Hey hunnies, off topic:
Speaking of comedians who regularly stand up to Bushco, tomorrow, Sunday is Al Franken's birthday. They've got an online card for him that anyone can sign, here:
http://midwestvaluespac.org/blog...s-55th-
birthday
I'd pimp it my own self, but Jesus H. Christ is guest blogging for me tomorrow, and I wouldn't want to interrupt our Lord.
His latest response absolutely floors me.
Dude, my friends don't talk like that. If I want to be called shrill or weak or cowardly I can read the freepers.
Thank you for posting on this.
I was on the initial comment thread at about 41 and asked John if he was trying to start a pie fight. I also informed him and the commenters who were telling us to stfu, that my half of the population resents being the default insult. As the thread went on I was amazed at the dismissive attitude of those who claim to be progressives. It was stunning. John was indeed trying to start a pie fight and he succeeded splendidly.
When someone says ouch it is inappropriate to respond by telling them that it doesn't hurt.
Your post explains it perfectly.
Good post, Shakes, Thanks.
I am also very disappointed in this whole thing. It's a lot like how I felt when pretty much the same thing was happening over at kos -- which is a site I no longer visit. It makes me wonder; how would Arovasis (spelling? sorry) have reacted if someone had posted the headline: "Pat Roberts is So Gay" with the exact same post? How is it different?
I expect this kind of crap from the GOP -- as much as it irks me to hear our ridiculous Governor label people he disagrees with "girly men", it isn't all that surprising. I really hate to hear that from people who are supposed to be standing with me in the fight.
Why, in 2006, is it too much to ask that the word "girl" not be interchangable with the word "weak"?
Why, in 2006, is it too much to ask that the word "girl" not be interchangable with the word "weak"?
A-fucking-men!!!
Why, in 2006, is it too much to ask that the word "girl" not be interchangable with the word "weak"?
An excellent question. Of course, aside from the main point of John's post--Senator Roberts' disregard for our civil liberties--that question has now been lost, too, among the usual misdirection.
It's that misdirection, the claim that we can't sustain a debate about Roberts and a debate about sexist language at the same time, that is the real problem, because it's patently untrue. John posts on multiple subjects every single day. To claim that the two issues cannot be addressed simultaneously is absurd. It's just a means of silencing criticism--and in perhaps the greatest irony of all, it's the same tactic used by Senator Roberts, the "big girl" himself, who doesn't believe that security and liberty can coexist, either.
http://aravosisblog.blogspot.com
That's amazing! I've never been on his blogroll before....
Very funny!
shakes: working with progressives and other passionate, independant sorts i'm sure can make one feel like a cat herder. but, reading your reaction, it's obvious that his choice of epithet not only distracted from the point he was trying to make. it sounds like it transended the point. that's not only rude, (and i really despise rudeness) it's bad writing. like i said previously, ameriblog hasn't ever really grabbed me. i don't recall being linked there by writers i respect. so, at the risk of rudeness myself. fuck them. they fucked with you? that fucks with me. pat roberts is a (insert your favorite perjorative here). but girl? i don't think so, i have three daughters and i bet at least two of them could kick both robert's and aravosis' asses. (one of them is like her dad, a harper, and shouldn't risk her hands slapping fools around) aravosis should have had the good grace and dignity to say "oops, my bad, didn't mean to offend" to the people he was trying to reach.
A tea-on-keyboard moment reading that. But they forgot to sprinkle it with typos, to give that feeling of prose that is so out of breath from running to get on the screen that it didn't have time to spell-check. :D
A very well written post
I hadn't really thought about it, but reading your experiences, I now have a much better appreciation of why the term rankled so much
So today, I pay you the ultimate compliment a writer can receive
I read here because it reinforces my beliefs and attitudes-"Fucktard" being a word I use at my site and love seeing at others as well
I read here to laugh and get moved to sorrow or anger as well
But with this post, I LEARNED
And I thank you for the lesson, it's one that should be absorbed by more people
Such a good post. Such a good writer. Thanks for that.
I could not agree my with Shake's response. I too remember being told 'You throw like a girl'; of course I was a girl, the meaning was that being a girl is wrong. Or less than. I don't have fights with minorities over their experience of discrimination - as a white person, I haven't lived through it, so I need to listen and not tell them what they experienced is invalid. I certainly have never invited them to leave my home, "I mean it..." BTW, you'll note there is nothing rude in the wording of this post.
Thank you Melissa,I was trying to get words around this that were coherent,and you're right,this stuff is woven all through people's personal histories,the effects it has.I bet there's not very many women that have not encountered their gender being used as an insult.
It's wierd,maybe I'm lucky,but so far in my life,I've never met a gay man who was anti female.I kinda thought we were all on the same side,fighting stereotypes,hate,prejudice.Might explain why my reaction was a combo of mad,and WTF?
Wow, is that man politically ambitious or what? I am not surprised. I spent considerable time and emotion with helping a couple of gay men who were being discriminated against at my work place. What did they do when they felt safe? Dump on me of course. It did not turn me from promoting rights for people, just I will never get involved in someone elses fight again. They used my good will to advance themselves and when I heard how they talked about women, I was physically sick. I now understand why there are gay republicans.
Yay, another opportunity to tear into John Aravosis's hide. Not that I need the opportunity but, if you all will pardon a little blogwhoring on my part, I posted the following early this morning and I think it hammers John Aravosis's character down pat:
... if I want to piss off/alienate any potential readers of {TBT} ... I'd rather do it directly ... opposed to doing it by proxy and I've been seeing alot of the latter happening on some of the A-list liberal blogs and, in response, the A-list liberal blogger tosses the "It's My Blog - Hit The Bricks If You Don't Like It!" card which I'm starting to find to be more of a universal cop-out more than anything admirable. The more that cop-out gets tossed around, it's going to pull a Bob Novak eventually -- developing a life of its own and growing so goddamned monalithic that it discredits the bloggers more than it protects them and it's one of the reason why I think the idea of having some of these A-List bloggers replace actual MSM collumnists to be an excercise in futilty.
Don't get me wrong -- replacing Joe Klein with John Aravosis would certainly be an improvement -- a vast one -- but one will be hardpressed to not come to the ultimate conclusion that by doing so, TIME is merely replacing the clown drums in a Texas rodeo -- clown and all. If Aravosis is willing to talk down to his audience now in either his blog or his HaloScan, he's willing to do that in an online or dead tree edition of TIME just like Joe Klein does and that's what seperates them both from Molly Ivins, the late Mike Royko, and his current reincarnation as Keith Olbermann.
It is my belief that John Aravosis along with some other A-List liberal bloggers are living in fear that the meritocratic nature of the blogosphere they had originally championed and loved so much is going to turn around and bite them in the ass as November approaches simply because anger and frustation among the left base will escalate.
To protect themselves and their status, they must lash out and drive wedges between the "upper middle class" liberals and the poor lower class "unwashed masses". How come? The former are the key demographic audiences they want reading their blogs because -- SURPRIZE! -- those BlogAd serveys conveniently show that's where the $$$$ is.
As far as I see it, Aravosis and Kos are THE epitome of a "single-issue" blog because, with the exception of gay marriage for Aravosis, their single-issue is simply to "Crash The Gate" and WIN. They will only manage to rattle the gate. The poor will be the ones that crash through even if it means hurdling over John and the Kossacks. That knowledge; that suspicion, fuels an underlying sense of resentment.
Hence the "Get Off My Blog" card ...
Shakes,
That was wonderfully put.
It's hard to believe that anyone can't see how often the word "girl" is used as an insult.
It's harder to believe that someone would continue to disregard the obvious insult and pain that results from that insult.
Aravosis either needs anger management class or a much larger hat size.
But with this post, I LEARNED
Thanks, KC. Really.
replacing Joe Klein with John Aravosis
The comparison between the two is very interesting, Sizemore. I hadn't considered that, but you're absolutely right. The recent dust-up with Klein and his readers and this mess are very similar indeed.
This thread keeps moving to new posts... I want to say one thing in response to what you've written about your reaction, because I think you raise an excellent point.
Now, I'm not inclined to believe that we can so easily control our initial emotional reaction to something potentially offensive. Nor, in many cases, would we do well to just suppress our feelings and ignore them.
Nevertheless, this sentence struck me strangely:
I don't want to be bothered when I read things like the post in question. I don't want to feel hurt by them. But it doesn't matter what I want. To protect myself against this reaction is to deny my experience, to deny part of myself.
Now, I will not dispute your experience or how it made you feel. But this point about denying parts of oneself seems to go too far.
Not every aspect of ourselves is admirable. I believe that there is such a thing as development and growth in individuals, as I imagine many others do. In my mind, this means that I don't necessarily have to endorse every feeling that I have in response to something.
Now, I don't think you're saying something so extreme as to deny my general point, but I think you nonetheless downplay what reason and self-criticism can do to make us better people.
Sometimes, it's just easier to change yourself than to change the world. Although this point is often taken to absurd extremes by conservatives who see everything as a matter of "personal responsibility", there is still some truth to it.
If you don't want to be hurt by things like this, can't you, in addition to raising the issue for discussion, also--because this is not an either/or situation as you rightly point out--work on yourself and try to change reactions you have in the future?
I think to deny this is to make us the slaves of our passions, and while I embrace the emotional aspects of my life and do not believe in the myth of dispassionate reason, I want to channel my emotions in beneficial and productive ways, to foster harmony between passion and reason.
So, being fair to both sides here, can't we see that some of the blame resides with those who are offended, not just with those who offend, especially if the latter do so unintentionally?
Isn't it good, not to deny parts of ourselves and pretend they don't exist, but to denounce the parts we don't like and work to improve upon them so we might grow as people?
Although I disagree with you regarding Kos (I think that he had a much better point than a lot of people give him credit for), I do regarding this.
There's nothing in making a bad turn of phrase or something like that, being called on it and apologizing. It happens to EVERYBODY. (Ever use the term "Rule of Thumb" before? That's a horribly sexist phrase. I still use it however. I hate myself every time I say it)
But he's just being an ass here.
I think you nonetheless downplay what reason and self-criticism can do to make us better people.
I don't believe that I am a bad person for reacting negatively to sexism. Nor do I believe that I would be a better person if I ignored that sexism has affected me. Pretending that my experience of being minimized as a person because of my gender doesn't matter would not be "reasonable" or "self-critical"; it would be dishonest and self-loathing. I would hardly be better for it. Your suggestion to the contrary is insulting, and your assertion that I ought to "denounce" this part of myself as something I "don't like" in order to improve myself is obscene.
Against my better judgment, I couldn't resist creating a visual in response to John's lack of sensitivity...hopefully he actually has a sense of humor.
For what it's worth, it seems he could have simply acknowledgment that the characterization was hurtful to some readers and that he was sorry if it was offensive.
If my tongue-in-cheek visual is offensive to anyone, I apologize in advance...it isn't intended to offend...it is intended to bring a little humor to the issue.
You can find it here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Thank you, you spoke for me here. I do not want my daughter's to have your - and my - history.
I had posted a comment or three in the original "disappeared" thread.
My initial comment noted that women have made by far less headway in stamping out derogatory language aimed against them largely because their objections are usually dismissed as "not the issue," "not important" (John Aravosis' backhanded response to the objections of women in the thread) and/or "emotional" or "silly" even by those who would never think to use a derogatory term against a racial or ethnic group or gays, for instance.
My next two comments were to answer responses that claimed I WAS being hysterical and silly for commenting to that effect. And so went the entire meltdown.
I'm sorry, I did not mean to speak in a way that criticized you personally, but to make a more general point. I hope I can clear this up.
Look, I'm not trying to say that I support sexism. I certainly do not. But what is interpreted as sexist is often a matter of dispute.
Is it a good trait to be offended when we'd rather not be? If you're going to fight against sexism anyway, what is added by taking so much umbrage at words, even if they were spoken carelessly? Does it help the struggle? Do people respond well to anger like this? (Aravosis clearly didn't, but he's got his own problems.)
Or maybe you do "want to be bothered when [you] read things like the post in question"? If you don't, then why seem so proud of your ability to take offense at such things?
Look, I'm harping on this point not because I bare you any ill will, but because I disapprove of a political culture in which victimhood is so readily embraced. Insofar as we have the power to rise above demeaning language, why shouldn't we do so? Sexism is, in part, a construct of our minds, at least insofar as we can choose to interpret something as sexist or not upon reflection.
I'm not saying that we should stop fighting for justice and equality. But are these the battles that we want to wage in that larger struggle? All this anger just seems counterproductive.
Excellent post, Shakes. I've lurked in the blogosphere for a while, and now have a baby blog of my own. I can't imagine using the 'get off my blog' card, but maybe that's because I'm excited to get over 100 hits a day, and still get a little ping in my heart when I get a comment on a post.
Apparently, when you get to a certain size, it becomes all about the person blogging and the thing we love about the blogs, being open discussion and sharing of ideas, gets put aside. Or at least that's how I read it.
I just love how he threw in "I'm serious". Makes me think of two kids getting ready to fight in school but not really wanting to. Classic.
What a great post. I don't really have anything to add about the whole mess that I haven't already said at my own blog, but I just had to say that this is one of the best blogs around, hands down.
If you don't, then why seem so proud of your ability to take offense at such things?
How, precisely, do I exhibit pride at taking offense? Please be specific, because I'd genuinely like to know.
I disapprove of a political culture in which victimhood is so readily embraced
You are fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying when I say I've been hurt by sexism and what it means. When I say I don't want to feel the way I do, it's not because I believe that there's something wrong with me for feeling that way; what I mean is that I don't want to be made to feel that way by the existence of sexism in our culture. And that has nothing to do with a weak character. When you suggest that I should better control my reactions to something that routinely seeks to devalue me as a person, it's akin to saying to a victim of a violent assault, "Dearie, if you don't want to keep having nightmares, just forget you were ever attacked!"
My post was an attempt to elucidate that which apparently eludes you and those like you who don't understand how sexism manifests itself within the lives of those affected by it. It is not the same as being called a nasty name by a stranger, or being slighted by a superior at work, or some other ill behavior that is best shrugged off for one's own sense of well-being. It is a lifelong struggle against bullying and belittlement, and if you don't like the existence of victimhood created by sexism, then you ought to fight against sexism, not those who are its victims.
"Chin up" is not a solution to sexism. In fact, it enables sexism by redirecting the responsibility for it onto those who have no control over it. You claim you don't support sexism, but if that were true, you would take pause for a moment and try to understand that your repeated assertions that its victims must shoulder "part of the blame" for its perpetuation exclusively serves the agenda of sexists.
I don't have anything to add either really except while I was making a large Greek salad ( more irony) for a graduation party this evening, I wondered if there was a place where us blog readers would find comments supporting John's behavior. I didn't think so. Wow is all I can say and glad to have made new friends along the way. Wishing calm to all y'all.
Specter of Spinoza,
I understand, and even agree to a point, with your comment about a culture of victimhood.
But you also asked:
"Does it help the struggle?"
The answer is yes. If you've ever taken a semantics course you know that words have the power to shape thought - if it were not so, why are we here reading this blog?
And when you subject little girls to a history of verbal abuse such as Shakespeare's Sister described from the earliest possible age, you train them to think there is something inherently inferior pertaining to their gender - and you train boys to think there is something inherently more right with theirs.
There were whole theories of language that were vigorously applied to stopping the application of derogatory language against other groups, based upon this theory.
Yet for women, these efforts have baen doubly hard and are getting us largely nowhere, for the stereotypes of women as silly and emotional have invariably been applied to dismiss their very efforts to draw attention to the problem.
I agree, habitual victimhood is bad, but I do not think insisting on not being victimized is a characteristic of victimhood.
I appreciate that so many do not mean to offend, but I would put forward the fact that so many women were offended by this, juxtaposed against why we can't just let this go and get on to something "important" as proof that we are still on "start" where derogatory language where used against women is concerned: we are still struggling to explain to those on our side why this is bad.
Everyone slips now and then. Everyone uses a slam they ought not to. Why? I don't know. John did it. Kos did it. Amanda at Pandagon did it.
Why do we all do it when we know better? No, wrong question. Why don't we all just fucking apologize when we get called on it. That's what I don't get.
Don't throw Aravosis in the shitter over this. He's shown that he's only human. A big fucking Idiot like everyone else. But he's still on our side.
I will grant that as a straight white guy, I honestly do not know what it is like to go through such things.
Nevertheless, many women grow up in this country without seeing sexism wherever they go. I'm sure they're blind to some things, but that can't explain all of the discrepancies.
And if you're so keen on saying this is not an either/or issue, then why lump me in with sexists just because I think that the issue is not entirely one-sided?
Let's take an example like rape prevention. Clearly, it is a problem that men are socialized in ways that make rape possible. We should do as much as we can to counter these trends and to punish rapists.
Nevertheless, it would also be an efficient use of resources to acknowledge that women have some power--not total power, but some power--to make decisions that decrease the likelihood of rape. Spreading this knowledge will likely lead to less victimization of women.
Now, is that blaming women for being victims of rape? I don't think so. I see it as empowering women to partly rise above a sexist culture.
Sexism isn't vanishing any time soon, so why be so uncompromising? Do you want to be unhappy? I just don't get it.
I am not trying to attack your character here. I'm probably doing a bad job of conveying that, so I understand why you're upset. I am very sorry for being insensitive.
I'm willing to drop the issue, if you'd prefer, because I don't have as much vested in it as you do. I'm just not sure why there are such huge differences in women's experiences such that some never notice such incidents and others never fail to.
One problem I see happening is that it's not a matter of being able to discuss more than one issue at the same time, but the frustration at a comments section being hijacked by what is, in fact, an off-topic thread.
What was actually an important point about Roberts and civil liberties was lost in a debate about sexist language idioms. I can understand that being frustrating to a writer.
If I may make a positive suggestion, when something like that appears in a thread it might be wise for the moderator(s) of the blog to ask it be moved to a different thread of its own, and keep the comments on a particular blog entry on-topic.
This same debate fired up on Crooks and Liars on a thread about a Daily Show episode. On that thread, a person who was particularly irked by a "girly man" kind of comment launched into an angry cussing tirade and called everyone "sexist pigs." That kind of reaction is counter-productive. We're all possessed of healthy egos and a fair amount of hubris, or we wouldn't be doing this. And we've been in hyper-defensive mode for so long it's hard to remember speaking and writing any other way. But we have to deal with each other with the tools of persuation and reason, and save the slings and arrows for the other side of the aisle.
I'm just not sure why there are such huge differences in women's experiences such that some never notice such incidents and others never fail to.
Perhaps because we're individuals?
You seem to be inferring that I am one of the women who "never fail" to see sexism. The irony of that is that I have often been accused of not being feminist enough, because, for examples, I don't find all pornography inherently sexist, or because I will use euphemisms for female genitalia in a negative way (e.g. cunt). The point is, each woman experiences things differently, and each will respond differently. Women with whom I disagree on some things, as the above examples, don't get my ire; I accept, understand, and respect their different opinions, yet I continue to differ.
That there are some women who react differently than I, or don't react at all, to things I view as sexist isn't evidence that non-reaction is the best course of action; only that it is one course of action. And, as it happens, it is a course of action that does not, in my view, help eradicate sexism.
Sexism isn't vanishing any time soon, so why be so uncompromising? Do you want to be unhappy? I just don't get it.
If sexism is to vanish at all, it requires an unwillingness to compromise; that's the whole point. Of course I don't want to be unhappy, but pretending that I am not offended by the use of my gender to denigrate another won't make me happy. You're suggesting I choose blissful ignorance (as if it were a choice)--but if we all do that, what chance is there of sexism magically disappearing?
If I may make a positive suggestion, when something like that appears in a thread it might be wise for the moderator(s) of the blog to ask it be moved to a different thread of its own, and keep the comments on a particular blog entry on-topic.
That's a perfectly reasonable suggestion. I've done the same here; if a tangential topic arises in comments, I've opened another thread to avoid "topic drift."
Why do we all do it when we know better? No, wrong question. Why don't we all just fucking apologize when we get called on it. That's what I don't get.
Same here. It's absurd- he bitches about people "missing the issue," but a simple "Oh, yeah, my bad, let me change that," would've negated the entire debate. It can be difficult to be the bigger person in certain situations, but this doesn't seem to be one of them- it's more like he arbitrarily decided there was a line in the sand he wasn't crossing, so fuck off.
Grow up, man. When you write for an audience, you're going to have to deal with people who don't see things the same way you do. You can either learn from that, or you can shut the door.
Lisa,
You make some good points. I guess I never paid much attention to the differential treatment you point to since I was on the lucky side of it.
Perhaps you can understand why I'm a little skeptical. I guess part of me wants to believe that progress has been made and that things aren't so bad as you say. That's perhaps a failing in myself. Honestly, I'm still unsure.
I feel like we've made progress. In the past, many people didn't even see gender equality as an admirable goal. Now, even if we make mistakes and act in sexist ways, at least we agree on where we want to go, and some of us can acknowledge when we've erred and apologize for it.
Nevertheless, I'm still inclined to believe there are some differences between the sexes--not in value, of course, but in other not insignificant areas.
For instance, no one would deny that human beings are a sexually dimorphic species like other primates, i.e., males on average are taller and heavier and physically stronger than females. We should not generalize this physical strength difference to include strength of character or courage, which are very different things. Nonetheless, we're still left with these biological differences that culture has only limited power to overcome.
This being the case, treatment of men and women never will or should be identical, even though all deserve equal consideration. This is especially poignant in areas like medicine, where the needs of the sexes are sometimes quite distinct.
I wish I could better understand the plight of women and other oppressed groups, so I could better relate to what's being said. Still, I want to be optimistic. Isn't it a good thing if, in a struggle, we can sometimes rise above the fray and shrug off a slight? It may not always be possible, but it seems that this kind of self-development is an admirable goal.
I'd be a hypocrite if I said I don't play the "Get Off My Blog" card because I do but it's very narrow. My policy is "Your click, your browser, your problem" however that last thing I'd do on my blog is to edit or delete comments of any kind - positive or negative - from anyone.
That just seems heavy handed and I think by taking the effort to edit/delete comments that either offend me personally or would offend a lot of readers and thus give way to caterwauls for "BAN THE TROLL OR I'M GONE!", I'd be actually giving those comments credibility or bucking to pressure from the status-quo. A dignifcation via editing/deleting is still a dignification.
I'm a firm believer in the notion of "By ye words, you're saved or damned" and the best way for me to champion that is to leave ALL comments alone and let them bask in the sunlight -- warts and all.
However, I will ban racists and bigots so my joint is no safe haven for them. Won't edit their comments but they will be banned.
Another thing is I don't pay much attention to people who use the "Anonymous" function because I think it's ripe for abuse. Considering the current Aravosis situation here where he played "Musical Threads" before his Ralph Cramdon moment, there isn't many degrees of seperation from that and him actually tearing into a dissenting blog using the "Anonymous" function for cover. Not saying that he will - I'm just saying the temptation is there because the "Anonymous" function provides it by proxy.
Thank you for addressing this. For more go to:
Brilliant post at:
http://aravosisblog.blogspot.com
or go to everydayactivism.blogspot.com to find out more.
I'm just not sure why there are such huge differences in women's experiences such that some never notice such incidents and others never fail to.
Don't want to jump into the middle of this, but this comment reminded me of an office conversation that I had a few years ago (ok, many years ago).
An older gentleman walked into the manager's office to complain that he was getting sexually explicit phone messages on his voice mail from a man. Every woman in the place laughed at how shocked he was (the face, I can still see it and chuckle).
Apparently his extention had previously belonged to a woman and she (along with all of the other female workers) had been receiving these calls on a regular basis. They tried to do something to stop it, but at the time there was nothing they could do (pre-caller id).
Very soon, the entire office was crammed into the manager's office and an eye-opening discussion took place. The men in the office were amazed to find out that every single woman in the office had received multiple explicit phone calls over their lives (at work, home etc), and we were shocked to hear that they never received any. We always thought it was a normal part of owning a telephone.
Maybe this is a useless post, but I don't think anyone can even begin to understand how another lives their lives until an open dialogue takes place.
Oh, and thanks for this post. It was nice to see that captured so eloquently.
Specter,
Don't think I don't appreciate that you are trying to understand - I do. But you don't.
I don't mean to imply women have made no progress - I am old enough to be both astounded at how much, and appalled at how little when it it comes to some of the underlying structures that are still enabling overt sexism.
I honestly think language itself is one of those underlying structures: if the very words chosen to use to belittle and denigrate men are words that denote they are women, where does that leave us but publicly identified as the least desirable form of humanity?
Your comment about "rising above a fray and shrugging of a slight" is, imho, one of the other underlying structural problems that are perpetuating sexism - and why I think this subject itself just won't die.
Shakespeare's Sister wrote about history, and it was a familiar history for many women. Here's another piece of that history: historically, we aren't supposed to complain and we are supposed to back down.
Men who complain are standing up for themselves, women who do are bitches. Men who won't back down are firm and forceful, women who won't are whining and nagging. I'm not making that up - there are studies that show those descriptor words are almost exclusive to the genders I attached them to in those sentences and almost identical behaviors are described that differently depending on the gender of the person being described - ask any woman who has lived through a hellish board meeting if that is not so.
How, I ask you, are we supposed to effect change if we are not permitted to ask for it without being told to shrug it off and rise above the fray - or, as Aravosis put it, focus on what's important? It's the Catch-22 of the entire feminist movement( not to mention the reason people like Rush Limbaugh still get laughs by describing feminists as "Feminazis").
Until you get the process of that Catch-22 you will not be able to understand why you are not understanding.
Personally? There are days when I'm just too tired to deal with confronting this stuff, and others where I know I will have taken a step toward sabotaging my career if I do, so I do shrug it off. The thing is, I feel ashamed of myself afterward everytime I do.
I think all women have been faced with sexism to some extent. First job I got out of college was at United Airlines. Stupid me thought it had to do with what I could bring to the department. Found out years later that the hiring manager ask the all male department what they thought of me after I left. I got the thumbs up. Only the hiring manager had talked to me.
Yeah. That was disappointing. If he was still around I would have slapped his ugly face.
I dont' expect men to understand tho. They haven't experienced it. So how can they. I am shocked at John's attitude of not attempting to understand. But I do so much male bashing, that I don't fault men when they make comments like that.
But they can at least try huh?
Ah, poop...I am a new visitor, and didn't check for other entries.
Here's my take on the matter.
I will now read this blog regularly, as I the attitude suits my temper. If nothing else, I love the purple and green. 
[Now! Let's play with space-time continuum!]
Yeah. I stopped reading Aravosis soon after the Dean thing. He's hysterical, and I don't mean that in the sense of "funny." He could have defused this whole kerfuffle in two words: "My bad," but instead he went on the defensive/offensive because he had no real response to the criticism.
Ah well, there are too many blogs to read anyway.
How ironic that John would do a "Go Cheney yourself" to his readers.
Nevertheless, it would also be an efficient use of resources to acknowledge that women have some power--not total power, but some power--to make decisions that decrease the likelihood of rape. Spreading this knowledge will likely lead to less victimization of women.
Now, is that blaming women for being victims of rape? I don't think so. I see it as empowering women to partly rise above a sexist culture.
Specter, you need to be considerably more specific here. What decisions, exactly, should women be making that will lead to a decreased likelihood of being raped?
Dress more modestly? Don't go to certain places alone, although males can travel anywhere without thought? Never go on a date without a third-person chaperone in case the gentleman becomes overwhelmed by his manly urges and rapes you, something that could have been avoided if you'd thought to bring someone else along, or wear a longer skirt and skip the makeup and grooming in the interests of avoiding victimhood?
Can't you see how profoundly sexist that rubbish is?
Perhaps the "Big Girl" reference at Americablog can at least account for one thing: I found your site due to it!
I'd heard about your blog awhile back but with all there is to do I simply never checked it out. My bad!
I've been a regular blogger at Americablog for about a year and a half. While I agree with the politics and appreciate that I often read things there that the MSM doesn't cover, the blog is essentially flawed due to John's gigantic ego.
One must never raise his ire or else you are gone, pure and simple. And one thing he most certainly will NEVER do is apologize.
So the "Big Girl" fiasco wasn't the first - it was just yet another example that no one dare point out to the Emperor that he has no clothes.
I missed the bru-ha-ha, only coming late to it this morning. I had been reading one of today's threads when several, including John himself, were blogging about the "big girl" thread and how silly it was. One long time blogger even admitted he changed his moniker just so he could blog insults! The thread was brushing off the criticisms, so I sought it out and read it.
John had already erased 400 entries in the thread by then and the thread started anew apparently with the same reasonable requests, I felt, to reexamine his choice of words and remove the headline. Not a big thing to ask of a reasonable person.
When I saw later that he had again erased the comments and posted what is now posted here, I truly was ashamed for him.
There is simply an Achilles Heel with John. He hates being told he's wrong.
As for the "big girl" comment being "common" among his gay peers as in "it's acceptable, so nothing to get excited about, and if you do, you're just a big girl"; Well, then, therein lies the problem. Why is it an acceptable terminology among his friends?
And if he truly wishes to have a progressive blog, he needs to do a little self-examination from time to time as to why he can so casually toss off such a comment and not take the heat that it generates.
Instead, he, as he's done in the past, says, "It's my blog."
If he doesn't want to get mired in the triviality, then don't engage in triviality that denigrates, presumably, half his readership.
Then again, John simply doesn't get it. That's truly unfortunate, not only for him, but those of us who would like to think that not only are his politics progressive, but also, his heart.
Anyway, that's why I'm here today.
Just because every woman doesn't complain about sexism doesn't mean they aren't experiencing it.
Shea,
You're right, this is a great blog and I'm also glad I found it through this fiasco - so silver linings and all, right?
I despise of the masculine culture of competition, living life like someone is keeping score, using gender and sexual insults to denigrate another to gain advantage, nicknames to maintain percieved pecking order.
Am I saying this because for all my life I've been at the bottom of that pecking order? Yes, and from the vantage point I see a lot of arrogantly wasteful and ugly aspects to the male psyche--the people pushed aside like so much debris by men questing to be King of the Hill.
I have instead learned in my middle years a better nature, borne out of introspection on my masculinity: Passion combined with control, compassion combined with the will to act.
Start with with the moral precept that you and I are, in essence, one, that what I destroy, destroys me, what you help, helps all, and that competitive nonsense drilled into the male ego from birth begins to drop away.
Exactly, Lisa. I'll still visit John's site from time to time, but I have no illusions about him or how he handles criticism. It does seem, though, that this latest fiasco is about the biggest thus far. I do wonder how many more he can withstand.
Right now there are many new bloggers at his site - and so many older bloggers have left - that most of the blogging has been reduced to nonsense. I left this evening when in an Iraq war thread (I think it was that thread) the repeated blog posts centered around dogs and cats eating corn on the cob.
I kid you not. It read like an AOL chat room for 14 year old kids.
Oh goody...John scrubbed the comment thread again, including my comment linking to this site.
Quoth the blogger himself: "As I said, I appreciate polite feedback, so thank you. But as I also said, the issue is over, let's move on. If folks want to continue debating this, then please just leave and don't come back. I'm just going to keep deleting your posts. It's over, move on."
You have been ordered. So let it be written, so let it be done. Mektoub.
John says that he has a "joint law degree and masters in foreign service from Georgetown," disciplines that have as their foundation the ability to be careful and precise about words and their meanings. That's part of the reason I'm less likely to give him as much slack as some ordinary guy who opened his mouth and inserted his foot.
I suppose it's better that we find out that he breaks under pressure now, rather than later on when the stakes are higher.
Shea, Have myself given up and am reading through some of the "Greatest Hits" here.
There are some powerfully written posts - can see why it was voted best team blog - rare to see so many good writers in one place.
>"Chin up" is not a solution to sexism.
It's not clear to me why it can't be -part- of a solution to sexism. Alongside legal and political protections, alongside an equal rights amendment, an equalization of salaries, socialized healthcare, privacy rights, etc., there seems to be an obvious personal strategy (which Specter of Spinoza is pointing out) that helps some women who are seeking these goals: laugh off insults.
Consider this scenario: our next president is Hillary Clinton. Many people will say horrible things about her, both during and after the election. Yet if she still manages to win, despite the overt sexism of the non-majority, then these little digs become signs of jealousy and resentment rather than oppression.
People who have lost in a competition often develop retrograde racism or sexism: they can find no better language for their anger in defeat than to use the obvious words to describe their opponents' most obvious characteristics. It helps to have been beaten by a Jew or a woman rather than an individual who just happened to be better.
In practice, we can say that our culture will still be misogynistic if Hillary wins... but does it make much sense for the newly-minted President Clinton to take offense to the horrible things that her opponents say about her? I think not. She will have won the important battle, and the rest is, well, beneath her. But, maybe I'm wrong. SoS seems to be arguing that we all practice some stoicism: a personal strategy for happiness. Call it "not sweating the small stuff. (And it's all small stuff.)"
PS- Great blog! Like others, I'm glad to have found it.
It's been one of the most difficult things for me about progressive bloggers: the good understanding of every cause--gay rights, environmental issues, blacks' rights, workers' rights, universal medical insurance, I mean _everything_ ... except sexism. And on the rare occasions I've tried to discuss that with male bloggers, I've had the same general reaction as Aravosis's, although always (so far) more politely expressed. Maybe, if people ever do get their heads around what they're doing, remembering how madly they resisted these insights will help them understand how other, more inclusive, bigots get that way.
thebewilderness: "my half of the population resents being the default insult." Exactly. EXACTLY.
The other thing I wanted to say was that good as this post was, Shakes, your hands aren't clean either, I hate to say. I've seen "pussies" to mean cowards on this blog. And what about "blogwhoring"? Promoting your own blog is the same as putting up with johns who are often disgusting enough that the women need drugs to be able to deal with them? I know, they're just expressions and that's the way people use them now. Which would be a fine argument if the words no longer had the old meanings. But they do. That's what gives them their power. And that's what makes them wrong.
I've decided to blog my response. My blog isn't anything popular and I don't update it nearly often enough. But at least it's a place I can speak my mind.
http://guannawannablog.blogspot.com/
(Quixote raises a good point about possible hypocrisy. However, a number of psychological studies show that pretty much everybody's a hypocrite. We all have ridiculous self-serving biases that we only notice in other people.
Also, I wonder if hypocrisy is the great crime we take it to be. It might show that a person has certain ideals even if they sometimes fail to live up to them--but this is a discussion for another time.)
In any case, based on what a lot of the women are saying here, I think that, considering how I don't experience this firsthand, I honestly have no idea what it must be like to be treated as a second-class citizen.
Taylor and Lisa, in particular, and I thank the two of you, have pointed out some things I really haven't been aware of. Even though these things have often been brought to my attention, I still don't fully appreciate how easy it is to take for granted the advantages conferred to men.
I apologize, especially to you, Sis, if my comments have been offensive and inconsiderate. Please know that this was not my intention and that I've found this discussion extremely valuable; it's certainly taught me some things.
In the least, I can now see that I really have no idea of what it's like to be a woman. I can imagine it must be awful to have those kinds of assumptions made about you on a frequent basis. I try to be aware of this kind of thing, but it's clear that so much escapes my notice.
I've found myself in a strange position here, because ordinarily I'd be arguing your side of things. For instance, I've taught an ethics course the past 2 semesters, in which we covered the topic of rape, and date rape in particular.
It always amazes me how eager my students, both men and women, are to blame the victim, and how quickly they raise the prospect of a woman lying for revenge or acting out of some other nasty motive. I try to tell my students that, far more often, the man is given the benefit of the doubt (which, in fairness, may be to some extent inevitable in a criminal justice system that assumes innocence until one is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). But the point is often lost.
This last term, I brought up the horrific story that Shakes' Sis reported on not so long ago, involving that videotaped underage girl and how awful it was that her attackers got off scot-free. Even when I draw upon such stories--and perhaps this is because I teach at a conservative southern university--students repeatedly invoke the rhetoric personal responsibility, at the expense of the victim (she's to blame for leading him on, she didn't resist so she must have wanted it, and other such pernicious myths).
(In response to litbrit's inquiry, since I'm on the subject, I definitely see the problem in suggestions like "dress more modestly" or "don't walk home alone". I leave these to an individual woman's discretion, and see it as unfortunate that things like this are sometimes a practical necessity.
The measures I endorse in particular apply to specific situations, like going to a party: go with friends, be careful about how much you drink, avoid being alone with someone you don't trust, never leave your drink unattended especially if there's some dude trying to get inside your pants--unless you want him there, I suppose--and so forth.)
Thank you all for being patient with me. As I was saying, even though I usually take your side of things, I have my doubts about the arguments involved, and so part of my resistance here was to try to allay those concerns by talking about it with others.
I definitely think, on the whole, it's good that this topic has been raised. Even though I still harbor reservations about some of what has been said, I'm starting to see the other side a little more clearly.
I was in a class this past Fall in which we read "God of the Oppressed," by James Cone, a well regarded African American Liberation Theologian. Anyway, this is a 70's classic, very firey cool stuff that only a radical in a different era could have written. Anyway, a serious problem with this piece of liberation theology is that in no way does Cone deal with gender and in fact in his vision, African American women "are of help" to the movement by "supporting"; now, this is dated, but our discussion of it and the issues Cone brings up was contemporary. What was the reaction of the men in the class, black and white? Gender can wait until after race and class have been dealt with. Gender, they don't see more than half of the population of the earth, as important as liberation for the oppressed male first. The male teaching assistant was on board with our gender concerns and maybe some of the men who didn't speak up, I don't know, but quite frankly unless you speak, your opinions are vapor--electrical currents of the brain that will die with you. There always seems to be this tension, between "competing" visions of injustice and rectitude, but where people fail to see injustice as interconnected, as is privilege, then we have a fundamental failure understanding of cause and effect. It is as if there is only so much justice, its a limited commodity, so we have to pick and choose, but justice is NOT oil; justice is systematic and relational in nature--its social, cultural, and values oriented. Guess what? We all could have the legal right to equal pay for equal work; we could all have healthcare; we could all have cleaner cars or modes of public transportation; we could all have healthy and organically grown food; we could all have safe public parks--we just have to recognize that discrimination of race, class, and gender is related to our structures and our own ability to relate and love one another.
"Big Girl" like "Big Fag" or "Big N&**$#" or "Big ????" are inter-related because they seek to devalue a person by association with a negative term. Why should "girl" be a negative term? I was a girl, my nieces are girls, girls are lovely and smart and warm and in need of our protection and loving kindness...as are boys. So, to use that term, well it sprays hatred and derision on all girls and all women.
This guy needs to apologize. It can be over that simply; apologize. Hopefully learn from this, as anyone in contrition ought, but mostly just apologize.
There was a similar incident at "Crooks and Liars" the other day that was handled in a different, and I believe better way.
The comments were in response to a video clip C&L put up from TDS of John Stewert interviewing Ramesh Ponnuru, a winger, on his new "book" The Party of Death. Which of course is not about the Rethuglicans but rather the Dems and liberals in particular.
Ponnuru does not have a stereotypically manly voice. Jon Stewert held his feet to the fire and Ponnuru stammered and smirked and looked like the shallow, talking point repeater he is, basically an idiot.
In the haloscan comments most folks gleefully enjoyed Jon's "eviscerating" of the winger. Unfortunately, probably stimulated by the guys voice, derogatory female references were soon being made.
I responded with this:
"Let me clue you in Omoll and John Harrington: being evasive, full of shit, incoherent, disingenious, and barely anti-war enough to acknowledge the immorality of Hiroshima are not female traits. To call this jerk Vagina Guy, or a (gasp!!) girl(Yuck) is creepy in the same way Ramesh is. The guy did not have a manly baritone voice. The rest of his qualities are well represented in the male gender. One could easily argue more representative of "icky bully boys".
Refraining from sexist crap would be nice while defending women's right to control their bodies."
I got seconded by other commenters, much later in the thread another commenter complained angrily about the same sexist crap. After a few angry posts one of my seconders accused the commenter of trying to start a "flame war" and noted that the sexist commenters had been reprimanded. When the offended commenter found my post and its seconding by others the poster agreed the matter had been dealt with.
I looked at the tread before making this post and see the the site monitor had done this:
Why did Jon bring such a [deleted] in his show? It was a waste of our time. This scubag is lagging 65 years. What a scum This Ramesh is!!
Women and their body parts should not be used as an insult out of respect for our female posters. Site Monitor
Edited By Siteowner
Omolll | 05.18.06 - 3:24 pm | #
[deleted--let's not use women as derogatory insults, shall we?]
Edited By Siteowner
John Harrington | 05.18.06 - 3:25 pm | #
I think C&L did a good job with the situation and the intelligent discussion did not get derailed off-topic by the sexist crap that a few individuals stuck into their comments. We need to work at not letting the fact that we are all products (victims?) of a male dominated, female demeaning society stop us from working towards a common goal of a better world. When we slip up lets try a deal with it in an honest way.
You know,the more I think about this,the more I realize just how much work we have in front of us.Perhaps today's little baby girls and boys won't be so quick to use language to degrade and hurt each other if we do the work now.
That means confrontation,and as young girls,we're taught to run from that or do what it takes to "keep the peace".When women are forced into confrontation,we feel scared,maybe even sick to our stomachs.But the more you do it,the easier it becomes.I wish I had learned that at 20 instead of 40.
I've always wondered what would happen if women,en masse,could lay aside personal differences(and one could do a whole book,or series of books on the many ways we,as women,see each other as competition rather than allies)and just showed up in Washington DC by the millions.With a simple message,we are not second class citizens and we will not go quietly until the powers that be get it,and their ACTIONS reflect that they get it.But alas,I don't think that day will come anytime soon.
With Captain Americablog,I think a bit o wisdom applies:
When people show you who they are,believe them.John may be a great advocate for gay people,but that's where his skills begin and end.Period.
Our Constitution is on life support and you freaks have spent over 24 hours worrying about two words in a title, and you're still obsessed over it.
I wonder if it ever occurred to him that nobody would be talking about this at all now if he had just acknowledged his error and apologized.
Shakespeare's Sister,
Came here over coffee this morning to see if the debate in this thread had gone further and as I read new comments it occurred to me that there are many of us who ended up here trying to have a reasonable discussion we felt deprived of elsewhere.
It made me feel much better to find this outlet to address my concerns and see that others were trying to address theirs as well. So thank you for your posts on this subject, as well as for allowing a bunch of "strangers" to migrate here for a discussion I think we needed to have.
Also I wanted to apologize if I was rude in jumping into the middle of your one-on-one exchange with an individual - in retrospect I was actually so seething with anger at feeling unvoiced when I landed here that it never even occurred to me until I read back through the comments today.
You have a great blog and I am glad I discovered it, however I did.
When women are forced into confrontation,we feel scared,maybe even sick to our stomachs.But the more you do it,the easier it becomes.I wish I had learned that at 20 instead of 40.
You sing it, sister! Please, please, if you're reading this and you're a young woman who avoids confrontation, know that you will one day, as an older (like me) and hopefully wiser woman, look back and wish you'd spoken out. So do it now! Be gracious, be polite, be respectful, but damn it, speak out and insist on being treated as an equal. Stand up for yourself now; stand up for your rights, too--right now.
Hey Specter, It's hard for anyone to see the world from someone else's perspective - thank you for continuing to try instead of just digging in or walking away - if we were all so open to perspective shift we could solve a lot of problems.
A few thoughts:
1 - John may be a great advocate for gay people,but that's where his skills begin and end.
John is a great advocate only for middle-class white gay men. (I say this as a middle-class white person.)
2 - As has been mentioned many times on this thread, men are great for saying things like "you shouldn't wear such a short skirt", etc. What pisses me off is that then many of these same men will, on a hot day, strip themselves all but naked. Of course! They never have to worry about being assaulted, and they assume that everyone is just fine with their near-nakedness. If a woman were to decide "It's hot, I'm going to take my shirt off", she'd soon be sitting in a jail cell.
When I see a man without a shirt on, it feels like a slap in the face, like they are throwing their privilege around.
Guys, if you think that women should dress modestly to "protect themselves" or whatever, I'd like to see you impose those same rules on yourselves. Fair's fair.
3 - The "big girl" crap that JA pulled hurts more than just women. It hurts gender-variant (so-called "femme") men and any man that does not conform to societal expectations of macho-ness, insensitivity to others, etc. Men who do not conform in this way are often pilloried by those who do. I've witnessed this in action in office settings.
I've been thinking about this issue for a couple of days now -- wondering why I am more offended when I witness misogyny coming from a gay man. Why am I apt to be less forgiving in this case than I would if a straight guy called someone a "big girl"? Why did defending it as being part of the typical gay vernacular really pissed me off?
Here's why...
Both women and gay men are similarly discriminated against in our patriarchal society.
WE HAVE TO GROW UP. If we don't, we become victims.
Straight men are privileged to enjoy a Peter Pan life of sports, games, and good times. They can remain little boys their entire lives without serious consequence.
Take Dick Cheney for example. Playing hunter, he shot a buddy in the face. No big deal. It was just a couple of guys out playing with guns.
When was the last time you saw a woman in a similar situation? Women don't go trotting off in the woods and accidentally shoot their girlfriends. They rarely paint their faces in team colors and get drunk at sporting events. They often raise their children alone, without the support of deadbeat dads.
In our society, girls become women early in life -- when they reach puberty. Gay men get kicked out of the "boys club" at the same time. Yet, both groups are not recognized as legitimate adults.
Unfortunately, gains in equality for gay men has resulted in many of us adopting the ways of the straight men who oppress us. And, as has been pointed out in these posts, many gay men are now just as misogynistic as straight men. That's moving in the wrong direction.
And add EVERYTHING RachelPhilPa wrote to my previous comment. Right on!
Many good points here, and I want to add my two cents. "Big Girl" was an insult in the way John used it. Pure and simple. To excuse it as a light hearted term of endearment that is common among gay men is trivializing how destructive such off handed comments are. How does John feel when he is reffered to as a "Big Girl" by the average redneck? Not too keen I would wager. It is all about context isn't it? And what is printed for many is going to have much broader impact than what is said in the private company of friends. Men who complain that women are being overly sensitive about such terms are probably the first ones to fight when called such names. There is nothing more degrading in our society to be called a "girl" or a "fag". Such attitudes are so pervasive even women don't realize when they are contributing to this climate. Just yesterday a woman at work was lamenting about a "sissy man" on one of her favorite programs. I can't tell you how many women have complained to me how insensitive their boyfriends are, and then hear them call him "pussy" or "sissy" in front of other people as a way to keep him in line.
Also I wanted to apologize if I was rude in jumping into the middle of your one-on-one exchange with an individual
No apology needed! I appreciated your comments and all the others--even those that disagree with me. Honestly, the best thing about this blog is the comments threads, which I say with no ego, because I have very little to do with them!
Warm welcomes to everyone who's stopping by for the first time.
The other thing I wanted to say was that good as this post was, Shakes, your hands aren't clean either, I hate to say. I've seen "pussies" to mean cowards on this blog. And what about "blogwhoring"? Promoting your own blog is the same as putting up with johns who are often disgusting enough that the women need drugs to be able to deal with them?
Good points, Quixote. I don't recall ever using "pussy" to mean cowards, but if you say I have, then perhaps I did. I'll be vigilant about that in future.
As for "blogwhoring," I don't think of it as a sexist term. There are male and female prostitutes, for a start...and the term "whore" has been co-opted to refer to anyone who's shilling for something. Attention whore. Media whore. Etc. No one's ever complained about it before, but I'll be happy to open it up for discussion.
Speaking for myself, I'm not the least bit offended by the word whore. I agre that it was long ago co-opted to mean a shill or a sell-out. Long ago as in twenty-something years, perhaps more (William Safire, anyone?) I've also heard the term "slut" used in this context, though less often, for example the term "mercenary slut", meaning someone who has sold out and abandoned his principles for selfish, self-serving reasons.
cough*McCain*cough.
Hmm. I only read Americablog through the reader, and ignore updated posts, so I missed all of this except the original post. Which pissed me off itenough to go to the page to post a comment.
As to the forgive and forget crowd above, yes, sometimes that is the wisest course. But not when the offender is someone striving to be a leader and spokesperson for the new progressive left. And not when this person is exquisitely sensitive to slights against a group to which he belongs.
If you want that public role, you have to realize that what may pass in a group of close friends who understand each other's nuances, will not fly in public discourse.
It may be fun for gay men to take a break from it all, and join in on the patriarchal fun of belittling women and their role in the world. But then they have to give up their progressive cred.
"No apology needed! I appreciated your comments and all the others--even those that disagree with me. Honestly, the best thing about this blog is the comments threads, which I say with no ego, because I have very little to do with them!"
Wow! Great attitude!
I think the best thing that came out of this whole debacle for me was discovering this incredible blog. I have gone through your other posts, and I have really enjoyed what I read.
"The other thing I wanted to say was that good as this post was, Shakes, your hands aren't clean either,"
I just wanted to chime in on this. A while back, i made a complaint about some language in a post...the author wasn't shakes, but she was in on the discussion. Now, i don't think i got the warmest reaction in the history of blogging: it was somewhere around the lines of "riiiggghhhttt." Ultimatly, the hosts decided that the post was fine as is, and that i've overstated my case. Obviously, i didn't exactly agree with that assesment, but i didn't get banned, and i'm still here reading and commenting.
There's a difference between process and result. John screwed both of them up. That's where the anger is coming from, imo.
"There's a difference between process and result. John screwed both of them up. That's where the anger is coming from, imo."
Exactly!
Spectre of Spinoza: (I'm sure you're not a spectre, and judging by your understanding, you're not Spinoza either, but as someone said, at least you're talking about it politely) I did not, emphatically NOT, mean to imply there was any hypocrisy in the use of sexist language on this blog. I was trying to point out how widespread and ingrained it is, and how unexamined. That was my point in saying you find it even here.
Shakes: thanks for your wide open response. The world really, really, really needs more people like you. And yes, whore has been coopted to mean absolutely every shill in the universe, honest and otherwise. I'm pointing it out as just another example of the unexamined use of the language.
The reason there's something wrong with it (even though everyone does it--especially because everyone does it) is because it also still means whore. And when people think of whore, the image that springs to mind is not of a rent boy. So even though it's true that there are male prostitutes, that's not where the weight of the word lies. It's a term of insult for sex workers, and specifically female sex workers. If someone cursed out the "goddamn media sex workers" it would just sound funny.
Compare that to the term "gay." That word really has been coopted, so it can be used to mean gay without innuendo. Nobody thinks of lighthearted jollity, these days, when someone uses the word. We think of gay men and women. That's the difference.
Meanwhile, back at AB I see that again today there is this "group" who continues to post endlessly in serious discussion threads rather silly talk. This is a new kink over at AB that I've seen develop for a couple weeks or so.
I'm not sure the age group but as I've mentioned they sound like pre teens or young teens talking to each other, but I'm sure they're not. Today one even said something about waiting til the "gang" got there to talk about grilling on the barbeque - or something like that.
Aren't there other blogs that satisfy those types of community needs, instead of chewing up the haloscan at an ostensibly "progressive political" blog with endless, banal small talk in threads deemed something other than "open discussion"?
I think it's odd. Perhaps it shall just work its way out. Those things do seem to ebb and flow. I'm already pissed off at AB and this insipid one sentence/two sentence dull repetitively talk is pretty much putting the last nail in the coffin for me.
If John is so concerned about the content of his blog, he might also slap the wrists of those who use it as an AOL chat room. Then again, maybe I'm just too judgemental.
This is a thoughtful and needed post. Thanks for helping put into words what so many of us, who read and supported AMERICAblog, felt after reading John's original post.
I've been an occasional reader for some time and love your style. I added you to my blogroll today.
The point that seems to be overlooked by some here is that John asked a question. His commenters answered it in no uncertain terms.
How else to see it when someone like Roberts will send US soldiers to their deaths to defend our freedoms abraod, but then will gladly trade away those freedoms at home in order to avoid getting hurt.
Is there any other definition of "big girl" than that?
Is there any other definition of "big girl" than that?
Uh, yeah. There is -- a female child that is larger than most.
Some people are just too obtuse to understand why this is offensive. Either that, or they are the type that gets a kick from upsetting others.
Just call Robert a coward in plain, unprejudiced language. That's really not too much to ask.
Excellent coverage of the "big girl" controversy. Thanks!
I want to know why you are all so surprised by this. Come on – you all have read the sexist posts, commenter’s who used derogatory or scatological language to put down any right-wing female they disagreed with. Months ago I posted something asking that the dialog be trimmed – or at the very least toned down a notch; that it wasn’t progressive, liberal or intelligent to use sex as a weapon against a Coulter or a Malkin. I was roundly and soundly ignored; so I crossed Aravosis off my reading list and moved on. What – did none of you ever really read what the man wrote? Or didn’t it bother you because it was about someone vile? This is not the first time he has done this – and you all know it. What – were you blinded by his constant claim to stardom? “I’m an ‘A’ list blogger – my opinion means more”! Sis – you questioned him on this latest statement and you were dismissed; marginalized – and it shocked you. You thought he held you in more respect than that. Well he doesn’t. Quell surprise. Go back over his archives and see for yourself (if he hasn’t sanitized them). You just might find this ‘big girl’ appellation doesn’t stand alone. Read the comments threads. Nowhere does he take someone to task for, shall we say, ‘colorful language’. Did you see what he said about you? He said you weren’t one of the brightest bulbs in the box. He put it in this comment thread to make sure you read it, too. In essence – by dismissing you, he has dismissed our entire gender. If any of you want to give him a go by on this – then all I can say is I hope he doesn’t decide to marginalize you next.
Excellent point, Fat Lady (Big Girl?).
No one else has pointed out the obvious: John Aravosis is an idiot. Many of his posts clearly pulled from the vicinity of his ass. I remember something he wrote from Edinburgh at the G8 last summer: he was surprised he'd been stopped by police! Gee, where did he think he was?
And just last week his "sources" told him Tony Blair was resigning next week. They forgot to tell BBC, or Tony Blair apparently.
Sexist, and wrong.
(Repeated from a previous post.)
John A's really gotten shrill (yes, I'm aware of the anti-feminist baggage of that word) in the last eight months or so. He's shown some skill in directing mass media attention on some important subjects, but like Dan Savage he only came out a few years ago and has only a fuzzy idea of the history of gay and civil rights. (I have a friend who knew DS in high school and college who says he was extremely hetero before he decided to switch and become a public queer moral scold, doorknob-licking walking biowarfare vector and fraudulent voter.)
I'm not saying that today's activists should be required to know the history of their group's struggle -- in fact I think the combination of youthful enthusiasm combined with raw ignorance and belief was a lot of what helped Queer Nation substantially speed up the progress of queer rights back in the 90s (though Clinton's impeachment, with its disucssions of oral sex, etc., in the national media helped as well). We need people of all kinds of knowledge and activity, from street protestors to strategic planners to casual supporters. One factor I haven't seen discussed about QN or activism in general is that a semi-radical group is very useful for centrists to position themselves against, so that they can go to stakeholders and say, "you can deal with them radicals or you can deal with us 'reasonable' people." In other words, despite the wide variety of views and convictions, the solution isn't any particular one of us -- it's all of us put together.
Did you see what he said about you? He said you weren’t one of the brightest bulbs in the box.
About me? I didn't even leave a comment in his thread, because by the time I got there, comments were already being deleted. Why did I even come up?
Here's what he said:
It's not easy keeping up with all the posters who want to leave comments about TABOO TOPICS, which I have warned them will be DELETED. I already made it clear to them that I was ready to move on, but these folks aren't the brightest bulbs in the box if you know what I mean.
He put the link upthread - just to make sure he got his point over - and that you and everyone else here saw it as well. As far as I'm concerned that's a slap in the face - to you; to everyone who took him to task over this. And he continues on today. I'm just not surprised at this behavior. Left or right - an asshole is an asshole. You were right to take him to task over it; I just don't see how anyone whose read his blog recently could suppose he'd care.
To clarify, it wasn't specifically Shakes Sis I was referring to--she may be a very bright bulb, for all I know. It's more the general hysterical, shrill, high-pitched tone in general to all this email I'm getting. Don't you all understand that I'm a war blogger?
Mr. Aravosis, may I suggest that along the spectrum of bulb brightness, dimmer specimens tend to reside in that area at the end wherein appear those who remain steadfast in their convictions despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Or, in other words: even if you thought you were right in your word choice, the fact that it upset a large number of your readers and you refused to acknowledge this and apologize--not for choosing the words, mind you, but for not considering that it would upset many people--undermines you as a progressive and, further, lumps you in with certain other individuals who insist on staying the course even as the climate changes.
(litbrit, go to that homepage & check it out.)
yeah, that is the fake aravosis, but funny. JA moved the thread AGAIN. I think it might be gone for real.
He moved it here
Well, in honor of JA's continued March of Idiocy, I've decided to up my monthly donation to Howard Dean and the DNC. Since Aravosis had a screaming fit recently over Dean's firing of his friend (to replace him with a far more qualified professional, as I understand it), it's very fitting, IMO.
How funny! Thanks, oddjob.
I didn't think to click on the homepage link because, well, I didn't want to visit his site again and up the hit count, even by one.
All I can say is, don't mess with the blogosphere. Seriously. We represent a faster (and more creative) thinker than the average bear.
(though obviously I am not so fast today)
John's begging for money again. FYI.
He's also changed the Big Girl archive thread headline to read "Grrrrl" instead of "Girl." Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that when I scrolled backwards on AB to check out what the fuss was about the last thing that jumped out at me in that headline thread was "Big Girl" not "Big Grrrrl." To have him change it now in the archives, changes the intent, actually, and tries to make him appear "hip" and oh-so-guerilla-like.
BTW, several commenters are simply posting "no" to his request for money.
I've never contributed mainly because I can't, but also, because he makes it clear that a lot of that money goes to supporting his fun time and travels. That has always turned me off.
One commenter has already taken him to task for asking for any money whatsoever when everything could be had for free if he had only utilized the right sources. Who knows.
Watch for the thread to be deleted soon.
Yes, Shea, when it was first posted he spelled it with an "i".
As I said earlier, he's a pit bull, and when he steps in it, he really makes a huge mess. However, the single biggest reason he does so is because he gets so childish about not backing down.
I can't even begin to imagine what a headache he would be as a boyfriend!
Talk about touchy! OY!
I used to be a monthly contributor. He needs money? Too bad.
I told him "no" too, and explained civilly, if bluntly, why.
So he deleted that comment.
I left another one, pointing that out. We'll see how long it stays.
How utterly childish.
John just isn't brilliant at salvaging stuff. All he needed to do is say that he was sorry if he offended any of his progressive readers. Instead he does the usual kneejerk male progressive bit of downplaying feminists' opinion as trivial when compared with The Big Issues, somewhat atypically for him (he has posted on reproductive rights issues). Well, this wasn't the hugest issue in the world, but he blew what amounted to a style manual correction into a kerfuffle.
Yup. And even in his efforts to "fix" the problem, he makes it worse.
Note his final comment after I posted a second time: here.
In it he claims that "Actually, this is not a general blog, it's a blog that focuses on US politics, the religious right, and gay rights."
So... I guess that women's issues aren't part of US politics, but random posts on orchids and bars in Amsterdam are?
I suppose when he says "Guys, we've come to an agreement here" he means just that: guys.
(As always, it ain't the insult that kills you, it's the fall from the high horse.)
I'm not even sure how his new title makes sense. Roberts is a Grrrrl? Then we think he's angry & rebellious & cool? So then it's good to trash the Constitution? Man, the knots JA's tying himself in to avoid the horror of an apology
...and now I'm banned.
Funny how he's become like those he critiques, isn't it? Perhaps, all along, it's just been a matter of envy, not righteousness.
Ah, well. Given what I know about who's been banned, I'm in wonderful company.
Do you think we should start making bets on when the really truly absolutely not another word after this time I really mean it last word on the taboo subject is likely to be?
(As always, it ain't the insult that kills you, it's the fall from the high horse.)
Rana | Homepage | 05.22.06 - 9:15 pm | #
Rana, he's banning people saying no now? Oh my god, he truly does have a God Complex. Hope he likes the ride down.
This was just deleted a few minutes ago:
I took such monkers as "terms of endearment" back-in-the-day.
Indeed, and so they are.
That's why John's explanation of his use of the term simply doesn't wash.
As someone trained in law, he's bound to understand common vernacular usage and how his explanation simply isn't the conclusion a reasonable person familiar with the lexicon is going to come to.
He was calling Roberts a coward, and you don't do that by using a gay term of endearment.
You do it by using the elementary schoolyard taunt.
Which as any American boy who went through it knows, is to be called a girl because your classmates perceive you as timid.
And that's a whole different kettle of fish than being called "girl" by your gay buddies.
Get a load of Aravosis's latest spin on the subject matter of the Big Girl thread (with my emphasis):
"I didn't not initially reply "pissy" at all. I explained that this was gay vernacular, and later explained what I meant by that - the phrase "big girl" is gay male slang for "big fag." Several folks then erupted and said that was ridiculous, they'd never heard of it, etc. - as if I was just making it up - and then they called me a misogynist, and more - that's when all hell break lose.
The fact remains that the phrase "big girl" (often written "big grrrrl") IS gay male slang. That fact doesn't change because someone hasn't heard of it. Now, some folks don't like it, I get that, some find it sexist, I get that too. I don't happen to agree with them, even if I understand their concern." (John Aravosis)
What utter crap! He has learned how to spin from Rove, apparently.
He has now gone into farce.
Not once in all the 30 years I have been the ersatz sister of two men who are gay (and moreover, the friends/lovers we've met during that time) have I ever heard this reference, this explanation, this rationalization, not to mention this reworking/redefining of the word "grrrl."
Again, I ask, if we "accept" John's explanation that it is part of his group's vernacular - this makes it right, how?
Okay, I'm obsessing. But the gall of it all is sizeable.
I find it absolutely smirkable that he chose to address his readers as "Guys". Yeah, I know - but it seems a bit Freudian to me, given the circumstances! 
often written "big grrrrl" IS gay male slang
Actually, no.
It doesn't seem to be written that way at all by gay men, as far as I can see. Unless they've managed to write it only in snail mail, or in semaphore hankies hanging from their back pockets.
A google of "big grrl" + gay (2 Rs)
gives it used by: 2 young straight women (16 and 29) who use" gay" in its straight vernacular derogatory sense ("myspace is so gay"), 3 lesbians discussing women's body image, a person with a gender-neutral name discussing a woman singer, a guy referring to a woman acquaintance in a gym. The only two newsgroup references with that spelling came from two posters in transgender newsgroups.
A google of "big grrrl" + gay (3 Rs)gives no results in the newsgroups, and two non-gay references in the regular Google.
A oogle of "big grrrrl"+ gay (4 Rs) gives two myspace uses by what seem to be teenage girls, and no newsgroup citations.
I'm wondering if "big girl" is actually from the British insult "Big girl's blouse," which seems to have the "wuss" meanings.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/d...girl%
27s+blouse
"Big girl's blouse - a term that has more associations with the north of England, but is also used 'down south'. Normally used as a term to playfully ridicule a young man who is a bit soft and shy. The sort of thing your uncle might say to you. eg. 'Come on, put your back into it you big girls blouse!'"
http://www.londonslang.com/db/b/
The Oxford English dictionary dates "big girl's blouse" usage back to 1969.
Ferry Fey, I'm English and I had the same thought. "Big girl's blouse" is also explained by Barneys Creative Director (and former window dresser) Simon Doonan in his book Confessions of a Window Dresser. Its meaning is exactly what you say.
I've never heard anyone call anyone a big grrrl. I suspect the altered spelling was an attempt to break the links and divert people from the post, nothing more.
While I'll occasionally use a "grrrl" for literary effect, at this point it's a little dated and begins to sound like people self-consciously trying to be cool.
I actually have a copy of the Doonan book on top of a large stack of books, having moved it there from where it was lurking behind a sofa cushion. Doonan says in his glossary, "effeminate and flopsy when applied to a man. Large, messy female when applied to a woman."
Perhaps in that usage it is related to "blowzy," in the sense of coarse and slatternly? (I like, by the way, how the OED gives "hack" for the meaning of Drudge). At any rate, at least in that sense the subject of a "big girl's blouse" label is being compared to a piece of clothing, rather than Womanhood.
I understand the place that "Mary" (the gay archetype, rather than She Who Won't Talk About My Milk Carton) and all that has in the gay community. But honestly, it pisses me off the way some in the gay community colonize femaleness. It's like white people doing blackface.
John was also getting riled about the 5% of posters who were assholes. Look, this is a real world constant, and shouldn't be a big surprise. Five percent of any given group are assholes.
John gets riled easily.
As a Yank, I can't say that I've ever heard anyone use the phrase "big girl's blouse", however in my ear when I hear "big girl" used to describe a guy I hear what "big girl's blouse" is defined as meaning when applied to a guy.
To my Yankee ear it's not really any different than being called a "big sissy".
(Actually, had he said "big sissy" none of this would have occurred.)
Oddjob, OT: if you'd like to laugh long and hard, do pick up a copy of Simon Doonan's first book, Confessions of a Window Dresser. He is such a snarky and wonderful writer; utterly self-deprecating and funny as all get-out. He writes about growing up gay, in the 50's and 60's, in a macho suburb of London only a few miles from where I was born. He writes about his wacky family, whom he clearly loves, especially his clinically insane grandmother. He writes about coming to America and daring to create the kind of window tableau that became his signature. There are also many, many terrific photographs of his creations. I don't know if you ever saw the outstanding downtown Barneys windows in the late 80's and 90's, but they were a regular stop for me when I visited NYC, which was often. I love Simon's column in The New York Observer (I think they're still running it), and, okay, I admit that I love him because he gave my vintage fashion book a truly lovely blurb for the back cover.
No, I haven't seen those, but I'm a fashion troglodyte. I can pull off timelessly classic (or elegant) to some degree, but that's about it, and I don't try to do that look, either.
I just know the idea of wearing a tux with french cuffs and silver/onyx (& with the diamond stud, natch) cufflinks & studs really appeals to me, and that's my clue that I will wear it well.
oddjob, please be my date sometime!
aravosis can be excellent at times,
but always seems to return to this kind of irrational mediocrity.
he obsesses about things.
(and, of course, he is NEVER wrong.
he never admits being wrong.)
i have taken him off my bookmark list before and returned to him from time to time...only to run into this sorta stuff....
seems to happen every three or four weeks like clockwork.
i think i have had enough.
Sorry, I posted this on another thread and this thread addresses my post:
Please call me a GIRL!!!!
A few weeks ago I got into a heated discussion with a fellow gay male. His only response to my witty retorts was "You are such a GIRL". I kept saying "THANK YOU!" and he never got it!
A few years ago I volunteered working with second grade students helping them with reading and math skills. One day there was a big fuss made over one student calling another student a "GIRL". My respsonse was "Wow! Girls are wonderful, powerful, kind, funny, friendly and amazing, you can call me a girl anytime!!!" The second graders got it. From that point on being called a girl in that classroom was considered a compliment.
I am a gay male who NEVER thinks the word GIRL is an insult. Too bad Aravosis doesn't get it.
Litbrit, your book looks quite useful. I'll have to pick up a copy.
Everydayactivist:
Women are justifiably angry to be represented by terms which the rest of us throw around as derogations. I've done it myself, and I know many women who do it, too. The idea, as for gay men, is to beat the oppressor at his own game. (I'll never forget the first time my boss, a tough lesbian ex-prosecutor, told a burly male investigator not to be "such a girl about things.") And that, I think, is the key: not to save "girlhood" from its wimpy connotations, but for women to distance themselves from it as well. Most of the professional women I know take exception to 'girliness' already; they're "women" and refuse any other appelation. Why should all the women who jumped at Aravosis' comment choose to re-associate themselves with pre-pubescent females? The picture of a Republican Senator as a small, long-haired child lacking pubes or external genitalia seems pretty funny to me. Would 'boy' have worked as well? Maybe. But, especially for a gay man, it's hard to turn that word into a meaningful insult.
I must speak from my own experience here, because that's all I have. When the real boys and girls fought it out on the playground, the girls always won. Before puberty, girls had the physical advantage over boys, and any attempt to denigrate the giggling gaggle would likely earn a kick in the 'nads. It's post-pubescence where all the trouble seems to set in. So why don't we let girls fight their own battles? From what I've seen, they seem to do fine on their own.
Just found your site. Nice, I'll be back.
And I hear you. May I add...
...memories of my dad introducing me when I was a child as his "boy" and when someone would point out that I was, in fact, a girl, he would say that he has to make a boy out of me because I'm the only boy he's got (I'm an only child).
...memories of him telling me that its a waste of money to give an education to a girl, and when I graduated college (3.04 GPA) his only response was "Are you finally done wasting money on that?"
...memories of him trying to get me to take typing, stenography, etc, so I could be some man's secretary, as "you'll never get anyone to marry you and take care of you."
...etc...
I live in DC. I know Aravosis, many of us do, quite well.
He's the flip side of the Ann Coulter coin, plain and simple.
He's never wrong, ever. If you're having a debate with John, and you're winning, well, the debate just isn't over. Or maybe your friendship with him is. It's that simple.
He's a lonely hermit blogger for whom real equitable relationships and friendships are not in the cards. If he knew what people here really thought of him, even the ones who smile and indulge him, he'd have a complete nervous breakdown.
So, bottom line: don't sweat him. He's far more of a legend in his own mind than he is, or will be over time, to any real change in this country.
Commenting by HaloScan
