In the New Republic on Tuesday, Elspeth Reeve offered a defense of Ann Coulter:
Yes, yes, Coulter has said some terrible things. But I don't think it's the terrible things that really bother liberals. Coulter makes us cringe not when she lies, but when she says things we wish weren't true.
No, actually she does make me cringe when she lies. And Reeve's other main point-- that Coulter is funny, dammit!-- would be relevant if Coulter were a comedian. But she's not on the hate-speech stand-up circuit, she's on cable news, which isn't exactly the same thing-- not yet, anyway. Even if she were a comedian, I personally don't find gay-bashing jokes (or First Amendment-bashing jokes, for that matter) all that funny. But I think Reeve does get one thing right:
I love Ann Coulter because, in her, I see a loudmouth on the assembly line, fighting not to be squished and whittled and boxed into the shape Washington seems to think fits a girl just right.
I wouldn't go as far as to say I love Coulter for those reasons, but when her critics focus on her looks and her "unladylike" behavior, I'm almost tempted to take her side. I'd prefer to see lefties ignore her completely. If that's not possible, we should at least discuss the offensive bile she spews all over talk radio -- not debate whether she's slutty, mannish, or fuckable.
Ezra Klein, who correctly calls this "the TNRiest piece of all time," agrees:
That the response to Coulter so often focuses on her looks also deserves some examination. It's not clear why the venom from a blond, leggy snake should be treated any different than the bile Hugh Hewitt spits out, yet rare is the soliloquy on how desperate the writer would have to become to hit the Hewitt. It's a fair point, and I'd extend it by wondering why liberals seem to have so few aggressive female flacks.
Shakespeare's Sister notes that conservatives can use female pundits to say sexist things... then claim they aren't sexist because, look, she's a woman and she doesn't want reproductive rights or equal pay! Liberals, on the other hand...
Conversely, aggressive liberal women who endeavor to combat sexism as part of their overall politics are just as likely to call attention to the sexism among their own ranks as those of their opponents (and I daresay I don’t need to provide evidence that there is still sexism on the Left). The possibility of a “circular firing squad� created by liberal women who have the temerity to expect better of their brethren leaves them regarded as “loose cannons,� not nearly as reliable as someone like Coulter, who will never accuse a fellow conservative of betraying tenets of equality—since ignoring, unless to ridicule or subvert, said tenets is their stock in trade. [...] If Coulter is undesirably aggressive, it’s because she’s just “gone too far,� but if I am, it’s because I’m a liberal feminist.
I couldn't agree more. It comes down to the fact that a liberal woman is likely to speak up for women, even if it conflicts with other aspects of the liberal agenda. The good ol' liberal boys' club isn't always happy when women don't like being called a "special interest" group. That aside, are there women out there that you think would make great, aggresive liberal flacks?
The TNR story is subscriber only, so I'll post the full text below the jump.
Weenie Roast
by Elspeth Reeve
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 08.15.06
For six months, I was the only liberal on Line Three. It was in an assembly line in a small town in a dark red state, and I worked the second shift with mandatory overtime, which meant the only humans I ever saw were my fellow button-pushers and sticker-application specialists. The choice between soul-searching monotony and political shouting matches was not a hard one to make, especially after September 11. And, to avoid being trampled by the majority, I had to play dirty, to use the kinds of lines that kill political careers: about coat hangers, say, or about how Jesus was a liberal. It always helped to have a few seconds of stunned silence to let my point sink in.
Of course, when it became too obvious that I was winning the argument, my darling male coworkers would simply change the subject to my ass. I daydreamed about discussing dead French guys with super-smart people when I got to college, where I could wear horn-rimmed glasses and never have to keep my backside pressed against the inventory. What a letdown it was to discover that college students were not all that different from my friends on Line Three. Neither, by the way, is Washington, where always-waiting-to-talk types need to be bitch slapped out of their robotic-pundit routines, and where political conversations often pivot back to appearances.
That is why I love Ann Coulter. Coulter shocks and offends, but underneath her offensiveness is a grain of truth that people cope with by critiquing her hair. Americans like comfort: comfort food, comfort shoes, comfort pundits to reinforce everything we already believe. Ann Coulter is not comfort. I love that she pisses people off. I love her outsized confidence, rare in females who've gone through puberty, which means she doesn't turn into a pile of stuttering mush when an interview turns to her body. I love the way her face flickers devilishly for just a second when an interviewer wraps his own noose--the joy tinged with a bit of sadness, as if to say, Oh what fun this is, but do you have to make it so easy?
Yes, yes, Coulter has said some terrible things. But I don't think it's the terrible things that really bother liberals. Coulter makes us cringe not when she lies, but when she says things we wish weren't true. Let's go to the tape. Asked to define the First Amendment: "An excuse for overweight women to dance in pasties and The New York Times to commit treason." Just completely terrible, I know. But I have to admit, I giggled--having recently covered a pro-choice rally where I interviewed a very nice young woman whose nipples were covered by naral stickers.
Or take Coulter's most infamous line: Writing about her friend's death on September 11, she finished her essay with, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Wow, that's pretty indefensible. The United States could never--would never--do such a thing. Instead, we've invaded their countries, killed their leaders, and are desperately trying to convert them to secularism. (It's not like mullahs appreciate the difference.)
On the BBC show "Newsnight," Jeremy Paxman asked Coulter if she'd like to withdraw her infamous statements about the September 11 widows. (If you've been living in a spiderhole, she called the more politically inclined among them "broads".) "No, I think you can save all the would-you-like-to-withdraw questions, but you could quote me accurately. I didn't write about the 9/11 widows. I wrote about four widows cutting campaign commercials for John Kerry and using the fact that their husbands died on 9/11 to prevent anyone from responding," she said. The thing is ... it's kind of true. A little. It is a little absurd to hold up a person as an expert judge of the 9/11 Commission Report, for example, just because she lost a loved one. Liberals do tend to do that kind of thing, and it makes us look like weenies.
And then there are the insults. Chris Matthews asked: "How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?" Coulter, who had earlier said the former president had exhibited some "latent homosexuality," gestured casually from behind her sunglasses. "Ah, no, he may not be gay. But Al Gore? Total fag." OK, that one really is indefensible. Because gratuitous gay jokes have, um, no precedent in pop culture whatsoever. I admit it, I snickered. What can I say--her timing was great. (And yes, later, she conceded, "That's what we call in the writing business a joke.").
Coulter is a pretty woman who holds up a mirror showing us the ugliest parts of ourselves. She makes nice liberals think bad thoughts--particularly about whether they would have sex with her. Which is why we often fight back dirty, talking about her looks. Andrew Sullivan called her "a drag-queen-fascist-impersonator." The New York Times said she's "a blonde who knows her way around a black cocktail dress." Last week at TNR Online, her arguments were described as "about as convincing as the blonde hair that gets her so much attention."
In June, the guests of "Hardball" discussed Coulter's latest book in which she made her comments about the September 11 widows, denounced her offensiveness, bemoaned her book sales, and pontificated on what it all means about "society." That obviously led to Matthews's next question, "Do you find her physically attractive, Tucker?" And Tucker Carlson dodged, as did the other guests, until the question was turned on Matthews, who replied, "You guys are all afraid to answer. No, I find her--I wouldn't put her--well, she doesn't pass the Chris Matthews test."
I only shudder that I, too, might not pass the Chris Matthews test. All wrapped up in liberals' snarky comments about her hair is a wellspring of latent guilt for judging her by her hair. Even after all those gender studies classes in college, even after having known/befriended/dated/been That Girl who Doesn't Shave Her Pits, after pretending to like Ani DiFranco, liberals still can't get over her hair. I love Ann Coulter because, in her, I see a loudmouth on the assembly line, fighting not to be squished and whittled and boxed into the shape Washington seems to think fits a girl just right.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Where's the left-wing Ann Coulter?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3810
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I don't want a left wing Ann Coulter. I don't want any Ann Coulter. Lets hope that mold got thrown away.
I hate Coulter (and agreed that we don't need a left-wing one), but I DO think it's weird that we're always supposed to go on about her leggy-blondness. I've only seen that on like 1000 liberal sites. Very weird. It makes us sound jealous or something - like we're all thinking "bony blonde bitch" but really _wishing_ we were that pretty.
And I sure as hell am not jealous of Coulter. Let's just call her a slimy feces-flinging primate.
I blogged on this a few months back; there are a shocking number of misogynists on the left wing who are very progressive on choice issues but have no respect whatsoever for feminism. I've generally tried to avoid comments about Coulter's looks, pro or con, because it bothers me that I live in a world where that's supposed to matter.
Cheers,
TH
we don't have ann coulter because we don't need propaganda-hate-spew to get people on our side.
we do have ridiculously huge numbers of great women on our side, though. if elspeth reeve and ezra klein can't name a few strong women on the left who don't resort to attacking people's character, they're not paying much attention.
are lefties really so stupid that they're going to follow republican reeve's advice and start pointing fingers at good liberal women and say, well, maybe she's full of hate or feel inadequate that they don't have anyone so full of hate as ann coulter?
elspeth's bizarre argument that ann coulter is right when she spouts her grotesqueries is appalling in its dishonesty. if you (liberals like saddam) "just crawled out of a spiderholes," as reeve puts it, calling 9-11 widows "broads" was so not the offensive part of what coulter said.
which leads me to believe that elspeth reeve is begging for the job of ann coulter. fuck the facts. she has words to string together.
I don't think Ezra's making the point you think he's making. What he says about liberal feminist women is sadly true; it's even been discussed on Feministing before, in the context of Republican female politicians' using the title Ms. more often than Democratic ones (since presumably they have to make less effort to appeal to sexist conservatives).
oh but yeah. it's annoying as hell that dumbass liberal people attack her looks. because turd blossom and robert novak and rush limbaugh and mike savage and bill o'reilly are just so fucking hot.
Oh yeah, it's entirely annoying. Even these liberals aren't that attractive. I mean, I don't know if Kos is usually considered attractive, but even if I were gay I wouldn't want to date anyone who looks like the visual word "kos"...
"There are a shocking number of misogynists on the left wing who are very progressive on choice issues but have no respect whatsoever for feminism."
Posted by: Tom Head
Tom, I clicked on your link, and I have to say I completely disagree with it. I don't think that Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is a misogynist. I also support and have deep respect for websites and grassroots movements like DailyKos and Moveon.org. There are so many good sites. There is MYDD, Digby, Glen Greenwald, Think Progress, and even brassy Ariana's blog.
"Grassroots" does not mean every member is from a different ethnicity or religion or anything else. It means these guys got off their butt and they blogged and worked and fought and wrote and collected money and went without sleep, all to offer a progressive voice in response to Bush neofacism. A progressive challenge. And yes, liberal, but more specifically progressive. They are not all the same people, and as Markos Moulitsas said, he is a "Salvadoran war refugee" and if he can do it anyone can. I never knew he was Salvadoran, I never knew what he looked like. I didn't care. I cared about his ideas and what has built.
These bloggers are not a uniform white wall. They have different ideas, they disagree. But they have a basic foundation in which to build upon. They gave voice to the voiceless and power to the disenfranchised.
The house Zúniga built is nothing short of a miracle. They started their first convention as well, and they were instrumental in Ned Lamont's courageous victory. That victory may help turn the tide in this country.
So to invalidate all that and say he personally is responsible for what you think is non-diversity, is unfair. I'm a feminist, and I have no problem with him. I don't expect him to be a feminist, or understand certain things, or think EXACTLY the way I do. I think to impose that is wrong, and certainly frustrating to Mr.Zúniga. I think it's unfair to say, well since he's not embracing my idea of diversity, then he's somehow illegitimate. I think that is just way off base.
Coulter, in my opinion, is a pig. And I'll call her one. She does not offer up legitimate politics or arguments. She tries to wound, she tries to hurt, she tries to ostracize, and she tries even to get people killed like when she suggested Mr. Murtha should be "fragged." She calls us traitors and terrorists. She hates other women. As far as I'm concerned, people can call her whatever they want. Do I want an Ann Coulter on our side? No. I wouldn't want us to be that dirty or stupid and mean. We need more brassy Ann Richards types. Unafraid and challenging, and even funny.
MsJane writes:
...So to invalidate all that and say he personally is responsible for what you think is non-diversity, is unfair.
I don't see how my post invalidates all he's done. If the fact that he's an important progressive means that he can dismiss feminists and how dare anyone argue with him if he does, if the fact that President Clinton served two terms means that he can abuse the power of his office to get sexual favors from employees and how dare anyone criticize that if he does, then we're making the same mistake the Bushians have made and to a certain extent the same mistake Lieberman made: Choosing the will to power over our ideals.
Kos is very powerful. Kos is very influential. Kos has done a great deal of good. Kos may be, on the aggregate, one of the best advocates for women's civil rights that we have. But Kos has also said and continues to say some astonishingly sexist, macho-man stuff.
Cheers,
TH
...and we do him no favors by not calling him on it, I should add. If I say something sexist, I want to be called on it, and I would have serious concerns about the motives of any man who doesn't.
By the way, one of the best posts I've seen on this topic comes from one of Kos' writers, so there you go.
Cheers,
TH
Spectacular post, Ann. All this talk about her looks is, I think, what enables her to keep her current level of rediculousness without getting called on her spiteful more than she does--I know a ton of apolitical people who just know her as "the leggy blonde pundit," and don't really notice much regarding the content of her "arguments," as opposed to, say, Rush. I think this allows her to mainstream herself far more easily than your average conservative pundit.
Not to mention that ignoring her appearance would make her all the more petty-looking when she spends half of her writing time insulting the appearance of pregoressives.
Thank you for explaining. But Markos Moulitsas is under attack by the far right. He’s had to defend his actions, his website, and even his ethnicity. To hear such scathing criticism from a feminist corner is surprising to me, because I consider feminism a liberal and progressive concept. The issue for you came when Kos didn’t feel a need or responsibility to actively “diversity� the blog scene. He even made a remark about some women being sanctimonious. In your view, if a person feels this way then they are “anti� feminist. I don’t agree.
Sure I would like to see more prominent woman bloggers up there with Kos and the like. I empathize with women, I am a woman, I am a feminist, and I want my sex to be respected, be successful and take a leadership role. But the internet is open to everyone. In that respect I agree with Kos. Everyone seems to have their own agenda, and everyone is skilled at turning the debate in their favor. Snarky remarks in the link which said Kos is getting advertising revenue and it’s not as if “he’s leading the Alabama bus boycott,� point directly to an issue with the poster, not with Kos at all. There are powerful people on the right who will attack him for his small (in the great scale of things) but great success, and there are people in other places, like here, or out there in the blogosphere, who will attack him because they say do this, and he doesn’t do it. They say think like this, and he doesn’t. They said change this, and he doesn’t. So he becomes an enemy.
In regards to definitions, I think we have to be careful. A real misogynist I want nothing to do with. But being sexist, if that even is so, is not the same as being a misogynist.
As far as Clinton goes, we disagree on this. I support him, and I saw nothing power-abusing with what he did. He had an affair with a very willing girl. He cheated on his wife. Not good, but not a deal-breaker to me in terms of the presidency. I consider Bill to be a very kind man, and respectful to women. Not like Bush at all. The fact that he had oral sex does not make him a bad man or a bad president in my eyes. One black woman on the radio said one time that hey, this guy is helping me and my people, if he needs a blow job to get through all this then I’ll do it myself. Is that a feminist thought? No necessarily but then again it’s not an anti-feminist thought either. Context it everything. Most presidents cheat. What I’m concerned with is if you hate or love women, if you support or work against us, if you are misogynist, if you make light of things like rape or sexual harassment, etc. Those are my dealbreakers. Not a blow job, not a remark about sanctimony.
Sorry it was so long.
Oh, PS, I clicked on your second link. Nothing much there except for a short article with pics about Coulter’s adam apple.
He even made a remark about some women being sanctimonious. In your view, if a person feels this way then they are “anti� feminist.
I'd agree with you, but his remarks about abortion's not being a core Democratic issue were just too much. At the Convention he and other Democrats said the real issues were marginally better health coverage, more education spending, rolling back domestic spying, and leaving Iraq. Everything else was a distraction, or something we can agree to disagree on. To buttress that claim, Kos has tried arguing that abortion is a political loser, even though it really isn't. Essentially, he's selling out the agenda in order to pander to cultural conservatives; hence the lack of emphasis on hot-button issues, including the entire civil rights agenda.
But Markos Moulitsas is under attack by the far right. He’s had to defend his actions, his website, and even his ethnicity.
Amanda's written some posts about how in light of that, attacking Kos from the left makes sense. Basically, the idea is to make him look like a centrist. While the right tries to paint him as a far leftist, compared with centrists like Tacitus and far rightists like the John Birchers, the left should actively portray him as a moderate, compared with liberals like Amanda and Jessica, and conservatives like Tacitus.
I don't think that Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is a misogynist.
Misogynist? Perhaps not. Sexist. Oh yes, definitely. I was settled on that even before the pie incident: he dashed off a quick post one morning a week or three after his son was born, concerning he and his wife's plans for the day. Markos: meet with Democrat hotshots, line up some tech support for the blog, etc. Mrs. Markos: find a daycare center for the kid.
I don't think that arrangement is inherently sexist. In some families, one parent is very career-minded and one isn't, so the other parent stays home with the kids. I think Michelle Malkin is no different from Kos in that regard. The sexism comes when women are pressured to stay home, and in general when more women stay home than men.
Alon writes:
I'd agree with you, but his remarks about abortion's not being a core Democratic issue were just too much. At the Convention he and other Democrats said the real issues were marginally better health coverage, more education spending, rolling back domestic spying, and leaving Iraq. Everything else was a distraction, or something we can agree to disagree on.
You know, I'm learning a whale of a lot from your posts. I had no idea Kos said this, but as someone who is prohibited from voting for anyone on the 2006 ballot (House or Senate) because I took the NARAL Pro-Choice pledge and there are no pro-choice candidates (not even third-party) at any level to vote for, I think this attitude has permeated the party and I find it very frightening.
Give me Joe Lieberman over another "pro-life" Democrat who dismisses feminists any day of the week. Hell, give me a pro-choice Republican. In my state, we have a Senate candidate with a police record related to domestic assault, and a "pro-life" commitment, who also happens to be an abstinence educator--and treats women like five-year-olds if they call him on any of it. Oh, but he's anti-war, so I guess that makes it all okay. If that's Kos' idea of the new Democratic Party, he can kiss my sanctimonious ass.
Cheers,
TH
The most charitable interpretation of what he said is that he's annoyed that NARAL is insufficiently partisan, even when it hurts its cause; for example, pro-choice Republicans still voted to confirm Alito, with the exception of Chafee, and many anti-choice Democrats voted not to confirm. But evidently Lindsay manages to hold that view without dissing abortion as a value or using phrases such as "a woman's right to lose," so Kos really has no excuse here.
I hear your frustration with your candidate... not that I can vote or anything, but in my state the candidate is exactly the opposite: she's pro-choice, but she voted for the war, supports Israeli war crimes, hates young people, and architected the Republican-lite strategy in 2002 along with Daschle.
Alon, I hear you. But one of your last comments is very telling:
"she's pro-choice, but she voted for the war, supports Israeli war crimes, hates young people, and architected the Republican-lite strategy in 2002 along with Daschle."
So yes, it is not always a complete win to a get a pro-choice candiate who opposes you on other progressive issues. And I personally would never vote for a Republican, whether he was sympathetic to abortion rights or not. I draw the line there.
Also, you mentioned Chaffee. Yes, NARAL supported him and we applauded his pro-choice stand. But when he voted for right wing Janice Rogers Brown, NARAL was not at all happy.
And sometimes, we HAVE no choice. In many rural areas, very conservative areas, you have to put up a candidate who will win. There is no way in hell I want to keep Santorum in office. They've got Casey running against him. I was so, so upset at the Democratic Party for doing that, for selling out, because that man is unabiguously anti-abortion. But Santorum is so much godawful worse. Casey also supports contraception and civil unions.
Part of the answer to all of this is to make the political environment as friendly as possible for our Pro-Choice candidates. Win the debate on abortion. We've even discussed here about "renaming" Pro-Choice to reflect health or privacy or something broader.
And as far as Kos goes, he has a PRO-CHOICE position. He has supported pro-choice candidates, and he blogs in favor of that. Here is a quote from Kos on where he stands on this issue:
"I support choice because I don't think it's my business, or government's, to control any woman's body. I think women have an expectation of privacy when dealing with their personal medical concerns."
Regarding Leiberman, I danced when that man was kicked to the curb, no matter what his Pro-Choice position was. His replacement, Ned Lamont is very, very strongly Pro-Choice, and at the same time he's not in the pocket of the Republican Party.
Ned is anti-war, pro-choice, pro-grassroots participation in this party.
Paul Hackett was a good candidate for a rural area. He lost of course, but he was perfect for THAT region. He was a marine, anti-war but pro-gun, and pro-choice.
I am looking forward to strong Pro-Choice candidates winning in this next election. Let's put them in a position to win, and let's also make sure they are who we want to elect.
On a final note, I'd like to mention that the strongest voices for Pro-Choice should be places like this - Feminist spaces. If not here, then where? Our voices can wash over the larger organizations like the Democratic Party. That's why I was surprised to hear some posters here whine that we're talking too much about Pro-Choice issues and not enough about other issues, or that we shouldn't discuss it with women of color. Obviously the point is, if we're not strongly Pro-Choice here, then how can we demand that others be?
Honestly, not having read Crashing the Gate, I don't know Kos's exact position. But I'm fairly certain that he didn't name a chapter "A woman's right to lose" just as an attention-grabber, and that people on My Left Wing started angrily telling him that abortion was a core issue and a political winner just because they felt like reiterating it.