There are seriously no words for this. Now, I make no secret about the fact that I loathe McCain, and so obviously have some level of bias here, but is that REALLY the best his people could come up with in response?

Hell, it would have been much smarter, although still sub par, to have said "It was a long time ago, here is an apology," etc.

Instead we have "this is just how he is..."

Wow. Just... wow.

Is that even a joke? I mean, yes, it's incredibly offensive. But it's not even remotely funny. Ignoring the actual content, there's no real set-up and the punch-line is thoughtlessly worded. He might as well have just said "Hey, you know what's funny is that women actually LIKE being abused and raped! They can't get enough of it!"

You suck, McCain.

You think it's too late to ask Vietnam to take him back?

This joke gets you twice on the Gross; first, it implies women LOVE having the everliving shit beat out of them and being raped. And then...it's done by a gorilla. So women are so indiscriminate that a rapist gorilla is an acceptable sexual partner. Uh. Yeah. I really, really REALLY hope all those angry Hillary supporters out there who keep threatening to vote McCain because they don't like Obama think twice when they see this sort of crap.

"You think it's too late to ask Vietnam to take him back?"

McCain's jokes are disgusting and inappropriate, but isn't this a little harsh?

Anna, I think those "angry Hillary supporters threatening to vote for McCain" are made up by the media.

It's appalling that McCain nor his spokesman made any attempt at an apology for such an atrocious joke. I'm glad this was posted.

And what's up with 'what happened in the past should stay in the past'. He didn't say this when he was 15. He was 50 years old in 1986! Oh so he's learned in the past 20 years? Give me a break.

It really talks to his lack of respect for women. Thank you for posting this. Unbelievable.

Lilly: I'm not a nice man.

When the patricians get too drunk on their own power, then it is time to erect the galley in plain sight. The true power of the republic lies in the hands of the proletariat.

Flyinfur:
I personally know two of them, so I doubt it.

Ummm.. this is disgusting.

I think Feministing should have a "Douchebag of the Year" award, and John McCain should be the first to win.

chantal with an a: I like the way your brain works.

Lilly commented at July 17, 2008 3:45 PM: "'You think it's too late to ask Vietnam to take him back?'

"McCain's jokes are disgusting and inappropriate, but isn't this a little harsh?"

Yeah - I mean, Vietnamese women don't deserve this bullshit any more than American women do.

I am all for Danyell's idea. Let's ask Vietnam to take him back. Permanently.

In case McCain is elected, my plans to move to Cuba are already in the works.

Anna, I think those "angry Hillary supporters threatening to vote for McCain" are made up by the media.

You are correct, flyinfur. The new polls show Obama leads with women and minorities. The whole “angry Hillary supporters threatening to vote for McCain” is made up media bullshit. So, can we put this ridiculousness to bed, please? It is particularly important here in a feminist space not to perpetuate the “angry, bitter women” meme. If Obama loses, it won’t be because of the Clinton supporters.

I personally know two of them, so I doubt it.

Does it occur to you that they aren't voting for Obama, not becaue they're "angry" about Clinton losing, but because they believe he doesn't represent them? I know, I know...a woman choosing her vote based on her values and beliefs? Crazy talk. She must be bitter and angry if she isn't voting for my chosen candidate! Also, I'm thinking that referring to them as "angry Hillary supporters" probably isn't going to sway them to your side.

And, for pete’s sake, can we show Clinton a little respect? Unless you are referring to all candidates and elected officials by their first names, why address her in such a manner?

Sorry to go OT. I now return you to your regularly scheduled comments.

shelby,

you know "hillary"s campaign uses her first name as the logo, right? and it has since her senatorial campaign. i think it's just a matter of her branding getting through that people refer to her by first name - and it's an effective tactic for differentiating her from a president to whom she's married.

at any rate, "angry hillary supporters" is a stupid way to refer to people and the whole quasi-phenomenon is a mediated bullshitfest, so yeah... it's not really worth continuing this part of the conversation.

mccain is a douchebag, at least we can all agree on that...

and it's an effective tactic for differentiating her from a president to whom she's married.

Put three letters in front of the last name...Sen. Clinton...and that distinguishs them nicely.

"this kind of stuff is a good example of McCain being McCain."

Here's what I'm hearing/reading: boys will be boys!

Come on people, take some responsibility. That's just a lame excuse. An apology would definitely not negate the fact that he told such an offensive, misogynist joke, but it'd be way better than THAT. Ugh.

I realize it was her campaign logo. But, it still strikes me as disrespectful when someone refers to every other candidate in a discussion by their last names except her. Put three letters in front of the last name...Sen. Clinton...and that distinguishes her from her husband nicely (although when referring to the candidates, it's not necessary seeing as how she was the one running for office, not her husband).

Maybe it’s due to all the sexism leveled at her coupled with the fact that I've seen too many people refer to the others as Sen Obama and Sen McCain only to call her Hillary or Mrs. Clinton in the same breath. I just think, campaign logo or not, that's it’s disrespectful to refer to all the other candidates by their last names and except her.

And, I believe that the logo was designed to make her seem more accessible to the voters as opposed to distinguishing herself from her husband because she certainly had no problem aligning herself with his former platform on the campaign trail. Regardless, she certainly didn’t choose it as a way to “other” herself - which is how it is being used.

"Manny being Manny" doesn't work for the ball player. "McCain being McCain" shouldn't work for the presidential candidate either. It just doesn't erase what he's already said and done.

For the guy that called his wife a trollop and a cunt, I think this has the makings of a tremendous step forward for Admiral Ape Rape. Now we just need to get him to start joking about breaking the bones of Iranians instead of straight killing them.

“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her mother is Hillary Clinton and her father is Janet Reno”

She was just a teenager when McCain told this “joke” at a Republican fundraiser. The man is a sexist pig and always has been.

Ironic, considering he though discussing birth control and Viagra were just to sensitive a topic last week.

What an ignorant sexist ass.

Uh, make that "too sensitive."

Rrrrrrg, typos.

Excuse me, ShelbyWoo, but I don't like that you're putting words in my mouth.

"Does it occur to you that they aren't voting for Obama, not becaue they're "angry" about Clinton losing, but because they believe he doesn't represent them? I know, I know...a woman choosing her vote based on her values and beliefs? Crazy talk. She must be bitter and angry if she isn't voting for my chosen candidate! Also, I'm thinking that referring to them as "angry Hillary supporters" probably isn't going to sway them to your side."

That is totally false. I don't like Obama one bit, he is hardly my chosen candidate. Nor was I implying that women are bitter and angry. I called them 'angry Hillary supporters' because that is exactly what they are. They are angry that Sen. Clinton is not the nominee of the Democratic party, and they have threatened to vote McCain because they dislike Obama so much that they can't imagine voting for him, even if it means they have to either not vote at all or cross lines. They are STAUNCH supporters of Sen. Clinton, and that is why I used the 'angry Hillary supporters' phrase. Apologies if that was as offensive as it apparently was.

I'd also like to say that as a new reader of Feministing, it's discouraging to be jumped on like that when posting. I think this site should encourage everyone to speak up and share their views without the fear that someone is going to jump up and start shoving opinions down their throat.

Sorry for the off-topic, but I wanted to express my issues with that.

And sorry for the unclosed italics, only the I there was supposed to be italicized. Oops.

Um. Yeah. I give up.

You know, people having an opinion different from yours have just as much right to share their views without it being considered jumping up and shoving opinions down others throats as you do. She's not shoving her opinion down your throat, she's engaging in debate, and I'm pretty sure that debate is welcome here in the comments. There's always going to be people that disagree with you, whether they are here on Feministing or not, and I'm sure that they are probably a lot more polite about it here than in other environments. I don't think you should be discouraged at all.

Anyway, this is just another thing to add to McCain's long repertoire of asshole moves.

Liberals, we dislike each other almost as much as we dislike conservative Republicans.

i think what he said is so absurd that i have doubts to whether he actually said it or not.

The source isn't very solid, and it occurred 22 years ago, making it hard to prove or disprove.

i think what he said is so absurd that i have doubts to whether he actually said it or not.

The source isn't very solid, and it occurred 22 years ago, making it hard to prove or disprove.

anna,

Preview button, its saved my bacon a couple of times. But I refuse to spellcheck...

I have been reading Feministing for quite a while without being a member, but all these McCain articles have finally made me want to post.

Isn't it interesting that the same "boys will be boys" cliche is used to excuse men who rape--claiming that they just cannot control themselves once they have that thought in their mind, despite hearing "no"? How is it that an ENTIRE campaign does not recognize the insensitivity towards an entire population of Americans with all these sexist stories surfacing?

Honestly, I do not see how he expects to win.

simple solution. just send him back to vietnam. maybe a little more suffering is needed to improve his mind (whats left it anyway)

kelsey, he expects to win using people like my parents, who are blinded by the fact he was a POW, and suspicious of this new (secret muslim married to an angry black woman) man from chicago.

Wow, I'm stunned by some of these comments. While I am disgusted by his "joke" and his campaign's explanation, saying that McCain should be sent back to Vietnam for torturing is just as disgusting. If we refuse to rise above his hateful comments and continue to stoop to his level, nothing will be accomplished.

Its so easy to villainize John McCain for something like this - and like most of us, I'm planning to vote Obama in November. But we really need to go further back and understand why a joke like this was made in the first place, and a man who made that type of joke (and had a history of sexist behavior) was able to be elected to the United States Senate. As easy as it would be to demonize McCain as a terrible and sexist person, unfortunately he really is just a product of our time. Not an excuse of course - nothing can excuse this type of sexist rhetoric - but at least looking at it this way can help us understand the issue. We need to do more than just keep McCain from getting elected - we need to make it unthinkable that this type of sexism be at all acceptable in American politics or in American culture more generally.

Meg: Being a POW shouldn't excuse sexist comments and behaviors. It's too bad your parents obviously don't look at Feministing. It's pretty much where I get my news. Luckily, my parents are liberal.

Morgan La Fey: Well said. I agree that those comments are distasteful.

It doesn't help that he muffed the joke.
The woman falls into the ape's cage, and the ape carries her into his den, yadda yadda yadda, then she's rescued. When her friends come visit her in the hospital and ask her how she's feeling, she says, "Awful. He doesn't call, he doesn't write..."

OK, it's still terrible.
Sorry.

What a sick fuck! Women NEED to RUN this country, not the sexist assholes currently doing it.

seriously, lorgus, your mix of rhetoric and endorsement of torture reminds me of the very folks who you purport to oppose. la fey, you're absolutely on target; i'm quite surprised that folks would joke about such a thing, not to mention suggesting it as a defensible position.

and, look, i understand that she's a senator, but hillary clinton's marketing team decided to run with "hillary" for a number of reasons, of which i only mentioned one, and she's used it since her senatorial run. certainly one can call her "sen clinton", but to suggest that calling her "hillary" is a sign of disrespect is quite a hefty projection and i just thought it was an odd bone to pick, considering. it's quite different, i think, from calling her "mrs clinton", which the poster in questions was most certainly not doing.

hbsweet, thank you for explaining what the joke was supposed to be. I had no idea how whatever McCain said was even supposed to be a joke. It was as if he'd just decided to open his mouth and say a bunch of misogynist nonsense with no apparent purpose. I mean, even if he'd gotten the joke right, it would have been a bunch of misogynist nonsense with no apparent purpose, but at least it would have been in the form of a joke.

kelsey: oh, i know. but my parents are part of that special breed of american that still thinks george bush is doing a good job. my mother (infuriatingly, formerly a struggling single parent) thinks i'm going to grow out of this "feminism phase" and settle down and start popping out kids.

there really is no reasoning with them. i've tried. my mother just pats me on the head and tells me i'll understand better(and by inference, agree with her) when i'm older.

i'm 24.

hbsweet commented at July 18, 2008 1:33 AM: "It doesn't help that he muffed the joke.
The woman falls into the ape's cage, and the ape carries her into his den, yadda yadda yadda, then she's rescued. When her friends come visit her in the hospital and ask her how she's feeling, she says, 'Awful. He doesn't call, he doesn't write...'

"OK, it's still terrible.
Sorry."

Definitely still terrible.

I also wonder how many animal-rights activists are also discussing the other half of the bullshit (IRL when a human falls in an ape cage the ape's behavior is much better).

Devil's Advocate Disclaimer

Okay, could be McCain as a military man is not unfamiliar at thinking of himself as an ape, and wishes to both poke fun at the sexist idea that women enjoy rape while also making a self-deprecating reference to his own ape-ness.

puckalish: Just curious about your thoughts on Nelson Mandela? Not comparing myself to him, I look horrible in a dashiki for one, but I'm wondering if you feel that because he endorsed the use of some violent means in the struggle to end apartheid do you feel that his stance invalidates his support of those goals?

Also, while I may have been the first to make the comment re: "Vietnam" I'm certainly not the only one. Are you planning on directly commenting to everyone else on that or are you singling me out for a reason? Not that I mind, I am just curious if there is some other more vague reason why I, in particular, offend you?

Radical change is what we all want, right? Count on your fingers the number of times radical change was just handed over to the people that wanted it. It shouldn't take you long. I'm a proud American and while I disagree with and am ashamed of a lot of our heritage the nature of revolution isn't one of those things. On a global scale the oppression of women and ethnic minorities is far worse than any that was inflicted on our national progenitors. You know that the notion behind the 4th amendment has a great deal more to do with what got the average citizen to stand up for the idea of sovereignty, and this government (both sides of the aisle I'm sad to say) has abandoned those principles.

I'm not truly advocating violent retribution on this message board, but I do advocate reminding those who cloak themselves in the notions of patriotism just what those original ideas really were. You're right when you say I use rhetoric, but rhetoric is a tool. I'm no Webster, who is? So I'm sorry if my ability to express falls short of his.

logrus,

look, i responded to you because you seemed most thoroughly bought into the torture thing and most willing to defend it. to be clear, you don't offend me, i just think that you've thought about why torture is a good thing more than the other posters who may have been more joking and flippant about it.

while it sounds nice to talk about the rev, i don't think your "revolutionary mind" is all that developed, as torture is no way to achieve what i think your goals are. the community and aftermath of the revolution is determined by the way in which the battle is fought. and plenty of marxists (which i figure has something to do with your ideology) have stated this in a myriad of ways. check out arif dirlik's stuff for a pretty cogent treatment of

to call into mind nelson mandela, i dare say you ought to learn more about the man. mandela was involved exclusively in sabotage as a violent means to bring about radical change and the anc supported violent resistance as form of self-defense; never did the anc or the mk (the militant wing of which mandela was a leader for a couple of years) advocate or embrace torture on the whole as a tactic, though certain cells did employ it. it took (is still taking) a great deal of work to undo the damage the quatro camp, bombings of public transit and so forth caused to the long-term health of the revolution.

good thing there were folks like tutu and mandela in there to offset the idiocy of militants who like feeling the power of pain a little too much.

but, hey, what's history there for, but to show us the mistake we can excitedly commit again and again and again and again?

so don't straw-man me with some argument like i'm not willing to throw down (or like i don't train almost every day for the possibility the rev'll come in my lifetime) in order to justify your ignorant attitude about torture.

look, if you've read any marx, you should be familiar with the concept of historical residue. my revolution, which is one of love (thank you, che), is not going to benefit from the crap that would stick to it like glue if we were to embrace cruelty as a "tactic." shit. it doesn't even work. if anything, cruelty only serves to undermine the main thrust of any revolution. read some fanon to catch more about that.

and, re: rhetoric, i'm well aware it's a great tool for simplifying complex problems and to consolidate power, which is really important at times. i have no beef with that.

my criticism comes in when you use simplified us v. them rhetoric to advocate a reprehensible practice, simplifying the long-term consequences of cruelty, no matter if you see yourself as the dictator of the proletarians or if you see yourself as the leader of the free world. it's a full of shit perspective either way. and the argument sounds eerily similar coming from any ideological basis.

peace and blessings

I'm not a Marxist, I'm not strictly anything but I'm certainly not a Marxist. If anything I'm closer to a collectivist/anarchist but I still have a problem with how that philosophy deals with ownership as I'm not against non-oppressive capitalism.

And let me be clear that the purpose of torture is to elicit the victim to produce information or to coerce a victim to act in a certain way. I didn't actually mean that I want McCain to provide information or to do anything. I meant to imply that people who are horrible and functioning as oppressors should suffer for it. There may be no purpose for sadists or violent people in the utopia, but they may come in handy bringing it about.

As to Mandela: Bullcrud. As a leader for Spear he had implemented plans for violent guerrilla tactics to be used if the sabotage campaign didn't work. You don't do military training for sabotage. And there was nothing wrong with this in the grand scheme of things. Mandela has the "luxury" of plausible deniability for most of the violent acts because he was in jail when they took place, but anyone really interested in the struggle can easily find out that he initiated the plans and training that were used to accomplish the attacks. Even if all the attacks were retribution, retribution is a weapon of terror, Maccabee understood this two thousand years ago. Sometimes those in power forget that no matter how big the army is they can be reached. what was it Kennedy said about "All it takes is one man..."?

And Brother Ernesto could field strip an AK blindfolded.

Again I publicly state that I am not, now would I, use this or any public board to encourage illegal violence. This is a philosophical discussion of principle, not of practice.

first off, there's a world of difference, and i'll say it again, between armed resistance and torture.

I meant to imply that people who are horrible and functioning as oppressors should suffer for it. There may be no purpose for sadists or violent people in the utopia, but they may come in handy bringing it about.

here, though, lies the crux of our difference. first, i don't believe utopia is possible by definition, but, more importantly, i also don't believe that it's possible to bring about a net positive change with the aid of "sadists or violent people" who will magically disappeared once the revolution is complete. further, if, in fact, utopia is unattainable, i'm not willing to hand over my agency to sadists and violent people while waiting for that never-coming day.

on that same note, trust that, if your revolution does succeed by the means above, look to find me on the margins working to destabilize the power structure your sadistic allies have built so that my loved ones can live free.

the ends is the means and the means is the ends. to embrace one with the delusion that it won't necessarily color the other is naive. the very nature of the word revolution suggests a continuum and process. to inform that process with sadism and brutality essentially changes the outcome. look at every revolution. look at the spectrum of violence - from the zapatistas' self-defensive caretaking to the ussr's expansive aggression - and compare it to how those societies structure(d) themselves and what kind of controlling processes were put in place.

cruelty and retribution are just not effective. especially when you contrast them to the sort of overwhelming constructive change that can be wrought with the same effort. if violence is not to protect our communities as we restructure ourselves, then, in my opinion, it's only going to serve needs of the most violent. considering the ineffectiveness of torture as an intelligence-gathering technique and it's extreme vulnerability to counter-retributive efforts (such as the backlash against mandela for "unethical" practices), i'd say you'd just be shooting your revolution in the foot to advocate such a thing.

here's my disclosure:
personally, i don't recognize the legal authority of any government that routinely uses force to maintain a system of oppression and exploitation for the benefit of a few, so, while i respect your caveats, i don't see the point if we really see as closely as i think we do, unless you're just afraid of some fbi ip trace (in which case, you should probably toss your cell phone right now, 'cos even if it doesn't have gps, it's trackable by cell tower triangulation).

You might want to check this out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/15/sources-recall-mccains-jo_n_112955.html

I don't see what the big deal is -- McCain is just being authentic McCain.

With a candidate who jokes about rape and probably thinks birth control is witchcraft, how can we go wrong with McCain?

Delurking...

Regarding the Sen. Clinton vs. Hillary vs. Mrs. Clinton thing: I have noticed the use of SEN. Obama and MRS. Clinton. It's very subtle, but it's there. And it bothers me. I'm sure the campaign chose to use her first name for a reason, and that's fine, but news organizations need to call her SEN. Clinton, or they need to start calling the other two MR. Obama and MR. McCain. By not using her Senator title, they're being disrespectful, and besides, it's just poor (lazy) writing. If nothing else, your writing should always be consistent. And one would expect that journalists would have had to take an English class or two.

Regarding the McCain joke: Yes, it's tasteless, but we've all (well, I'm sure the vast majority of us) have told and/or laughed at tasteless jokes in the past. The difference is that we 1) aren't politicians, and 2) aren't stupid enough to tell those kinds of jokes in mixed company. I, for one, would like a president who's a little smarter than that.

My biggest fear is that McCain will get elected and it will be so awful that I'll actually miss Georgie-boy. Please, please, please, don't let my daughter grow up with McCain as her president.

And here's the other thing (sorry, hit "submit" too soon)... someone needs to fire that spokesperson. "McCain being McCain" was the best he could come up with in the face of this mess? Seriously?

I mean, not that I would agree with his spin on it, but come on... the guy's job is to take what McCain says and make him look sort of okay.

Jeez Louise.

I think the debate has gotten crazily off-topic for the most part. Although it makes for an interesting read, and its topics are far above what I know about, I don't know if this thread is the appropriate place for it. Just sayin'.

I agree....but I think lately McCain's entire staff of spokespersons is not doing a very good job. I guess that's good, though, since it shows exactly what kind of person McCain is, and what type of campaign we would have to suffer through.

Hrmmm just a side issue that plays into my journalism training and sense of personal integrity.. You really shouldn't use quote marks around "Isn't rape hillarious?" as that implies a direct quote. Unless McCain actually said that, it should not be within quote marks. I know that it's implied and everything, and trust me I know that joke is disgusting (would you even call it a joke??) but by using quote marks you are essentially employing a form of misquoting.