Sexism (and racism) on the Left

[imenja]

(I posted this elsewhere as a reply to a DU member but decided to create a separate thread here since this analysis reflects concerns I have about many posts I've seen on DU. It relates to the oft repeated comments about "Man Coulter" and attacks on women such as Laura Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and other women based on their appearance rather than the content of their character or ideas. I have deliberately posted this under politics because of the reminder from the Women's Movement that the personal is indeed political.)


We live in a world where racism and sexism prevail. Despite great advances since the 1960s, our society still promotes white male patriarchy in politics, economics, and social and cultural values. Media images and words are part of that culture. As part of a backlash to the women's movement, television and movies increasingly portray women as sexual objects. One would think such cultural images would evolve, but they instead have moved backward. If you thinks of strong female characters in the Hollywood movies of the 1930s, you will note that media images of women today are far more objectified. The "fast talking dame" of the 1930s, Rosalind Russell in "His Girl Friday" or Myrna Loy in her many pictures with William Powell, have been replaced by weaker, sexualized images: Baywatch and Charlie's Angels, for example. Some strong female characters remain, but in an overall sense, the roles have weakened. Many of the actresses from Hollywood's Golden Age, like Kate Hepburn, have discussed openly these changes. Academics have also analyzed such cultural trends.

As members of a society structured around inequality, we all absorb sexist and racist ideas. And we tend to reflect them through our actions and choice of language. In order to promote equality, we need to think critically about our own role in this system: how we treat women and people of color, and the particular language and jokes we choose to tell or defend. None of us are exempt from such influences. I remember with great embarrassment an incident some ten years ago when I went up to an African-American man in an airport assuming he worked there. He, like myself, was a passenger. I was mortified. I realized instantly that it was a fundamentally racist action on my part, though I certainly intended no such insult. The man was surely aware of the culturally racist influences that underlay my assumption about his position at the airport. Because I reflected on what I did, I learned from my mistake and have never repeated it. If I had instead justified my behavior and told myself I had not intended harm, rather than critically evaluating my actions, I surely would have repeated that racist behavior.

When one uses language that ridicules women based on their gender or appearance, one participates and contributes to the inegalitarian nature of our society, just as I did in approaching the man at the airport. Comments like "Man Coulter," insults about the size of Laura Bush's ass or Condoleezza Rice's face, and other attacks focused on women's appearance, proliferate on DU. As progressives, we must be critical of our own role in maintaining or challenging the racist and sexist dominant culture. Either we choose to speak in ways that treat men, women, and people of color with equal criteria, or we contribute to a culture of racism and sexism. Language (or discourse), as Michel Foucault noted, is power itself. Language that objectifies women is a central element of a power structure than reduces women to subordinate status. Each time we ridicule a female political figure or pundit based on her appearance or femininity, we unconsciously send a message to all women that their value is based on appearance; that they are inferior to men. As well-meaning progressives, it is essential that we reflect on our use and defense of such language. Ann Coulter is a reprehensible human being, not because she somehow fails to live up to hegemonic notions of femininity, but because of her outlandish political positions. What I ask is that liberals attack her ideas rather than her womanliness. If you prefer to use silly insults rather than thoughtful political criticism, that's fine, but choose language that is not gendered. Attack her in the same way you do Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle or Sean Hannity. The fact she is a woman makes her no better or worse than her ideological comrades. She should be judged on the same basis.

If we want to make the world a better place, if we want to challenge the inequality that pervades our society, we must start with ourselves. Language matters. Each of us needs to decide which side of the power structure we want our words to serve.

[elehhhhna]

1. They're all fugly liars. There.

[democracyindanger]

2. Feh.

[trumad]

3. I'm with you...BUT

I make one exception with Ann the Man Coulter.

[imenja]

4. just to let you know

when you make such comments you demean all women. I feel personally insulted by such remarks. Is that really the message you want to send? Do you resent her because she doesn't live up to your idea of womanliness, or because of her political positions?

[trumad]

5. Look...9 out of 10 times...I'm with you...

With this particualr instance, I could really give a flying fig what you think.

Ann the Man.... Nazi Whore.

[imenja]

14. thanks for your concern

I am now on notice that you deliberately intend to inflict harm.

[trumad]

17. Only 1 out of 10 times.

[Fovea]

24. I understand your point.

And support the overall logic of it.

Ann Coulter calls you a traitor and worse. She advocates executing a few of you, just to keep the rest in line.

To paraphrase the Character of Elenor of Aquitaine, I could peel her like a pear, and god himself would call it justice.

You even have Trumad on your side in 90% of your case.
Consider that in politics one absolute victory is usually composed of a hundred
51% victories.

[imenja]

46. Which 90% would that be?

I guess I don't know what Trumand meant in regard to that. My point was that when he makes such comments, he insults 51% of the population, not just Coulter. He has said he does not care.
I don't understand what the rest of us have done to be assailed with such hostility.

[Fovea]

50. With TM here, I don't feel I should

extend his statement, save to say that I thought it indicated more than substantial agreement, except that Ann Coulter's writings are so egregious that giving Ann the same respect due a member of the human race unnecessarily insults the lowliest among us.

I think Trumad and I are brothers in this.

[imenja]

55. I make no defense of Coulter

I despise her. Her comments are clearly far beyond the pale. What I am asking is that the attacks be directed at her individually--based on those very ideas she espouses that we all find so reprehensible.

[kevsand]

76. "peel her like a pear"

I always did like Elenor of Aquitaine. Our daughter's middle name is Elena, specifically in honor of that amazing woman.

I will, however, keep a close eye on the kitchen knives...

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. Holy shit, you actually liked that movie?

Sorry, mac, but that is unacceptable.

[BobbyinPortland]

161. I liked it too

Bram Stoker's Dracula was good movie. Just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean everyone doesn't like it, I mean that's so republican of you to think so. :-)

[Warren DeMontague]

179. No, it's just that *I* didn't like it.

Which is the only opinion that matters- that doesn't make me a Republican, but it might make me an egomaniacal solipsist.

Of course, this was the second movie, after Buffy The Vampire Slayer, at the Wednesday Nite "Brew-n-View" at the Vic Theater in Chicago, lo back in 1993 or so... So of course, I was 8 sheets to the wind by the time it came on. (This was during my "reckless youth") ...But I remember thinking it stank.

[imenja]

145. woah

and they accuse me of being easily offended.

[Mr_Spock]

26. I agree - Fuck Manthrax Coulterguist and Condoliar Rice

These people lack morals and ethics and I don't see any reason not to use the same terrible type of monikers I use for Asscraft, Rupmhole and Shrub, Dumbya etc...

This is a political forum, not a PC forum - I am not demeaning woman, men or any other human characteristic - I dislike lying war criminals and their supporters who spew anger and hate my way. I will equally tag these nutbags with whatever I like - be them male, female, animal or transgender for that matter.

[Patchuli]

125. It might be the Adam's Apple nt

[bloom]

6. If any woman was asking

for gender based insults - it is her. Nevertheless - we don't want to be like her - and women do not want to be insulted as she herself insults us.


"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential electionsince 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted." - <7> May 17,2003.


"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores." - Salon.com November 16, 2000


"Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children." - How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), 2004

[imenja]

15. she's horrifying

I agree thoroughly. And those comments are illustrative. What I appreciate about your response is that you focus on what she writes. Her femininity has nothing to do with her ideas. She's reactionary and deranged. But that she happens to be a woman does not mean she invited criticism on that level, because to do so attacks and undermines not only her, but all women. The rest of us don't deserve it. We don't share in her crimes, and I don't want to be insulted because people resent Coulter. She, on the other hand, deserves a full range of criticism as a result of her rather bizarre and unfounded political comments.

[Maraya1969]

82. I really can't agree with you

I am a woman and I do not feel insulted by called Coulter a women with a dick. She is so aggressive and those qualities are usually assigned to men. Maybe when we do this we are demeaning to men. I don't know. But until we find another label this one is OK with me.

Although I did like the Coultergeist one.

[imenja]

90. those are precisely the attributes conservatives assign to Hillary Clinton

and you reveal perfectly my point: "She is so aggressive and those qualities are usually assigned to men." Why should women not be aggressive? You are in effect saying that women should not behave in such a manner. They should remain in their place. I find that offensive, whether that point of view comes from a woman, like yourself, or a man. I will not stay in my place. Nor should Ann Coulter. What I wish she would do is develop some reason and a sense of decency. I despise the views she espouses, but I will not support condemnations of her that challenge her very right to express herself based on her gender because such attacks demean my own right of expression.

Conservatives despise Hillary Clinton in the same way liberals attack Coulter. I naturally do not see these two women as remotely similar, but the animosity toward them is identical. Ms. Clinton, as First Lady, did not stay in her place. Nor did Teresa Heinz Kerry. Is that really the kind of image of standard to which you want to be subject? I don't want a society where women are expected to behave like Laura Bush or June Cleaver. These are precisely the kind of attitudes that keep women from rising to the presidency and act as a glass ceiling in the private sector.

[cajones_II]

31. You can insult a neocon without mentioning their sex

Neocondoleeza is objectionable because she's a fucking liar and incompetent in performance of her duties. It doesn't matter to me what her plumbing is like.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. I agree. I could care less about which bathroom she uses.

What I object to is being hectored by the f*cking PC word police.

[Patchuli]

135. Don't forget that she called Democrat women

"hippie pie wagons" hence, the 'pie'ing' she's been getting.
Personally, I'd love to hit her with a big greasy banana cream. Pie this!

She is constantly referring to others based on looks and referring to herself as a "pretty girl."
With a mouth like that, "pretty" is the last thing I think of when I look at her. Women will always be catty
and I don't think that will ever change, unfortunately.

Maybe if society stopped determining our "value" as human beings based on looks, it would stop.

[murielm99]

7. We may do that to the females on the other side, but

I don't hear racist remarks against Blackwell or other African-American repukes. We don't get too over the top.

There is some truth to what you say. However, I hear plenty of remarks about *'s appearance, Jerry Falwell's and Limbaugh's weight, O'Reilly's spotted face. We laugh at Ashcroft's singing, and the way Wolfie combs his hair.

Maybe we should tone it down in some respects. But quite a bit of this is just a way to vent our anger toward them. This is one of the few places where some of us can indulge that.

And Laura really DOES dress badly. I just can't help it.

[imenja]

13. that's because society permits and reinforces objectification of women

but has become far more critical of racist remarks. The replies to this post demonstrate many feel completely entitled to engage in remarks that reduce women to inferior status. I provided the discussion of racism as an analogy, because they are both forms of discrimination. Most people are far more conscious of using racialized language, but freely make comments that degrade women. That is because our society reduces women to sexual objects, and when posters use such language they contribute to that culture of objectification.

[msongs]

32. .......and men, so if yer a woman do not lust after a man's tushie..ok?

because then you are what you do not wish anyone else here to be.

now, back to not objectifying men OR women :-)

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[imenja]

35. sexual desire has nothing to do with it

I don't know if you didn't read my post or simply are unable to understand.
The problem is in reducing women to an inferior status, assessing their role in public life according to appearance and standards of femininity rather than according to their political ideas and actions.

[Mairead]

104. "I hear plenty of remarks about *'s appearance"

I hear plenty of remarks about *'s appearance, Jerry Falwell's and Limbaugh's weight, O'Reilly's spotted face. We laugh at Ashcroft's singing, and the way Wolfie combs his hair.

But you don't hear remarks that imply there's something wrong with him because he's male.

Weight is another issue. Sometimes being obese is a choice...but sometimes it isn't! When you mock or belittle people for factors over which they have little or no control--like whether they're male or female, their skin color, or in many cases weight, you're being just as unfair as the bozo who says Black people are shiftless, women are stupid, and Asians are 'slants'.

Ashcroft's singing and Wolfowitz's hair are choices they make, and are thus fair game.

[politicaholic]

8. Believe me, none of the neo-con talking heads would have mercy on you...

They would call you a spineless, politically correct liberal right to your face. It is Rush who coined the phrase Feminazi. It is Ann herself that bashes gays and calls all democrats wusses, communists, traitors, and the downfall of the United States.

If given the power Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, and even Allan Keyes would willingly put fellow americans to death to forward their agenda. If normal eveyday soldiers can dehumanize a whole section of society, what do you think the people who make a living dehumanizing half of the united states population are capable of?

Pussy footing around is not the answer. Direct, pointed verbal assault using everything in your power is the only way to counter this affront on equality and common sense.

[imenja]

12. my concern here is not with neo-cons

it is with inequality and sexism among the left. Attack them the right wingers all you like but say something worthwhile. Insulting a woman based on her appearance or femininity does nothing to challenge power. It reinforces it.

In doing so you make the point that the problem is in what the woman looks like and how she fails to live up to your standards of femininity. You say nothing about the problems of today's conservative movement. Such comments are not politically progressive or productive. They are profoundly conservative, indeed reactionary. You need to decide if you want to challenge or reinforce our society's dominant power structure.

[Eloriel]

132. "THey do it too" or even "they do it worse" is NO argument at all

When you JOIN them, you HELP them. Further, if you object to any kinds of discrimination against women ( and I sure as hell hope you do), you undermine the Left's ability to fight for women's rights on ANY level when you join them in the continued dehumanization and objectification of women. It may not be something you care about on a daily basis, but some of us women DO. And if we can't count on our brothers on the Left, what allies do we have? NONE.

[Inland]

9. I think its more irreverent and childish humor, not racist or sexist

I think there is a place for childish and petulant insults here.

BTW, I almost had the same incident when I went to the office of a professor I did not know. I walk in and there is a woman behind a typewriter. For a moment I assumed it was an assistant. Thank God I didn't vocalize it. I was there to ask her a favor.

[bloom]

20. There are things that seem quite funny to many men

that are not funny to many women - esp. insults that seem to express hate for women in general.

Ann Coulter seems to hate women in general also - but that doesn't give men a pass.

Men here are "allowed" to express hate for women if they wish - humorously or otherwise - they can't expect us to like it. I don't think Ann Coulter expects us to like it either - for that matter - and some might think she is humorous. :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

28. Do you really think that only comes from men on DU?

I suspect women are to blame just as often when this happens. Why frame the issue as a criticism of men when women are participating in this kind of behavior as well?

[imenja]

36. that's not really the issue

but most of the comments tend to be from men. Even so, women are more than capable of absorbing dominant media images about what determines their own worth in society. Think of the old doll study that asked children to say whether a white or black doll was prettier. Nearly all, perhaps it was 100%, chose the white doll, including all of the African-American children. They ascribed good characteristics to the white doll and described the black one as mean and ugly. Women defer to men in all kinds of ways.

The problem is a patriarchal society, not individual men or women. The question is do you want to support that patriarchy or help take it apart?

[Radical Activist]

38. So even when women do it

men are still to blame because of our patriarchal society. Honestly, I don't think we can change anything with a "blame men for everything" ideology.
Personally, I don't typically make fun of how public figures look. That includes the many comments made about the way George Bush and Michael Jackson look, but so far you haven't indicated you would care about that since they are men.

[imenja]

43. this is exasperating

It's not about blaming men for everything. It's a comment on a patriarchal culture. It is a systemic issue, but each of us, men and women alike participate in that system. Obviously the political and economic system benefits men, just as it benefits whites, and especially the wealthy. But it is not a question of blaming men individually, other than I ask her for each person, including women, to consider the role their own language plays in that system.

I'm glad you don't make such remarks. I'm not asking for more than that.

[omega minimo]

81. The punishing power perpetrated by patriarchal society

is way beyond the responsibility of any individual, especially by virtue of XX or XY chromosomes. The point being made is that each of us chooses to perpetuate a dominance model-- or not-- with the language that we use.

An example is this "pink tutu" fad. The "pink tutu wing of the Democratic party" is shorthand for lame, limp, weak, sissy, scaredy cat liberals with no backbone-- or is it a FRONT bone?

Let me turn the thread around-- folks here retain their right to be descriptive in how they refer to neo-cons or whoever. I think the issue is when the descriptions take on a life of their own and develop the power to telegraph attitudes in a sound bite package-- problematic if the meme contains inherent dominance attitudes.

Last night an AirAmerica host used "pink tutu." Here is the email I sent:

"Subject: Retire the Pink Tutu, Please!

Your reference to "pink tutu" democrats and the bit you did shrieking "let me gather up my skirts and run away from Dean" may have unintended consequences.

You are plenty enlightened in the way you discuss and refer to racist language and imagery. Do you see sexist imagery differently? Using feminized imagery for "weakness" and innate failings shows up on Democratic Underground (first times I saw "pink tutu.") To a woman, it is bigotry. It excludes us.

Your awareness of bigotry on so many levels makes this use of derogatory feminized imagery seem inconsistent. What do you think?"

:kick:

[bloom]

119. more on femiphobia

Stephen J. Ducat Dissects "Anxious Masculinity," Making Sense of America's Strutting, in a Psychoanalytic Kind of Way

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

I saw the Republican National Convention as essentially a hyper-masculine strut-fest. The real point of the convention was to make John Kerry their woman.... They had already done that with John Edwards by dubbing him the “Breck girl.” And Arnold Schwarzenegger went on to proclaim that any men who were anxious about the loss of jobs under the reign of George W. Bush were, as he put it, “economic girlie-men.” The inference was that Democratic candidates who were always whining about pink slips may as well be wearing pink slips.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/03/int05011.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3206161

--------------------------------

I guess this is really the opposite or the flip side. Ann Coulter is called a man. Kerry is called a woman.

It's a good article, anyway. And femiphobia is the perfect term.

[Eloriel]

134. Is there a place for racist humor here too then?

I know a joke that's racist as hell and demeans Poles as well. Would you like to hear it? All in innocent fun, of course.

And if not -- then why is it NOT okay to have racist joking comments here but it IS okay to have sexist joking comments and "petulant insults"?

[Honest_Abe]

10. You are right.

The same thing goes for people with disabilities. How many times have you heard "idiot" or "retard" used to denigrate someone with normal or better intelligence that does something we find disagreeable or distasteful. I know many, many people that are literally mentally retarded that I would rather work with than say, Donald Rumsfeld. Personally, I think calling Rumsfeld (for instance) "retarded" is an insult to people with developmental disabilities.
I think we are all naturally racist and sexist to an extent. Most of us have a gut response to racial differences, and as a heterosexual man I recognize a tendency in myself to objectification - I catch myself staring sometimes at an attractive woman. And I am aware of the race of the people I walk by on a dark street. Hopefully, however, we can recognize our prejudices for what they are and deal with them. I try very hard not to let it affect my behavior.
And part of that behavior is the language we choose.

[imenja]

16. good reminder

I'm certainly aware that the term retarded is offensive to those with mental disabilities, but I had never thought of "idiot" as being so.

I looked up the word on Dictionary.com. I found the following results:

1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

I was not aware of the second definition. I've heard the term "idiot savant" but never as a classification for the mentally disabled. I will keep that meaning in mind. Thanks.

[iamjoy]

11. Ann Coulter is UGLY, The Rest...

and it is her as a person, so when I make remarks about her, I AM commenting on her personality as much as her physical looks. Truth is, being objective, if I knew nothing about her, I might think she has nice hair and nice eyes.

I have nothing against Laura (aside from the obvious) and would try to avoid unkind remarks about her appearance, because I do not sense the viciousness from her that I do from Coulter. Laura might even really believe that compassionate conservative b.s. in which case she is good-hearted but misguided, not rotten to the core.

And I don't even have anything major against Condeleeza Rice, I can see why the Senators who voted for her did, she was just one in a vast conspiracy to deceive the American people about Iraq. I respect her working her way up and overcoming obstacles, but despise her politics and see her as a traitor to her gender and race.

As Al Franken said, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. Bill O'Reilly is a splotchy faced egomanic ass.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eloriel]

137. I'd like to tell you how a comment like that makes me feel personally

First I do a doubletake -- Ugh. Does that really say (and mean) what I thought it did?

Oh God, yes, it does.

Then I notice that even before I was sure that I hadn't misinterpreted, I feel kicked in the gut -- my solar plexus is aching as if from a physical assault.

I recoil in the crude and egregious vulgarity of the remark, and feel nauseous.

Then I feel shamed, humiliated. I too am female. I too have vagina, cervix, uterus. I too am vulnerable to the same kind of ultra-personal, invasively-intimate, vile, crude and vulgar attack based purely on my sex and sexuality. There is no place for me to hide. THIS same type of assualt (and worse, including physical assault) can happen even at the hands of people with whom I am supposed to share political philosophies, my brothers (and sisters, sadly) on the Left.

There is no way to protect or immunize myself against it EXCEPT one thing: to make sure I never, ever say or do anything that would sufficiently annoy someone who would use an attack like this so that I don't make myself a target: IOW, to find my place and stay IN it. To go back to the kitchen and child-rearing.

That IS the whole purpose, you know. Whether you buy into that consciously, subconsciously, or not at all -- the vile, sexist language, from the kinds of things that are regrettably considered "innocent" at DU to the kinds of words you've used to worse right on up to physical violence against women are all intended to keep women in their places.

Congratulations on furthering the goals and agenda of the religious right, the dominant oppressive culture and the Repug fascists.

Edit: Oh yes, and then I cry. In frustration, fear, and rage at both the backward slide I'm seeing all around me and my fucking impotence at being able to make ANY difference whatsoever on this issue here at DU.

And if you think I'm exaggerating or engaging in hyperbole, I'm not.

[T Town Jake]

173. And, like Scarlett O' Hara, you crinkle with a case of the vapors...

...to the floor. Is this the penultimate fruit of the kind of "feminism" that millions of liberals like me rooted for over the years? A "feminism" that reacts like a Southern Belle circa 1861 whenever she encounters a crude remark from a caddish rake?
If so, you've come a long way, baby (to coin a phrase) - and not very far. /sarcasm
Grow up.

[Ripley]

176. I don't know what you said to piss off Eloriel...

But your response of her "getting the vapors" is pretty sexist. Who are you to determine how women should respond, emotionally or otherwise? And if you think the feminist movement was all about women becoming tough guys and never showing emotion, well, um. YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG.

[T Town Jake]

178. "I don't know what you said to piss off Eloriel..."

...Me, neither: that "deleted message" in post #18 wasn't mine.

But nice try.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. splotchy faced egomaniac ass

and a falafel fucker, to boot.

[mattclearing]

19. I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

Language does matter.

Still, mocking GOP columnists, even in a sexist way, is probably the least of anyone's problems.

Of all the problems in the world, you have chosen the issue of insensitive DU'ers and their choice of right-wing denunciation.

Isn't there something more productive you could be doing?

[bloom]

21. Insulting women for being insulted

I've seen that before.


Isn't there something more productive you could be doing?

[imenja]

22. is prejudice any better if liberals express it?

If we don't start with ourselves, if we don't hold ourselves to a higher standard, what chance do we have of making this country a better place?

I posted this here because of the volume of such remarks. I find it no less objectionable on the part of those who call themselves liberals. Actually, I find it more so, since these are people who say they care about the state of the nation and our culture. I had hoped DU members would be willing to reflect on the meaning of their language. Clearly, my expectations were too high.

[thedailyshow]

58. It's been tried months ago to no effect

discussions about the effects of sexism and gender epithets were tried with no result, often with the original posters being denigrated for speaking out against sexism. It's a lost cause here at DU.

[mattclearing]

102. Like I said, I agree with you on principle.

But of all the things to pick a bone with today, you chose fellow DU'ers. I wanted to point that out and make you consider whether that was the best use of your valuable time.

That's all.

[imenja]

131. the responses to this post show it is a problem

Many seem to have a great stake in defending sexism. I see no differences between a liberal or a conservative espousing such ideas. They are wrong, and they are harmful. This is far from a minor matter, since it exposes far deeper hostility than a few jokes might suggest.

[mattclearing]

144. I guess you are right.

Sexism should be fought on both sides of the aisle.

A shame, however, that it detracts from the greater cause...after all, we are humans first, males and females second.

[imenja]

146. there is no question that we are humans first

and demanding equality makes that clear. It does not detract. What I'm asking is that we as women be treated as human beings, nothing more, nothing less.

[Bridget Burke]

23. Thanks for the lecture.

I often find myself asking "What would Michel Foucault do?"

[imenja]

37. it was an appeal, not a lecture

an attempt at thoughtful analysis of a problem on DU has has concerned me for a long time.

I take it you share in the right-wing resentment of intellectualism. Apparently reading anything in print besides a dime store novel or a few blogs is no longer acceptable.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Right. Anyone who doesn't accept your thesis part and parcel

is a right-winger, and an anti-intellectual, to boot.

So what, precisely, is so intellectual about trying to stifle discussion of topics you don't like?

[imenja]

48. my post was meant to encourage discussion on this topic

not stifle it. It was to suggest that people reflect on their words.
The above poster's reference to Michel Foucault struck me as clearly anti-intellectual.

[tishaLA]

167. How precisely were they "anti-intellectual"?

I don't like to get into arguments about these matters and I largely agree with what you say, but it's patently anti-intellectual to collapse two terms--discourse and language--and pretend they mean the same thing from a Foucauldian perspective (cf. The Order of Thingsor The Archeology of Knowledge, esp. the Appendix, "The Discourse of Language," where the title alone suggests that the terms discourse and language are not interchangeable).

Disparaging Foucault, on the other hand, is not inherently anti-intellectual, unlike creating synonyms from non-synonymous terms, because there are a variety of reasons to critique him. Indeed, feminists, post-colonialists, and ethnic studies academics have made a good living out of it

[Eloriel]

139. LOL. That comes off not just as an appalling straw man

but an HYSTERICAL and appalling straw man.

You know very well your (mis)characterization is no where near what she said.

Psst! Here's a tip for you. Straw man arguments work a little better when they're just a wee bit more subtle.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. I've seen plenty of petty personal attacks on RW men

I've heard the gamut from fat to stupid to ugly to what-have-you for every neocon, man and woman. Doesn't bother me at all, regardless of whether said neocon is male or female. They're scum and sometimes it's fun to stop being "intellectual" and just make some third-grade ad hominem attack on Ann Coulter's mannishness or Limbaugh's fatness or whatever. Is it mature, progressive, thoughtful, or graceful? No. But I don't much care, either.

Over the top PC makes me cringe. I don't feel objectified by people calling Ann Coulter a man. Sorry.

[Radical Activist]

27. When people call Bush chimp because he looks like a monkey

or make other insults based on his appearance, which happens frequently, would you say that perpetuates a matriarchal society and puts men in a subordinate position? Or, would you just say its an immature way to insult a leader you don't like.

[Kimber Scott]

29. How about all the DUers who say Hillary can't win because she's a

woman? Aren't they playing into the sexist's game, as well? She may not be able to win, but I hope it's not because people THINK she can't win because she's a woman. I understand those who believe she doesn't lean far enough to the left to be their choice. That's a viable argument. Being female should not preclude one from winning. Not in this day and age. Pretending for a moment Powell hadn't screwed up like he did and he decided to run, would everyone be yelling he couldn't win because he's Black? That doesn't sound so nice, does it?

I thought we were the progressive bunch. Instead we keep playing the game by other people's rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. I have traditionally felt she can't win because she's very polarizing

Just the name "Clinton" is enough to send right-wingers into paroxysms of rage...

but she's been really moving towards the DLCenter and playing very hawkish of late, which is what I personally might have a problem with; not which bathroom she uses.

[Kimber Scott]

61. Bush is polarizing... that didn't keep him from "winning."

And, sometimes don't you think you might have to do what you have to do to win? I mean as far as moving to the center? I was happier than a pig in you know what while Clinton was in office and though I hate to admit it, I was a registered Republican. I doubt it counts since at the time I was pretty apolitical and didn't really know what a Republican was, and I did vote for Clinton twice, but that's beside the point. Or, maybe it's not. Maybe, that is the point. I voted for the candidate and not the party. Party didn't mean jack to me. Maybe things are different now, but if it takes a Democrat moving to the middle to get into the White House, I don't think that's such a bad thing. The middle is good for me, anyway. I understand ideological purism, but I don't believe it wins elections - not in this country.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. I agree with you.

I was much more of a moderate during Clinton's 2 terms, although the occasional local green candidate notwithstanding I've been a Yellow Dog Democrat since I turned 18. I think Bush has pushed me towards the left, as have certain other life lessons (a relative who is severely handicapped and can't get health insurance, among other things, turned me into a staunch supporter of a SPHC system)

Listen, if Hillary gets the nomination no one will back her stronger than I will. Just right now I am wary of Democrats who are a little too willing to jettison core principles in pursuit of elusive "red state values voters" many of whom, to my mind, won't vote Democrat anyway. Reproductive Rights, Separation of Church and State, those kinds of things.. those are deal-breakers for me.

[ElectroPrincess]

80. No, the point is that "because she's a woman" (and a Clinton)

The right wing misogynist radicals will latch onto that and never let go. Hating "Hillary Clinton" has turned into a cottage industry for the right wing.

As much as I would like to see a woman as President of the USA, that woman isn't Hillary ... and most importantly, the right wing will NOT let it happen.

If Hillary runs, they'll make the "Swift Boat" attacks on Kerry seem like a walk in the park.

[Kimber Scott]

124. If Hillary got "Swift-Boated," she'd know how to fight back.

Something John Kerry, or anybody else who hasn't been up against these people, head to head, male, or female, seems to know how to do.

There is a reason the wingers are afraid of her, they know she can win.

[XemaSab]

30. Everyone on God's green earth

Is racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, anti-transgender, or has some other prejudice. We can try to combat these prejudices, but being extra-PC does nothing to challenge the roots behind these prejudices, and, if anything, just puts a band-aid on a bullet wound.

I think we should look at the animosity behind many of our insults, and where they're coming from and why we consider them insulting, and the OP is right to question us on this, but screw the PC nonsense.

Laura Bush, Condi Rice, and Ann Coulter all have something wrong with them. They're freaks and should be destroyed by any means possible.

PS: props to the poster who coined "Manthrax Coulterguist." Too damn funny....

[Tomee450]

33. Thank you!

Great post. I think attacking a person's looks goes way over the line.

[Spinoza]

34. Let's not get too PC here.

The fact is, Annie DOES look like she was born "Irwin" and had (at least) one (bad) sex-change operation. Why should that be taboo?Also, even though I can't stand her politically, I think Condi is damn sexy! I KNOW other men (and two women) who feel the same way. Can't we talk about her sex-appeal (or lack thereof) as well as her moral turpitude without being shushed like little kids? I am also quite willing to ridicule (or praise) men based on their physical appearance. I am an equal opportunity ass-hole.

[imenja]

39. the insults are not equally directed at men and women

and if you have an honest look at the issue, you'll recognize that.
You may say you are "willing to ridicule" men based on their appearance, but posters do not frequently do so for men and do it with great regularity against women.

Taring something as politically correct is a handy way of justifying sexism and racism. Our culture has changed to the point where people no longer feel comfortable making racist comments about African-Americans and yet verbally demean women without restraint. Why does it matter? Because it's wrong, because it's sexist and perpetuates a culture that reduces women to second-class citizenship. You simply need to decide if that if you want to promote discrimination or equality.

[Spinoza]

52. What other posters do, or do not do,

has nothing to do with me. I am not responsible for, and I do not feel guilty about, someone else's actions. "Politically Correct" may be misused by some, but it describes a real phenomenon that cannot simply be brushed away with loaded words like "sexism" and "racism". As I said, I am equal-opportunity asshole and I intend to continue to piss-off people of both sexes without prejudice or favoritism.

[imenja]

54. true, you are not responsible for the actions of others

only your own. I would simply ask that you reflect honestly on what you write and in what circumstances. You might then decide if you want to use your posts to reinforce prejudice or undermine it.

[thedailyshow]

59. PC is simply Polite Courtesy

why can't you extend that to women?

[Spinoza]

103. I don't extend

"Polite Courtesy" (nice made-up definition) to ANYONE men or women.
(Well, actually, my wife may be an occasional exception but she is a Karate brown belt.)

[imenja]

147. you and Ann Coulter both

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Certainly, This Place Has Been WAY Too Calm Lately.

"We" surely needed this particular fight, again.

"We" certainly needed another PC lecture about how "we" should talk, the jokes "we" should make, and the way "we" need to frame our arguments.

Sarcasm off.

Hmmmm. Want to talk about over the top, socially acceptable gender-based slams? I was watching Bill Maher last week (And yes, I know, he's apparently a horrible misogynist.) and near the end of his monologue he starts talking about the woman in Alaska who cut her boyfriend's penis off and flushed it down the toilet. Immediately after mentioning it, you can hear about 10 voices- all female- in the audience go "Woo-Hooo!". Now, can you imagine if this was a story about a man who sexually mutilated his girlfriend, probably preventing her from ever being able to have a satisfying sex life again in her life, any crowd of semi-sentient humans where a bunch of men would go "Woo-Hoo!" over that, much less feel comfortable about it and think it was funny--- and acceptable?

So, is that just Bill Maher's jaded hollywood audience? No. During the great Sexism Wars of DU last year, an almost identical story was posted, and several women here thought nothing of treating it as a total joke, a humorous riot until finally they were called on it.

But what is my point? Just that we live in a society where gender and sexuality are facts of life. It is impossible to talk about, say, Condi's poor taste in wearing, essentially, fascism-recalling garb in Germany, without referencing the fact that she is female, etc. etc. Although some people, particularly the would-be language cops here, may not like it, gender and sexuality are part of life and the dynamic of human interaction.. attempting to pretend otherwise and sanitize the discussion of all reference to the same is absurd.

And Ann Coulter DOES look like a man in drag. That's not a slam on men in drag, its not a slam on women, but it's a slam on her. Not only is it true, but given who she is I'm also not about to feel guilty for slamming Mann Coulter- for anything.

Personally, I don't run around hectoring everyone else how "WE" should talk or what "WE" should talk about... and I'm really not sure why it seems to be such a favorite pastime of some others here.

[Spinoza]

47. Way to go

Got your back, bro (or sis).

[imenja]

53. so because sexism and racism are facts of life

you are going to do your best to add to the chorus? I agree that you would have seen no such reaction in Maher's audience about maiming women. But you also don't see thousands of websites devoted to raping and killing men, as you do for women. Does the reaction of Maher's audience somehow justify other manifestations of prejudice?

Ask yourself why this is a racist and sexist society. Racism and sexism are learned behaviors. They thrive because we all take part in perpetuating them. We can choose to stop. All it requires is awareness and a desire to do so. These are not forces beyond our control. We have power over our own actions and words. The question is whether you want to use yours to promote prejudice or to help dismantle it. That decision is for each one of us to make.

[XemaSab]

62. Racism and sexism

are nigh-on universal, in any culture, anywhere.

I'd say that modern western culture comes very close to being the least sexist society that has ever existed.

[imenja]

65. in some ways

but not others. For example, India and Pakistan have had women heads of state, but many here feel that is still an impossibility. Latin American cultures are known for their machismo, but my sense from living in Brazil is that they like and appreciate women more than our society does. The majority of new lawyers are women, as are a very significant number of police. They have police stations dedicated to crimes against women, "delegacias da mulher," staffed by women police and intended to create an environment where women feel comfortable reporting crimes of rape and domestic violence. Certainly the Brazilian police are known for their violence, and the women police sometimes take on such roles. There are groups called "bate homens" that go out and essentially beat up men who are especially recalcitrant in their refusal to stop beating their wives and girlfriends. It is a lamentable way of resolving problems of domestic violence but an interesting phenomenon.

In some ways our culture provides space for women's rights, and in other ways it undermines it. As many analysts have observed, the assertion of women in the political and economic sphere has lead to a backlash in the cultural realm: increasingly unrealistic media images of female beauty and weaker female cinematic characters. The trajectory of women's rights in our society has not been one of steady and unequivocal improvement. The problem is far more complex.

[XemaSab]

69. I went to an open discussion with Patricia Ireland

The discussion was mostly about sexual harassment and sexual discrimination. One woman after another got up with a horror story, and two young Muslim women, wearing hijab, got up and said that they were always treated with respect and had never been sexually harassed.

It's hard to compare different expressions of sexism across cultures, but looking outside Europe and the Americas, women are frequently still treated horribly as a matter of course.

A few years ago at the UN conference on women, there was a gulf between the issues western women were discussing and the issues women from other parts of the world were discussing, such as female infanticide and FGM.

This is not to say that we still don't have a long way to go towards creating a truly non-sexist society, far from it, but in general, being an American woman's a pretty sweet deal, comparatively.

[imenja]

74. I realize you're right

but I also believe we have a responsibility to make society better. Because another system is worse, doesn't mean the sexism here is in anyway justified. And if I expect more of anyone, it is my fellow progressives.

[imenja]

75. Question on comparing women's rights

Do you have a sense of the status of women in the United States versus the European Union?

[XemaSab]

78. I have no information on that

Other than impressions and word of mouth, which says that the further south you go, the more sexist the men get.

Have you heard anything affirming or contradicting this?

[highlonesome]

175. another important point

Yes women in Arab countries are routinely treated horribly.

But did you ever notice that pretty much everyone there is?

To me that's really the big point of the indoctrination of the class struggle in gender relations. You can recount how horribly women have had it throughout the history of our society and culture, but if you look without blinders you'll find that the men didn't have it much better.

Ever drive across the Brooklyn bridge? When you drove across it, did you think to yourself about the hundreds of men who died during the course of building it? Did you think to yourself that most of them did it so they could support a family?

Look around your city. Nearly every major building from skyscraper to parking garage a man died in the course of its creation.

In my opinion the women's movement has come as far as it can until we begin to recognize that women are a barometer of how we devalue humanity in general -- not a distinct class of oppressed.

[highlonesome]

172. feminism as class struggle

I think the basic problem of gender relations and equality in our country is that the dominant paradigm -- that men and women are distinct social classes -- is to blame for any derailment of thw women's movement.

Maybe that's the difference between what you see here and what you see in South America.

[Eloriel]

142. Racism and sexism are taught. Period.

As for the "least sexist society" that has ever existed, you need to look into the work of archeologist Maria Gimbutas, and others.

A wonderful book to read, based a lot on Gimbutas' work, is "The Chalice and The Blade," by Riane Eisler. It "tells a new story our cultural origins. It shows that war and the 'war of the sexes' are neither divinely nor bioligically ordained. And it provides verification that a better future is possible -- and is in fact firmly rooted in the haunting drama of what actually happened in our past." -- from the back of my copy of the book

It's a wonderful exploration of the matrifocal, Goddess-worshipping societies that predated our own partiarchal cultures. They were characteried by peace (no war and no REASON for war), "an easy relationship" between the sexes, abundance and prosperity, high cultures (the arts). And it's the story of what happened to those peaceful, loving societies, including the overthrow and defeat of the Goddesses (that part alone is fascinating in the extreme).

[thedailyshow]

64. you don't get it, do you?

The posters here do not care about sexism because they want it to be the last acceptable prejudice, and it's one in which they feel comfortable doing because they claim it's a byproduct of a culture that they can't control, which of course is pure bullshit.

[imenja]

67. I get it

and I'm well aware of what you say. I'm trying to get them to examine what they do. It does seem to be a lost cause, but perhaps it will prompt one or two people to think.

[lukasahero]

107. This is a bold post

as is the OP. Thank you both for having the courage to call it for what it is.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Let's put it this way.

I think there is such a thing as real sexism. I don't think calling Ann Coulter "Mann Coulter" constitutes it, sorry. And I think you weaken the battle against real sexism by defining the term in such an overly broad and ridiculous fashion. Furthermore, you create a caricature of the issues you claim to care about, like animal rights activists who are opposed to vaccination because of "virus rights".

You're right about one thing, I don't see thousands of websites devoted to raping and killing men. I also don't see thousands of websites devoted to raping and killing women. I guess you and I don't frequent the same websites, except for this one.

[imenja]

73. whether or not you see them, they exist

Whether or not you see them, they exist. Pretending they don't doesn't change that. And pretending that such language isn't sexist doesn't make it any less so. What is your definition of real sexism? Language, media images, and discrimination in employment and political office all reinforce each other. They are part of a common system of patriarchy.

Is it really too much to ask that you target Coulter individually rather than assailing 51% of the population in the process? Do you find her objectionable because she fails to live up to your standards of femininity? That is what you are saying when you call her a "man." Or is her ideas that are reprehensible? For me, it clearly is the latter. All you do when you attack a woman based on gender is to reveal your own prejudices. It says nothing about what makes her ideas so dangerous. In relying on such sexist banalities, you help maintain a system that promotes exploitation based on gender, race, and class. If you try developing more thoughtful critiques, you will go further toward challenging the conservative tyranny that Coulter promotes.

Satire serves important political purposes. But for that satire to be effective, it must be smart. It must challenge the dominant power structure or it lacks humor or social value. When ever you ever heard Jon Stewart rely on such mindless remarks as those discussed in my original post? He is far too smart and politically relevant for that.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Mkay. I know how this movie ends.

I don't have room to list the reasons I find Ann Coulter objectionable. She doesn't live up to my standards of humanity. But if it gives you a box to put me in- "phallic oppressor who degrades women who don't live up to his standards of femininity" to think that THAT is the reason I don't like Ann Coulter, be my friggin' guest.

(But, for the record, I live in the Bay Area ferchrissakes. I know lots of women who could be considered "un-feminine".. just like I know lots of men who could be considered "un-masculine"... I don't have a "problem" with any of them, of course none of them are asshat psuedo-fascist FOX News shills like the Coultergeist is. But that doesn't make me any more amenable to would-be PC Language cops. If anything, the fact that I surround myself with people who are comfortable with themselves and who simultaneously manage to not be the least bit interested in dictating to others how to live their lives, makes this kind of thing all the more onerous and tiresome)

Anyway, I'm sorry it bothers you so much that people call Ann Coulter "Mann Coulter". I'm sorry you seem incapable of not reading a whole laundry list of shit into it that just isn't there. Lastly, I'm sorry if you think I'm part of the patriarchal oppression structure because I refuse to submit everything I say to the Smith College Women's Study Department for peer review before I say it. Beyond that, enjoy your thread.

[imenja]

85. you win

I am indeed saddened. I guess TheDailyShow was right. People here are desperate to cling to their last bastion of bigotry. I suppose I should have known better than to ask for self-reflection or intellectual understanding on these boards. What you say isn't there is quite obvious to anyone with any background in critical analysis, as a few others have made clear in this thread. I suppose the failure to understand this point is as much a of result of mis-education as sexism. In the end the distinction between ignorance and willful sexism doesn't really matter, since they serve the same purpose. As challenged as you may feel by my appeal, you of course win. It is far easier to ally oneself with power than to challenge it. As long as capitalist racist-patriarchy finds so many willing accomplices, injustice will always prevail.

[kwassa]

105. well worth repeating ...

imenja:
"In the end the distinction between ignorance and willful sexism doesn't really matter, since they serve the same purpose."

but we don't expect DUers to be ignorant, do we?

[Eloriel]

143. Just so you know, impeachdubya

Your argument precisely tracks with the rightwing argument (e.g., Limbaugh, et.al.) on the subject. Do you really want to keep that kind of company?

Edited: I really should say ONE rightwing argument. There are others.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. Which argument is that?

The argument that it's ridiculous to equate saying Ann Coulter looks like a man in drag or the expression "so-and-so has balls" with genuine sexism? The argument that tilting at those particular windmills is a colossal overreaction and waste of time?

I never said there isn't real sexism in our society. I just don't think this is it. Apparently, though, it's an egregious enough example to warrant various DU members flipping out when anyone challenges the assertion.

As for Limburger, guilt by (extremely spurious) assosciation.. I like it. I guess he calls her "Manthrax", too.

But let's flip that around. People here, self-described "progressives" all to be sure, are also apparently in favor of censorship of viewpoints, speech, images, literature and entertainment they don't like. Well, shit, so is the Bush Administration. Do YOU really want to keep THAT kind of company?

[Eloriel]

152. Yes, we're asking you to self-censor in the interest of equality and

fairness and an end to oppression for 51% of the human race.

I guess that's just too much to ask; you prefer your own personal sexism. Here's something I was just reading in another thread's link. Seems to apply very nicely to a lot of you boyz. The article is by a psychologist who's written a new book. It's a BuzzFlash interview with him. His comments apply to contemporary Republican attitudes in politics and governance, but they sure as hell apply right here as well:

March 2, 2005
Stephen J. Ducat Dissects "Anxious Masculinity," Making Sense of America's Strutting, in a Psychoanalytic Kind of Way
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/03/int05011.html

snip

Part of the reason is that this type of masculinity is defined largely in terms of domination. The problem is that domination--either in a personal or a global context---can never be a permanent condition. It’s a relational state. It’s dependent on having somebody in a subordinate position. That means you could be manly today, but you’re not going to be manly tomorrow unless you’ve got somebody to push around and control, whether that is an abused wife or another country. So this kind of masculinity is really brittle.

[Warren DeMontague]

155. Right. Because I think it's absurd to assert that calling Ann Coulter

"Manthrax" is somehow part of a global conspiracy to, quote, "oppress 51% of the human race", obviously I am "dependent upon having somebody in a subordinate position" and need to "have somebody to push around and control". Jesus, what a flying flock of flim, flarm and unmitigated flapdoodle.

You don't know me, AT ALL, all you know is that I'm a man and I don't buy into your ridiculous over-extension of what constitutes "sexism". Certainly, because I have dared to challenge one small axiom of your groupthink, I must be a wife abuser or favor the wholesale invasions of countries. Guess what, I'm probably a homophobe, too. As I sit here in my stained wife-beater drinking a warm beer and ordering my (successful, career-oriented MBA) wife to fix me dinner now, dammit... I contemplate going out to my rusty pickup truck and cruising the town to find some gays to kick around. Uhhh huh.

Christ, you guys are too much. Good night.

[imenja]

156. it's pointless

Some people defy comprehension. They choose to remain ignorant, wear it as a badge of pride. I've never encountered anything like this particular case in my entire life. It really is quite shocking.

[eridani]

72. That's much more of a 'man bites dog' reaction

Celebration of the murder and rape of women is a common thing in our culture, and the rare moments when women go into 'sauce for the goose' mode are news of a sort, precisely because it isn't that common.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. "Celebration of the murder and rape of women

...is a common thing in our culture"

Really? Where?

[eridani]

84. Check out movies

Who are the victims in horror movies, particularly sexual victims?

[Warren DeMontague]

89. teenagers, usually, in horror movies.

particularly the ones who sneak off to smoke a joint, if I remember correctly... I don't usually watch them.

But certainly with regards to horror movies you have a point.

Whether or not that is our society 'celebrating' rape and murder, I think is debatable.

There is undoubtedly a great deal of violence in movies and on tv-- towards both genders-- but for some reason that doesn't piss off the fundies nearly as much as sex does.

[eridani]

95. And are women ever shown as successfully fighting back?

Men are. Women are usually victims.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Like I said, I don't watch those movies. But I can certainly think of

many, many films with strong, ass-kicking women. Many more where they "fight back" and others where they kill their assailant.

But even beyond that, your assertion was, and I quote, society celebrates the rape and murder of women. Okay... operative word there being "celebrates". Now, our society may celebrate some sick shit, namely things like greed, overconsumption, and mindless celebrity worship, but I think you're taking the hyperbole train way past the station to assert that it celebrates the rape and murder of women.

[eridani]

99. OK, scratch 'celebrates'

Substitute 'normalizes.'

[Warren DeMontague]

100. Maybe the first thing "society" should do is stop

locking up many non-violent drug offenders for longer sentences than many rapists or murderers end up doing. Reserve the prisons for the truly violent, along with maybe the odd Enron CEO.

I think violence as a whole is way too normal on this planet. Damn shame, too. When it comes to rape and murder, I can unequivocally state that I am categorically opposed to both of them.

Calling Ann Coulter a man, however, is another story.

[kwassa]

106. Calling Ann Coulter a man is also juvenile

Aside from the sexist aspects.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. I never said it wasn't juvenile.

Usually all she has to do is open her mouth for me to have ample reason to criticize her. Very rarely do I mention the fact that, yes, she does look a bit like a skinny man in drag. (And why is that a slam on women? Seems like it's a slam on men.) However, what I object to, and what this thread got started on, was the idea that "we" need to police our speech (otherwise there are people more than willing to police it for "us")... because making the aforementioned juvenile joke apparently contributes to the global oppression of women and results in serial killings, among other things.

Which I call bullshit on. Sorry.

[DrGonzoLives]

114. Halloween I & II, the Scream movies, the Alien movies

Friday the 13th (the first one), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, plenty more that I can't think of right now.

Showing a woman as a victim is not somehow "glorifying" or "condoing" victimization of women - it's a plot device meant to elicit an emotional response from the audience, and that is dictated by the overall culture. More people will care if a woman is attacked instead of a man.

[imenja]

151. and sadists get off on it

Do you suppose it's coincidental that the overwhelming majority of sex crimes and sexually sadistic murders are committed against women?

[imenja]

93. serial killers

nearly always target women. Sadist sexual assaults are very rarely committed against men. I find it amazing that you have no awareness of the prevalence of images of violence against women. I have to wonder if you pay attention at all. I suggest you try entering in a few words in google (with the censor filter turned off): rape, bondage, murder, etc... Look at what comes up. It really isn't acceptable to walk around in a fog. Do you think it's okay for conservatives to turn a blind eye to the reality of the war in Iraq? Your blindness is no better.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. Oh, jeezus, stop grinding your axe for a minute.

We were talking about calling Ann Coulter "Mann Coulter" and now all of a sudden I'm responsible for sadistic serial killers. Give it a rest.

Is the world a bad place? Absolutely. Do serial killers target women? I'm not the expert on serial killers, but I'd be willing to bet you're right, many do. Of course, Gacy and Dahmer went after men. I'm not sure what that proves, except that I think someone was arguing that society 'celebrates' the rape and murder of women. That is patently f*cking absurd. If some sickos on the internet do that, well, yes, that's certainly at least as bad as anyone celebrating war or any other kind of violence or cruelty.
According to you, though, I'm willfully blind if I haven't gone looking for that kind of sick crap.

(Thank you, also, for telling me what is and is not "acceptable" for me to have in my head. We've already ascertained that you feel an overpowering need to control what other people say, I guess it's just a small jump from there to trying to control what other people think.)

But to assert that there is some sort of moral equivalency, or that it even has anything to do with, making jokes about Ann Coulter having a johnson is just the height of absurdity, and proves to me that you are utterly incapable of seeing past your pet agenda, whatever the hell it may be.

[imenja]

112. clueless

to imagine there is not a culture that promotes violence against women is simply ignoring reality. The number one form of death for pregnant women is at the hands of their partners. Rapes are committed against women in great numbers. At least 25% of American women have been raped in their lives. Do you really think such violent crime is coincidental, meaningless? The media gives all kinds of reinforcement for such crimes, and that you refuse to acknowledge that is nothing short of appalling. Chose any random movies that depict sexual violence, and you would be hard pressed to find more than one or two out of a hundred that depict crimes against men.
I suppose we are a racial democracy and a land of absolute equality too? Or is it just the condition of women that you have no interest in observing. Yours are perhaps the most frightening comments I've read on this thread. It's unfathomable to me that you can walk through life and have absolutely no awareness of the world around you. You clearly don't want to understand experiences other than your own. No wonder this country has so many problems when people refuse to consider anything that doesn't reinforce their own narrow view of the world. I wonder why you would even want to impeach Bush when you are so supportive of the dominant culture.

[highlonesome]

169. I disagree

If anything our society promotes violence against men as is evidenced by a shorter lifespan and clear crime statistics which bear out that any man is many times mor likely to be the victim of violence than women, statistically speaking.

the factoid that 25% of women will be raped in their lives is false.

The factoid that the leading cause of death of pregnant women is at the hands of their partner is also misleading and false. In actuality, a pregnant woman is statistically SAFER than any other defined segment of our society.

The rates of sexual assault regarding men as compared to women are only so slanted when one completely ignores the rates of sexual assault which occur in our prisons, which, by the way is institutionalized and found to be wildly hilarious among a huge segment of our society.

But hey, keep rattling off your anti-male crap and watch the Democrats continue to lose elections. It's this kind of stuff that middle America is sick of hearing from the Left and liberals won't get elected until they cut it out.

[imenja]

115. Some things are not acceptable

Refusing to acknowledge violence against women as a problem is NOT acceptable. There is no moral relativism in this regard. Murder is wrong, and efforts to justify or deny media images that present women as objects of murderous sadism is plainly unconscionable. When one refuses to acknowledge a problem exists, it is impossible to combat it. That essentially means you see violence against women as nothing that merits yours or anyone else's attention, and you even go so far as to resent the fact that posters would raise the issue.


It's now clear to me why you are impervious to critical theory. How could you begin to understand discourse analysis when you refuse to pay attention to what is in front of your face everyday? I imagine that even 80% of the men who make the Man Coulter remarks have some awareness of the kind of realities you choose to ignore. I find myself in absolute disbelief, in fact shock, about what you have written.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. Again, I don't know who you think you're responding to,

but it's not me. I think it's some straw man out of an Andrea Dworkin position paper.

I suspect it's not so much that you find my ideas "dangerous", "shocking" and "upsetting" as it is that I challenge you on your babble, frankly.

Where did I "not acknowledge", much less "justify", violence against women? Are you high? NO violence is acceptable. However, when you draw the lines as broadly as you seem to be doing, you muddy the definition of real violence. Real sadism.

For the record, the particular issue we're debating; the one where the poster said our society 'celebrates' rape and murder of women, she retracted that and said maybe 'celebrates' wasn't the right word. She acknowledged that the rhetoric was a bit over-the-top. But I guess nothing is too over the top for whatever particular jihad you seem to be on.

Beyond that, what do you want me to say? That all horror movies should be banned? I think drgonzolives has an excellent point- maybe in the 60s or 70s most women were depicted as passive victims, but as far as I understand it it's pretty common for women in those kinds of movies to fight back and kill their attackers. And bully for them, although again we are talking about movies.

[imenja]

130. what I want you to do is stop denying reality

How can you ever pretend that sexual violence is evenly directed at men and women? Jeffrey Dahmer and Aileen Wournos are rare cases. For every one of them there are hundreds of sadistic killers who target women. The media both reflects and reinforces those actions. Countless studies show a link between media images of violence and behavior, particularly among children. I'm not talking about censorship here. What I'm asking is that you start to pay attention. That you think. That each one of us reflect on our own role in maintaining (or dismantling) inequality. Why do you find that so objectionable? What do you have to gain from refusing to consider your own prejudices? We all have them. We cannot help it, since we are raised in a racist and sexist society (I realize that you deny even that). What is important is that we confront those prejudices, work to improve ourselves, and our society in the process. Political change begins with ourselves. We can hardly expect our government to promote equal opportunity when we refuse to address prejudice within ourselves.

If you don't recognize that a problem exists, no solution will ever be possible.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. Again, I'm not going to play along with the script you're following.

"How can you ever pretend that sexual violence is evenly directed at men and women?"

Please find where I said that.

"The media both reflects and reinforces those actions."

Really. What, precisely, does that mean? That the media is out there saying "be a serial killer- it's fun!"? I'll be the first to acknowledge the media sucks, but.. really. Frankly, I think I threw out a concrete idea on how 'society' (a nebulous concept at best) could send a more solid consistent message about the seriousness of rape and other violent crime; namely, stop treating non-violent drug offenders as worse criminals than rapists and murderers. The fact that a guy growing pot for cancer patients in oakland is treated as a greater danger to society than a rapist or a murderer is, in my mind, a travesty. That is a concrete idea for improving the situation- something you seem categorically incapable of producing here.

"Countless studies show a link between media images of violence and behavior, particularly among children."

Which studies. What images.

"What I'm asking is that you start to pay attention. That you think."

Believe me, I pay attention AND I think. What I don't think is that referring to Ann Coulter as looking like a man in drag is part of some global conspiracy to oppress women. I just don't. That doesn't make me evil, it just means my sense of what constitutes oppression lies in a different direction than yours.

"What is important is that we confront those prejudices, work to improve ourselves, and our society in the process. Political change begins with ourselves. We can hardly expect our government to promote equal opportunity when we refuse to address prejudice within ourselves."

I appreciate the attempt at re-education, but although I'm not perfect, trust me--- I can look in the mirror and sleep quite soundly at night.

[imenja]

140. Media studies

Here are a number of studies I found in a five minute search of Google. If you were to search the appropriate academic databases, you find hundreds of additional studies. Those are available through university libraries. This subject has been been widely reported in the media (newspapers and broadcast media) and congress has heard testimony on the matter. Some of these studies are by psychologists and psychiatrists, others are by media groups and sociologists. These are written by professionals, most PhDs or MDs, who regularly read and conduct research. There is more than enough information for you to begin to learn about these issues, but that of course requires that you want to educate yourself. I've finished discussing this with you. I simply find it impossible to understand the point of view of someone who so willfully and jealously guards his/her right to remain uninformed.

Children and media violence

Here are a few such studies: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/pspi/pspi43.pdf

http://www.psych.org/public_info/media_violence.cfm

http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm

http://www.actagainstviolence.com/specialtopics/mediaviolence.html

Three seconds on goggle will produce 100 additional studies

http://www.apa.org/releases/media_violence.html

Media violence against women

http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/Bull_SabrinaDenney.pdf

http://www.mediascope.org/pubs/ibriefs/vwm.htm

http://www.mediachannel.org/atissue/sample3/index.shtml

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0501/S00113.htm

http://www.countercurrents.org/gender-marshall300904.htm

[applegrove]

44. I try and always use Rice's last name just as I do the other assholes. But

I find myself always calling Ann by her first name. And then I realize that I call comedians by their first name too.

But yes it is a slippery slope.

[imenja]

49. I hear you

I do the same. I also try to correct myself.

[LdyGuique]

51. I've read to the bottom of this topic and I'm in complete

agreement with you. I see a whole lot of putdowns that have nothing to do with the actions or statements of the person. If the Demos are going to attract and keep a diverse group of people, it requires all of us to have some measure of sensitivity to gender, age, and appearance issues (we manage to avoid racial stereotypes because we know those are inappropriate).

Rush is a jerk and liar, reagardless of whether or not he's fat. Same thing holds true for Michael Moore -- we rarely trash him based on his roundness. Annhole is mean and vicious and freely indulges in disparaging rhetoric--I don't want to be like her.

Bela Abzug was one of the homeliest women, yet she was a powerhouse of Demo ideals and activism. Shirley Chisholm never won a beauty contest, but her mind and spirit were an inspiration to many ordinary people. Helen Thomas has been chewing on Presidents' asses for a long long time and is a household word for even those who do not read her column; her mind and ethics remain a shining light.

However, we DO have to recognize what sells a candidate on a national election. We know that the electorate is unlikely to accept a candidate who is outside of norms for appearance, speaking manner, etc. Acknowledging the pre-existing prejudices of many people is necessary, whether we like it or not, or are willing to admit to some selective hypocrisy. We live in a world of marketing and while we can work to change it, we cannot overturn it overnight.

Just because a potential candidate may not make it through the primaries doesn't mean they don't provide a great good to the country or to the party. We need diversity at all levels of government.

[iamjoy]

56. Pretty Is As Pretty Does

Before the election I was talking with a Republican friend. Now she's basically reasonable and a nice person, but I think she has deep moral convictions that she doesn't sense from the Democratic party. Don't want to go off on a tangent here.

Anyway, she apologetically made a comment about Elizabeth Edwards, I guess contrasting how handsome John was and Elizabeth - wasn't. And I said something like, "well, physically, Elizabeth isn't what we normally think of as attractive, but that really speaks volumes about the Edwards couple, because many men in John's position might have thrown her aside for a trophy wife. Not only did he not do this, but you can see the love and affection when they are together. And, Elizabeth is very smart, devoted to her family and children's causes in general. So, I bet those who really know her say Elizabeth Edwards is a beautiful person." And she saw my point.

And some people DO call Michael Moore ugly, fat, stupid, etc. and say nasty things about Hillary Clinton's appearance.

But, as imemja said, we are supposed to be better. Making insults about somebody's physical appearance does not elevate the debate.

[XemaSab]

63. Elizabeth Edwards is good looking,

she's just not skinny.

[bread_and_roses]

57. Powerful and compelling post, and for those who take umbrage

I would just ask (even beg, I consider this so important) that you look at this as a structural, systemic issue and not as an accusation of individual misogyny. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are INSTITUTIONALIZED by a power structure that supports and benefits from discrimination. The outcome is that we swim in a sea of White,Male, and Hetero privilege; it is so much our "natural" environment that we often can't even see it. And I include myself in that "we." No one is exempt. I have sometimes found myself, for instance, laughing hysterically at some of the "attack" threads, some of which no doubt contained posts that meet the description above. (On the other hand, I think that "demon spawn" for instance is far more humorous than any insult based on facial structure.)

Anytime we use gender-based ridicule against women we are using the tools of misogyny and perpetuating the second-class citizenship of women.

I would also suggest that the use of "politically correct" as an epithet often seems to signal that there is an underlying truth that we don't wish to confront or admit.

[thedailyshow]

60. PC for me means Polite Courtesy

and nothing more than that.

[Lone Pawn]

110. PC for me means Personal Computer.

[imenja]

66. excellent reminder

and I thank you for it

[libodem]

70. You make an interesting point

Democrats are the party of inclusion. Republicans are the party of exclusion. The wealthy...excluding the rest of us. I say it's more class-ist. The disenfranchised, the poor, the working poor, the lower-middle class, the middle-middle class, the upper-middle class, against the monopolies, banks, Insurance companies, Halliburtons, Enrons, the corporations... the trouble is some of the middle and upper class think that they have something in common with the corrupt, lobbying, big money, fatcats, payoff, Republicans. I believe some of the moderate Republicans are going to come looking for a place to be heard and understood. As well as minorities be they, women, black, homosexual, atheist, criminal,or disabled or anything else not mainstream. Keeping the country safe for the minority segments is the hallmark of our type of democracy.

[Skittles]

71. I am sick of the references to BALLS on the DU

insinutating that male body parts are required for courage - sexist f***ing CRAP and very disheartening to see on the DU. And if someone says IT'S JUST AN EXPRESSION I *WILL* KICK YOUR F***ING ASS.

[Withywindle]

86. Preach it!

I know it IS just a figure of speech. But it's so damn repetitive, so stupid, so mindless, and so ignorantly insulting I feel it lowering the IQ of every thread it appears it.

Especially when a thread is riddled with one-liners like "SO-AND-SO HAS BALLS!" or 'SO-AND-SO HAS NO BALLS!' I mean, honestly. This is content? No, it's playground pointing, 12-year-old boys only.

I'm struck by that one poster way upthread who said something to the effect of "Oh but we don't use racist references! That would be over-the-top!" I agree, and I'm glad not to see 'em - but casually (really means: callously) misogynist and homophobic figures of speech are OK for some reason? Why?

[Enquiringkitty]

88. Now you've got'em sweetie!!!!

[imenja]

92. yes, I've seen that comment about Barbara Boxer

She's got more balls than the men, they say. My reply was, she doesn't need balls. She's got ovaries, but more importantly she has intelligence and courage.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

133. so why defend "idotic phrases?"

Is idiocy a goal that liberals should aspire to? I believe we have a right to expect more of ourselves.

It's a phrase that represents prejudice, that masculinity (testosterone, as you note) is a requirement for strength. Those are the same ideas that keep women from rising to the presidency in this country. Language is a manifestation of power. Post-structuralists note that discourse itself is power. Language and actions reinforce each other. Either we work for equality or prejudice. Each one of us needs to decide where we stand on the issue.

[Enquiringkitty]

87. I'm not prejudiced against any member of the Bush administration; I don't

like any of them. You can't get much more equal than that.

I don't know about women portrayed in moves not having changed. Berry was pretty strong in "Cat woman" and that leading lady in the "Terminator" movies got pretty tuff. My own personal opinion is that I don't care much to see a woman with muscles and beating up people. It's to manly and I like to think it is not in our nature to inflict pain.

I work in a male dominated industry and when I first started in 1988, I did run into men who wouldn't work with me or even talk to me. For most of the years since 1988 I have been the only woman on the crew. Today the guys are nothing but nice and in a few short days I blend right in and they don't treat me any different than any of the guys. From my point of view, things have changed for the better. I still live in a southern community where I now have male neighbors drop over with a problem with their car and ask for my advice or help to get it running again. That would never have happened in 1980.

TV ads are to sell things. Using women to sell cars and the like isn't going to stop. They will say anything or show anything to separate you from your money. Nature says that men like to look at women. I like that I still get looked at ... at my age....lol! I think that most men now interact with women on an individual basis. It is now up to us to get across to men how we want to be treated. The men I work with treat me differently than a woman who wants the money and the job but don't want to do the work ... just like they do with a lazy man. If we all go out to dinner as a crew, they treat me differently in the cafe than at work.

[imenja]

91. finding women attractive is not the issue

it is judging a woman's worth according to her appearance; it is ascribing limits to a woman's right of expression because of her gender. It is relegating women to second class citizenship.

You might like to have a look at Susan Faludi's book, _Backlash_ to see what she has to say on media images of women in relation to the rise of women's participation in the public sphere.

[gottaB]

94. I hear what you're saying, and I agree.

Thanks for posting.

[CTLawGuy]

101. Very interesting post.

I just have a couple of questions...

Regarding the incident in the airport:

1. Where did you see the black passenger specifically?
2. How was he dressed? Was he carrying baggage?
3. Would you have considered him an employee if he was sitting around in the waiting area, wearing a suit, had five carry-on bags, and was yammering away on a cell phone?

I am not trying to discount the very real presence of racism, however, the fact that racism is prevalent doesn't mean everything we do towards them is racist in fact.

Maybe your judgement WAS in fact based on racial stereotypes, I don't know. But maybe you had a good reason to think he was an employee based on how he acted. Maybe you would have thought the exact same thing if he were white.


Have you ever mistaken a white customer for an employee? I have.


I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, but I don't think you or anyone should jump to conclusions without examining an incident fully.

Finally, did he seem upset about you thinking he was an employee?

[imenja]

127. unconscious prejudice

This was many years ago, before cell phones. If I recall correctly, he was standing some feet in front of the check-in area. He may have been doing something with his own bags. I have no doubt in my mind that I unconsciously approached him because of ingrained racial assumptions. I realized it instantly, and I'm certain he did as well. I apologized, but didn't say anything like, I'm sorry I'm such a racist idiot. I felt a great sense of shame. But I feel some degree of redemption because I used that incident to reflect on my own unconscious thoughts, that I did not seek to excuse my behavior with some of the criteria you suggest above. I know what it was, and so did the man at the airport. I have heard African-Americans comment on this very sort of thing.

I have, on occasion, mistaken white people for employees: In Target, for example, when someone wears a red shirt and Khaki pants. I myself have been approached in Target when I dressed in the store's colors. That, however, has a logical explanation. The incident at the airport did not, especially since airport personnel always wear uniforms and this man was not. I am now more careful when trying to determine if someone works at a store. If I don't see a name tag, I might say, "you don't work here do you?" I no longer simply assume.

Actions such mine at the airport are very rarely intentional. Racial profiling, for example, is often not a deliberate attempt to unfairly target men of color but instead results from deeply ingrained assumptions that associate crime and blackness. The similar sorts of ideas result in the killing of men like Amado Dialo (sp?). The NY police officers did not deliberately set out to murder an African. Rather, in a flash of an instant, they reacted on a lifetime of racial prejudice that taught them to fear men of color. It's the same sort of unconscious fear that prompts one to secure one's purse or wallet when passing black men on the street. We make judgments about people within a second or two, before we have time to even form a thought. First reactions are instantaneous, and as such can reveal deep-seeded prejudices that society has instilled in us.


I gave the example of my experience at the airport because I wished to make the point that we often unthinkingly act on stereotypes, whether about people of color or women, without meaning to do so. As members of a racist and sexist society, we cannot help but be effected by prejudice. What I sought to do in my post was to suggest that DU members reflect on their unconscious assumptions and to think more deliberately about how they characterize women. I think few people mean harm in writing such posts, but I must say it does bother me how vehemently most members have reacted to my post. How dare I suggest they reflect on their prejudices? To suggest one attempt to use language that promotes equality rather than reinforces stereotypes is condemned as politically correct censorship. For me, this takes their posts beyond the unintentional expression of sexism to a deliberate effort to demean women.

[No Exit]

185. Okay, I read this post...

You said, "What I sought to do in my post was to suggest that DU members reflect on their unconscious assumptions and to think more deliberately about how they characterize women."

Okay, well, let me talk about outside DU for a moment, if you'll permit me. I kind of like it when some person unthinkingly acts on their unconscious assumptions and suddenly is surprised to find that their unconscious assumptions were dead wrong. I'm kind of amused by it. People who assume they know everything, just by someone's appearance, are fun to laugh at.
Assumptions can be pitfalls, and they should only be used when fast action is required and there is no way to check or double-check the truth before acting. I can think of one especially riveting example of someone's assumption failing him: in the 70's, a (male) mugger in New Orleans ran at an elderly woman and tried to snatch her purse. She shot him. It turns out that the elderly woman had been a member of the French resistance and she still remembered a lot of things she had learned about personal safety during that era. The story made the papers and I admit I laughed--without feeling any pity for the poor bleeding mugger.

He had assumed that she and her purse were easy pickings. If only muggers read newspapers, many of them could have learned something that day: an elderly woman is not always a victim waiting to be picked off.

There will always be unthinking people like that mugger. Trying to change the inside of each and every one of their brains is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility. I prefer to watch them screw up and then laugh at them.

[Lone Pawn]

108. Help me understand this.

So I can call Lieberman a hideous little troll, I can call Wolfowitz an ugly imp, I can say Rummy looks like death incarnate, I can say Michael Savage looks like a sleazy child-support-evader, and I can call Hannity a jut-jawed, dressed-up ape, but I can't insult the appearance of Ann Coulter just because she's a woman? Oh, come on.

[imenja]

111. Why help you?

It's clear you have no desire to understand.

[Lone Pawn]

113. Not understanding your argument does not mean I do not wish to.

I have posted what I believe the flaw in your argument as applies to me is, and ask you to reconcile it with your theory, as I do not believe you have sufficiently done so yet. Do not assume that does not mean I am not interested in your reasoning.

[imenja]

116. your post didn't address my argument at all

My comments were about gendered stereotypes. Not the run of the mill idiotic comment you expressed here.

[thedailyshow]

117. hey...

:hug: I'm glad you brought this up, but I'm also disheartened by the fact that some DU posters here want to cling onto their last acceptable prejudice. Your attempt in bringing this to light and challenging some of the posters on their approach has predictably brought upon cries of "Meanie! The PC police is at it again" like little boys who've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

*shakes head* pathetic.

[omega minimo]

118. R-E-S-P-E-C-T Find out what it means to

Apparently the slam against Coulter is that she is so hideous (inside and out) that she can't be a woman, she's a man!

If you insult the appearance of someone, there are ways to do it. PC is not the issue. It is whether we choose to use bigoted cliches, generalizations, stereotypes while doing so.

Sexism = bigotry. Someone might use "pink tutu" or "no balls" who would never think of using "watermelon" or "jungle bunny" terms. While the latter may sound vegetal or warm and fuzzy, they have deeply embedded symbolism and are innately offensive.

DU'ers are a creative and clever lot and tweaking language while we prank the Wrong Wing is half the fun.

Women will be better off in a world where our partners and comrades are able to express their ideas without denigrating femaleness. The bullies are running things and that is what needs to change. We can start by not using language that bullies.

BTW for anyone interested in what women are referring to in media images of women: check out the "CSI:___" franchise which has built an industry on the backs of sexually violated and brutalized young women as sexy corpses. The blatant blurbs on the "CSI" commercials about the innovatively dispicable things that have been done to them (and the fact these ad images are inserted into other programs, at times when boys and girls are watching TV) tells you everything you need to know.

:kick:

[bloom]

121. "tweaking language" - it's also part of framing

maybe if people realized it is part of the political agenda - they might "get it".

PC - "politically correct" seems to also suggest "politcally liberal" - so why run away from that.


Another site posted today that hits on this:

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001185.php#1185

[omega minimo]

122. Framing yes, I also meant the creative word play that DU'ers love

and some posters above mentioned, in claiming their right to make up clever names for Bush&Co., Wrong Wing talking heads, etc.

"Politically correct" as a phrase was poisoned by Limbaugh the Hut and his ilk early on. It was turned around and used against us by those who choose to miss the point on purpose. I like "polite courtesy" (posted above) but I call it R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Now "politically correct" is used in a derogatory way even by those on the left who may not realize how its meaning was perverted or "reframed" by the Limbaughnazis.

Thanks for the heads up: "Stephen J. Ducat Dissects "Anxious Masculinity," Making Sense of America's Strutting, in a Psychoanalytic Kind of Way"
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/03/int05011.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Saw it on Buzzflash. Very timely. As is this thread. Definitely relevant to "framing."

We can invent new metaphors and catchwords for the new direction we're going.

:hi:

[imenja]

128. Exactly. What's wrong with Annthrax Coultergeist?

That's clever in itself. What does the M add other than reflect a stereotype of what constitutes womanhood?

[omega minimo]

138. Right, that's the extra (unnecessary?) twist of the knife-sharp wit

Bloom made a good point: "...maybe if people realized it is part of the political agenda - they might "get it"."

And if someone "gets it" they may attack A.C.'s statements, not her gender.

Thanks for raising this discussion, imenja. Its an important aspect of framing. Especially if we want our language to be consistent with our values.

[imenja]

141. Masculinity and the Republican convention

Perhaps you could post your piece about the Republican convention on a separate link so more people will have a chance to read it?

[durutti]

148. Good post.

Now, how long 'til someone tars you with that tired "PC" label?

[imenja]

150. oh they already have

about thirty of them. Some of the responses have been VERY defensive.

[Eloriel]

153. Imenja

You've done a wonderful job in this thread. I salute you. What I've read of it, you've kept your cool (which is not possible for me to do on this subject) and conducted yourself admirably.

I find it discouraging in the extreme that we have to have these discussions with men (and some women) who are purportedly on our side. But I suppose that's not so unusual for us women; after all, some of us have lived with people who say they love us and yet beat us, and even kill us. Few on their side sees this all of a piece, but it is.

I just wanted to salute you and to draw your attention to a quote I embedded in my response to soemone upthread. My subject line "Yes, we're asking you to self-censor..."

This thread is getting too big for my dial-up connection to handle comfortably, and I'm about up to here with it anyway, so I'm bowing out. Keep up the great work. And thanks.

Edit: here's another terribly salient quote from the article I linked to in my post referenced. It goes to the kind of anti-woman language I most abhor here, calling women on the right names like whore, bitch, slut, etc. In my opinion there is absolutely no excuse for that to be allowed on a progressive discussion board:

There is no greater power than the power to define. If you can determine how people use language, you really are able to determine how they think.

Democrats, including plenty of DUers, are all atwitter about the "framing" and "reframing" issue. I don't think they've made the connection to how they use language to keep women down. Nor, as we both know, do they really want to.

[imenja]

154. thanks

I've haven't felt like I was keeping my cool, but I erased the more acerbic remarks before posting them. I appreciate your support.

[spooky3]

168. well put, Eloriel, and imenja, thank you.

[ArtVandaley]

157. Agree for the most part, perhaps you're taking things too seriously though

I think that often we demonize our opponents so much that sometimes some people try to insult them in every way possible and go a bit overboard. Calling certain women whores (which I have seen in a few posts) for no reason other than a disagreement in policy is very degrading to women.I think the line between anti-Israel and anti-Semmitism is crossed even more often, but I won't get into that. The line is often crossed and all should be carefull not to insult a whole group for the mistake of one person, it's a very simple rule.
However, I think sometimes a sense of humor is needed. If I were to call Condi an "ugly bitch" it would cause some to get upset, citing sexism; whereas if I called Rush a "fat ugly bastard" it would be applauded. (For the record, I have never called Condi an ugly bitch, this just an example) I think that equality is a two way street and you can't hold women to different standards than men. If one individual bad woman is mocked in whatever fashion, that does not mean that particular insult applies to all women. Think of it like this: if the same was said about a man, would it be considered a slam on his entire gender? If the answer is no and some women are still offended, then that means that women and men certainly aren't equal at all, which is very sad.

[imenja]

158. if the same were said about men and women it wouldn't be a problem

but that is not the case. One comment next to each other seems harmless, but that is not the reality of such portrays on this website or in the media more generally. For every one comment about Rush's appearance there are twenty about a woman's appearance. Many are simply unable to consider anything about a woman beyond her appearance and their own ideas of femininity.

edit: I agree on the anti-semitism on DU. I have reported countless anti-semitic posts to the administrators, who delete them. Sexist posts are not treated with the same degree of concern. They are commonplace.

[bloom]

160. language usage shows

that women and men are not valued the same.

He's got Balls ( or she's got balls, even) vs. He's a Pussy ( or she's a pussy).

The feminine traits are used disparagingly. That's a fact and progressives, if anybody - should be aware of it.

Also - while I don't subscribe to the notion that woman's worth in based on her looks - while men's worth is not - much of society reinforces that viewpoint. So it can sound like people are reinforcing that notion whether they intend to or not.


I don't think that mocking men and women equally does anything to make them more equal. Maybe some people see it that way - but I don't.

The simple solution is to argue against the ideas as the OP suggested.

[lukasahero]

163. Excellent post and example! Everyone fighting here should read this. eom

[pedestrian]

159. Thank you for this post, Imenja,

I agree wholeheartedly.

Apart from the sexist namecalling, argument-by-namecalling in general spoils many otherwise good threads at DU. Discussions sometimes degenerate into veritable competitions in name-calling, as if having a really bad nickname added anything to anybody's crime. It's too much like the style of argument at FreeRepublic, where posters seem to think that if Hillary rhymes with Pillory that really tells all we need to know about the person, and if Scary (almost...) rhymes with Kerry we'd better beware of the guy. DU-ers commit similar silliness in calling the previous Sec of State 'Colon Bowel' - how would that ever change anybody's opinion of him? My post is a bit off at a tangent here, I guess, but anyway.

'Annthrax Coultergeist', unfortunately, seems so accurate that I find myself grinning in spite of myself. It would be better if we could stick to the facts of what she has said, but, well... :D

The Pedestrian

[BobbyinPortland]

162. If you really think they're being attacked JUST

because they are women, you're WAY off base.

Man Coulter, Condasleeza Rice and The First Mannequin are all just as bad as their male conterparts or worse, simply because they play on the "women's rights" platform, but they spew vile and hatred by either backing their men blindly and silently, or casting aspersions that they have to make up and pretend are real.

[lukasahero]

164. I don't believe the argument is about the attack so much as it is

the "means" of the attack. The attacks are more superficial on these women (as a rule) than they are on the men - ugly, unfashionable (as if that's something to judge the value of a person on), etc.

I think the OP was suggesting that there are plenty of reasons to despise these women but relying on juvenile "she's ugly" taunts and insults not only diminishes the quality of our argument, it also supports the idea that women (in general) should be judged on their appearance rather than their actual abilities (or lack thereof).

Condi should be fired for her incompetence. Can't we just stick to saying that rather than devolving into silly insults about her looks?

Coulter is the most vile despicable human waste I have ever had the displeasure of knowing about. Isn't that enough or do we also have to suggest a lack of feminity on her part - as if the level of femininity in a woman is truly the most important measure of her worth not the validity (or lack) of her ideas and opinions?

[imenja]

166. exactly what I mean Lukashero.

Thanks for the very succinct explanation. I agree entirely.

[imenja]

165. you miss my point

They are being attacked because of their political views, but the forms those attacks take are gendered. Why is that necessary? What does that achieve? Since we dislike what they say, why not develop critiques based on their ideas or character, as is more often the case for male public figures? Let's focus on what disturbs us about these individuals rather than relying on sexist stereotypes. Engaging in a little thought from time to time never hurt anyone. We might be able to develop more useful critiques if we think more carefully about what it is that bothers us about these particular women.

Satire can serve an important political purpose, but to be effective it must be intelligent and political relevant. These tired stereotypes are neither. I've never hurt Jon Stewart rely on such banalities. He's far too smart for that.

[T Town Jake]

170. What you REALLY mean could be summed up thus:

..."if you disagree with me, shut the hell up."

And without all the silly academic verbiage, at that.

For the record, I decline to tailor my freedom of expression to your whims. But whine carry on, to your heart's content. Like most liberals, I believe in free speech even for those whom would try to curtail it if they only had the power to enforce their dreary little codes of language conduct...Right or Left.

[sniffa]

171. and we demean retards and drug addicts

when criticizing bush.

[FizzFuzz]

174. Thank you imenja et al. I wish I were so eloquent.

And calmly determined.

I've made some of the same points myself (though not as well and fully thought out), and been greeted with the same mix--people who get it and people who really do seem to want to grasp onto that one last group they can always demean and belittle because it's OK to do so. You'd think dissing women and those who stand up for women as respect-worthy human beings gives them some sort of ego-pumping thrill, wouldn't you?

Anywya, I didn't participate in this thread because it was getting me too angry.

Thank you again for keeping the light shining on this issue.

[No Exit]

177. Politics is a dirty, filthy business

and any person who chooses to take part must be ready for attacks of all kinds, including pathetic attacks on their looks.

During Nixon's term and a half, there were extensive attacks on his looks. Now, during George W. Bush's demented reign, there are constant comparisons of his looks with those of our less-evolved simian relatives.

Many times a man who struts too much is referred to as having some sort of "anxiety" over the (small) size of his penis.

In my sociology class eons ago, our black teacher told us that blacks have an expression they use: "very white". This apparently referred to white people with whom they just couldn't find very much in common, no matter how much they might try.

John Kerry was subject to personal attacks which claimed he was some vain prima donna who had had botox treatments. The colors of the clothes Al Gore wore while on the campaign trail were the subject of extensive discussion and criticism--as was the appearance of Gore's crotch.

Bill Clinton was called fat. His nose, reddened by rosacaea, was ridiculed. Robert Reich was ridiculed because of his size. James Carville's looks have been the subject of ridicule.

Trying to shield women or non-whites from such typical dirty politics is in itself a type of discrimination. Shielding them in this way makes their participation in politics less than complete. I don't believe anyone's aspirations should be limited in this way.

[omega minimo]

180. There's a simple point here

and it keeps getting sidelined; perhaps because imenja eloquently combines it with criticism of personal attacks based on appearance/gender... However, the point is made repeatedly in this thread, and imenja nailed it just above here:

"Let's focus on what disturbs us about these individuals rather than relying on sexist stereotypes."

Rather Thank Relying On Sexist Stereotypes. That's it. Simple.

The discussion about one's "right" to comment on appearance is one thing. Relying On Sexist Stereotypes is something else.

I have joined the thread above with my take on this. When the comments and word play gel into a term that gets repeated play and has embedded sexist attitudes-- THAT is the problem. I got yer pink tutu right here....

No one here is advocating:
"Trying to shield women or non-whites from such typical dirty politics is in itself a type of discrimination. Shielding them in this way makes their participation in politics less than complete. I don't believe anyone's aspirations should be limited in this way."

This statement smacks of the "reverse racism" arguments of the anti-affirmative action contingent. Or those who accuse "liberals" of being racist for opposing Rice, Gonzalez and other Bush appointees. Bush saying it is racist of people to "think Iraqis can't have self-determination...." (as if anyone suggested this, ever).

It is also a (potential-- I don't accuse you of this) tactic for missing the point on purpose. Another thing I will not say about you but about some of the most defensive voices on this thread, with hackles up about their right to diss as they please...

they seem to be male voices that have not taken any time to consider what it is like from a FEMALE point of view. Those who refuse to see that sexist bigotry is identical to racist bigotry.

[Bridget Burke]

181. This female voice has noticed that men have been critiqued ....

for their looks here, as well as women.

It's a bit frivolous but I don't find it offensive.

[omega minimo]

182. Repeat: Rather Than Relying On Sexist Stereotypes. That's it. Simple.

Rather Than Relying On Sexist Stereotypes. That's it. Simple.

#1. The discussion about one's "right" to comment on appearance is one thing.





#2. Relying On Sexist Stereotypes is something else.






I have joined the thread above with my take on this. When the comments and word play gel into a term that gets repeated play and has embedded sexist attitudes-- THAT is the problem. I got yer pink tutu right here....



When the comments and word play gel into a term that gets repeated play and has embedded sexist attitudes-- THAT is the problem.

[No Exit]

184. You are advocating censorship.

My apologies, but I don't much like censorship.

A wild ride is a wild ride. And that's what famous people get. Please don't wring your hands over this too much. Condi will get over the "sexist" comments, and Laura will recover from someone having said her rear end is too fat, or whatever. Hillary seems to have well endured all the petty little words that have been thrown at her, including those which insulted her based on her gender.

Words are very important in a forum like this, and there are enough limits to our communication without the imposition of "sensitivity" limits. I just don't agree that people should be told how to express themselves. Furthermore, when someone DOES make a "sexist" or "racist" remark, it is only a matter of seconds before their fellow posters take them to task. Ostracism by the group is a far more effective control than is the autocratic setting down of rules on how one may express their thoughts or emotions.

That is my opinion, and I don't appreciate being chided for some imagined intolerance or lack of devotion to feminism or for some other ism.

[omega minimo]

186. No

No. I'm not doing any of the things you imagine. Perhaps you are replying to the voice of the OP or the entire thread. If you read my posts, I don't believe I have tried to impose anything on anyone. In fact, several of my posts have acknowledged the voices here that claim the right to self expression. (The disclaimers in my reply to your post were intended to avoid ruffling your feathers-- sorry).

I did try to clarify a difference between the OP's comments on personal judgements based on genderized physical appearance-- and the phenomenon that I have noticed on DU of using "pink tutu wing of the Democratic party" to convey weakness or inferiority. That's the kind of language that could use some (self) reflection.

Ideally, we each would use language consistent with our individual values. Consistency, and whatever self-awareness it takes to get there, can't be imposed.

[No Exit]

187. The "pink tutu wing"

My opinion: sometimes a pink tutu is just a pink tutu.

"Ideally, we each would use language consistent with our individual values. Consistency, and whatever self-awareness it takes to get there, can't be imposed."

Now that is something I can agree with!

[No Exit]

183. Pardon me, let me take the time to consider it from a FEMALE point of view

... my own.

I look back and I see patriarchy. Then I see feminism.

I get to choose. Oh, goody. One form of slavery vs. another form of slavery.

Let me make this perfectly clear: I am a female doing a job which was traditionally done by men. And I don't give a good goddamn if some man whom I've pissed off while doing said job decides to christen me "the bitch" or "fat-ass". I knew what I was doing when I entered this profession. To them I say, bring it on.

And I don't need rules against "sexism" to protect me from other human beings. One often overlooked point is that the "oppressors"--the "racists" and "sexists" are human beings, just as are the "victims". IOW, we are equals. That fact does not change WHETHER IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED OR NOT. So talk talk talk, and try to limit the WAY others talk, it doesn't make a damn. The truth remains the truth.

[kodi]

188. i would submit the problem is more classism than sexism or racism

the "Left" for all its alleged care about the welfare of humanity deals with the underclass as a red haired step child, ignorant and in need of a vanguard of the revolution or ntellectual overclass to protect its interests.

what drives this is the attitude that poor folk are too dumb to look out for their own self interests and a complete misunderstanding of what it is to live poor.

it is hard for me to accept well-fed, college educated leftists braying on about poverty and injustice when they themselves are the children of societal privilidge who wear their concern about humanity as a fashion item.

when the likes of ted kennedy, a man who never went to bed hungry in his entire life and will never have to worry about paying his health care bills or car loan is the epitome of liberalism, one does not need to wonder why liberalism is considered a joke by those on the other side of the chasm.

[omega minimo]

189. On behalf of Red Haired Stepchildren everywhere!

:hi: just kidding. At first I thought it was funny that you used that imagery-- then realized it makes the point about common use cliches that telegraph attitudes and social commentary embedded within them. (My example: "pink tutu wing").

When you say "the "Left" for all its alleged care about the welfare of humanity deals with the underclass as a red haired step child," the cliche conveys the image of exclusion. The ultimate cliche for the unwanted, the misfit, the Other, the outcast branded by birth, by appearance, (even some recent news reports that red-heads may be descendents of the Neanderthal branch of the human tree).

IT IS THE EXCLUSIONARY EFFECT OF I'll stop yelling, sorry-- thoughtlessly biased language that makes it objectionable. It is the ability of those who it does not exclude (say, certain privileged white males) to act like it's no big deal, "deal with it," that YES, needs to be addressed if it appears on DU and NO, that is not censorship.

The concept is in your signature quote, kodi!
“There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home.”
----John Stuart Mill
 
Unless someone is female, they don't know what that experience is like and may need to pause a moment and REFLECT on what that means. Like a non-Afroamerican would need to, to try to fathom immersion in that history. And like I did when I read NoExits comments that reflect a different situation, and her chosen way of dealing with it.

RE: Classism: good point, especially if the analogy is drawn from "underclass" to "second class" status for non-white, non-males.

Having experienced the over-educated, over-privileged, toxic-level neurotic shennanigans within the non-profit culture, I appreciate your nugget, "children of societal privilege who wear their concern about _____ as a fashion item."

This resonates with the simple level I tried to draw this down to: actions and words being consistent with values and principles. I believe the word is Integrity. If that DU Buddhism Group ever got going it would be interesting to hear that perspective on the power of language/action/princple. I'll say it: it is a powerful force, people. My attitudes on this are colored by my belief that successful "framing" will be founded on truth, not manipulation.

In perusing this excellent thread again, I found that Imenja underlined her original statement with a simple summation:

"If we want to make the world a better place, if we want to challenge the inequality that pervades our society, we must start with ourselves. Language matters. Each of us needs to decide which side of the power structure we want our words to serve."

[kodi]

190. glad you saw the validity of my sig line to this discussion

Now to that "integrity" thang>>>

The one, great positive message Jesus repeatedly tried to express was the thought that no individual could know themself unless their inner honesty was complete. The peace he talked about was of an inner peace based upon integrity.

The way to it was through truth and through the abandonment of preoccupation with temporal matters, with worldly goods, with trade and gain. While he did not overlook the necessity of objective living, he admonished against considering a life oriented wholly outward to matter as a satisfying life.

The light he to which he so often made reference was the light of truth, inner truth.

Thomas II: 20. Saying (3) “Jesus said, ‘ If those who lead you say to you, “See, the kingdom is in the sky, then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea, then the fish will precede you.’ Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father.”

No person, according to him, could know themself unless they knew all the inferior and negative aspects of themself. A person who did not know themself could not in anyway trust what they thought about other people or the world.

This first obviously essential step of self-knowledge (Gnosis) leads to further developments of wisdom and understanding which could be followed to the outermost capacity of each individual and which in the case of most deeply reasoning, honest and imaginative individuals would lead to a transcendental experience.

His premise was that an individual is able through self-honesty and integrity to follow the elements of his/her subjective nature to their outermost boundaries. There any one would find the boundary infinite and immortal.

Jesus took the very solid position that unless you know who you are you don’t know what you are thinking about and you can only find out who you are by a difficult job of detachment and self appraisal.

This is precisely what Freud, Adler, Jung, and others have rediscovered.

btw: The red hair gene is a mutation arising circa 30,000-40,000bce.

[omega minimo]

191. I love redheads

I love redheads, "deeply reasoning, honest and imaginative individuals" and the occasional transcendental experience.

I'd venture that actions integrated with spirit, standing in our truth, are central to every spiritual tradition.

As is the Golden Rule. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Which is, of course, central to getting the point of this discussion.

Another poster's sig line in this thread had a quote about "walking in another's shoes." It's simple. Doesn't mean it's easy.

Found a great bumper sticker today:
"Non-judgment day is coming."

[highlonesome]

193. Garcia, Lennon, Orwell and Mill. What a crew!

The other important thing to note is that all these religions of the Children of Abraham -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam -- could also be called the "free will religions" in that, if you think about it, are the first religions of civilization that fully recognize human free will.

I think that's important.

http://craicpipe.blogspot.com/

[highlonesome]

192. I like you, Kodi

People like you speaking up will get the Democrats back on track and maybe winning an election.

I'm beginning to think the first woman president will be a Republican!

Whoda thunk it?!

http://craicpipe.blogspot.com/

[QC]

194. You rock, kodi!

Excellent post! Class is truly the elephant in America's living room.