I just made Tom Friedman my bitch. MUST READ

[homelandpunk]

I just sent this to him:

In reply to your anti-France, editorial, I must ask:
Chicken or egg? If it is France's fault, then it is Bush's fault. Because the same "logic" by which you have deduced France's guilt is a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" loop, which just as easily condemns Bush.
By saying what France did NOT do as the launch pad for your theory, you frame the situation to a period in time for YOUR argument: namely, France's rejection of Bush's warmongering. Your argument relies on all ancient and recent history having been wiped clean by some pro-Bush Fate up to this point in time. And this Fate, for whatever reason, favors Bush among all men. Into this, France is now given a black and white choice: appease Bush, or be responsible for whatever HIS actions will set into motion.
Now, are you starting to see the inherent fallacy of your argument, Tom?
Now back to the chicken and egg argument. Which came first? is the rhetorical question. And perhaps you thought that by asking this question, I was inferring it was as much Bush' fault as it was France's. Well, NO. I am saying it is entirely Bush's fault. It is true, we don't know which came first on the chicken and egg issue. But we know what came first in the Iraquagmire. And what DID come first? Hmm, ponder, ponder. Now after a minute, perhaps you will sheepishly say, "well 9/11 of course." Well-l-l-l, yes, Tom, it did come first, but why the hesitancy in making it the launch point for this fiasco? Is it because president bunnypant's himself just admitted there was no connection to Iraq and 9/11? Try again. Again you sheepishly proffer "WMD!" You really don't need me to tell you to try again, do you? I mean, come on, I can't even believe you blurted that one out.
"Mass graves!" OK, let's talk about mass graves, Tom. Wait, though. You are the one with the foreign affairs credentials...YOU tell me about them....and about ALL of the places around this sick globe with covered holes that have been dug that would make the ones in Iraq look like molehills. By the way, why don't you report that a lot of those graves were for the Kurds who were killed, whom Poppy Bush abandoned, after instigating them to rise up against Saddam? Do that for truth's sake. But that would lessen the impact of the good propaganda it makes in favor of war, so I guess you won't.
So what is the cause of this Iraquagmire? There is this crazy FACT, unreported by you and the rest of the puppy press, that plans to invade Iraq were drawn up by those surrounding Smirky pre-9/11, which means it was pre-everything else you warmongers could think up as justification. The actual justification is there on PNAC paper, but don't look it up Tom, it's not important. Not to a propagandist like yourself. Yes, it is close to the end of my letter, so I decided to do some name-calling in that last sentence. Sorry, I really tried to be civil. But....
You are out of your freaking gourd if you think France is an enemy, an enemy who has been looking for ways to co-opt U.S. hegemony because they are vindictive little cheese-eaters, which is the thrust of your argument, indeed, your justification for saying the crazy shit you have been making up. Hey Tom, I suppose if I were to buy your wild argument, then France also planned 9-11 and MADE Bush the erratic, dangerous criminal that he is, because Frenchman are looking to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!! Quit making shit up. It's embarrassing.
My point is, the chicken came first. Bush is the chicken. Not France. >>

I sorely hope he reads this.

[joeybee12]

1. Good letter...

...my first response after readint hat column was to write a letter, but I was at a loss for words. It was like it was written by a crazy person!

[Brucey]

2. Good for you, and

I'm eating french fries while I read your letter. Viva la France.

[bearfartinthewoods]

3. you made him your what?

i'm really curious as to what, exactly, you men when you use the term bitch,

please try and explain it without sounding like a mysoganistic knuckledragger.

[never cry wolf]

6. I believe the term arose in prison

when a big guy or one with backers found hisself a "boyfriend." He made that guy his bitch.

[bearfartinthewoods]

9. actually it comes from the time when women were accorded the

same status as a female dog....a breeder. it's use in prison is just more of the same. treating a man badly...like one would treat a woman....as property.

it always amazes me to see supposed liberals use the term. it's so freeperish. most progressives i know understand that the term is demeaning and even offensive to many women and men as well and don't use it.

[Eloriel]

11. Sorry, bearfart, dear, you're WAY out of line here

Much to my chagrin, dismay, disgust, etc., etc., etc., DU admins officially sanction and thoroughly approve the word bitch. They just don't see it as sexist; they refuse to address ANY of its various uses as sexist. They refuse to give up one of their preferred words, despite how it may make women DUers feel, despite anything and everything, no fucking matter what.

Yes, I know, it makes THEM look like misogynistic knuckledraggers too, but we're talking about the golden rule here: he who has the gold makes the rules. And their rule is: bitch is a wonderful, perfectly acceptable, totally non-sexist (or if it isn't, who cares what you think) word for widespread, constant, all-purpose use at DU. (Well, I suppose they MIGHT allow a "You BITCH!!" post to be removed. I'm guessing, though.)

And, while I haven't had the heart to fight them about it, I think they feel the same way about the word whore, because I see it in use all the time -- not in conjunction with just "Media Whores" (altho I find that quite objectionable enough), but for a lot of other uses as well.

Anyway, all of this is why my yellow star ran out the other day. I just can't bring myself to donate. Nope, not even a little bit. Every time I get close, I see yet another episode of officially sanctioned woman-bashing, and I know that I contribute plenty here without also giving them my MONEY to be sexist pigs and encourage the demeaning of me and all DU women not to mention all women on earth in the process.

BUT, hey, it's okay: they don't like me either.

So stifle yourself, will ya? The aforementioned misogynist knuckledragger is only doing what DU admin expects, wants, thoroughly and completely and intractibly ("you're NOT going to take away our sexist ways!!") approves of. IOW, WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT YOU THINK?!!!?!?!

:shrug:

(Did I mention how much it hurts me -- to the point of tears? Naaaah. Forget that. Who cares what I -- or you -- think? That's okay, they let a lot of racism go on too. We're not alone.)

Eloriel

[Blitz]

12. Well, there's a first

I agree with you (and bear) 100%. Language matters and this is just one of many examples of nasty prejudices which people wouldn't express in polite company snuck in through the back door (my personal issues are with the terms "bitch slap" and the ever popular "pimp slap").

Like I said, there are many, many examples of this and while I am generally opposed to censorship, there is absolutely nothing wrong (and a great deal right) with strong public condemnation. If obviously and violently mysoginistic language such as "make (him or her) my bitch" (derived from the act of raping someone into subservience) is not condemned at DU, where on earth will it ever be condemned?

On edit: see KG's post #8 for the visual that the term inspires in a fellow DUer (and the obligatory smiley face next to it).

[anti_shrub]

13. When Oversensitve Progressives Attack, next on Fox

No wonder the right wing dominates so much of the discorse since the left spends more time chiding itself than the opposition.

[Blitz]

15. Yes, God forbid

the "left" or anybody waste their time on introspection, self-criticism and and self-improvement. By all means, attack, attack attack!! That will make the world a better place.

And yes, of course, I'm notorious for being an "oversensitive progressive." LOL.

[anti_shrub]

17. I'm all for self-improvement

but when we're in the midst of the worst presidency in American history and we have people ceasing their donation to progressive sites because of supposed sexist language (that in this case was directed at a male not a female) it's silliness bordering on absurdity.

Maybe I'm just a big ol' meanie, but we have to have thicker skins amongst ourselves before we can hope to tackle the truly sexist pigs in the world (paging Mr. Limbaugh...).

[Eloriel]

20. No, dear, this is the way it works

Not that I'm not totally sure this will be lost on you -- I'm just hoping someone more thoughtful will see it and actually comprehend.

1. If you don't think sexism (and racism and classism and ageism and homophobia and so on) aren't part and parcel of "the worst presidency in American history," then you are sadly mistaken. These ARE the hallmarks of the rightwing, and when you fight any part of it you fight all of it.

Put another way, from a pragmatic standpoint which you MIGHT understand, if you DON'T fight it, if you DON'T get the left educated on these issues, you make it incredibly easy for them use these "isms" as wedge issues.

2. Doesn't matter who it was directed to, the word itself is sexist. Doesn't even matter how it's used. It's sexist. The actual denotation of the word is female DOG. That's dehamizing and objectifying, and no use that I know of strips the "female" connotation or implication from the word itself.

3. I don't really see any substantive difference -- only degree and even at that fairly insignificant -- between the sexism (and homophobia) of this thread title and Limbaugh's. In fact, his term "feminazi" aside, I consider this thread title worse than most of Limbaugh's sexism. His is at least more refined.

4. Don't EVER tell me what I "should be" more concerned about. It's not your place, nor your right. You especially don't have the right to be dismissive of my concerns about the oppression of women. That IS a hallmark of the very oppression you "pretend" to understand: dismissiveness of our concerns. Telling us that there are more important things and we have no RIGHT to be concerned about our own oppression. We need to subjugate OUR needs and rights to YOUR preferences about what is important. Fuck that.

5. Mean? Hardly. Just a self-satisfied, recalcitrant sexist. Not even, as far as I can tell, of the type I used to begrudgingly find some appreciation and tolerance for: the educable.

6. As for donations to progressive sites-- funny I don't see a yellow star by YOUR name. Hmmm, can we say hypocrite?

Eloriel

[zeemike]

19. I don’t think I have ever used the term

But if I have I am sorry. To be honest I never thought of it as that bad. But if it offends you then I will never use it because I am not here to offend anyone unnecessarily.
English is a big language and I know I can find dozens of other words that are not objectionable to use.

[Blitz]

21. The "term" doesn't offend me

The context does. As I explain in a spin-off thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=377289#377447

Any word at all can be used in a non-offensive manner and, often, words that may be inappropriate in some situations are quite useful in others. So, no, don't stop using the word on my account (other opinions may reasonably differ but, then, some people want to take Huckleberry Finn out of libraries because it contains the word "nigger") but please think about the language that you use and what it implies to the listener.

[Enraged American]

4. Vive la France! I'm buying more French wine than ever before n/t

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

5. Must not read

Can you say incoherent?

[homelandpunk]

14. I banged this out in 20 minutes! what do you want?

I'm not going to give the whore (or gigolo, for those offended by an gender imbalance in invectives) a whole 1/2 hour of my time.... If I KNEW he was going to read it, I might spend a 1/2 hour, but even then, it probably ain't worth the time. I guess I should have spiffied it up for my fellow DUer's. Not to mention choosing a different heading from the offense taken - I could have titled it "I just made Friedman my butt-boy" but that is too weird. Or I could have said I made him my gigolo, and probably offended some northeast turtleneck librul male with that one, now that I know this kind of thing is an issue.
But anyhoo...
I re-read it, and I found one sentence puzzling if it is not read with the right inflection.
At least I told the mother/fatherfucker off, and at the time I felt good about it. Why can't you just let me be happy?

[Blitz]

18. Perhaps you need to spend a little less time on your apparent

sexual obsession with Tom Friedman (you know, your "bitch," your "butt-boy," your "gigolo") and a little more time on your letter to him. If you had done that, you may have come up with something other than the strange, unreadable, junior high school stream of consciousness tirade that you posted as a "must read."

If you had spent more than 20 minutes "banging out" your reply to Friedman's article, he may actually have considered it and, in any event, it may really have been a "must read" for your fellow DUers and a basis for a worthwhile discussion.

As it is, your rant served only to highlight your unapologetic mysoginy and as a platform from which you have attacked fellow DUers, not just here but also in another whining thread as a supposed victim of "northeast turtleneck liberals with their $7.00 lattes" who "lurk" on DU (rich, from somebody with just over 200 posts complaining about posters with many times that number) and got you "censored" (when, in fact, your thread had merely fallen off of page 1 ... the horror!).

Perhaps in addition to taking more time when you write to people, you should try and take more time before hitting the "Post Message" button.

[REP]

16. Learn the Difference Between "Infer" and "Imply"

(not you, HalfManHalfBiscuit)

[oasis]

7. Sock it to 'im

[KG]

8. you'l l have to wait in line

he's been grabbing his ankles for shrubco for some time now. i don't think they're ready to give him up yet. :)

[joycep]

10. I liked what you wrote

I was just flabbergasted when I read Friedman's column this morning. He lives in an entirely different world from the one I live in. Everything seems to be backwards in his.