• BlogHer Ad Network

  More from BlogHer

  Advertise here

  BlogHer Privacy Policy

• Categories

  2008 election abortion action alert activism Africa anti-choice extremism Asia assholes Australia bad ass women’s activist of the week beauty myths bigotry blogging blog news blogswarm books class and economics courts gone crazy cross-post Democrats disability discrimination education and schools Europe excursions fat-shaming feminism fun gender homophobia and transphobia human rights International legislation LGBTQ issues marketing media misogyny objectification offensive remark of the week parenthood paternalism patriarchy politics pop culture pornography pregnancy products race and racism random rape and sexual assault religious fanaticism reproductive justice Republicans reviews self-promotion sex and sexuality sexism sexual exploitation and harassment sex work slut-shaming social conservatives South America stereotypes videos violence against women and girls WOC issues women’s health work

• Archives

  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007

• "In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist." --Gloria Steinem

  
  
• 
  

• "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." —Margaret Mead

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

NY Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof muses on the differences between misogyny and sexism. And I’d be really grateful if someone could honestly tell me that this is some kind of bizarre parody and he can’t be fucking serious. Instead, we do get to play the ironic game of determining which category Kristof falls into! Emphasis mine, and try to control your blood pressure:

Then in the reporting for this column, I spoke to evolutionary psychologists who emphasized the distinct origins of racism and misogyny/sexism. Racism seems based in a hard-wired tendency of ancient humans to divide into groups to improve odds of survival, and it was an evolutionary advantage to be able to identify strongly with your own tribe and to fear or kill members of other tribes. That may be why even very small children — even infants — draw racial distinctions or other in-group/out-group distinctions.

In contrast, the evolutionary origins of attitudes toward women were based presumably less on hatred and more on desire to control them and impregnate them, so as to pass on one’s genes. Acquiring and enforcing a harem, so as to improve the odds of one’s own genes being passed on, might involve ruthlessness, enslavement and brutal beatings, but there was no evolutionary incentive for gender hatred as there was for hatred of different tribes. And of course much of the anti-women behavior around the world, from genital cutting to bride burnings to sex trafficking, is typically overseen by women themselves, and it’s easier to see their behavior as opportunism or deeply-embedded sexism than as hatred of fellow women. So that’s why I wonder if sexism, in the sense of discriminatory attitudes toward males and females, isn’t a better way of thinking about the issue than misogyny, in the sense of hatred toward women.

Other anthropologists I spoke to also noted that the most discriminatory restrictions against women tend to come not from those who profess to hate women, but from those who profess to honor and protect them. Think of Afghan society, for example. After interviewing many men who beat and lock up women and threaten to kill them if they take a false step, I’d say that their attitudes for females are a mix of bizarre honor and contempt, but not usually hatred.

My head hurts.

Read more

Popularity: 17% [?]

Clearly, it should go without saying that Pat Buchanan is a fucking nut. Really, I try to ignore these types more than anything. I just don’t have the time to follow the disgraceful career of every racist, misogynist, homophobic, nationalist, religious fanatic puppet of the Republican party.

But this time . . . oh, this time. Buchanan has written a column as a response to Barack Obama’s recent speech on racism in America (all emphasis in quoted text is mine). And as far as I can tell, Buchanan’s feelings are really hurt because Obama didn’t take the time to personally thank him for the fact that slavery ended and rich white dudes like himself only continue to demand slightly more subtle forms of oppression. It’s a good point; for everything else he’s said, I don’t remember Buchanan ever remarking (in public) “that slavery thing was a pretty sweet ride — why don’t we bring that back?” Why the hell aren’t all those uppity black folks sending him thank you cards?

Really, read the whole thing; it’s a fucking doozy.

The “white community,” said Barack, must start “acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds … .”

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?

The “white community” must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with “ladders of opportunity” that were “unavailable” to Barack’s and the Rev. Wright’s generations.

What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everybody but the rioters themselves.”

Was “white racism” really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said — that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

Aww. Buchanan feels he isn’t being listened to and has to remind the entire world that he presumably has a white penis. I’d feel so terribly bad for him if a single word of it was true. But please, wait, because that’s the intro. It gets about ten times worse.

Read more

Popularity: 18% [?]

I’m pissed off about the Spitzer thing, if you haven’t noticed. Happy that he resigned, but still really pissed. And so right about now, my patience for Democratic politicians who are going to act like absolute fucking morons is virtually non-existent.

Sorry about that, Geraldine Ferraro and those hellbent on defending her for absolutely no good reason. I’m not going to play it nice.

Regardless of my mood, the comments that Ferraro made are outrageously offensive. If you somehow haven’t heard them, here you go:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Read more

Popularity: 22% [?]

‘If we don’t tell anyone I’m a douche, they’ll never figure it out!’

If you’ve ever heard conservative TV and radio host Glenn Beck’s name, you undoubtedly know that he’s an asshole. Simple enough, no big shocks there. He’s also dumb as a bag of rocks. The other night, I was out for pizza, the restaurant TV was unfortunately tuned to CNN, and Beck was talking about the condoms that NYC handed out on Valentine’s Day. He made the ridiculous argument that handing out condoms to teenagers is encouraging sex, blah blah blah, but then took the stupidity up a notch — I kid you not –with saying that NY is a dirty city and it’s not a good idea to hand out condoms on the street because people should be having sex in more sanitary locations. I kept waiting for an indication that he was joking, and not actually so dense as to think that the moment you hand someone a condom, pants are dropped and fucking ensues right there on the sidewalk. It didn’t come.

This is generally harmless asshattery. But he often takes it up a notch and decides to implicate other people in his ignorant rantings. He did just that on his radio show, the morning of the same day that I watched him make his above comments. Media Matters only highlights the last paragraph here, but I think that the preceding paragraph they provided for context is just as offensive. Here are Glenn’s thoughts on a story he found called “Surprising reasons you’re not having sex”:

BECK: I mean, here are some other reasons. “You’re ugly.” Hello! I’m not a sex expert but I’m — you know, I’m thinking, you know, you’re ugly and, you know, that’s a tough one to overcome especially if you’re a woman. If you’re a guy, that’s not hard to overcome. I’m sorry. That’s just the way the world is. Have you — how many ugly guys have hot wives? Take me, for example. I don’t know why she married — I think it was low self-esteem. I do. No, really I think it was low self-esteem. I got in — you know, you buy when the market is low. You know what I mean? While everybody else is selling, you buy. And I think I got in there right at the right time. Low self-esteem, low, wait a minute, could go a little lower, she might come down to my price. Hang on, OK, sold! Now her self-esteem is going up. And if my income wasn’t going up, she would have ditched me long ago. She would have gone, “Wait a minute, I think I was depressed when I married you.” I’m just — look. I’m not Tania, but I am a thinker. I’m on to you, Tania!

OK, so anyway, I was talking about ugly people. Ugly people, if you’re a guy, you can get past it. I don’t think you can as an ugly woman. I don’t — no, I don’t. If you’re an ugly woman, I apologize. Oh, you’ve got a double cross, because if you’re an ugly woman, you’re probably a progressive as well. Oh, jeez. I’m sorry. Today’s just not your day. But you know what? If you believed in God, you’d know that there’s going to be another chance for you. You don’t have to be ugly in heaven. You’re going to be your perfect self, and there will be another perfect somebody waiting for you on the other side.

Read more

Popularity: 21% [?]

Anyone who has watched a single Republican debate knows that Tom Tancredo is a raving, racist lunatic. You’d think that all of his bullshit about how immigrants are terrorists who steal “our” jobs and refuse to learn English would be bad enough. But now, via Racialicious, he has called undocumented immigrants child rapists.

Check out the ad:

[Transcript:

Tancredo: Hi, I'm Tom Tancredo and I approve this message -- because someone needs to say it.

Voice over: Mothers killed, children executed, the tactics of vicious Central American gangs now on U.S. soil. Pushing drugs, raping kids, destroying lives, thanks to gutless politicians who refuse to defend our borders. One man dares say what must be done, secure the borders, deport those who don't belong and make sure they never come back.]

Actually, Tom, I’m quite sure that nobody needed to say that. Ever.

The best part, of course, is that it’s not only a lie: even if it were true, the children they would be raping would be, um . . . their own. You know, the kids that Tom Tancredo doesn’t give a shit about and wants to deport so that they can go live with all of the drug pushers, kid rapists and life destroyers. Because almost all sexually abused children in non-war torn countries are abused by someone they know. Like here, in America. By white people.

But hey, you heard it here first, folks: they don’t belong. Not that he means that in a racist way or anything.

Popularity: 15% [?]

Maybe the fact that I find this so damn funny is mere proof that I have a fucked up sense of humor. Or maybe it’s just a sign of how very gone the chance of hope in our political process is. Regardless, I read this last night and literally laughed so hard that I cried.

For those of you who haven’t heard, Gore was at the White House, yesterday. In this article, the Times goes through a lot of effort trying to make Bush look gracious by inviting Gore to an annual event for Nobel Prize winners that he really didn’t have a choice in inviting him to, and then giving him a whole whopping 30 minutes of his time. In any case, it was the first time that Gore has been to the White House since Clinton left office, and the first time since the 2000 election that the two men have been alone together. Let the funny begin.

Aides say the two have had little contact in the years since, meeting only occasionally at public events like Mr. Bush’s first inauguration and the dedication of President Bill Clinton’s presidential library. Mr. Bush made no comment when the Nobel Peace Prize was announced, and on Monday, the two men stood silently, and a bit awkwardly, during the photo opportunity.

But the president did personally telephone Mr. Gore to extend the invitation, and the White House changed the date of the event so Mr. Gore could attend. Mr. Bush’s press secretary, Dana Perino, told reporters there was no bad blood between them.

“This president does not harbor any resentments,” Ms. Perino said. “He never has.”

And I think that’s mighty big of him, don’t you? To be able to look at the guy who he publicly lied about and humiliated, blatantly and unapologetically stole an election from with the help of a corrupt court made up and appointed by friends of his daddy and say “I don’t hold it against you” . . . wow. What a guy.

You know, I’m well aware that this administration has no sense of irony — if they did, the Daily Show’s job would be much harder. But I think this takes it to a new low. And for thinking the American public is so stupid, for in fact being an administration so stupid, I think this qualifies as the offensive remark of the week, too. Or it will, when I stop laughing.

Popularity: 14% [?]

For those of you who can’t watch or listen to the video, the summary goes like this:

A McCain supporter asks the Senator “How do we beat the bitch?” The room breaks into uproarious laughter. McCain laughs, too, and while he’s doing so, someone else in the audience shouts out, “I thought she was talking about my ex-wife!” McCain laughs again! And then he says: “That’s an excellent question.”

I would also like to add that McCain never said that the remark was inappropriate, nor did he need clarification on who “the bitch” was — he just started talking about Hillary Clinton. I’ll admit that it was a highly valid assumption to make, but the fact that McCain didn’t even feign ignorance (which would be the politic thing to do) shows pretty clearly what he thinks. Oh, and so did his hysterical laughter. But! He also added that he “respects” Senator Clinton.

Oh yeah, that’s some respect. I mean, saying that Hillary is a “bitch” isn’t disrespectful, right? You can still respect women but think that misogyny is hilarious, can’t you?

Look, I’m not saying that calling political candidates by not-so-nice names should never be tolerated. For example, just about every time Mitt Romney’s name comes up, I call him a douche. In the off chance that he wins the nomination, I intend to make “Mitt Romney is a douche” buttons (I’d buy one!).

However, “bitch” is a highly sexist term, and Hillary Clinton is participating in presidential race that is highly sexist. When used in the context that it was used here, it was high derogatory, and yes, a direct comment on her gender. Also, I’m not running for president. If I was, I would probably refrain from name-calling out of maturity, personal appearances and general respect for my opponents. And in any case, I wouldn’t run around now making comments about which male candidate I think might have a small dick (in fact, I don’t want to think about it — ew), or calling them “fags,” which are the closest gendered derogatory statements used against males that I can think of at the moment.

Which leaves us with one question: How do we beat the asshole?

Oh, wait. Nevermind, I think we’re good.

Popularity: 22% [?]

Let’s be clear: I’m annoyed with Eleanor Smeal right now, over her claims that the Dems’ attacks on Hillary Clinton during the last debate were sexist. I think that she’s wrong, and though I don’t know what her motives are (she may in fact genuinely feel that way, and I hope so), I do know that she has endorsed Sen. Clinton.

That being said, she’s a very intelligent woman and strong feminist leader. For some reason, though, she still went on Tucker. Oh, you better believe that just about everything Carlson says is outrageous and offensive. Read (or watch) the whole thing, if you dare. But one part stuck out to me (and Media Matters) most:

CARLSON: You don’t sort of look down a little bit on women, though, who would vote for her, partly because she’s a woman? I mean, doesn’t that –

SMEAL: No, absolutely not.

CARLSON: So, you think that’s an important, legitimate criterion in a candidate –

SMEAL: I think that –

CARLSON: — the sex, the gender?

SMEAL: Well, I think that — I think all other things being equal — I mean, let’s face it, she’s very qualified. But the reality is, you also would like to break this glass ceiling. You would like to have some representation. I mean, it’s embarrassing, Tucker. We’re 68th in the world for representation of women in our Congress.

CARLSON: I’m not embarrassed. I almost — when I get up at a baseball game and sing “The Star-Spangled Banner,” I don’t hang my head because we don’t have enough women in Congress. I’m actually not embarrassed by it at all.

SMEAL: Well, it has nothing to do with your baseball game, obviously.

CARLSON: I’m just saying. I don’t know why –

SMEAL: I mean, it has nothing to do with that.

CARLSON: I don’t know why that’s embarrassing. You could make the counter case that most women are so sensible, they don’t want to get involved in something as stupid as politics.

SMEAL: Oh, give me a break!

CARLSON: They’ve got real things to do. [emphasis mine]

Oh, nice one Tucker. I’m sure that women do have better things to do . . . like get their nails done and bake, right?

. . .
Read more

Popularity: 22% [?]

I don’t think that I have to tell anyone who has ever had the displeasure of seeing his show that Glenn Beck is one of the worst combinations of dickhead and douchebag out there. But when he’s not busy asking American Muslims how we know that they won’t kill us, he takes a bit of time to be smug about people he doesn’t like losing their homes.

Referring to the Southern California wildfires:

“I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.”

Ah, yes. Liberal = Southern California. Liberal = hateful of America. Liberal = it’s kind of cute (but unfortunate for them!) when they lose their homes and potentially face mortal danger.

Nice job there, Glenn. I’m sure that you’ll go back to your McMansion tonight feeling very accomplished.

Oh, and by the way — in those fires that it’s so fun to flippantly bring up, 500,00 people have been displaced, around 1,300 homes and business have been destroyed and two deaths have been confirmed. So far. Yeah, Beck’s right. That would suck for them.

Read more

Popularity: 11% [?]

Hey, you know what’s funny? Rape!

You know what’s even funnier? When, as a man, a woman insults you, so you respond with “oh yeah, well maybe I’ll rape you!” Ha ha! That never gets old.

Brilliant man that he is, Richard Johnson from Page Six at the NY Post knows this well. You see, some woman named Vanessa Grigoriadis (who I’ve never heard of before), apparently called the Page Six writers “emasculated.” Well, it’s true, that’s a pretty troubling insult from a feminist point of view. All kinds of issues with gender, homophobia, sexism and misogyny there. I guess that Johnson (who whether he personally wrote this piece or not, is responsible for what goes under his byline) is just a gentleman to take the heat off of her, though, by pushing the offensive-meter through the roof.

As for us being “emasculated,” Grigoriadis ignores that fact that half the Page Six staff is female. The male half might take her someplace private and disprove her theory, but we don’t like a woman with a mustache.

Get it? Because raping women shows how masculine you are! Even better, there’s nothing like a good old gang rape to put bitches in their place.

Read more

Popularity: 10% [?]

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas seems to have gone out of his way to be offensive this week. He is releasing a new book about his life. In both the book and his interviews about the book, he makes the claim that the Anita Hill controversy was about abortion. Says CBS on an interview with Thomas that will air tonight:

Thomas, whose Supreme Court positions on abortion issues have been conservative, says the confirmation hearings in which he was accused of sexual harassment by a former employee — allegations he continues to deny — were really about abortion. “That was the elephant in the room … That was the issue. That is the issue that people are appar