of oppression, and women of color get hit by a double whammy. They are often interconnected. However, when one is discussing misogyny, sexism, feminism, and why feminism must defend all women, implying that one woman doesn't deserve that defense, or deserves it less, because she's a racist (a highly debatable statement) is stupid and wrong. And it's been done here over and over, and most of us are way past sick of it. It's impossible to say "Sexism directed at Hillary Clinton is wrong" without someone popping in with "Yeah, but she's a racist!"
i know *you* didn't say this but still) that no one can accuse a grown woman of "throwing a tantrum" without being sexist
No, I did say that, and I stand by it. Saying a woman is throwing a tantrum plays into old misogynist tropes about women being hysterical, angry, and emotional, and it infantilizes women by comparing them to small children. It's paternalistic and it is, indeed, sexist.
it strikes me as far too fine-tuned by half.
Calling out sexism often strikes men that way, sadly. Tough.
i understand technically it's not strictly on message with this particular thread
Good!
i do get the sense that the needles on the moral compasses of a lot of hillary clinton supporters are currently spinning wildly.
In other words, she's evil, so discussing sexism directed at her is illegitimate. Right, then. Did you BOTHER TO READ MELISSA'S POST? Because this is EXACTLY what she's talking about.
Because of sexism language has been applied to men and women differently. You can thank thousands of years of enforced misogyny and sexism.
You have yet to explain how anything Hillary said has anything to do with fighting sexism aimed at her. You know, the subject of this post.
"I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns of both my husband and Senator (Robert) Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact," she said.
Not now, Sarah in Chicago, I'm busy making ScottS his sandwich, because the kitchen is my rightful place as a Vaginal-American, and I'd also appreciate it if you used less profanity, as it's not ladylike and your tone is alienating our allies.
;)
I would also like to send this to Linda Handsen, who wrote a disgusting piece for HuffPo while claiming to actually be a feminist.
This post is exactly what I needed to read today. Thank you!
Coco Chanel
Sing it!
XYZ sexist remark
Me: Huh, I feel the same way about your sister!
XYZ racist remark
Me: Huh, I feel the same about (something that will hit home with perpetrator)
I completely enjoy the triple takes, the stunned silences, etc. If they question me, something along the lines of "oh, I thought everyone was fair game here," a big smile, and a twinkle in my eye does the trick. At least so far. No one's gotten violent with me yet, anyway.
Does it change much? I don't know, but maybe those little seeds will grow...
I grok the post, totally agree, and thank you for it but, geek that I am, the phrase "against the collective" immediately evoked an image of The Borg in my head.
The latest hammer was this "I know it's easier to play the victim than to actually make a logical argument for why people should support Hillary but please stop. You are doing more to hurt the feminist movement and the advancement of a Democratic agenda than any of the media members or Obama supporters you blame. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if you really are a Hillary supporter, or just someone playing a caricature of one in order to sow discontent in the Democratic party and hurt BOTH of our outstanding candidates. For the sake of our country, please stop your kvetching and join me to get to work at uniting this party and getting a Democrat in the White House."
Of course this is more like a troll for Obama... now called "sweeties" at The Confluence.
I will be linking to your post as part of my answer from now on...
Again, great post, and thank you. Take care.
SPOON!!!
(OT: Has The Tick ever been featured on Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime?")
(On a side note, there really ought to be some sort of feminist award for defending people as distasteful as Ann Coulter. ;) )
No.
When I get my tax money back, I'm giving it to you.
there really ought to be some sort of feminist award for defending people as distasteful as Ann Coulter
There's a line in the movie 'The Sum of all Fears' (which, being Tom Clancy, is an ATROCIOUS film and book) where the back of a atomic bomb technician's t-shirt is read as "I am an atomic bomb engineer, if you see me running, try to catch up".
Defending Ann Coulter I kinda see as the feminist equivalent ... something you HAVE to do from time to time, but one needs to have protective clothing, anti-radioactivity gloves, and be aware that the slightest slip might just doom humankind.
Since I just had to tell a female friend that I respect not to use the word "cunt" when talking to me (or anyone), I needed this post.
That's not the point now, is it?
Oh good, a new concern troll. I was wondering how long it would take for one to show up in this thread.
I am aware that it must be hard to face the fact that you've lost. But it became clear that she was not going to win the nomination months ago
For the record, in case you've been reading too much of Whoever Kidnapped Josh Marshall, the race isn't over yet. Staying and fighting by playing within the rules of the game is not "throwing a tantrum," but thanks ever so much for the familiar, tired use of infantilizing sexist dogwhistles.
ETA: And let me point out, as so many of us have done in so many threads, that this is about SEXISM, not ZOMG HILLARY CAN'T WIN WHY IS SHE HURTING THE PARTY AND FEMINISM. This happens continually, and it's boring, annoying, and insulting.
why some of us who are committed feminists
Yeah. Sure you are.
Q.E. Fucking. D.
Thank you so much Scott for letting us silly feminists know what the Real Situation is. Goodness knows we wouldn't have been able to realise this without you here to teach us, teehee.
How would you like your shirt ironed again?
/snark
Oh, and Scott? Clinton hasn't fucking lost. You know how I can fucking say this? Because Obama hasn't fucking WON. For someone so high-thinking of themselves, you may just want to read your fucking numbers before taking it upon yourself to 'educate' us, you bloody douche.
But on the other hand, thank you for providing such a bloody awesome example of precisely what 'Liss was talking about in the post for this thread.
Moron.
And ScottS, she could actually wait until the primaries are actually over before she does anything that you listed. I suspect that she knows that she hasn't actually lost yet and that the calendar is still in May and not June.
Oh ScottS, you tremendous douche.
Wait--Scott is the committed feminist here? We're DOOMED!
Oh goodness CE, you're right! How thoughtless of me, presuming to tell Scott what to do, and in such language too! I don't know what came over me, it must be that time of the month.
Maybe he will accept my apologies, and accept me as 2nd Wife to your 1st ... after all, domesticating is all us Vaginal Americans are good for.
And I'm sure you've got the evidence to back this up, right? I mean, being such a "comitted feminist" means that you'd NEVER use lots of sexist dogwhistles to bash the candidate you don't support, right?
"some of us who are committed feminists"
Ah, so you can't support Clinton and be a committe feminist.
You can, however, lie about the whole thing, use sexist dogwhistles and concern troll. Hmm. Maybe sexist douchebags shouldn't be allowed to define feminism, huh.
Yes, the hormones can be very troubling to we of the fairer sex. Sometimes they make me want to say things like, "ScottS is such a condescending asshole, and isn't it just like a douchehound anti-feminist concern troll to define feminism? And isn't it just like a misogynist wanker to read other misogynist wankers and then repeat misogynist wankery like 'Hillary is throwing tantrums and starting a civil war and feminism will suffer for it and we all not-so-secretly hope it does because we're huge fauxgressive douchebags who can't get over our own inflated self-importance'?"
Goodness, I think I have the vapors. Time for a lie-down!
*clutches pearls*
/snark
*laughs not insignificant ass right off at Scott*
Dude, you are so in over your head.
Well then, you must do so my dear! Goodness knows, we're not as robust and strong as such manly men as Scott, so we must ensure we are at tip-top condition for him. Just make sure you check your makeup and hair when you're done with your nap hon. You never know when he might be home.
And don't worry your silly little head, I'll make sure I pull the bread out of the oven and make sure Scott's laundry is done and pressed while you are lying down, because I might need a spell myself later.
Bother, but this thinking and writing thing is hard work ... why on earth they waste time educating us I will never know.
:lol:
Ooops. We totally forget to be pretty, silent and -above all - NICE. Be NICE or fauxgressive won't want to sleep with you and "protect" you.
How will my self-esteem ever recover?
Mayhap some conservative will take us as concubines ... golly, wait, I mean, wives ... then perhaps we can hope they at least will be nice enough not to tell us what to do with our votes.
More importantly - who will you get to protect you from all the scary men who rape women which never happens because all women lie about rape?
Golly-gee, look at all the sparkly things ...
Of course, how could I be so silly! *giggle*
Ooooo, pretty sparkly things!
Small word of advice, Angelos: spend less time being obnoxious, and more time not calling feminists "idiots" when they're pointing out basic shit to you.
Those little seeds start with you, buddy.
Oh, Melissa, you and your silly facts. ;)
I know. I'm incorrigible.
Translation: I can't back up my argument with logic or facts, so I rely on sexism.
Suzy gave a good example. And it might help to not crap on feminists while you criticize. It kinda erases the ability to take what you say seriously. And don't complain follow the examples of other sexists. You know, don't try to justify your constant sexism by claiming that you don't allow people to say racist things around you.
Hah, that's both hilarious and incredibly apt. :) I totally agree with you though- I just think that people who'd put on those radiation suits and brave the nuclear wastelands of Ann Coulter's general vicinity in the name of anything worthwhile, let alone something as socially crucial as feminism, ought to be fucking celebrated. Nobel prizes for feminism or something. :)
Aww, look, another one! "Every criticism of Clinton is sexist and if I don't like something she did, those mean feminazis will call me a misogynist!" How charming. And brand, sparkling new, too!
Somebody please tell me how I can criticize the Clinton campaign without being "sexist".
It's been done plenty of times right here at this very website. So, you know, go look.
Jeez.
crap on feminists...
justify your constant sexism...
slurs, diatribes and vitriol...
Wow, please feel free to point out where I actually did any of those things.
...been done plenty of times right here at this very website...
You're right that Melissa criticizes Clinton regularly and skillfully, but what I asked was how I could do the same. I said before that I felt insulted by Clinton's appeal to "disenfranchisement" in Florida and Michigan, despite the obvious fact that she had no such principled stand before she fell behind in the race. That, along with other dishonest campaign practices, draw criticism to Hillary Clinton. These are a legitimate points, and shouldn't be clouded with reflexive accusations of sexism. Sorry I'm not as eloquent as some, but I'm as much a feminist as any of you.
Did you actually go back and follow up on that thread, Angelos? Because: A) no it wasn't "stretchy and idiotic" and B) you were wrong and owe RMMK an apology.
If you're a feminist, then figuring out how to criticize Clinton without using sexist framing shouldn't be that fucking difficult.
You are (a) implying that one of the goals of feminists is to defend sleaze (which makes me wonder what exactly you mean when you claim "I'm just as much a feminist as any of you") and (b) implying that Clinton's actions here are "sleaze."
Neither is neutral language, and both are problematic.
If you had written, instead, something along the lines of "I feel uncomfortable about the things Clinton has been saying with regards to Florida and Michigan. I disagree with her claim that not counting those votes is disenfranchisement." then there would be no problem. You avoid the problem by (a) focusing on your own reasons, (b) describing the problem in neutral language (as opposed to "sleaze"), and (c) by not implying that anyone who disagrees with you is "defending sleaze" and (d) by not linking feminism to the defense of sleaze on a feminist blog.
You might also ask yourself why it's so important to talk about Florida and Michigan vote count rules on a post that is about why we fight sexism. If the one has something to with the other, it's you who's making that connection, not the post - which makes it kind of ironic that you're complaining that you can't talk about the one without invoking the accusation of sexism.
If it's not about sexism, it doesn't belong in this particular thread.
I agree with Josh Marshall that her attempts to gin up resentment and a sense that the nomination was stolen from her are toxic...
I find this highly amusing, in a "if I don't laugh, I'll cry" kind of way, because ever since fucking January, certain people have been running around shrieking that Clinton is trying to steal the election from Obama. At a point when only three or four states had voted, so the race was wide open.
Somehow, that's not at all toxic. Yet pointing out that Clinton has gotten more votes than Obama is?
Just to recap: If Clinton does something for political reasons, it's wrong and bad and she can never ever change her position, even if the situation changes.
But if Obama does something for political reasons, and the situation changes so that he might have to face the consequences of his decision, he should be compensated for his loss and insulated from the consequences.
Just so I have that straight.
Been there, done that, got the teaspoon. It's irrelevant to this conversation, but thanks for playing."
***
i'm not sure i said one was less important than the other but i'm also not sure it's worthwhile to pretend one has nothing to do with the other the way you seem to be trying to do. sexism isn't okay and racism isn't either. that said, saying (for instance, and i know *you* didn't say this but still) that no one can accuse a grown woman of "throwing a tantrum" without being sexist, or geraldine ferraro's comment that barack obama's brushing of his shoulder was "sexist", it strikes me as far too fine-tuned by half. (is it impossible to accuse a man of "throwing a tantrum"? i don't see where there's something specifically gendered about accusing someone of "throwing a tantrum.)
but then saying something flip that seems to imply the possibility that one's african american primary candidate might get ASSASSINATED seems to me to be an offense on a completely different level. i understand technically it's not strictly on message with this particular thread but i do get the sense that the needles on the moral compasses of a lot of hillary clinton supporters are currently spinning wildly.
Now, let's go shopping for shoes!
Now, let's go shopping for shoes!"
lol. what does this even mean?
did she not make the comment about appealing to white voters? and do you not understand why the topic of assassination would be a particularly sensitive one to obama supporters? i don't even know how to work with this. please fill me in on what exactly it is you're accusing me of doing.
“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,” Mrs. Clinton said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,” Mrs. Clinton said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.
---
Ooops. Given the assassination jokes (Huckabee) and the fact that if disaster befalls Obama over the summer, yeah, the superdelegates can do their thing with no Clinton campaign necessary, there is really no excuse for this. But let's assume that this was a careless historical comparison to late-decided campaigns.
1968 is what we need to avoid.
Bill Clinton was the presumtive nominee for months before he clinched the nomination.
South Dakota + Montana != California
Obama has a majority of pledged delegates under any fair rendering of MI.
Surely Clinton understands the difference between the race being over "for all practical purposes" which it is, save her dogged campaigning, and its technical conclusion at the convention.
She's evil and a big racist, so we can say anything we want about her! Lather, rinse, repeat.
my my how ignorant of me not to understand
"No, I did say that, and I stand by it. Saying a woman is throwing a tantrum plays into old misogynist tropes about women being hysterical, angry, and emotional, and it infantilizes women by comparing them to small children. It's paternalistic and it is, indeed, sexist."
at the risk of going round and round in circles, and i'm open to much of what you're saying, but if this is true then what are we to do with it if a man is accused of throwing a "temper tantrum," as is frequently done? (God knows i've seen bush throw one more than once.) is this just something we should only say about men? or, rather, if someone accuses a woman of throwing a "temper tantrum," should we consider the speaker and whether that speaker has a demonstrated pattern of being paternalistic and likening women (and only women) to small children? that is, consider the speaker and the context rather than have a, what looks to me like an impulsive and decontextualized reaction to a problematic term. "temper tantrum" applied to a woman = automatically sexist. sorry i'm suffering from testosterone poisoning but i'm having trouble getting my head around that.
Someone left out something Clinton said in order to put the worst possible spin on it? Say it ain't so!
(I'm. So. Sick. Of. This.)
Oh, right. I had forgotten. I went a whole hour without hearing that, so I had forgotten.
what does this have to do with sexism??
refer to CE's post at 5:37. i know i brought it up originally and was more than willing to let it go but it came up again so i responded. i'm willing to let it go again but i did want to respond to that.
Really? Clinton's staffers have been referencing assassinations? Who? When? What did they say?
I'm not exactly sure how Bobby Kennedy's assassination was "racially motivated."
You and me both, votermom.
did she not make the comment about appealing to white voters? and do you not understand why the topic of assassination would be a particularly sensitive one to obama supporters? i don't even know how to work with this. please fill me in on what exactly it is you're accusing me of doing.
As usual, CE says it better than I could. Read her replies if you're really stuck.
i don't mean to sound like -- how i imagine this is going to sound -- but i don't view women as hysterical children and i make it a point not to surround myself with people who view women as hysterical children so if i'm speaking of someone i don't like, man or woman, and i wish to express displeasure at that person and "temper tantrum" crosses my mind as an apt way to describe it, that term is liable to leave my lips. and i imagine the vast majority of my friends wouldn't hesitate to use it as well, despite the sociohistorical reality that it could theoretically be associated with preconceptions trafficked by gross misogynists. it just wouldn't cross our minds. i imagine that would make us part of the problem where this ethos is concerned but i've lived my whole life thinking the word "temper tantrum" is a perfectly innocuous, if not terribly high-minded, term in the english language and am now struggling with the knowledge i've just come across that it's not.
i guess what i'm wondering, and okay, forget about me, i think i'm probably a lost cause in terms of how i'm gonna be perceived on this board, but i'm wondering how would we get to a point where we can get the language back. because it occurs to me with this kind of perspective there are going to be great vast swaths of the english language we now can't use because the culture has a long history of gender bias that the language simply can't help but access if the listener chooses to make those connections. is there a mindset where you can imagine, ok, so-and-so accused a woman of having a "temper tantrum" but because of what i know about so-and-so, i know that so-and-so wasn't trying to maliciously and subtly reference millennia of patriarchal sexism but simply does think that this specific person had, at this specific instant, a full-on hissy fit? (i don't know the etymology of "hissy fit" so further apologies if i've compounded my previous offenses.) how is such a thing accomplished?
i guess what i'm asking is, does it matter WHO accuses a woman of having a temper tantrum, or does it merely matter that the accusation is made?
Just feeling rather bitter now."
i actually find the "jokes" about murdering hillary clinton just as disgusting as the anti-obama assassination gaffes, although i'm not sure you're going to believe me. i'm not sure i recall obama ever making such a joke, but if he did i would be likely to reconsider my support for him.
no, i brought it up. i admit that. but someone responded, and so i responded to that.
"but i'm wondering how would we get to a point where we can get the language back. because it occurs to me with this kind of perspective there are going to be great vast swaths of the english language we now can't use because the culture has a long history of gender bias that the language simply can't help but access if the listener chooses to make those connections"
"but i'm wondering how would we get to a point where we can get the language back. because it occurs to me with this kind of perspective there are going to be great vast swaths of the english language we now can't use because the culture has a long history of gender bias that the language simply can't help but access if the listener chooses to make those connections""
i refer to the woman i love more than any other human being on this planet as "sweetie" on a regular basis. i understand that "sweetie" can be patronizing but when i use it i mean that she's a sweet, wonderful person. it's like how a word can have more than one definition in the dictionary, and if anything i think she's probably my better.
so yes, i don't mean to be stubborn but i guess i do still think of the word in that sense. the context, the speaker and the listener always matter, words aren't these static signifiers.
But I'm going to continue picking at what you've said, Mike, with the hope that you're discussing this in good faith.
"...the language simply can't help but access if the listener chooses to make those connections."
No one is choosing to make the connections to sexism and misogyny. It is a matter of being more or less in tune due to experience, thought and study. It's offensive when you suggest that the problem lies with the listener, not with the sexism behind the language. See Melissa's Feminism 101 post.
Except for that having a penis thing.
Yup. That was condescending on his part. Calling his wife by a pet name is one thing, but calling a stranger by the same pet name is an act of condescension. His trying to explain it away by saying he does it all the time doesn't address the condescension since in the (metaphorical) ears of his listeners they will almost certainly hear not, "I do that all the time.", but "I do that all the time with women."
If you read here regularly and carefully, you'll find there's plenty of dissent/disagreement/reasoned debate here :)
never mind
WELL said CE, I love your posts
Emphasis mine. Mike seems to be saying that he's playing devil's advocate because we're all just too narrow-minded and haven't had any fresh thoughts lately. YMMV.
Eh, she was just the latest - and that's kind of the point. It's not unique. It happens all the time.
there was a link on crooks and liars to this web site that was actually quite praising but also gave the impression that it was a pro-hillary site.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to have trouble distinguishing between "anti-sexist" and "pro-Hillary," which is...unfortunate. You should poke around Shakesville sometime, sincerely speaking - I think you'd find it enlightening. It is a really great blog.
we'd be able to have a conversation full of new and exciting shiny ideas if we didn't have to go over basic Feminism 101 shit on every fucking comment thread with trolls and other imbeciles who feel like today! is the day! they're going to explore that "feminism" they've been hearing so much about ! (... FOR THE LAST ~40 YEARS.)
It would be awesome if, before you could comment, you were forced to read through all of the Feminism 101 posts, wouldn't it? Like a EULA screen, only for feminism. ;)
OT but back when i used to work retail we would get these "point of sale displays" -- you know, cardboard cutouts of authors where you'd stick their books in foldover bookshelves set in their stomachs or what have you -- and there would be occasional ones that would just tap into the zeitgeist somehow and you would get dozens of customers every day making the exact same one-liners about the display. (i wish i could think of an example but it was literally like the 1930s this happened.) at first we'd pretend to laugh along with them but by the end of the day we'd just give em one-sided smiles and mutter, "yeah. good one." but each person who made the joke would be transported, it never occurred to them they weren't the first person to think of it. human nature has a bit of a hive mind aspect to it, it's scary to contemplate. and i'm the first person who ever has.
Go fuck yourself.
Er, well, when I'm at a new blog I read as much of it as I can so I understand the dynamics and common problems there, and the etiquette, so I like to believe that I wouldn't have been in this situation to begin with. But if I did start a shit storm and upset people, I'd probably end my apology post by saying "Take care," "Have a nice day," "Good chatting with y'all," "Have fun this long weekend," etc.
Not directed at Mike per se, but I sometimes try to imagine how I'd react if I upset people at an anti-racism blog, or if I upset some of my friends by being racist or ableist or homophobic, and all I can imagine is being completely mortified, shutting up, and doing my goddamn best to learn what I did wrong and change. I CANNOT imagine trying to explain it away, or pushing my point, if people OF THAT GROUP were overwhelmingly telling me that I was being offensive or insensitive. Yet I see guys do it all the time with sexism, where they'll just keep talking over women and talking over women on the topic, and white people doing the same to black people, etc. Like, what point do you have to be at where you think you know more about my life than I do? How can you be so blind to your privilege that you don't see you're hijacking a conversation and making it all about you because that's what you're used to, and that you're suggesting I'm too foolish to understand my own experience without your insight? Why are women not allowed to be experts on our own experience, and people of color allowed to be experts on their own experience? At what point will privileged people finally sit down and LISTEN rather than arguing?!?
I've seen people discussing something I've written at POC community blogs, picking the post apart and pointing out where my privilege is showing and sometimes laughing at or getting pissed at what a blind asshole I am. And it stings and it's embarrassing. But I don't bluster in and defend myself and tell them they're wrong. I read and I try my damnedest to understand and learn from the experience.
Last thing in the world I'd do? Tell them to "go lightly."
Go fuck yourself."
i'm sorry, i really don't understand this. why does "go lightly" merit this response?
You stormed into this comment thread like a bull in a fucking China shop, behaved like a rude asshole to the regulars, then admonished them to "go lightly," and you wonder why it elicited a contemptuous response from the blogmistress?
Whatevs, Clueless Joe Jackson.
And there it is.
What a surprise.
You lot are like piñatas. All I've got to do is poke you with a stick and the hate comes spilling out like brightly colored candy. Completely predictable. Completely pathetic.
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Actually those who tell the truth are frequently shouted down by jerks like you who do not want to see the truth, lest it disturb their happy little bubble of privilege.
Oh, is my TONE prohibitive?! Do tell. I've never heard that before! Especially not from someone whose "good faith" participation was exposed as utter bullshit when I had the temerity to call out his condescending assholery for what it was. For the record, Mike, men who are operating in genuine good faith don't depart with a flourish admonishing women to "go lightly."
thank god most feminists have moved on from this stomach-churning, chronically alienating approach.
Guess what? Not only am I mean, I'm also repetitive: Go fuck yourself.
thank god sour shiteaters like you will never actually change anything in this world. have a nice life condemned to your own fucking hate.
See, THAT is what a temper tantrum looks like. I don't think I've ever seen Hillary Clinton come close to that, but fauxgressives sure are good at it, eh?
Yes, Mike, I can see how your gentle spirit, your message of peace, unity and hope don't quite belong here, in this bastion of vulgar incivility..
Run along now. Shoo.
i served up endless mea culpas for that. jesus, and that's not even what i said, i was genuinely freaked over her making what seemed like a flip comment about racist assassination, she apologized and i changed my mind about her intentions and i tried desperately to back away from it but you guys weren't having any of it. and no matter what i said that i thought was trying to change the mood of the discussion i kept getting interpreted in the most uncharitable way possible. i understand it's the internet and these are sensitive issues but at some point there's got to be a way to smooth that stuff over, right? but i haven't been able to do it. and i keep getting interpreted uncharitably no matter what i say. i'm sorry but y'all don't seem to have any forgiveness whatsoever.
You mean like "fuck every single last fucking one of you. have fun in your little hateful corner of the world, you bitter little petty fucks. thank god sour shiteaters like you will never actually change anything in this world. have a nice life condemned to your own fucking hate."?
I'm sorry -- what was the charitable interpretation of that, lol?
What a specimen!
And unoriginal, too.
I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you.
I was at the movies, didn't read the whole thread. Did he say whether he was a nice guy or not? Because I think I deserve a bingo before I go to bed.
It's also synonymous with "tread lightly," which is a warning against stridency. Which, given the context of your entry, was hardly an unreasonable interpretation of your parting shot.
frankly i think your subscribers make a much better account of this web site than you do, melissa.
Well, given that your opinion of me so far includes my being a "sour shiteater," I'm not sure why I should give a flying shit what you think, Mike.
You can't even begin to imagine how not accurate that is.
Yep, that's it. Thank you for the diagnosis, Dr. Freud.
It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you'd already been a fool for a good few hours before that comment, nor anything to do with the fact that "go lightly" suggests to me, in order:
1. A phrase synonymous with "tread lightly" or "go easy" (of which I suspect it emerged as an amalgam)
2. A prostitute
3. A laxative
It's obviously that I'm paranoid and looking for a fight; not that you conceivably used an obscure colloquialism that, by virtue of your poor performance in the thread, lent itself to the most obvious interpretation on my three-point list.
Also: take a massive fucking hint, already:
Sexism is a Matter of Opinion!
Feminists Look for Stuff to Get Mad About!
"Why are you talking about X when Y is so much more important?"
"What role should men play in feminism?"
What is Male Privilege?
Why do you feminists hate men?
Isn't feminism just victim politics?
Shut up. Listen. Then speak.
i have clicked around on this web site and i've liked a great deal of it. i initially came here under very bad circumstances, which i've previously explained. i'm an obama supporter, and i was SEVERELY upset initially by hillary clinton's comments about the RFK assassination and i honestly came here to vent thinking this was a pro-hillary site. since then she's apologized, i've made my peace, and a lot of people on this site have been very nice to me about some rather ignorant things that i flew off about. it seemed like it was all going to be ok until i got told to "go fuck myself" for telling everyone to "go lightly" and then it became this big flame war. i think people would be shocked at how readily and easily i would admit when i was wrong and be willing to listen to what other people were saying if they would just treat me marginally reasonably and i'm still anxiously inviting that. if someone sends me one corner of an olive branch i will totally take it up.
i have readily admitted i started off badly. i've gone back and looked at the site and been very interested in aspects of it but we are -- well, i am where i am. i did, you know? i started off as a big flame warrior because i was hacked off about clinton's comments about the RFK assassination, since then i've cooled off and read a bit of the site and generally liked what i've read, except for this thread, and i'm curious about it, but i don't seem to be able to get out of how it all started off.
I'm sorry, but did the guy who JUST SAID fuck every single last fucking one of you. have fun in your little hateful corner of the world, you bitter little petty fucks. thank god sour shiteaters like you will never actually change anything in this world. have a nice life condemned to your own fucking hate. ask to be treated reasonably and claim to be inviting that?
LOL.
e.g.?
See, but that's just my point. I knew you didn't mean to reference a prostitute, nor a laxative, and, being unfamiliar with your own little colloquialism -- the existence of which I can find no evidence for by Googling, which is not to say it doesn't exist, but that it is certainly not in such common usage I should know it -- and given the context of your previous "bad start" in this thread (by your own admission), I reacted quite reasonably to your hostile entry and your departure with a term that equates with the admonishment "tread lightly."
And when you asked why I responded the way I did, I started to explain it to you, but BEFORE MY COMMENT EVEN POSTED, you commented:
aw, you know what? i changed my mind. fuck every single last fucking one of you. have fun in your little hateful corner of the world, you bitter little petty fucks.
thank god sour shiteaters like you will never actually change anything in this world. have a nice life condemned to your own fucking hate.
So explain to me again who it was that "escalated" this into a flame war? If you'd given me a chance to ANSWER you as to why I responded the way I did before launching into your "fuck every single last fucking one of you" tirades, we wouldn't be here.
But by all means, keep rewriting history that it was ME who caused this conflagration, and see where that gets ya by way of olive branches.
Yeah, but didn't you hear? He loves to argue.
*eyeroll*
And seriously, if people have to cater to you for you to be nice to them (or rather, if they don't cater to you, they force you to act in certain ways...because they control your responses to them...especially on the internet), then you are privileged. Not everyone who is privileged is privileged in EVERY way, and just because you aren't part of the most privileged class doesn't mean you can't learn. Although, didn't you mention grad school before?
Wev. I'm done now.
BAC
thank god sour shiteaters like you will never actually change anything in this world. have a nice life condemned to your own fucking hate.
Some people just say 'hello.' Or, after they've said good bye, they actually, you know, leave. I mean, it's crazy, it's reckless, but it just might work!
I can't figure out if Mike is just acting like a privileged asshole, or if he's an especially talented troll. And I mean talented in the least complimentary way possible.
Reading over this thread, I'm stunned at the patience so many of the regulars showed with Mike. You all....you simply amaze me. Seriously, you all were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for so long, even after he admitted he wasn't here trying to learn, but trying to FREE your MINDS!!!1! I'm just ... in awe, and that happens a lot at this site; you all just rock out loud.
Yes, I would.
To be fair, by the end there I was just posting stuff to clearly illustrate to the peanut gallery just how much a of useless tool of the patriarchy this shit-pinata was. ;)
If I ever started blogging, I'd make a quiz based on your posts a prerequisite to commenting.
Sorry I'm late. I got held up going lightly.
Also, may I say that everyone who's willing to expend the energy solely for the peanut gallery's enlightenment (since Mikey is, indeed, a troll) gets a teaspoon salute.
If nobody minds, I'll content myself with issuing the "fuck off"chorus so that all dimensions of the proper response are represented.
And if nothing else, his complete breakdown compared to our repeated explanations shows any thinking person exactly who is acting in good faith and who is trying to pick an argument.
It was actually all our paranoia, I've heard it can really wear on a person. ;)
He reminds of an abuser (passive/aggressive) and when Melissa poked him, he verbally punched her and then went on and on about how if she hadn't pissed him off, he wouldn't have gotten angry.
And with that triple post I need to go out for a while.
Wow!
Oh, I'm glad you found some interesting reading out of that. I keep those links handy for situations like these; besides the obvious side benefit of illustrating to the jackasses themselves how incredibly tired and unoriginal their oh-so "brilliant perspective" is, i find it helpful for the collective to refresh their memories of the arguments they can use (on the internet and IRL) when we have a walking talking example of it in our midst to illustrate the point.
The Context is an everlasting favourite of mine, as well; and the White Privilege checklist is something I keep bookmarked to reread (again and again) before I ever jump into any discussion of race. :)
Melissa is my hero!
I'm actually finding myself less disturbed by Jennifer's rampage through HSW 100 than Mike's passive-aggressive concern trolling, though the percentage of difference isn't that much. With Jennifer, at least I can look at myself and say, OK, how can I be a better ally to women of color and address the history of white feminist privilege and not let her anger have any power over me. It at least gives me something to do.
I'm so disillusioned by the partisanship and the willing to accept the right wing divide and conquer strategy. I was just at another site where they were going on about how terrible it would be if Obama chose Clinton for the VP slot and how evil Clinton is, and how evil Clinton is.
Oh yeah, they also were talking about how evil Clinton is.
And how Obama has thoroughly destroyed her.
I guess it's just delusional to think that the election results are REALLY REALLY close and that about half the Democrats in the country voted for Clinton.
At least the candidates themselves are talking about uniting the party.
I was kind of thinking they were the same person, or at least that their pretty much consecutive appearance was somehow connected. Is that Crazy Think?
That cartoon is awesome and ranks second only to the far side "midvale school for the gifted" cartoon in my book.
AHAHAHA! Check, check, check, check, check, check, check, aaaaand check. Counting free spaces, that's two bingos!
Now, where's my pony?
Doubt it'll help though.
A little brain fried this Sunday morning, I'm sure someone has a much better title.
Hmmm....
B: I just hate Hillary; she's mean and cold; BUT BUT RACISM; sexism didn't hurt her; she's entitled
I: ZOMG Roe v. Wade; vagina-voting; Hillary's a warmonger; Obama brings us together; you're divisive and hateful
N: I don't want Bill back in the White House; it's a dynasty; free space; all of her voters are racists; all of her voters are low-information
G: Teh Math (TM); Teh Rulez (TM); Hillary's not a feminist; Hillary should have left Bill; she's destroying the party
O: Bitch; cunt; whore; calculating; shrill
Though really, there are, like, ten Obamabot-troll bingo cards one could put together.
But first, I do approve of the original article and I think it's a distinction too many fail to make.
For one, Feminism 101 is a rather condescending title. We get it, we're the privileged bunch. And more often than not, we don't understand the origins of what we're saying. Feminism isn't this red pill that makes you see everything. I call myself one, and I've tried my best to use language that is neutral. But sometimes, there aren't any bloody alternatives.
You do not make people receptive to education when you go, "You don't even know the basics!" What's written in Fem 101 is great material, but does not ever qualify as the basics. It's presumptuous to declare that anyone who drops by must have read through what seven, eight essays? This is the internet. You achieve communication with people of varying time commitments. When someone makes a gaffe, give them the benefit of the doubt, point them in the right direction as you would any stranger. I for one would thank you, instead of feeling like I just got snapped at for not knowing something I should have known, or worse, intentionally committing an error.
We get you, you're angry. Guess what, it infuriates me too. The recent bullshit on honor killings in Pakistan getting defended in Parliament? The barrage of mysogyny I see on my local newspaper blog? Yeah. But getting angry with people blundering into blogs has its limits. Confrontation isn't conducive to exchange of ideas.
I've been lurking around for half a year, and I will be around. And I *will* say, lighten up, especially on random folks turning off the cyberhighway into this corner. You might get a few more who see your point.
If you don't want feminism tainted by this campaign, it is. There's a difference between defending Hillary Clinton from sexist attacks and defending Hillary Clinton from all attacks or attacking Obama, but Americans are not known for their ability to make such distinctions. Clinton is more or less threatening to derail Obama's candidacy -- how would she do that? By making "feminist" appeals to low information voters that nomination was stolen or that not being offered the VP amounts to disrespecting all women. The people in the best position to defuse this are feminists who have their heads screwed on straight. Check out Hilzoy's awesomeness:
"I have been thinking about Clinton's conduct ever since she compared her efforts to get the Florida and Michigan votes counted to abolitionists, suffragists, and the current crisis in Zimbabwe. I agree with Josh Marshall that her attempts to gin up resentment and a sense that the nomination was stolen from her are toxic...
I am aware that it must be hard to face the fact that you've lost. But it became clear that she was not going to win the nomination months ago -- I would say after Wisconsin, but certainly after Texas. Moreover, this is not unprecedented. People lose the nomination every four years. Most of the time, they do not stay on until it is mathematically impossible for them to win; they leave when it has become clear that they will not win. They do not complain about disenfranchising all the states with later primaries, they do not threaten to keep their supporters home, and they certainly do not threaten "open civil war" if they don't get nominated for Vice President. On those rare occasions when some candidate does this in the absence of some truly monumental issue, we normally think that that candidate is a narcissistic and unprincipled person who has just shown why s/he should never, ever be President.
There is absolutely no reason not to apply these same standards to Hillary Clinton. Right now, instead of floating demands in the press and comparing herself to abolitionists and suffragists, she could be telling her supporters that she lost fair and square; that while there was a lot of sexism in the campaign, there was racism as well, and that sexism does not explain why a candidate with literally every institutional advantage over her opponent lost the nomination. She could be reaching out to the voters who supported her in places where Obama has had trouble, and urging them to vote for him. She could, in a word, be doing the right thing: trying to earn that respect she seems to want.
Instead, she's throwing tantrums, making demands that she has no right to make, and threatening civil war.
I can't imagine a better demonstration of why she should not be President or Vice President. Nor can I imagine a better demonstration of why some of us who are committed feminists are not happy with her as our standard-bearer. She lost. It happens. If she were an adult or a professional, she would deal with it. Apparently, she is neither.
As far as my IRL strategy goes, I've enjoyed doing it, whether it sinks in or not. And I can't just stand there when someone says something about "the blacks" or some shit like that.
Wow the media sucks.
I'm still not over the Zimbabwe comment though. Or the hard working white people.
No confirmation of the RFK comments that I can see here at work but if that's true then...
It's OVER.
okay, i can understand that. i am, however, wondering -- well, for instance, when i went to graduate school i hung out with a lot of folks who were into gender studies, identity politics, GLBT issues, etc., and we all got along quite well but i noticed that it was disproportionately difficult to broach a lot of topics with them because of what you say -- there was a lot of offense taken and not just from comments i made. the women's studies folks heard a lot of complaints from the racial identity folks that they were too middle-class bourgeois, the gender folks felt that the racial identity folks harbored misogynist sentiments, the transsexual folks felt that everyone viewed them based on their previous biological identities. (i think that's how you say it.)
now, i get on the internet and i get people calling me fat and f*g and a host of other derogatory terms i doubt you'd want me to repeat here. i understand that as a white male i have a certain amount of privilege but at the same time, when these folks dig into me they are trying as hard as they can to hurt me and when they do that, it's effective.
but the thing i noticed is that when i was in school these identity groups became very, we call it "siloed" -- ensconced among the like-minded in order to protect themselves from offensive terminology, and closing themselves off to critical or opposing points of view. this is fair and i liked all those folks but the whole thing struck me as a bit rarified and i've never known an academic or social movement that's managed to thrive without an active and free dialog among people with differing points of view and the feeling that you're subjecting your own ideas to the challenge of a concerted debate in order to strengthen your solid ideas and discard your weak ones.
i don't think that's going on right now in the identity politics crowd which is really why i'm asking these questions about whether the context of the speaker matters and whether it's possible to "get the language back," not so much for me because i've sorta moved on to other things but more for the folks who are involved in identity politics. i mean, if you all feel you ARE encountering enough challenge to your own ideas then that's awesome, forget i said anything. but i could have spent the last half hour on huffingtonpost.com commisserating about what a "monster" hillary is, ya know? but it's important to disagree, and vehemently, sometimes, and without demanding that your opponent necessarily apologize and not do it again.
Unfortunately instead of sincerely apologizing and understanding the reaction of the remark, he dismissed his comments by saying he calls everyone that. Though I am sure he never call John Edwards sweetie. Unlike your comment where you can imagine referring to man having a temper tantrum, I can't quite believe you could call another man sweetie. ;-)"
i'm not too eager to defend obama's use of the word "sweetie." do you think his use of that term means that he himself is incorrigibly sexist, though, or was it a bit more of a minor sin than that?
i disagree. i've been asking questions -- i genuinely didn't understand the temper tantrum thing, and i asked and so now i do understand, i've been making concessions when i think i'm wrong, trying to calm down the exchange (and i was just as excited as everyone else in the beginning) and actually starting some kind of a dialog. and i think some folks here have genuinely met me halfway, which is awesome, and this whole exchange has challenged me to rethink some of my previous perspectives.
but you're right, in the post i just made i'm not "asking for anything for my further understanding" because i'm not sure that should be a one-way street... the thing is, when i see what look like rather knee-jerk talk about how i sound like dan ackroyd saying "jane you ignorant slut" or facile assertions that i'm trying to assert my "male dominance," i sorta feel like i can hear the sound of minds closing. think about what seems to be the presupposition of what you're saying ... i'm here to be educated and you're here to educate me. well, that's *half* true, yes?
let me come at it another way. when bush decided it would be a great idea to invade iraq, i signed up with an antiwar crowd to do some pamphleting and we wanted to write a pamphlet to hand out and the consensus (which i disagreed with) is that it was going to be an "educational" pamphlet, where we were going to explain to people (who presumably didn't know) that war mainly hurts civilians, that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, etc. well, i thought that was a bad approach, because you can't come up to someone with an "educational" pamphlet before even beginning an exchange with them. by doing that we were immediately assuming we knew more about the issue than whoever we were approaching.
now, in most of the cases this was true, lol. but as an approach it tended to alienate the people we were approaching, that part's obvious. but the part we considered less was that it was also likely to put off people who knew MORE about the war than we did, and people who WE could learn from, even if we had honest differences with them!
as a lifelong liberal i think that's been a problem with the left in general since the late 70s, there's been a tendency to presume that folks who aren't likeminded simply don't understand the issues and i've seen it ramify in all sorts of different left-wing political movements. i think it goes a long way in explaining how dillweeds like reagan, the bushes and all their little mole-people handlers have managed to get so far these last thirty sad, sad years. folks on the left need to chill out and just talk calmly, even if it means occasionally encountering talk that offends.
What a surprise."
get that a lot, do you?
go fuck yourself.
You mean like "fuck every single last fucking one of you. have fun in your little hateful corner of the world, you bitter little petty fucks. thank god sour shiteaters like you will never actually change anything in this world. have a nice life condemned to your own fucking hate."?
I'm sorry -- what was the charitable interpretation of that, lol?
What a specimen!"
this was after i was told to "go fuck myself" after saying "go lightly," which from where i come from is a totally innocuous way of parting with someone you want to have enduring warm feelings toward. it's just an empty nicety! i'm serious, you can go back and look at this thread, you inaugurated this flame war by escalating to "go fuck yourself" from a marginally civil discussion. frankly i think your subscribers make a much better account of this web site than you do, melissa.
omg! i must have meant "a prostitute!"
i mean, come on, it's an expression that's used as a tip of the hat. i've seriously never bothered to look it up.
i actually did mean it as "go easy." that's like "go lightly," which is like "take it easy," which is like "have a good one." do you seriously not see where the etymology thing is crossing over into the... well, excessively etymological?
LOL."
yes yes, but you had said "go fuck yourself" in response to my saying "go lightly," i mean, come on, that was disproportionate? you won't concede that?
yes, and i liked them. when i say that people were nice to me, that's the sort of thing i mean. so maybe i'm putting this badly. i would need an olive branch, and then need there to not be an unbelievably hateful post from someone else immediately following it.
no, i'm not paid. and i promise i don't mean to be trolling. i have other problems i'm trying not to call to mind. i just love to argue, i really don't mean anything personal by it unless something personal is done by me. i swear that's true, if we all just cooled it down a notch i swear we'd all find it was cooled down a notch. you know?
if this is my last contact with this site i'll come away thinking some folks were basically welcoming and were trying to have a conversation, and others weren't. whoever comes away from this thread thinking i didn't want to have a conversation with them, didn't honestly try.
well, no, actually, but i do in fact prefer it when people are nice to me and that makes me be nicer to them in return. if that's cultural poison i'll have more, thank you.
as for the rest of the stuff that i'm seeing got posted, i'm sorry the language of reconciliation makes you so eager to punch things hard. ultimately we'll all have to find some kind of middle ground in which everone's grievances get heard. until then there's going to be lots of people who are really angry about stuff and will cite obscure dictionary definitions of words of peace and friendship that could, theoretically, be interpreted as expressions of hate and rage.
if you saw how i lived you'd probably be slightly less eager to call my life one of privilege. i'm pretty much living in a dirt-infested corner of a dirt-infested corner. but the thing is, we all will be pretty soon.
notice the cost of gas lately? notice how it keeps going up? ... and up? ,,, and up? that's not patriarchy, that's lack of control, is what that is, and it should be scaring the bejeezus out of all of us, man, woman, black, white, grownup and child. honestly, i think your cause is important though, as i've said before, i question the way you're pursuing it... but in any case, i think we're all going to be in a really hideous place economically and socially pretty soon and honestly, it's going to be up to folks like you and me to come up with a fix for it because the right wing? they're not going to be any help at all.
"Do you think that the societal norm of hating traditionally "feminine" qualities or wisdom could possibly be one CAUSE of the state we're in?"
absolutely,
"And seriously, if people have to cater to you for you to be nice to them (or rather, if they don't cater to you, they force you to act in certain ways...because they control your responses to them...especially on the internet), then you are privileged. Not everyone who is privileged is privileged in EVERY way, and just because you aren't part of the most privileged class doesn't mean you can't learn. Although, didn't you mention grad school before?"
honestly, i think you cats have gotten something out of this little snit too. if there weren't something in it you (all) wouldn't have participated in it. i didn't just get "educated" though, an exchange happened tonight, everyone who participated learned something. i honestly believe that.
anyway, i definitely did and i thank all of you for that.
welcome to a mccain presidency and the overturning of roe vs. wade because of the hateful, divisive work of folks like you. this website is overrun with damaging, abusive, miserable people. enjoy basking in your paranoia and hate.
"They think that for Obama to choose someone else as his running mate would be "a total dismissal", and "totally unacceptable to their camp, one of them saying that it could mean open civil war within the party," and that "it wouldn't mean that Clinton wouldn't campaign for Obama -- she would -- but she would do so like Bill Clinton campaigned for Al Gore, quite aloof. They do not believe that this would be acceptable.""
It is possible to talk up unity on Tuesday and sow the seeds of destruction on Thursday and Friday. Politicians sometimes say different things to different audiences.
As for "Instead, she's throwing tantrums, making demands that she has no right to make, and threatening civil war" I suspect they refer to the "Zimbabwe" comment, the VP demands, etc. but you really have to read the whole post:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2...
A basketball game with 3 minutes left to go with a score of 100-70 is not technically over but the losing coach puts in the bench players anyway. Getting outraged about people saying the race is over is nothing more than an act of denial. Clinton's only route to the nomination involves playing a form of hardball that will destroy the party. She/her staff wouldn't be talking about the VP spot if she/they didn't know it was over. Why are you guys the last to know?
It's always interesting to me that Obama's gaffe is simply that - a minor sin, evidence of nothing serious - while Clinton's less felicitously-chosen comments imply evil intent (she's a racist!) on her part.
And yet AGAIN, a post celebrating feminism towards all women (even Ann Fucking Coulter!) degenerates into more noise about how evil Clinton is.
I appreciate how patient all of you are with the Feminism 101 lessons. I just don't have the energy. I started off so happy reading these comments, and now I just want to cry."
i backed away from the racism stuff and said specifically that i was willing to give clinton the benefit of the doubt.
and i'm sorry talking down to me is such a burden for you with the "feminism 101" stuff. lol.
i can tell you gave it a lot of thought. :D
i do not appear to have been successful. but i also went over to the HSW #100 and saw the posts from jennifer or whoever she was, i can understand why folks around here would be a bit twitchy after that. and i've been told before i sometimes handle these matters in a less than tactful manner, so my bee if that was the case. i've conceded some of the points you cats have made were good ones, other points i've stood by but you've assured me they've been made elsewhere and repeatedly so i won't belabor them. i guess the only real crappy part of it is i feel quite sure we'd (not necessarily me and you in particular, but me and the general tenor of this site) probably agree on a majority of issues so it really does honestly depress me we weren't able to pat down the wrinkles better. but whatever, the weather's nice so i should probably just go outside.
thank god sour shiteaters like you will never actually change anything in this world. have a nice life condemned to your own fucking hate.
yeah, it only took a friendly parting met with a "go fuck yourself" to elicit it. this thread was actually holding onto the edge of civility, i thought, until you piped in, "webmistress," to inaugurate the f-word in a hastily constructed in-your-face epithet to me to go ahead and turn the whole thing extra ugly.
i'm serious, you folks are the only ones where when people come around to your political movement with genuine but questioning curiosity, this is how you answer them. "oh, i'm so sick of giving these people feminism 101!" it's the only political movement that's actively averse to recruiting people. how you cats came up with this astonishing plan for success i'll never know. thank god most feminists have moved on from this stomach-churning, chronically alienating approach. you cats really need to evaluate what you're doing here, because you're not helping.
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you."
i got told to go fuck myself for saying "go lightly." self-fulfilling prophesy? hello?
good luck spreading this message, yall.
frankly, you're paranoid. i honestly meant it well, and all i can do is keep reasserting that. whatever complex reading you're giving it is not what i had in mind.
and yet it keeps happening, doesn't it? even with people who come around and are initially curious about your political movement? so many of them, sooner than later, become "trolls," i'm guessing.
well, you keep responding, don't you?
ever look up "persecution complex"? it's in the DSM. you may find its symptoms illuminating to your life condition.
LIGHTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i seriously have loved this conversation tonight, i mean that. :)