The asshole gene runs in the Bush family
Here's a charming little story from George Bush, Sr.:
One time we thought we'd outsmarted the crowd. We sent a decoy limosine off in one direction while I snuck out the back entrance. And we rounded the corner -- I'll never forget it -- and I saw one of the ugliest and angriest women I have ever seen in my entire life. Boy, she was really bad. And she charged my car with a sign... and came up right next to the window: "Stay out of my womb!" No problem, buddy.
Yes, anti-choicers and conservatives are STILL making the played-out "argument" that feminists are ugly. Sorry, my feelings still aren't hurt.
Disappointingly, Bill Clinton -- a pretty reliable pro-choice ally -- wishes he could tell jokes about ugly, threatening pro-choicers, too: "You know, he tells jokes that I just couldn't get away with telling. Can you imagine what they would do to me if I told that joke he told?" Um, yes. Yes, I can. We'd call you a sexist asshole.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The asshole gene runs in the Bush family.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11660
I love how Bush Sr. glosses over the issue too.
Ugly, angry feminist's sign: Stay out of my womb!
BS: "No problem."
Becauce anti-choice people are all about keeping the government out of women's bodies...Or maybe women he doesn't find sexually attractive get a free pass and he's ok with them having abortions. Somehow I don't think so, though.
P.S. I really hope Hillary Clinton has some "ugly, angry" comments to make to Bill Clinton over his misplaced awe...wtf.
It's the same joke used by a lot of popular comedians for a pro-choice viewpoint.
"You ever notice all the women who protest abortion clinics look like you wouldn't want to impregnate them in the first place?" Or some variation on that theme.
I've heard that repeated in one form or another so many times I can't honestly think who the originator is. And I've heard it from male and female comics.
Of course it is possible that there was indeed a very unpleasant looking person with a sign, such people do exist. I know because there is one living in my mirror.
Yeah, I think that joke originated from the late George Carlin. His other jokes on the matter raised some interesting points that can be used, but the whole "You notice these anti-choice people are ugly" pretty much set me off.
George Carlin did it: "WHY is it that the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?" Hey, I laughed, just like I laugh anytime someone insults an anti-choicer about anything.
At least you'll notice Carlin says anti-choice PEOPLE are ugly, not specifically anti-choice women.
There it is-- the threat present in so many jokes and criticisms of politically minded women-- that if you speak out men won't want you. I wish I could laugh at that and write it off as silly, but I've seen too many women give into that fear. Just think of the women who refuse to identify with feminism or seem to hate it without knowing why, and for what reason? Because they are scared that men won't like them. Or what about the woman who laughs at sexist jokes rather than objecting? If she objects, she becomes shrill and unfeminine in the eyes of some men, so it is better to just play along. I would like to see this as one unenlightened man's ridiculous story, but the fear of losing desirability that it invokes is too potent, and we witness the chilling effect it has on women all the time. It is a reminder of the fact that despite how far we've come, women are still expected to make attracting men our number one priority.
I won't hold it against Clinton. It seemed like Clinton was just playing up that charismatic, agreeable shtick that he has.
It kinda sounded to me like, "Can you believe what that dude just said?"
I'll tell ya, anyone married to Barbara Bush has some balls talkin this kind of shit.
For real.
Clinton was not at fault for this just because he was in the same room with the guy when he said it. His follow up was a subtle slam at Bush's idiocy, especially as Clinton KNOWS what the media coverage of Hil was this past election season.
BTW Bush is on his Foundation board I think, therefore it's kind of unlikely he would publicly shame him.
I don't think Clinton was saying he wanted to make such jokes at all. I think he was just pointing out, in a friendly way, the hypocrisy of the right in its breathless pouncing on his own sexual foibles -- and being kind of self-deprecating in the process. I mean, yes, I can imagine what they'd do if Clinton said something like that: They'd drag him and Lewinsky through the mud again.
I'm no big fan of Bill Clinton, but I don't think he was being too crass.
To Clinton's credit, I don't think he expressed any desire to make that joke at all. If he HAD said anything like "That wasn't funny, dude." I don't think that would have gone over well. I think he handled it pretty well by essentially saying "woah, that was pretty extreme and there's no way I would have gotten away with it. (Ahem, are you getting away with it?)"
If I saw a Bush I would be making a pretty hideous face too.
I don't think Bill wishes he could tell a joke like that. I think he's just pointing out the differences between how people view Bush Sr, and him, especially conservatives.
Just happened upon this and felt the need to comment.
First off, Bush never once said that feminists and or pro-choicers we ugly. His exact quote was
"one of the ugliest and angriest woman I ever saw" I would go a bit further to say if she was as angry as she sounds, I would suggest that perhaps her sole was the ugliest part of her.
I also notice excuses being made for Bill, it seems Bill being a Democrat (or perhaps just not a Bush) trumps the fact that he cheated on his wife(selective memory?), and thus you find a way to justify his follow-up comment...so in short political party = greater than moral compus.
Please dont get me wrong, I certainly believe that woman should be treated as equals to men, but there are reasons we are who we are.
If attracting men WASN'T a females number one priority the human race would fail to exist. That is the power of woman. It is in your DNA. Just like it is in a mans DNA to BE attracted by certain features of a woman. If a female is desirable it most likely means they are a healthy human specimen and thus a prime choice to be bread (or they had allot of surgery meant to enhance desirable features). Without any "thought", a male is attracted to them.
Sorry if society throws a blanket over all of this so not to offend, but we are still animals, and the first priority in life is to reproduce so that you don't become extinct.
I would like to thank Janet 73 for posting something that motivated me to start commenting again after a year-long break. Pain does indeed encourage growth.
Janet, I first strongly suggest you learn about something called "context." It will help you with reading comprehension. Simply put, context is words, ideas, and other influencing factors surrounding a statement that affect the meaning of the statement and/or the conclusions we are to draw from it. It's very clear that the context of Bush's statement indicates he's pushing the unspoken-but-underlying belief that feminists-- pro-choice activists in particular--are ugly, unattractive, strident, and pathetic.
Second, I suggest you brush up on the fundamentals of logic. Can you tell me by what logic Clinton's affairs invalidate his observation that Bush was permitted to make a breathtakingly offensive statement without censure? Can you tell me by what logic pointing that out is "excusing" or "justifying" Clinton's affairs because he's a Democrat?
Third, correct spelling would greatly increase your ability to communicate your thoughts. For example, I assume that when you wrote, "perhaps her sole was the ugliest part of her," you meant her soul, not the bottom of her foot (sole). Also, when you wrote, "a prime choice to be bread," I assume you meant "to be bred," not to be a food product (bread). But perhaps I'm wrong.
Fourth, I suggest you learn something about biology from reputable sources, not from "pop science" articles in sources like Cosmo magazine. It would help you get your terminology right, and also help you gain a more accurate understanding of basic science. Individuals do not "become extinct." Individuals "die." Species become extinct. The first priority in life is to continue living, not to reproduce. (If the first priority were to reproduce, all functions of all organisms would be geared toward the sole end of reproduction--which they clearly are not. Organisms have many functions unrelated to reproduction.) And there is increasing evidence that, contrary to popular belief, females do not need to attract males for procreation--males need to attract females.
Fifth, have you ever heard the phrase "biology is not destiny"? Do you know what it means? I suggest you learn something about the meaning and history of that statement. It may open some mental vistas for you.
Context is a convenient way to turn anything around to fit what you want to believe. I didn't drawl that from what Bush said at all.
Neither of these men are president, so either of them making this statement would ONLY cause a stir by the public and in media outlets. They don't have a job to lose any longer so that's about it. I think this would have received exactly the same had Bill made these comments. Bush may have been given a little slack because folks view him as being a bit more "over the hill". Bill is sharp enough to not let something like that come out of his mouth.
I guess the media is "conservative biased" now? lol
You are correct about my spelling, but I doubt you didn't understand what I said. Nothing more than a nice jab at me.
Survive or reproduce? chicken or the egg. The human race wouldn't be here without the ability to do either.
My thoughts are my own and far more original than yours I suspect. I have never opened a copy of Cosmo or any magazine of the like so "I" wouldn't know.
"biology is not destiny" it really is a nice tag
I don't cloud my mind with what is merely another opinion by another psychologist. I'll bet you could find a thousand in the same profession that are on the other side. All you prove here is that you can believe in what another has written. I'm not putting down reading but, I would rather be original. I don't need opinions, I am a good person and know right and wrong. Humans are still a raw piece of nature, the same as dirt or a tree.
I have my own beliefs based on my life, nature, and God.
I dont feel real welcome here and feel a bit too much anger anyway. Its safe to say we aren't going to agree real soon, so I'll be me, and you go be you.
Janet, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Saying you have your own "original thoughts" sounds really kewl, right? You're rebellious and not stodgy like those people who examine facts and use logic before coming to informed opinions. Being original trumps being educated--even if your logic falls apart and your facts don't fit.
That's the kind of lazy thinking I deplore. It serves no purpose but to make the speaker feel that a lack of knowledge and mental rigor is a virtue instead of a shortcoming that can be remedied.
And when someone asks a lazy thinker to defend their opinions with logic or facts, the lazy thinker can always claim they're being persecuted and bail out of the discussion.
I dont feel real welcome here and feel a bit too much anger anyway. Its safe to say we aren't going to agree real soon, so I'll be me, and you go be you.
Eh. Certainly not the best flounce I've seen...I'd give it a "C."
Where are your facts?
And when did I say I was giving you fact?... I was giving my opinion, just like you are giving another's opinion.
I'm also pretty sure I defended everything I was questioned on, so I hardly see where I simply bailed out when asked for logic behind my statements.
In fact I don't see where you have rebutted any of my answers to your statements.
It seems you have made a judgment of who I am immediately and are content sitting back entertaining yourself, making assumptions of funny things I might say, or magazines I might read..hell you probably know my weight, eye color and age by now don't you?
Since you seem content throwing smart a** comments toward me instead of having a rational discussion I can only make my own assumptions about you.
You nothing but a judgmental, bitter, sad, person and I would think hardly the type of person that the leaders of your causes need spouting off at everyone that stops by here.
Call it what you want, maybe I am bailing out, or maybe I see that I am in a place where the people I was speaking to will never listen to another point of few (even if not threatening) simply because it doesn't meet their agenda. Why should I bother any longer? Am I wrong that I am not welcome here?
Good luck in your bitterness.