This post was removed by request of the author.
|
This entry was posted
by Pseudo-Adrienne and is filed under Anti-feminists and their pals, Elections and politics, Feminism, sexism, etc, neoconservative zaniness, Pres. Bush, etc..
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
You could, with just as much validity, frame this as “liberals and leftists are obsessed with perpetuating these gender role stereotypes.
Bush didn’t say that he had made Putin his “bitch” - MEDIA GIRL did.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
Oh, no doubt it isn’t non-prevalent in the Democratic party as well, just not nearly as bad.
But yes, with people like Kos, it’s kind of hard to point the finger at conservatives being the only offenders.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Anti-feminism includes hyper masculinism. Anti-feminism is conservative. Many conservatives use insults that insinuate that thier opponents are feminine.
QED.
Heck, female conservatives insult female liberals by implying that the liberals are masculine. It’s all about gender roles, men dominating women, and not being dominated by women.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Every time I see one of the wingnuts pounding their chests and celebrating what a manly man Bush is (in sptie of the fact that he was a male cheerleader, not usually considered the most macho of activities) I hear the voice of Jane Goodall whispering “look, the charge of the silverback!”
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.It’s no coincidence that Bush looks like a monkey.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
Or, to put it another way, for people who don’t believe in evolution they seem to be going out of their way to prove it’s validity.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
I personally am impressed with this media girl publication. This is the first time I have heard of it, but the insight was very bristling. I especially chuckled at thie opening paragraph (tee hee -see I’m trying to show my feminine side, giggling like a school girl-tee hee)
“Conservative macho chic is in. We’ve seen it in Bush, how he tries to swagger when he walks. (We try to ignore how his manner of walking looks like he has something rammed up his backside.) We saw it in the debates, where his smirking Beavis-and-Butthead-like nervous chuckles tried to mask his belligerence, and where he shook Kerry’s hand in a way that said, “I can take you!”? (Wingnuts, if physical prowess is what people want in a President, then why not nominate Mike Tyson?)”
Who ever knew that women could be so funny?! Up until this point, all women were naked to me (I underessed them all with my eyes).
I tell you I am learning more about women every day. First I learn they can speak, and now make jokes, I tell you, what is next? Maybe one day I will even have a conversation with a woman.
You go girl!!!
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
BritGirl:
you didn’t have to put it another way, “Every time I see one of the wingnuts pounding their chests and celebrating what a manly man Bush is . . . I hear the voice of Jane Goodall whispering “look, the charge of the silverback!”” was the perfect description. I’m glad I emptied my bladder before I read it.
This comment was written by ol cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
Robert, you’re right — I said it. They did it. They still do it. Femiphobia runs rampant in this country, but especially openly on the right. The joke is the accusation that we feminists are perpetuating stereotypes by pointing out stereotypes in our politics and culture. Is that kind of like blaming rape on rape clinics?
Kim, I heartily agree!
BritGirlSF, that is hysterical!
Pseudo-Adrienne, thanks for the plug!
This comment was written by media girl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
GOP Tax-cutting guru Grover Norquist had this to say recently about his fellow-Republicans:
Speaking to the same group a few hours later, party strategist Grover Norquist lambasted three Republicans who broke party ranks over the issue of judicial filibusters. He referred to them as “the two girls from Maine and the nut-job from Arizona” - Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and John McCain.
Sounds pretty “macho” to me.
http://asilentcacophony.blogspot.com
This comment was written by dK.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
Heh, two ‘girls’. Since when were we allowing adolescent females into politics. No, nothing offensive or chauvinist about that statement.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
MediaGirl;
Great posts on KoS! :)
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
Thanks everyone. I’m blushing … and I’m not even naked.
This comment was written by media girl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
BritGirlSF:
Every time I see one of the wingnuts pounding their chests and celebrating what a manly man Bush is (in sptie of the fact that he was a male cheerleader, not usually considered the most macho of activities) I hear the voice of Jane Goodall whispering “look, the charge of the silverback!”? It’s no coincidence that Bush looks like a monkey.
1) What reason could you have for bringing up the fact that he was a cheerleader, other than attempting to access the same meme that this thread decries?
2) Do you think that comparing a person to an animal constitutes an argument? If I say that Robin Morgan is sneaky, and then back it up by pointing out that she looks like a ferret, am I being witty, or am I being an ass?
(FTR I have no idea what Ms. Morgan looks like.)
- - - - - - - - - -
Josh Jasper:
Anti-feminism includes hyper masculinism. Anti-feminism is conservative. Many conservatives use insults that insinuate that thier opponents are feminine. QED.
QE huh? “Anti-feminism is conservative. ” That’s why the most visible anti-conservative - you know, the guy with a half-million web followers - is posting about how the feminists should shut up and stop distracting the people from the real issues - you know, the ones that men care about.
If Kos - and the thousands just like him on the left - is “conservative”, then sign me up for the Young Spartacus Brigade.
Many conservatives are anti-feminism. So are many liberals. Our team just doesn’t try to BS women about our beliefs. Many conservatives do indeed use feminizing insults. So do many liberals.
- - - - - - - - - -
media girl:
The joke is the accusation that we feminists are perpetuating stereotypes by pointing out stereotypes in our politics and culture. Is that kind of like blaming rape on rape clinics?
Pointing out, OK fine. But you aren’t “pointing out” a stereotype when you yourself initiate the stereotype. You’re using the stereotype - accessing the meme as an ordinary user, not as some ironic commentator. When you called Putin Bush’s “bitch”, the context of claiming that other, wicked, people make that kind of sexist argument is undermined.
See BritGirl’s comment above - “how can Bush be manly when he was a CHEERLEADER!” Same kind of thing.
- - - - - - - - - -
It’s all very well to work against the devaluation of women in language; I’m more or less on y’all’s side, there. And I surely concede that there are folks on my side of most things that I wish would shut up with the girl jokes. But pretending that your side has no motes in its eye has gotta be counterproductive for the task, no?
Because people can read and remember, and there’s no shortage of “good guys” doing the same damn thing. Criticize the bad behavior qua bad behavior, and all its specific perpetrators, not the set of people who engage in the bad behavior and who happen to be on the wrong side of the partisan fence.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
Our team just doesn’t try to BS women about our beliefs.
Oh, foo. You know this is BS.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
Mythago, how many left-wing men have you met who claim to be feminist or pro-feminist or what have you?
And what portion of them are full of shit?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Robert, I wasn’t talking about just the language, but the entire ethos that’s being presented. The fact that it seems to work for so many Americans I feel is telling. Especially so when it came to perceptions that decorated war veteran Kerry was the wimp and draft-dodging chicken hawk Bush was the tough guy.
I don’t get so worked up about words themselves — I’m from the “sticks and stones” generation — but rather what the words and behaviors reveal about our culture. And let’s face it, our culture is severely femiphobic. The Rove-Bush crowd has taken it to a point where even simple thought and reflection is feared as a sign of weakness.
This kind of rhetorical posing, however, can and does lead to violent outcomes. That’s why not all speech is protected. Some of it is incitement to riot, to murder, to create mayhem — like the bumper stickers in the original post (the images aren’t in the quoted text above).
Anyway, I wasn’t initating any stereotype. My training is in media, where we learn early on that people hear what they see. (I just saw “Out to Sea” and loved hearing that line in that film!) JFK’s people knew that in 1960. Reagan knew it in 1980. You can be damn sure Bush and Rove know what they’re doing in 2005.
The question is, Can any of us talk about it without being accused of being sexist?
This comment was written by media girl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
Talk about it, yes.
Do it, no.
You can talk about how racists use the word “nigger”, and you can give examples. When you make up your own examples, and you yourself start calling black people “nigger”, then you’re not talking about it anymore.
But that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
You’re right about not calling Bush a cheerleader, or a chimp, not helping arguments.
But do you ever look at him and think his features look a bit…siminan?
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 10:55 pm
But do you ever look at him and think his features look a bit…siminan?
Sure. He looks a bit like an ape. News flash: so do you. So do I.
Not much like one; but, enough to give our pattern-loving brains a match.
I blame cartoonists for this. (Everything is the fault of cartoonists, the most feared and powerful of all social groups.) It’s just so easy to draw Teddy Kennedy as a pig; it’s just so right. Even a slight resemblance makes the caricature flow.
One thing I like about Amp’s cartoons is that he draws people as people. The ranting right-wing Republican father is a guy. The lesbian feminist is a gal. I suspect that this has its roots in an implicit manifestation of Amp’s stated philosophy of trying to be kind to people, even people we don’t like. (I try to follow that philosophy too; not very well, though.)
Either that, or he can’t draw animals.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
Antigone, re-reading that, “News flash” comes across as snarky. It was intended to be funny, not snarky. Sorry ’bout that.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
Robert, I wasn’t disagreeing with you about the liberal/conservative thing. I was disagreeing with the ‘at least we’re honest’ line.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
I can get as snarky as the next gal. I’ll own up to using sharp language, especially in a rant. I laugh at portrayals of Bush as a chimp, but I don’t call him a chimp. I’ll call him a liar and idiot. Really, if we want to talk caricatures, he’s more like Beavis.
However I still do not believe I was being sexist in pointing out the macho ethos many of the loudest and most powerful conservatives are putting forth. Yes, I used the word “bitch” to describe an image — but that’s the real message I see. I don’t know if Putin even realized it. Through the macho cultural lens of our politics these days, he appeared weak like a woman. How? By letting himself be manipulated into the spouse image in photo op after photo op.
This comment was written by media girl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
I’m with Media Girl on this one. I live in the Bay Area. I do not habitually insult people based on their deviation from gender norms. Hell, I’m more likely to praise people for it. However, hypocrisy is fair game. Which is what the Bush the cheerleader comment was meant to point out - the whole Republican Machismo thing is essentially advertising. It’s designed to appeal to people’s worst instincts. People who swoon over Bush in his flight suit wouldn’t much care for less than macho images of him, which is exactly why leftists should use them.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.I would rather go after him on his fake “just regular folks” persona, but we’ve tried that and it doesn’t seem to be working. It isn’t going to work as long as Americans insist on pretending that they don’t have a class system.
And snark is a perfectly acceptable political tool. In fact, I think leftists need to snark at and undermine and mock the Right a great deal more often. Starting with Tucker Carlson and his idiotic bow tie - does he think he’s a character in “Metropolitan”?
The point is, why should we feel obliged to be nice? The other side has been anything but nice for a very long time, but they keep insisting that WE should be sensitive about their feelings. Bullshit. MediaGirl, you have nothing to apologise for.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Maybe we’re supposed to be nice because we’re girls? ;)
This comment was written by media girl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 12:05 am
Maybe you’re supposed to be nice because you’re people.
Snark is effective, in the short run. In the long term it seems to drive people away. I encourage you to engage in short-term thinking. ;)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 1:16 am
That sounds reasonable in the abstract, Robert, but the (very well organized) right wing media has been doing the ideological equivalent of beating the hell out of liberals with a baseball bat for years. When Limbaugh, Hannitty, Rove and friends agree to stop the mud-slinging and treat politics like a civlized conversation between reasonable adults I will be delighted to join them. Until that happens, the left needs to start fighting back.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Of course I understand why you would like us to be nice and not point out when the Emperor has no clothes. However, given your ideological position, I’m sure you’ll understand why I am likely to take any advice on strategy from you with a very large grain of salt.
Besides, really, for anyone on the Right who doesn’t like it when leftists say nasty things about Republicans I have one thing to - Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. That was about the most nasty, underhanded piece of policial rhetoric I’ve ever seen. That and the rumor-mongering abotu John McCain’s “black baby”. Compared to that comments about Bush in a cheerleading outfit are positively gushy.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 2:00 am
Hi,
I may not articulate this very well and hope it is not going to be very long but I am really glad you have this subject up for debate right now. I am in the middle of reading the Second Sex after having just gone through the Feminine Mystique. I live in a very patriarchal male-dominated society (Cairo, Egypt). I am an American woman, who was raised on the West Coast by extremely liberal parents.
I guess the reason for me to post those things may not be obvious to people but I am trying to give context on my own values/assumptions so that my opinions or assertions may be easier to get.
OK, on to the assertions: It continues to shock and surprise me when people belittle each other using words that seem to be equating belittling with women. It especially shocks me when “liberals” do it.
I sort of expect the chest beating conservative idiots like those quoted in the Media Girl comment in the original post above, to try to get away with this (”The democrats are throwing a hissy fit” e.g.) because they are anti-women scum of the earth.
But when Steve Gilliard or Kos or some of the Atrios posters say things like “George Bush is such a cheerleading wuss” or “the chickenhawks are pussies” and then a bunch of other (mainly male) people go “yeah!” it just makes me shocked. I just can’t get why it’s so easy for them to slip into that exact same mindset. Bush is a murderous torture apologist lying scum. For heaven’s sake, isn’t that bad enough? Why is his being a “wuss” or a “cheerleader” #1, relevant, and #2, even considered an insult to him, unless you’re trying to say he is a “feminine man” and THAT’s BAD? Or to put it another way, Why are you using this sort of language to feminize his flaws? That’s an insult to women.
Then when women on these comment threads or in e-mails call someone on this, they get really reamed for it and it ends up with another set of posts by “serious” men liberal bloggers on how we should all be united against the enemy (bush et al) instead of wrangling, and it is the women’s fault for this wrangling. Where are our (women’s) friends? Why don’t liberal guys understand this? It actually is not that HARD. Using feminizing adjectives as specific insults to be used against men, is just saying basically that women are inferior to men and you, a man, are acting like an inferior woman. You can’t say that, it’s wrong.
This comment was written by Anna in Cairo.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 2:56 am
Also, comparing Bush or Rove sort of behavior with the behavior of a dominant silverback to me is NOT wrong. There is a good deal in common between the two. If apes were a constituency, and if they were part of the social contract, it would be wrong because it would be insulting *them*.
But the using of feminizing adjectives to me is wrong not because it is demeaning to the bad-behaved person (e.g. bush or whoever) but because it is demeaning to women and the subcontext is so clearly that anything identified with women is somehow bad or associated with mockery.
This comment was written by Anna in Cairo.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 3:06 am
Robert, context matters. Using words like “nigger” or “bitch” to criticize the (percieved) bigotry of public figures towards blacks and women is not the same thing as using those same words to directly attack blacks and women.
When an anti-racist activist, characterizing the way white society views blacks, says “no matter how successful or accomplished you may be, in a racist society you’re still just another nigger,” that’s not the same thing as a Klansman using the word “nigger” to denigrate blacks. To claim they are the same thing, which is what you seem to be doing, is to totally ignore context and meaning, and reduce bigotry to a matter of using (or not using) naughty words.
* * *
That said, I do think the Democrats have been playing the same political games with “anxious masculinity” - they just haven’t been doing it as skillfully. The reason that Kerry was touted as “electable” was because so many democrats thought he could out-masculine Bush - after all, Kerry has personally shot people to death! (Who has Bush ever personally killed? Whadda wimp!)
Democrats didn’t resist a war that most of them knew was a terrible idea because they were terrified of seeming like unmasculine girly-men. Kerry ran away from women’s issues and talked tough against gay marriage because he was afraid that if he didn’t, he’d look like a fag.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 6:41 am
The Kos thing, which was annoying, was about an ad. The Bush team, ont he other hand, is using faked science to deny women free access to emergency contraception.
Sure, Markos is sexist, he’s also an ass from time to time. But I don’t think he’s anti-feminist. I leave that to the conservatives, who really are. Not all of them, but the core of the movement certainly is.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 7:52 am
Hmmm… I’m rather insulted by the use of the word “conservative” to describe George W. Bush, as I see him as nothing of the kind.
I see Bush as a Wilsonian imperialist who wants to recreate the world in the image of the US.
I also do not see his goal of flooding the US with cheap Mexican labor as being particularly conservative.
I will agree that the neocon rhetoric seems to indicate a level of insecurity in their masculinity.
More on that later.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 8:00 am
Sure, Markos is sexist, he’s also an ass from time to time. But I don’t think he’s anti-feminist
Oh, I dunno, throwing a tantrum about “women’s studies” types for questioning the ad and continually going on about how women’s issues just aren’t interesting and not his problem strikes me as anti-feminist. You’re arguing degree and ability to harm, which is fine, but I don’t think you have to buy a CWA membership to be anti-feminist.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 8:31 am
The Kos thing was not about the pie ad, it was about his, and his defenders’, reaction to exception taken by a few women (and perhaps men). It was about how women and women’s concerns are shouted down and dismissed as not part of the “important shit” in today’s political landscape.
What we’ve seen in this thread is some of the same attitudes — the I actually agree with you, but you should STFU kind of response. What some people really don’t like is when we don’t back down and be meek like an abused woman is supposed to. The abuser shouts and draws blood and pushes her around, but when she shouts back she is suddenly the offender.
To me, there are good men and the rest, and it doesn’t depend upon political stripes. But as a movement, the conservative movement — and I’m sorry, they are “conservatives,” no matter how unlike Goldwater they might be — exploits what runs through our culture: a subtle misogyny that makes it okay to beat women, shout women down or try to shame women into silence. Robert may claim virtue in the honesty of his misogyny (I hope he was kidding), but with the epidemic of violence against women that has gone on for ages, and the deliberate dehumanizing of women by the right in their effort to take away women’s authority over their bodies, women’s knowledge of their bodies and women’s privacy regarding their bodies, I find it especially offensive.
My original post quoted here has a photo of a bumper sticker: “Liberal Hunting Permit,” implying it’s now time to start shooting anyone who dissents from the government propaganda. What I’ve seen lately in the intensity of the blogosphere is that “Feminist Hunting Permits” have been legal and held by all too many people for far too long. Since when does standing up for equal rights make us deserving of being targeted?
This comment was written by media girl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 9:00 am
A comment upthread reminded me of another tendency on top of casting male Democrats/progressives as feminine - the tendency to cast female Democrats/progressives as underage (”girls”) or lesbian (as done to Hilary Clinton by Klein in his book).
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 11:11 am
“My original post quoted here has a photo of a bumper sticker: ‘Liberal Hunting Permit,’ implying it’s now time to start shooting anyone who dissents from the government propaganda.”
I think what the problem with a lot of the liberals is, is that they don’t realize that a lot of people see them the same way they see conservatives.
I find it interesting that you see liberals as “dissenting from the government propaganda,” considering that most liberals have no problem using the government to advance their agenda.
Put another way, the reason that a lot of people dislike liberals isn’t because they are upset that the liberals won’t use the government to enforce their beliefs, but because they see the liberals as using the government to force them out of their beliefs. They see liberals as wanting to take their money through taxes to support programs they don’t believe in, they see liberals as wanting not just to protect a woman’s right to get an abortion but as wanting to force them to provide abortions (i.e. by paying for abortions with tax dollars). They see liberals as wanting to take away their property with environmental regulations (essentially, if someone tells you that you can’t build anything on your property they are telling you that you don’t really own it). They see liberals as wanting to force secular values onto their kids by forcing them to send them to public schools where secular values are taught (for example, if a student believes based on their religion that homosexuality is wrong, should the school teach him that his religious beliefs are wrong, or should the school remain neutral?); they see anti-suburban sprawl legislation as attempts to force them to live in cities when they would rather live in suburbs.
The fact of the matter is that any political philosophy, liberal or conservative, that proposes to use government to achieve certain goals, is going to infringe on someone’s liberty in order to achieve those goals. You may argue that it is worth it, but it seems to me that too many liberals see themselves as championing freedom and don’t see how other people may view their ideas as infringing on their freedom.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 11:34 am
I would characterize the neocon’s masculinity as as overconfident. Sorta jock-esque. I see it as an effort to use traditional gender roles to brand Republicans as male and Democrats as female, and in terms of that meme, Republicans are the ones who can get the real important stuff done, while Democrats are stuck in the German KKK (Kinder, Kirche, Kuche (sorry, can’t do umlauts) - kids, church, kitchen).
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 11:45 am
The bumper sticker reminds me of a T-shirt Matt, Amp and I saw the other day coming out of the grocery store. It read:
“America, love it or get out!” in the 4th section. For some reason it struck a chord in me and made me SO angry. A grocery store, for crying out loud. The onslaught against liberals in this country is one of immense magnitude, and also immense denial.
Robert; it makes your comments come off as incredibly fluffish when this is typical tone that conservatives take with liberals. Be nice? Liberals have gotten into this mess by consistently being too nice and rolling over for the ‘hey, aren’t you the ones that are supposed to be kinder, and gentler?’ routine. My ass. It’s far too common a tactic for conservatives to go way the hell overboard with commentary and accusations, then turn around and try to stifle protest or disagreement from liberals by this blatantly hypocritical notion of minding ones manners, lest the audience get offended.
I for one thought the Jane G. comment was hilarious and dead on. Especially if you are familiar with her voice; that makes it even more comical.
And finally:
Josh;
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).He did an amazing job of portraying an anti-feminist in the past month or so. Making what he did to be no big deal is bullshit. He needs to understand loud and clear that women are a huge portion of the liberal base, and his rallying attempts, coupled with expectations that women sacrafice women’s issues for the greater good is bullshit. The NARAL commentary, coupled with his absolutely unapologetic spew against women last month knocked him way down on my personal respect list, and prior to that he’d actually had a good bit of my respect as a blog pundit.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
I guess y’all read more Kos than I do. I just found his tone obnoxiously antagonistic and format too annoying to deal with.
So, OK. He’s anti-faminist. My mistake.
But I still maintain that anti-feminism is a part of the core conservative ideology. It just gets passed around by some liberals from time to time as well.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Glaivester, I really don’t understand how your comments respond to the quote you cite at the head of your comment. Are you saying that conservatives are justified to shoot liberals because they feel oppressed?
The idea that liberals are trying to tell people how to live is truly laughable. In case you haven’t noticed, liberals have not been in power for quite a few years now. In case you haven’t noticed, liberals don’t try to legislate what’s permissible in the bedroom. Or what can be said in the doctor’s office. In case you haven’t noticed, environmentalism isn’t about whether you can build a treehouse in your backyard but whether the power plant upwind from you can continue to spew poison into the air you and your children breathe and into the water you and your children drink.
If conservatives don’t like taxes, then they might try booting out Republicans. The only time the Federal deficit went down in the last 40 years was under Clinton and Carter — who both cut taxes, too. So how are liberals to blame for taxes? It seems to me the president and congress in power are Republicans, and they can’t seem to print money fast enough. Who’s going to pay for that? I am. You are. And our children and grandchildren, too.
Of course, I could just use the conservative approach: If you think you’re taxed too much in America, go somewhere else.
How’s all that for straying off topic?
This comment was written by media girl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
**Delurking here**
The damnedest thing about Republicans feminizing Democrats is that Republicans find emotions a-ok when it suits THEIR purposes (example: portraying pro-choicers as cold and logical, while casting anti-abortionists as good hearted, feeling & caring folk). When Democrats get emotional, that’s deemed a “hissyfit”.
What was it that someone said once, that when women enter a profession/do something traditionally coded as “male”, it becomes less desirable to be in that profession/do that thing because it’s been feminized? Notice how thinking and reflecting on actions is considered “wussy” nowdays, while swaggering and blowing stuff up, i.e. reacting w/out thought, is the “manly” thing to do.
Is it also coincidental that professors/teachers/scientists/careers requiring brain power are seen as “elitists”, just as more women than men are entering colleges and universities? Coincidental that the Democrats, who still have more female voters at this point, are being “feminized” by Republicans?
**I apologize ahead of time if I didn’t make myself clear enough for understanding**
This comment was written by aeonsomnia.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
You may argue that it is worth it, but it seems to me that too many liberals see themselves as championing freedom and don’t see how other people may view their ideas as infringing on their freedom.
Well, the conservatives have the appeal to fear, greed and power locked up. It’s kinda hard to beat that.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
I really don’t understand how your comments respond to the quote you cite at the head of your comment. Are you saying that conservatives are justified to shoot liberals because they feel oppressed?
I wasn’t agreeing with the idea that liberals should be shot, just disagreeing with the idea that liberals want a less intrusive government than conservatives want. Granted, in issues of sex, they want a much less intrusive government; but on financial issues, they want it much more intrusive. If I own a business, liberals want government to scrutinize my hiring decisions and to require me to prove that I am not discriminating against anyone. A lot of liberals want to disarm me and not allow me to carry a gun in self-defense. On issues like abortion, they want more than just that I not intefere with a woman getting an abortion, they want me to be forced to pay for the abortion through my tax dollars. On a lot of other issues, they believe that everyone should be taxed to pay for massive social programs. In Canada, the issue is no longer whether or not gays should have the right to exist, the issue is whether or not those whose beliefs say that homosexuality is wrong have the right to voice their opinions (this is essentially infringement on freedom of speech, and of religion, because religions are not being allowed to have politically incorrect opinions on such issues).
That’s my only point; liberals are not the enemy of intrusive government, they just want it intrusive in other places than conservatives do.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Glav, it’s awfully strange that you state that liberals want you to pay for abortion. I always find it a tad ironic that conservatives would have us fund anything but social programs.
While I gather from your blog that you’re not a war enthusiast to any extreme degree, you must admit that it’s a bit silly to point the finger at liberals wanting family planning funding (much more than just you paying for abortions), while conservatives want us to fund blowing up half the middle east, including children and pregnant women. Hmmm.
BTW, total aside, but are you genuinely a fan of Wendy McElroy and Ifeminists?
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
He isn’t pointing the finger at liberals wanting the taxpayer to pay for their agenda. He’s pointing out that neither liberals nor conservatives can legitimately claim to be for limited government; both groups are for a big, meddling government. Just meddling in different things.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
I actually pretty much agree with Glaivester; it’s true that both conservatives and liberals want government intrusion in some areas.
The difference is that liberals don’t (by and large) embrace a rhetoric that says that government intrusion is always Bad and Evil, so we’re not being inconsistent when we say that some kinds of government intrusion are beneficial.
A more fundamental difference, in my opinion, is that liberal intrusions tend to increase real freedom - by which I mean, increasing the menu of worthwhile options most citizens have - whereas conservative intrusions tend to be about taking freedom away.
Universal health care - including, yes, government-funded abortions - does take a bit of Glaivester’s freedom away; his taxes will be slightly higher, leaving him with a bit less to spend on whatever he’d like. That’s an intrusion on his personal freedom - but not a huge one, because he still has income remaining to spend.
On the other hand, everyone who can’t afford decent medical care has a HUGE increase in their real personal freedom if we have universal health care. On the whole, I think the trade-off creates more worthwhile options for more people.
Glaivester claims that in Canada, people have lost their freedom to dissent against homosexuality. Probably that’s true, if what he means is that Canadians can be prosecuted for saying that homosexuals should all be rounded up into labor camps and shot.
However, if Glaivester means that Canadians can no longer say that SSM is wrong, or that homosexuality is harmful or against God’s plan, without being arrested or fined, then I think it’s obvious he’s mistaken.
(Besides, it seems dubious to bring up what other countries’ left wings do in an attempt to characterize liberals in the USA; left liberals in the USA are the equivalent of centrists in many other countries, after all.)
I think the various attempts to make abortion and birth control either illegal or in practice unavailable illustrates how conservative intrusions tend to be aimed at taking real freedom away.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
This is quite silly. Let’s take it one at a time, shall we?
I wasn’t agreeing with the idea that liberals should be shot, just disagreeing with the idea that liberals want a less intrusive government than conservatives want.
Yes, the difference is in what areas of our lives the government has any business meddling.
Granted, in issues of sex, they want a much less intrusive government; but on financial issues, they want it much more intrusive. If I own a business, liberals want government to scrutinize my hiring decisions and to require me to prove that I am not discriminating against anyone.
I am a business owner, and can say that conservatives are not friends of small business. In fact, conservatives have disempowered my business in many ways, including doing everything they can to make healthcare completely unaffordable to anyone but the wealthy. It is in my interest as a business owner to have healthy workers with benefits, but the conservatives don’t seem to want that, they would rather baby Fortune500 pharmaceutical companies and foreign insurance firms who are making 4-5 times the profit of most F500 companies. It is in my interest as a business owner to have a stable economy with government spending under control, so that my customers feel optimistic about the future and want to invest in the future. Conservatives work very hard against that. You want carte blanche to discriminate. I want to embrace the diversity in this country, because that is this country’s greatest strength — and, if allowed to flourish by the corporatocracy running things these days, what will help America succeed in a global captialist marketplace.
A lot of liberals want to disarm me and not allow me to carry a gun in self-defense.
I want to protect my family from people carrying concealed weapons in civilized society, ready to go shooting people because they got cut off in traffic or because their beer was a tad warm. I want to protect my family from lunatics who think they need surface-to-surface missiles to defend their home. I live in a rural area, and feel that firearms can have a role in home security. Police are 20 minutes away at best. But that doesn’t mean I’m all for private militias ready to take everyone down with their Bradleys and grenade launchers. Thanks but no thanks.
On issues like abortion, they want more than just that I not intefere with a woman getting an abortion, they want me to be forced to pay for the abortion through my tax dollars.
Since when do you or anybody have a line-item veto on government spending? If a woman or girl needs to have an abortion, it’s a healthcare issue, and it is in our interests as a society to provide healthcare for all people — everyone — not just the wealthy.
On a lot of other issues, they believe that everyone should be taxed to pay for massive social programs.
Yes, it’s called the social safety net. And it exists because of shit like the Great Depression can happen. It exists because people lose their jobs. Without a safety net, a flourishing and versatile capitalist economy cannot exist …. unless you want mass starvation and suffering.
By the way, why aren’t you objecting to the corporate welfare the conservatives love, you know, the sweetheart tax shelters and government contracts they give corporations before they jump into the private sector … as executives for those very same corporations?
In Canada, the issue is no longer whether or not gays should have the right to exist, the issue is whether or not those whose beliefs say that homosexuality is wrong have the right to voice their opinions (this is essentially infringement on freedom of speech, and of religion, because religions are not being allowed to have politically incorrect opinions on such issues).
Now you’re just not reading the news. Part of the law is that no clergy are required to perform any services against their convictions.
Of course, all of this has to do with reality, with which it seems you have only a passing acquaintance.
Harsh? Sorry. I try to be a good girl, but I guess I’m just born bad!
This comment was written by media girl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Media Girl, it doesn’t seem to me that you’re really disagreeing with Glaivester’s central point (or what I see as Glaivester’s central point). You’re arguing that the government intrusions favored by liberals are good ideas, because they create more good than harm; and that conservative policies harm small businesses more than liberal policies do.
As it happens, I agree with you on almost all of that (although I’m opposed to gun bans). But it remains true, as Glaivester says, that liberals do favor some government intrusions on personal freedom.
I don’t see what’s silly about stating that - or why there’s anything wrong with that. Especially at the level of “paying taxes,” some intrusions on freedom are good, because they create more real freedom for the wider society.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
I am somewhat a fan of Ifeminists. I don’t agree with everything there, but I like a lot of their positions. I really like LewRockwell.com
I think Robert states my position fairly clearly on liberals and “conservatives.” I also have often ridiculed so-called “conservatives” who tout Bush’s tax-cutting without realizing that his free-spending ways are ultimately causing an “inflation tax,” which media girl #39 referred to:
“they can’t seem to print money fast enough”
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
“Universal health care - including, yes, government-funded abortions - does take a bit of Glaivester’s freedom away; his taxes will be slightly higher, leaving him with a bit less to spend on whatever he’d like.”
Although my point is that on the abortion issue, it makes me complicit in abortion; on that issue, it’s not just about the money, it’s about the principle. I also object to people who wish to force me to be complicit in abortion calling themelves “pro-choice.”
On the issue of homosexuality, this is what I as referring to.
And I think that Ampersand’s response to media girl was essentially correct. My original objection was to this statement:
“‘Liberal Hunting Permit,’ implying it’s now time to start shooting anyone who dissents from the government propaganda.” (media girl, #33)
which I saw as implying that liberals = “small, unintrusive government” while conservatives = “large intrusive government.”
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 8:15 pm
Well, that’s life in a representative democracy.
Personally, I object to taxes making me complicit in invading Iraq; but I don’t think anyone in a representative democracy has a right to never have the government spend any money on anything they, personally, find offensive. There is no constitutional right to not be offended by government spending, Glaivester.
I don’t think that’s a very substantive approach to the debate. Your complaint makes as much sense as me complaining that people who force me to be complicit in needless invasions - and, for that matter, in the death penalty - calling themselves “pro-life.”
A more substantive approach recognizes that both “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are, in general, terms referring to particular positions in the debate about reproductive rights. Both sides are fond of implying that the other side is hypocritical because pro-choicers don’t actually favor EVERY possible “choice,” and pro-lifers don’t favor EVERY possible measure to extend “life.” Such an approach to the issue is more about scoring points than anything else, in my opinion.
Regarding the over-two-years-old newspaper article you linked to (featuring a Christian who referenced the bible in a way that implied that gays ought be put to death), that’s an outlier. In Canada, folks who are anti-gay have been perfectly free to say so, as long as they managed to steer clear of implicitly or explicitly calling for things like executing gays.
I have to admit, I can’t see how that reading of Media Girl’s original statement is all supportable. I think you infered a lot from what Media Girl said that simply wasn’t in the original text.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
And on the war issue, it makes liberals complicit in the war efforts, regardless of whether it goes against our principles.
A ton of government spending pisses me off on principle. Some of it makes me say hooray, though.
*shrug*
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Back on topic:
Let me first state here that I do believe that men and women have (on average) innate psychological and emotional differences, much of which is due to biology (some is due to social conditioning, but no where near all). Therefore, I take no offense at analyzing anyone’s behavior in terms of trying to be masculine.
Having said that, it occurred to me that one of the rising stars of the GOP is biologically very masculine. That is, he has injected himself with chemical masculinity. Considering that such hyper-masculinity appears to be associated with violence, aggressiveness, and even rape, does anyone else worry about where someone like Ah-nuld could take us if he used his position to become prominent in the federal government (even if he can’t, at the present time, run for president).
As for Bush, he has a lot of reasons to be insecure in his masculinity (if by masculinity, we mean the characteristics associated with an adult male). His whole demeanor is that of a boy, not a man. When he tries to be macho, he doesn’t strike me as a dangerous and violent jock. He strikes me as a little boy who wants to prove that he is too a REAL MAN! Granted, a destructive little boy, but nonetheless he seems incapable of entering the adult world. In essence, he makes the same mistake little boys make; assuming that the key to becoming a man is to over-develop the characteristics of masculinity that distinguish it from femininity, rather than those that distinguish it from puerility.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
I don’t think that’s a very substantive approach to the debate. Your complaint makes as much sense as me complaining that people who force me to be complicit in needless invasions - and, for that matter, in the death penalty - calling themselves “pro-life.”?
It wouldn’t matter to me so much if so many pro-choicers didn’t insist on calling pro-lifers “anti-choice” and object to being called “pro-abortion.”
I think my reading of media girl’s statement came from the use of the term “government propaganda.” I saw that as juxtaposing liberals to the opposite side from the government. Perhaps my interpretation was based on my libertarian leanings, which make me see government as generally a monster always wanting more control; that is, she meant the propaganda of the current administration and I thought she meant the propaganda of government in general.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
There is more to freedom than freedom from government. For example, there’s freedom from crime, which demands a powerful and active government ruled by law, not men. There’s freedom from poverty, which may be arguable as a right but desireable by all. Freedom from slavery, which can be perpetrated by corporations as well as government. Freedom from discrimination based on anything but merit, which is hard to measure but something just about everyone, except perhaps some white men, can understand. Freedom from having to breath and drink poisons someone is dumping into my neighborhood just so he can make a few bucks. Freedom from abuse of contracts. It goes on….
I don’t consider my freedom from being shot by you to be a particularly offensive infringement on your rights. Maybe you would disagree. But society has an interest in preventing people from shooting each other, and experience tells us that means not having people packing heat as they go about their days … and nights. That the 2nd Amendment is couched in the premise of a “well regulated militia” makes the issue at least debateable. Again, I’m not for banning guns, but it seems to me that Tec-9s are not necessary to ride the bus with peace of mind.
In other words, “freedom” does not necessarily always mean small government. Otherwise freedom would mean anarchy, which would be a recipe for violent disaster and economic ruin.
The question is how the government governs. To make all abortions illegal, for example, would effectively make all women of childbearing years breeder slaves of the state, and last I checked slavery was outlawed in an amendment to the constitution.
This comment was written by media girl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
But the problem is, someone who is pro-life, can also be said to be pro-choice. They might support a woman’s right to choose, but would never choose to have an abortion themselves. An anti-choice person can also be pro-life, but being anti-choice does not automatically make them pro-life.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 8:35 am
The number of liberals I see online worshipping Dean –despite his long record of neoliberalism– tells me that most liberals are caught up in the cult of machismo as much as are most conservatives. It’s all about surfaces, not substance. Appearing “angry” wins the laurel wreaths, not any history of having done anything terribly helpful for the public with that “anger.”
Once or twice on this blog and elsewhere, I posted links that attempted to give the lie to our “humanitarian” bombing in the former Yugoslavia. There was even one from the Guardian (hardly a nest of incoherent, unwashed, conspiracy nuts) that pointed to the ever-popular long arm of Haliburton as a major factor in that “humanitarian” mission. I never got any response to that posting, and most liberals still insist that there was something noble about those bombings that is sadly lacking in Iraq. Myself, I see little real difference except that a Democrat was at the helm in the former. Same hypocrisy, same macho bullshit targetting civilians and not the elite.
Let’s not kid ourselves. Most Democrats, deep down, want their very own Ronald Reagan– Hollywood-style-old-West machismo and all. Nothing else explains it. :( Democrats will prove themselves more open-minded than Republicans by casting Hilary as John Wayne next time out, but for some reason, that doesn’t cheer me. Machismo with different chromosomes is still machismo: Destructive and worthless to the health of society.
Don’t ask me about the huge argument my partner and I had about his continued posting on Kos over the weekend, either. :/
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 9:36 am
alsis39,
I agree with you. I often tell my wife, who felt very comfortable with Bill Clinton, that all he did was make democrats feel okay with being numb.
He trashed welfare; fell over himself running away from gay marriage; bombed the former yugoslavia and which country was it - Libya - the day after his canoodling with Monica came to light (how’s that for machismo); picked two supreme court judges who don’t vote much differently from their so called moderate republican colleges; watched over the Democratic party while it systematically disenfranchised black voters (See “The ‘New’ Criminal Justice System: State Repression from 1968 to 2001,” Monthly Review, July 2001); signed the 1994 Violent Crime Control And Law Enforcement Act, which offered up a cop’s cornucopia of $30.2 billion in federal cash; in 1996 Clinton gave us the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which massively expanded the use of the death penalty and eviscerated federal habeas corpus; also in 1996 we got the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act,” which eliminated the undocumented person’s right to due process and helped bring Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) funding up to four billion annually.
Then we have Kerry saying we need to reach out to anti-abortion democrats…the same Kerry who can’t get it right on gay marriage.
I don’t see much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both are anti-feminist as parties at their core. Here I define feminism broadly, to include reduction of white racism, reduction of industrial prison complex, gay marriage, equal treatment and access for abortion, equal wages for equal jobs, universal healthcare, an end to the diet industry; an end to imprisoning people with severe disabilities.
Bush continues what Clinton continues. What Bush has done is galvanized Democrats. Now they have someone they really don’t like as a rallying point, somewho will helps them forget their priviledge and complicity.
As for your husband continuing to read Kos, I always wonder when other men justify continuing to support another sexist man. If Kos had said, “racism is not our issue. Let’s get back to the issues at hand,” who would admit to reading him?
What disappoints me, but does not surprise me, is that more men don’t see this fact. Kos, Clinton, Kerry,Bush, they all act very anxious about their masculinity and seem anti-feminist by degrees.
This comment was written by Jay Sennett.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Fabulous points, Jay. I agree with just about everything.
This comment was written by media girl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 10:14 am
Jay: I agree with you. I often tell my wife, who felt very comfortable with Bill Clinton, that all he did was make democrats feel okay with being numb.
Right on! Plus, he made it OK to say, “I feel your pain,” as if that were sufficient in and of itself.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 10:34 am
“…As for your husband continuing to read Kos, I always wonder when other men justify continuing to support another sexist man. If Kos had said, “racism is not our issue. Let’s get back to the issues at hand,”? who would admit to reading him?”
Well, we’re not married, but– yeah, I did pretty much ask him that. He didn’t really have any response.
“What disappoints me, but does not surprise me, is that more men don’t see this fact. Kos, Clinton, Kerry,Bush, they all act very anxious about their masculinity and seem anti-feminist by degrees. ”
Yep. Just as feminists are expected to cringe at the supposed epithet of “hairy-legged dyke,” et al, liberal men are expected to cringe at the supposed epithet of “unmanly.” I personally have tried to cultivate the attitude of, “What exactly is so awful about being a hairy-legged dyke, anyway ? Is there something inherently unworthy about hairy legs or same-sex attraction, just because I’m a woman ? What, exactly, would that be ?”
Most people who favor such techniques are used to simply having the “fact” of such “unworthiness” accepted as gospel. It’s fun to pull the rug out from under them sometimes and watch them try to scrabble back up on their feet.
If liberal men were serious about being anti-war, or serious about fighting the victimization of the powerless in this country, they’d try the same technique. As it is, when you see the Kos-bots in action, it seems like what really bugs them is that they can’t run the master’s house themselves because those darn Republicans got to the top floor first. Actually tearing down the house –or at least moving out of it– doesn’t seem to interest them all that much.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 10:56 am
“But the problem is, someone who is pro-life, can also be said to be pro-choice. They might support a woman’s right to choose, but would never choose to have an abortion themselves.”
Is the fact that I have never raped anyone enough to make me anti-rape in your eyes? Why should people who consider the fetus to be a human life consider the fact that someone would never have an abortion themselves enough to make them pro-life?
If you think that someone who doesn’t believe that abortion should be legal is anti-choice, why is it wrong to call someone who wants to force me to pay for their abortion anti-choice? Why should I agree to let you set the terms of the debate?
My broader point is that a lot of the hatred betwen conservatives and liberals comes from the fact that neither side tries to see themsevles the way that others see them.
And on the war issue, it makes liberals complicit in the war efforts, regardless of whether it goes against our principles.
But turn that around for a second. How do you look at Bush for making you complicit in the Iraq War? Has it occurred to you that maybe some people who view the fetus as a human life look at you the exact same way for wanting to force them to pay for abortions?
My point is that people on both sides tend to view people on the opposite side as monsters, whose motivation can only be explained by evil and greed. Sometimes I wonder if it would help the political debate if the rank-and-file of both sides took a minute to ask themselves how the other side sees them. (I say “rank-and-file” because I believe that a lot of the leaders on each side truly are monsters, whose only concern is power).
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 11:27 am
As I’ve said about four billion times before, Glaivester, it’s besides the point for me to see you as you see yourself. I understand very well how you see yourself. I just don’t care, because more importantly than how you see yourself is this: Your POV has as one of its fundamental tenets the principle of YOUR RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH MY LIFE. You will step on my life, all over it, to save something you think is more worthy of life than I am. Even though as a pro-choicer, I would never do that to you. I would never force anyone to abort, and I would never carp at, say, paying through taxes to school your hypothetical twelve kids. This, despite my lack of “moral” support for your hypothetical decision to have those twelve kids.
As I’ve said about four billion times before, pro-life and pro-choice are not perfect opposites on a single spectrum: The former has as a basic tenet the RIGHT to intervene in my life. Pro-choice, OTOH, does not in any way contain any right on my part to intervene in your life.
I don’t care how you see me. I also don’t care if you are a “monster” or not. It’s enough to me that you consider it your right to manipulate my body to suit your own beliefs. That itself is a monstrous belief. The belief itself is terrible enough.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 11:46 am
mediagirl, thanks! I’m really starting to dig the phrase “anxious masculinity.”
Lee: “he made it OK to say, “I feel your pain,”? as if that were sufficient in and of itself.” Truly this statement is a credo of anxious masculinity. “I feel you pain but dammit don’t expect me to change! I’m talking about my feelings after all!?!”
alsis39: “As it is, when you see the Kos-bots in action, it seems like what really bugs them is that they can’t run the master’s house themselves because those darn Republicans got to the top floor first. ” Kos-bots! Excellent.
maybe men who exhibit anxious masculinity get the nickname Kos-bots?!
This comment was written by Jay Sennett.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Your POV has as one of its fundamental tenets the principle of YOUR RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH MY LIFE
Right. And your POV has as one of its fundamental tenets the principle of YOUR RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH THE CHILD’S LIFE.>
As you note, it’s not a perfect mirror-opposite; you don’t want to interfere with Glaivester’s life. But you both want to interfere with someone else’s life.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Yep. And since that “someone” is a THING, and in MY body, not yours, keep your grubby hands off it. Thanks.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Jay wrote:
Truly this statement is a credo of anxious masculinity. “I feel you pain but dammit don’t expect me to change! I’m talking about my feelings after all!?!”?
Bingo. And you are more than welcome to use the phrase “Kos-bots,” though I preferred the term a feminist blogger used not long ago in some similar dust up. She mentioned the “Chicks In Front” attitude of the 1960s antiwar patriarchs, and thought that calling them their modern-day counterparts the “Chicks-In-Fronters” might work. Plus, it would help prevent the further feeding of Kos’ ego, which gets plenty to eat already, if you ask me.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Your POV has as one of its fundamental tenets the principle of YOUR RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH MY LIFE. You will step on my life, all over it, to save something you think is more worthy of life than I am. Even though as a pro-choicer, I would never do that to you.
My point is that YES, YOU WOULD, you just think that the way in which you interfere in my life is trivial, so it doesn’t count.
Most people who really hate liberals do not hate them because of ways in which liberals do not wish to interfere (e.g. abortion), they hate them because of the ways in which they see liberals as interfering with them (e.g. gun control, high taxes).
and I would never carp at, say, paying through taxes to school your hypothetical twelve kids.
Which is saying, in effect, because you wouldn’t mind being forced to pay for my decisions, I have no right to mind being forced to pay for yours or someone else’s. Because you see being forced to pay for schooling my hypothetical twelve kids as a trivial infringement on your rights, you don’t see that other people might see being forced to pay taxes to pay for social programs, etc. as being stepped on.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
The high taxes argument is such a smoke screen. Bush is far more a federalist than what a republican should be, and yet this is ignored? Come on already, the administration is all about tax payers paying huge amounts for all sorts of things that are extremely controversial, and yet you’d have the audacity (yes, sheer freaking audacity) to point at liberals, as if we have some sort of monopoly on the schtick. Take some accountability here, for gosh sake.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
And since that “someone”? is a THING
Right to the crux of things. Thanks.
Every oppressor in history has dehumanized the people he or she was oppressing. They aren’t people; they’re animals. They aren’t real people; they’re a sort of sub-human. They aren’t people; they’re things.
Feminism is predicated on the (true) idea that throughout history, men have treated women as things, instead of as human beings. I believe that a positive movement to correct this historical injustice has been radically sidetracked by the abortion issue, where to be “feminist” means (by and large) being obliged to endorse a worldview that views unborn humans as objects.
Feminists ought not to concern themselves overmuch with the question of why a fusty old male traditionalist like myself isn’t a feminist. But it seems that they would be vitally interested in the question of why women like my mom - socially liberal, theistically progressive, gender-equality-believing - aren’t feminists.
Neither my wife nor my mother nor my aunt nor my grandmother are feminists, although all are very strong women who believe in equa