Samhita beat me to posting Jon Stewart's direct confrontation of Mike Huckabee's anti-gay views. And while I share in the swoon-fest, I think it actually calls for a bit more conversation.
Huckabee has been making the rounds to various media outlets, promoting his new book. A few weeks ago, after the Huckster appeared on Rachel Maddow's show, Pam Spaulding noticed that Maddow chose not to bring up gay rights during the interview -- despite Huckabee's bigoted views. ThinkProgress asked her why, and Maddow responded,
I weighed whether or not to ask him about his anti-gay views, but I really don't care about them very much. Huckabee is a doctrinaire anti-gay theocratic social conservative whose views are well-known and heartfelt. I also probably wouldn't bother asking Sarah Palin about her anti-gay views if I had the opportunity to interview her -- it's just not the most interesting or newsworthy (or ridiculous) thing about either of them.
(Emphasis Pam's.) Maddow is saying her decision was a journalistic one, and Pam's not buying it. But I disagree with Pam that this is "closeted journalism." In the past, Maddow hasn't shied away from discussing gay rights on her show. For example, she covered the Prop 8 fallout.
Tami had a really great take on some of the questions this raises:
But that thinking puts a tremendous burden on successful members of marginalized communities, who already have to work extra hard and overcome myriad obstacles. Does Oprah have a right to be a talk show host, not a black talk show host with an extra burden of addressing "black" topics in a way that is acceptable to the black community? Can Rachel Maddow be just a super-smart, kick-ass pundit and political show host without the specter of her sexuality looming behind every decision? Where does our responsibility to our people end and our responsibility to ourselves begin? What does a community have the right to ask from its most successful members?
(Did you read Tami's entire post? 'Cause you should.)
These questions hit really close to home for me. Like Maddow, I work in political/opinion journalism. And I find myself considering these things in so many situations. Do I assign this piece to a lesser-known journalist who is not a white man (who may have less experience, but who would bring a different perspective and much-needed diversity to the magazine), or do I try to assign it to the well-known author (who is usually a white man, who is often a more experienced writer, but whose name is known and more impressive to our readers)? Do I make my feminist perspective very clear in my writing, or do I make a concerted effort not to have every piece with my byline focus on gender? Am I going to be seen as a nag when I bring up, over and over, the lack of diversity in our pages?
To be fair, I know plenty of white, male editors and writers for whom these questions are also important. But the difference is the weight of the obligation. And it's clear that it weighs heavier on journalists who are women, who are queer, who are people of color. It's not a perfect analogy, but in some ways, it's like child care. When a mother takes the kids to the park, she's just doing her job. When dad does it, he's a hero. That's why it's hard for me to fault Rachel Maddow, and why I force myself to temper (just a little bit) my joy at watching that Jon Stewart segment.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, and media privilege.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10890
I don't think Maddow had any kind of responsibility to bring up gay marriage in her interview with Huckabee. What would he have said that hasn't already been said over and over? What questions could she have asked that would have brought something new to the table? Likely nothing. And as you've said, she's touched on gay issues before. She certainly doesn't shy away from them. She made a journalistic decision that asking Huckabee about gay marriage would be pointless, and honestly, I agree with her.
Stewart's humor, satire, and irony is the PERFECT place to ask Huckabee such a question, but Maddow's show is different -- she isn't a satire show. She's a journalist (or close enough).
And I don't like it when people try to make a person like Rachel (or Oprah for that matter) feel like they are obligated to carry their banner. It is almost they feel they owe them when all they owe is to do their best work. They both do good things and I respect that but it is by their choice.
Yes, this! Exactly. I think it's awesome that both Oprah and Maddow DO bring such issues to the table when they have the opportunity, but they certainly shouldn't be expected to. If Maddow's show focused primarily on gay issues, the fine, I'd see the point, but it doesn't and I think it's harmful to our cause to expect people who are gay to make everything they do about them being gay.
And if she did just focus on "gay issues" all the time she would risk marginalizing herself to the point of being largely ignored. Depressing but true.
The "she's a journalist" thing seems like a cop out to me. She had a left leaning radio show, she was a left leaning commentator and now she has a left leaning tv show. She doesn't do "just the facts", "fair and balanced", "we report, you decide" journalism. She never has. I don't see why it would be unusual of her to bring it up.
But I don't think the question is whether it would be unusual for her to bring it up, but whether she's obligated to. These are quite different.
If you believe millions of people are deserving of second class citizenship, I think you should be called to explain yourself for it at every opportunity. So I think we're all obligated to.
OK, that's fine to think she's obligated to bring it up if that's your justification. But I believe the article Ann linked to claimed that she's obligated to because she's gay. I do have a problem with that. And I think that she does have to be careful not to become the new "voice of the gays" and marginalize herself in that way. She's very knowledgeable on a number of other topics, and it would be a shame if these got overlooked so that she could be "the gay" journalist.
Jesus Christ, why don't people get it? This is not the Gay Rachel Maddow Show. Sure, she's left-leaning, but there are more topics to cover than gay gay gay gay. Just because she happens to be gay does not mean everything she does has to be about gay issues.
She made the decision that asking Huckabee about gay issues YET AGAIN would bring nothing new to the table, and I agree. He'd just yap his same yap, and nothing new or interesting would be learned.
It's her show. She made the decision. AND SHE COVERS GAY ISSUES AS IT IS. I think it's ridiculous to get pissed at her for this decision. And childish and short-sighted.
I agree with how Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow handled things. What is Rachel supposed to do, ask every person with ties to the clergy about gay rights? You can't please everybody and she would be a fool to try.
Oprah has transcended race and sex and yet, when the issues come up she does not shy away from them. She makes feminist statements and asks questions that question the status quo regarding racism and sexism.
And, to add, if there had been something new that could have been asked, or something new that Huckabee could have explained, then Maddow probably WOULD have asked him, but as such, we are all pretty aware of Huckabee's bigoted opinion on the matter.
It is NOT fair to Maddow to expect that she bring gay issues to the table every time she talks to an opposite (or even a supporter). It's not at all realistic and I think it would just make her show less interesting. It's not The Gay Rachel Maddow Show, is it? Just like Ellen's talk show isn't Ellen's Gay Talk Show. Sure, she talks about gay issues, but she shouldn't be expected to make her show focus on gay issues.
If Maddow didn't talk about gay issues at all, I could see being annoyed, but she does. She made a perfectly reasonable decision. I think expecting her to talk about gay issues all the time is actually harmful to our cause.
This is a problem with being the first member of X group to have a public voice. Many of them have had to work hard to be a capable person first and a member of their identity group second.
I'm often disappointed by women in positions of power who choose not to address problems that prevent other women from attaining that power, but I can see how the pressure to subsume their "minority" status discourages them from speaking out.
Would we have criticized Jon Stewart for letting Huckabee go on the issue of gay rights, because we perceive him to have less of a stake in the issue? Nobody owns these injustices...
My joy and appreciation of the Stewart-Huckabee segment is tempered by the fact that John Stewart could not even bring himself to say the word abortion... I love the eloquence he brings to the issue of marriage equality and gay rights as civil rights - but that is a problem for me.
Oh, totally. I forgot to mention that. Watching that segment, I was like, "c'mon, you really AREN'T gonna say it?!!"
Great job, you guys. It's really clever how you trash someone who flies your flag but not high enough. Keep up the good work! Who needs a diverse and powerful alliance, anyway? Not me. Unerring ideologues or bust, right?
Voicing your appreciation for someone's discussion of a topic, but pointing out the error that they did make does not amount to trashing them.
Of course, of course! I should leave hyperbole to the talk show hosts. This is serious.
It is not the instance but rather the theme with which I take issue. Hundreds of feministing articles, many hundreds more responses: it's as though someone awards points for coming up with a new grievance. When was the last time someone rocked up and announced, "You guys, I've got a plan!"
My plan is to lend academic feminism an appreciation for efficacy. The complaint machine is old. Awareness is paramount, but all this is just preaching to the choir.
It's unclear to me what you mean by "academic feminism." To whom are you referring? I assume that journalists and bloggers are not a part of this category (unless they are also involved in academia?). Which branch of academic feminism are you so upset with? Your claims are incredibly vague. Why don't you name some specific areas of academic feminism, or some specific authors that you're upset with. Ann is writing here as a journalist, and most of the people posting/commenting on Feministing are not academic feminists, so it's not clear whom you're mad at here.
Again, I'm not referring to a whom. I'm referring to a what: a pattern in discourse, a pattern with roots in the production of academic theory not limited to any sub discipline nor category of speaker, but which pervades conversations from journals to blogs and across every type of writer save consummate pragmatists. I am at a total loss as to how to clarify further. Forgive me for using the word "academic" so flagrantly; I thought I was making myself clearer in enunciating the chasm I see between the quality of this trend in theory versus its commute to practice. I wouldn't have used the word unless I hoped to highlight some aspect of the difference between academic feminism and feminist activism, but if that's not allowed, so be it.
So all of academic feminism is the same in your view? This is strange, given the wide variety of approaches out there. In my experience, everyone is not doing the same thing, and there are a whole range of approaches, theories, etc. out there, but you must have had a very different experience.
Do you think all academic feminism is the same in my view? Because I've never actually met someone that stupid. Let me clarify: I am not that stupid. Is "monolith" what you hear when I say "a pattern in discourse?" I have described at great length the pattern to which I refer. It is the pattern that makes you unable to say "I see your point" and instead, merely "I can figure out a way in which you are wrong."
A strong second to what Manyshoes just said. I was bothered that he prefaced his defense of gay marriage by saying he completely "got" "pro-life," and understood that we should all work on reducing abortion to the point where none occur. As any provider will testify, abortion has always been one of the most common women's medical procedure, and always will be. The only difference is whether is above or underground.
I don't know if there is anything wrong with wishing that eventaully abortions can be minimized to the point where they are close to non-existant, if not exacty non-existant (I don't think that is quite possible). If education and resources were available 100% of the time to 100% of people (male AND female) -- sex education, condoms, other forms of birth control, access to the morning after pill, resources and opportunities for the women who do decide to give birth, a re-hall of our adoption system, etc. -- abortion would likely plumet.
I think it may be a bit idealistic to think, "Well, can't we someday get to a point where abortion is minimized so much that it's practically not needed, while keeping it legal and promoting education and making resources available?" but I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong in that sentiment. If he had advocated making abortion illegal I could see being annoyed, but he didn't. I can't fault people for wishing that we didn't have to have abortion. You can wish that abortion wasn't a necessity while still agreeing with and advocating for keeping abortion legal.
I think there is a big difference between making a strong statement supporting policies that promote healthy decision making and control over reproductive health, and being not only unable to say the word abortion (instead muttering over the spot where saying "reduction in number of abortions as a result of unwanted pregnancies" would have made sense) and then stumbling into an "uh, um, where they should be eliminated" statement. That is a very different thing than promoting policies that support control over reproductive choices. I see your point - there is nothing wrong with saying "Well, can't we someday get to a point where abortion is minimized so much that it's practically not needed, while keeping it legal and promoting education and making resources available?" - but that is NOT what he said.
He continued in this theme when he tacitly endorsed Huckabee's ranking of the right to abortion as the number one travesty in the United States - placing the fact that gay men and women have to justify their right to equal status as the second place travesty.
I love John Stewart's work, generally - but he is pretty terrible when it comes to interviewing women, and is not a strong and consistent voice in support of reproductive rights. Best thing he has done recently in this light was to yield the floor to Samantha Bee.
I do see your point. Does John Stewart advocate for making abortion illegal though?
See, I can see his side -- he likely sees a fetus as a live, human being, and therefore is uncomfortable with abortion, but he still understands that abortion should remain legal. That may not be exactly how I view things, but it's a pretty common view among even pro-choice people, especially pro-choice people who are religous.
And let me say that I do understand that he doesn't always handle interviews with women very well, or topics about women, but I think he realizes that in some way, and thus brought Samantha Bee to the forefront. He's only human and no matter how much we might agree with him on the majority of issues, I'm not surprised he's not, well, perfect. He's damn close, though, and I'm pretty confident he is pro-choice, even if he is not necessarily comfortable with abortion as a whole. And that is a pretty typical view.
I agree it might be a pretty typical view, but it's one feminists should be challenging. I also adore Jon Stewart, mostly because of his ability to understand and discuss fine nuances of an argument. He did so ably with gay marriage in this segment, but in the same breath, he fell back on this mushy-middle, and frankly very unrealistic solution to a problem: that abortion is wrong and while we don't want to be jerks by outlawing it, we can all agree it's either icky or immoral. I've spoken with a number of providers who take issue with that sort of sentiment, whether it's expressed as "abortion is always a tragedy" or as calls to end the need for abortions. They know that abortion has always been a common procedure that women use either safely or at great risk to their health, and that "abortion reduction" as policy doesn't tend to mean better sex ed and prevention options but bigger barriers to obtaining the procedure. Watching Stewart with Huckabee, I felt like he neglected to take the same nuanced, realistic look at abortion rights as he did at marriage equality so that he could set his argument up as moderate and common sensical, and in effect, threw women's reproductive rights under the bus.
Wouldn't you rather focus on getting more people into Jon Stewart's "I'm not crazy about it, but this is the only way to do it" camp than trying to get people like Jon Stewart into the "No restrictions, no apologies" camp?
I know most people on this site (I'm assuming) would like women, their rights and their health to be the primary (or sole) consideration on this topic. I don't disagree with that. But many, many people (including, perhaps Jon Stewart) are a little uncomfortable with the "life" aspect.
Saying life begins at conception sounds as arbitrary to me as saying life begins at birth. I don't think you can put an exact moment on it, so I side with the rights and health of women. But I acknowledge there's enough ambiguity in the area to not be entirely comfortable with it and hope for day when improved education and contraception make it a moot point.
Okay now this is me just throwing this out there...I think that comment was more about moving the point on then an actual comment...like I might be able to understand why you would think that, but this other issue I have no idea how you could possibly think this....I'm not saying it wasn't a stupid utterance, but I don't believe that he was saying anything other than "I can understand why you are against abortion, but your anti-gay attitudes are just about fear and hate...not based on anything else"...but that is just how I took it...Everything I've ever seen from Jon Stewart suggests to me that he is completely pro-choice...and since the birth of his daughter I think that that has only become more important to him...in one of his stand ups he mentions that his first protest that he'd gone to was a pro-choice rally...but maybe I just heart him that much...cause I so do...
That was the impression I got too.
Okay then it wasn't just me...good I was wondering if I was just blinded by the Jon Stewart light...
I watch Maddow everyday - used to listen to her before her MSNBC show. Here is what got me; she made a report on who voted YES on 8 and then said, "Looks like you have a alot of work to do." I had to watch it twice to believe it.
Yeah, and oh you White people are gonna have a lot to do, and oh you Jewish people have a lot to do too. Any way you slice it - it is ridiculous. Instantly, Rachel (who absolutely knows better) became a robot who somehow thinks her job and desk give her a pass that hovers above humanity.
Even if she wasn't queer, it was a distancing that cut her ties to being a relatable human being for me. Hey, Rachel, you have a lot of work to do ~ like remember you are just a human being no matter how great your job is.
I saw that segment too, but she was directing those remarks directly to gay rights activists, so I don't really see a problem with them. If you're an activist and you failed to gain the support of a whole demographic, then you do have work to do.
Uhm.
Yeah.
"We have a lot of work to do" IS THE TRUT. She said the truth. What the hell can you find wrong with that?
I think the problem was that she said "YOU have a lot of work to do" instead of WE, so it was a little off-putting.
But I don't think she's ever claimed to be a gay rights activist or to be actively campaigning on Prop 8. Just because you're a part of a marginalized group doesn't mean you're active in every political action, protest, campaign, etc concerning that group.
I would have prefered, "There's a lot of work to do." The point is to not step away. We all have a lot of work to do. No distance for anyone.
"Do I assign this piece to a lesser-known journalist who is not a white man (who may have less experience, but who would bring a different perspective and much-needed diversity to the magazine), or do I try to assign it to the well-known author (who is usually a white man, who is often a more experienced writer, but whose name is known and more impressive to our readers)?"
Ouch. I notice you carefully avoid saying outright who is the better writer, and who deserves the piece more based on merit. It's stuff like this that makes the case for opponents of affirmative action.
Er, I think she was saying that white men generally have the most experience (not "merit") because they have more opportunities because they are white. Not that they are better.
"Well-known" equals "better writer" now? I'm not sure it's safe to assume this is true, or that being a minority makes you a worse writer.
I don't know whether or not this applies to Maddow but I do think that there are at least a few of us who are gay or lesbian and aren't quite sure how marriage turned into the ne plus ultra of GLBT issues. I'm really not sure about this but I think it's possible that straight people look at marriage and think "I'm not so sure about butt sex but there's something I recognize!" and that's helped the issue gain some momentum. In that context it makes a lot of sense that straight people like Jon Stewart or some "progressive" bloggers might grab hold of the marriage issue even when some GLBT people might be a little more ambivalent.
Also, we know what Huckabee's going to say about gay marriage. He's said it all before. Do we really need to hear it again?
Well, it might be politically useful to remind people that the man is a bigot, in case he decides to, say, run for president in 2012.
I'm not sure that there's anybody left in the US who's unaware that Huckabee is very opposed to same-sex marriage, and certainly not someone who's likely to be watching Maddow. And then there's media coverage during the campaign. How do you think we know there's a problem with Huckabee's views? Was this not known before Stewart engaged him on it?
And John Stewart and other journalists are obviously still making it known, and Huckabee himself likes to yap up a storm, and what he says is obviously quite bigoted. Maddow bringing it up again wouldn't have made any kind of difference.
Huckabee's political fortunes are entirely dependent on his anti-gay marriage cred. In 2012 we'll see Huckabee the jolly culture warrior, Palin the sneering stupid culture warrior, and Romney the rich Mormon phony culture warrior duking it out over who best represents the distilled essence of Ronald Reagan's ghost, stripped of few Reagan's moderate tendencies.
I understand the point raised here about the burden of being obliged to raise the issue of gay marriage if you're gay.
However, do you remember the McCain/Ellen interview? How powerful that was to have Ellen talk about her love and her marriage and how pathetic McCain looked staring at his toes and mumbling about "let's agree to disagree"?
Too often we let this issues remain abstract, and its much easier to discriminate against a faceless group than to look a person in the eye. Huckabee can be a charming guy, and I'm afraid when people give him a pass, he comes out of it looking like a nice, compassionate guy who's different than all those scary Republicans.
So I'm not saying Maddow was obliged to, but imagine the power if she had said: "Governor Huckabee, why won't you let me get married?"
I think she would lose some journalistic integrity if she made it that personal. Ellen did very well with McCain but it's daytime and she's a comedian/celebrity. Maddow has different responsibilities to her viewers and to her career. I definitely don't see this as Maddow throwing her community under the bus in anyway... (also, I hate the whole 'under the bus' thing, but it's so useful).
Also, I think that Maddow has every right has a journalist to limit his ability to spread his hate speech. Though the Daily Show's audience was audibly not having it, he still got to tread out his usual crap and make the points he was hoping to.
I think she would lose some journalistic integrity if she made it that personal. Ellen did very well with McCain but it's daytime and she's a comedian/celebrity. Maddow has different responsibilities to her viewers and to her career. I definitely don't see this as Maddow throwing her community under the bus in anyway... (also, I hate the whole 'under the bus' thing, but it's so useful).
Also, I think that Maddow has every right as a journalist to limit his ability to spread his hate speech. Though the Daily Show's audience was audibly not having it, he still got to tread out his usual crap and make the points he was hoping to.
But Ellen's show can be personal, while Rachel needs to keep at least some journalistic perspective. And it's not like she hasn't brought up gay issues in the past. She has. She just didn't find it appropriate this time, and quite honestly, I agree.
Yeah, I agree with you. She's not an activist - she's a journalist. It's not appropriate for her to say "WE have a lot of work to do," because even though we all know her political/personal leanings, she's not supposed to be ACTIVELY involved in a movement, at least not while she's on the air. She can march or call or whatever in her personal time - but on the air, at least, she still needs to be able to question the movement and speak about it with a modicum of objectivity.
So what exactly is your point? What are you going to DO about the situation in which Maddow finds herself? Nothing. You're not doing anything. Before posting these rants, ask yourself, "can I name three things that I could actually do with my brain and hands that would have any effect on that about which I complain?" Academic feminism stops at pointing out "problematic" situations. How would you like it if engineering classes said, "Metal fatigue: it's a problem. Ok class, that's a wrap."
So keep thinking, because you almost have a whole idea.
The point is that you're not fighting the system, you're just slamming Maddow, who is obviously damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. That is not an interesting, clever, useful, or unique analysis. It is the same thing you always say with different nouns. It's the same old thing with every little quandary you guys produce, to the point that you don't even know who your friends are because no one person can carry every fucking banner without stumbling onto someone's toes. So lay off perfectionism and get practical. Maddow is on our side, and you're not special for pointing out every little wobble on a tightrope walk.
To whom is this directed? I just re-read the OP, and it doesn't seem like Ann is either ranting or suggesting that Maddow should have done anything differently. Are your comments directed at Pam Spaulding, or one of the commenters here? ...confusing.
And for the record, a lot of "academic feminists" are also activists who have been arrested and experienced police brutality, up close and personal, repeatedly. But thanks for the massive generalization.
I too am having trouble with the comment I don't understand what all the problem is...Maddow is in no way being slammed. I'm not seeing where anyone is "slamming" Maddow...some criticize and others defend...and most are just positing different opinions...
Rachel- yes, it was a response to Ann and to Tami whom she quoted. Theirs was a rant on how nothing anyone can ever do is fully 'right,' which is certainly true, but is something a child should come to terms with, then move on. There is no act without compromise. Then one progresses to discussing decision-making in concrete terms with the supposition of acting instead of just critiquing others; instead of just the pure inanity of repetitive problem-identifying. And it does slam Maddow by putting her between a rock and a hard place when she explicitly didn't put herself there. It slams Stewart for not being good enough because it's allegedly easier for someone in his social position. Man, after I saw that show, I did not "temper my joy." I revelled in counting a fine man among my teammates. It's not cheapened by his straight maleness, for fuck's sake. When do we ever seen that kind of power back their brains with such a spine? Ann's was a rant on her own self-absorbed 'damned either way' dilly dallying. That's step one. Two: "I assess potential outcome values like so." Three: "Then I make a decision based on this, which is the best compromise I can think of, having considered all your lovely input." Four: "This is how I acted." Five: "This is the criteria by which I evaluate my efficacy." Six: "I have learned xyz that I can generalize to related problems." I have no problem with ranting per se. My rant is that we should hold to real world standards: productivity, efficiency, results. Otherwise it's just cynical coombiyah in the eyes of all the would-be muscle for our cause.
And clean it up- I never said anything about academic feminists. Those are people who can also be activists. I'm talking about academic feminism, which is but the spewing forth of ideas, for better or worse. I use the pointedly vague "you," as in, "you know who you are." If you think I'm out of line for "massive generalization" of exercises in academic feminism as cognitive paralysis, fine. You prove my point. If I can’t use a noun like 'academic feminism,' I might not step on the toes of any outliers, but productive communication would sure take a hit.
Ann said: "But I disagree with Pam that this is "closeted journalism." In the past, Maddow hasn't shied away from discussing gay rights on her show." This sounds like a defense of Maddow to me. So I'm still not getting why you think Ann is ranting about Maddow's shortcomings. Could you provide a quote the represents said rant?
I also don't get why you think Ann is claiming that Stewart's straightness, maleness, etc cheapens his words. Pointing out that the voices of straight white males are privileged is not the same as saying that they are somehow invalid or cheap. It just doesn't follow.
And to your point about academic feminism - this is a massive generalization. Academic feminism is not a monolithic thing. There's a huge range of positions, claims, arguments, etc. Many of them are very practice-oriented while others are admittedly theory-based. That's the nature of academia. So before you launch a bitter attack that is so over-generalized that it's hard to even know what or whom you're talking about, perhaps you should do some research into what academic feminism really is. And finally, it's pretty hard to separate academic feminism from academic feminists. Academic feminism does not have a life of it's own - it is practiced by academic feminists, who are real people, living in the real world. So perhaps you are the one who needs to "clean up your game."
You either think I have a good point, or you don't. If you do: excellent job in telling me I don't say it well enough while ignoring my point completely. If you don't: saying it better probably won't change anything.
Ann's was another essay on how everything is problematic. Here second to last paragraph is the quote you want, a perfect example of the theme I described - a lack of interest in discussing how to answer those questions, act on ideas, and assess the fruits of labor. It's just: pick a grievance or inert observation, type it up, spit it out, repeat. And this is fundamentally what puts Maddow in that box - the ad nauseum analyze-the-lesbian game, whether we vote her right or wrong. So no, I don't think Ann's defended Maddow at all. I think the whole discourse stinks.
Man, when I say "academic feminism" and describe the dogma I see there, do you know what I'm addressing or not? Do you think I'm an idiot addressing every feminist ever, or are you just ignoring the fact that I spent a few paragraphs explaining the exact point of methodological failing that irks me? Why pretend that you don't get my point, just because I don't write so self consciously? You can't demand my semantic obedience and then say I'm the one who implicates a world of dynamic individuals when I've expressly criticized a canon of thought, a flatly intangible -ism, and never the whole of any individual or group. This is my very point about cleaving to every possible criticizeable nuance at a cost that is vast. And on this one you're really reaching at straws.
Also, "When a mother takes the kids to the park, she's just doing her job. When dad does it, he's a hero. That's why ... I force myself to temper (just a little bit) my joy at watching that Jon Stewart segment."
My understanding of this analogy: "Dad wrongly gets extra credit for being male. Stewart wrongly gets extra credit for being straight." This is not about privilege, unless you mean the privileged non-Other position in society. Which is, um, straight maleness.
PS: It pissed me off that Ann compared Stewart to dads called 'hero' for but lifting a finger, but this is not about the ways in which that is/isn't a valid statement. I find it infuriating because it's not productive. Here's the real world: it would be a stupid goal to try to stamp out the admittedly 'problematic' weight society gives to external advocacy: to white civil rights fighters, to straight alliance, to male feminists, to citizens for immigration, to rich socialists, to whatever. It's unrealistic and ideologically motivated, rather than valued for potency for reform, because we've NEVER heard a plan that could address this or any evidence of successes in doing so. Ann chose not to write about the way we can capitalize on the power of straight alliance, or even the good or bad effects she's observed of her editorial choices, because we have yet to get past the problem-identifying stage. It's always the same an it's an infantile movement that needs to pull the finger out and say, "here are the compromises I'm willing to make." You either compromise or paralyze. That's it- no victory for ideologues.
But feel free to write me off; I'm straight so I guess I'm just looking for a cheap ticket to heroism.
Honestly, I have to ask -- doesn't anyone every consider anything other than being gay? Admittedly, I'm not gay -- but I consider myself a feminist; I am a Manhattan attorney earning a three figure salary; I believe I am sophisticated -- went to law school with two children -- did it all on my own -- graduated second in my class. I'm proud of my accomplishments.
Having said that -- I have to scream this out -- I LOVE MIKE HUCKABEE. That's because I took the time to research == really research -- and discover all the great things he has done, his compassion, his honesty, his intelligence.
No, I do NOT agree with him on all of his social views. I certainly support same sex marriage and wish any would be couple all the love I have experienced in my own marriage. Mike Huckabee isn't perfect -- but he is pretty damn good.
Are you all just one issue voters -- that is as dangerous as the fundamentalists. And, no, I couldn't stand Sarah Palin -- Mike Huckabee and she have incredibly little in common.
Certainly don't support any politician you don't like, but give people a chance. He is NOT a bigot -- he holds honest beliefs -- but he is open to discussion, to civility, to vertical politics. He received several standing ovations at Brown University, for goodness sake.
And, yes, I love Rachel very much, too!!
Wish you all well. All I ask you -- keep an open mind beyond a one-issue basis.
Hello Voter. Thank you for your gay friendly support. Your accomplishments are impressive, and your independence is fierce!
I'm not trying to change your perception about anyone seeming single-minded. That is how you see it, and I totally understand why you would see things this way.
This post about media privilege is an after-shock effect of the passage of prop 8. We had our right to marry, granted by the California Supreme Court, voted away by homophobic religious bigots. Mike Huckabee is holding news conferences ready to spew his religious poison about gay marriage. So, this article is questioning the media's role in regards too homophobic bigotry.
I'm an ER nurse, and a gay man. I helped a man today with a compound fracture in his femur. It was bloody hell. I think that my life is more dimensional than my interest in this post, and we're free to change the channel.
The media is considerably gay friendlier than the country it reports to.
I totally heart Huckabee. The man is very polite (except to Mitt Romney who no self respecting person can be polite to, respectful, kind hearted and decent . . . and completely ignorant. Look into his Fair Tax proposal, if you don't think his marriage rhetoric comprises even evidence that he lives in an imaginary world. He's a great guy, I'd hang out with him, but the views that I'm sure he holds sincerely and considers quite humane completely ignore the reality of many people who shouldn't really exist according to his beliefs which predate the realization, among others, that some people are gay.
So you like an out-right bigot? Awesome! You can be "really polite" and still be a bigot. The only bigots I hang out with are family members, and only when I have to to keep the peace. I can choose who I otherwise I have dinner with, and who I vote for. And guess what? I don't hang out with bigots and I certainly don't vote for them.
Disgusting.
Of course I don't vote for Huckabee, you silly little twit. So, which non-anti-gay marriage presidential candidates have you voted for? And since you "keep the peace" and "have dinner with" bigots, what exactly are you trying to judge me for?
"He is NOT a bigot "
Uh.
He's anti-gay marraige, and anti-gays.
HE IS A BIGOT.
You're deluded and naive and quite honestly, if you support HUCKABEE of all people, you are not a feminist and I think you may be a bigot as well, since you SUPPORT A BIGOT.
So ... you're pro-bigot?
Please.
You're not a feminist. Your'e naive and pro-bigot.
I admit I have a crush on Maddow so I may not be the most objective here, but do you really think Maddow's audience doesn't already know 1. her views on gay rights and 2. Huckabee's views on gay rights?
On Rachel Maddow. I'm a gay guy, and I've never had sex with a woman. I have more female friends, and I feel more comfortable being surrounded by women than men. But, I have to admit, I think Rachel Maddow is so hot! I don't know if its her gender-bending looks, but I would love to wake up with her next to me.
On her interview with Huckabee, she charmed him. Its guys like Jon Sterwart, Keith Olberman, and Gavin Newsom, that seem to stand up much better to religious bigots than anyone can. They're gay- forward, heterosexual men, who show a bigot like Huckabee, that they he is weak, because they're the same animal.
On another topic, we must destroy prop 8!
I feel your pain over Rachel buddy, though I have to say having a lesbian be the only woman you've ever been attracted to may be the saddest thing I've ever heard ;)
I'm not your buddy, and I never said that she was the only lesbian that I've ever been attracted too;)
I was joking in both cases. Obviously not well, and I apologize.