We've received a ton of reader mail (and public requests) over the course of the past week asking us to blog about an article that appeared on Playboy's website about conservative women they'd "like to hate-f*ck." Several people have asked us write about it to "prove" we are against sexism and hatespeech directed at all women, regardless of their ideological orientation. Others are saying that, because we haven't blogged about this one article, which has since been taken down, we are ok with sexism directed at conservative women.
And I'm getting annoyed. Because this sounds really familiar. During the presidential campaign (and long after) conservatives liked to invent a narrative in which feminists did not decry sexism directed at Sarah Palin. These poor souls are all apparently unable to use The Google. Because if they were, they would have turned up:
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: O'Reilly Edition
Palin Sexism Watch: Proud Uncle McCain Edition
Palin Sexism Watch: C-Word Edition
Palin Sexism Watch: Sex Doll Edition
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Halloween Costume Edition
Palin Sexism Watch: Sexist Stereotypes Edition
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Schoolgirl action-figure edition
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Skirt-wearing, SexyMom edition
Palin Sexism Watch: VPILF Edition
And there's more -- including a recent post calling out the misogyny against Miss California Carrie Prejean.
What I find almost laughable is that most of the conservatives who have said, "HA! See? Feministing doesn't care about that Playboy article, and therefore all feminists are hypocrites!" are not folks who normally give two shits about sexism. They only care about this article because they think it's a "gotcha" moment.
The real reason I, personally, have chosen not to blog about the Playboy article (or the follow-up on a right-wing blog titled "liberals we'd like to hate-f*ck") is the same reason I choose not to write about every offensive thing published in Maxim or on many other sites that are repeatedly, link-baitingly sexist: because I (or any number of feminists) am not going to change the very editorial mission of these publications. My writing about how fundamentally screwed up an article is will not lead to more feminist or less sexist content in Playboy in the future. It will just give them many more hits. I'd rather spend my time calling out widespread media narratives that are sexist (i.e. Palin is a "VPILF") and trying to change them.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sincere criticism vs. "gotcha!".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14258
Yeah, this is really annoying. This is similar to the situation after 9-11 (and still today), when many right wing conservatives accused us Muslims of being silent about terrorists and not condemning them. Uh, actually a LOT of Islamic organizations in the U.S and overseas have spoken out against 9-11 and terrorists hijacking my religion.
It makes me angry that these people just won't listen.
Just a note of encouragement...one of the reasons I take Feministing.com seriously is that you ARE fair, you are not afraid to call anyone out on sexism, even if the targeted person (in this case you gave Sarah Palin as an example) is someone that you really disagree with. During the election, I was really impressed to see you calling attention to sexism directed at her, even though I disagree with her politics and did not vote for McCain/Palin. I think it gave the site a lot of credibility. I think you are right on that this is an attempted "Gotcha" moment. Keep up the good work!
I just love the faux feminism - sort of reminds me of the same kinds that was used during the campaign to elevate Palin's status. For years, they never utter the word, except to criticize it, and only pulled it out when it served them well.
Not only has Feministing defended Palin and Prejean for the sexisms they are subjected to, but it's also defended many other conservative women, to include the rape jokes about Secretary Rice a few years ago. Disagree with feminism's politics if they must, but they cannot claim that feminists are inconsistents with the wars they choose to wage.
On a somewhat related note of Palin all the sudden becoming feminist after the Letterman incident -- since when did the conservatives, to include Sarah Palin, start caring about feminism? They, much like Palin in her war of words this week again David Letterman, are only feminist when it conveniences them.
While if you read Palin's statement regarding Letterman's comments, you'd think it came from a bonifide feminist, the truth is Palin is simply taking advantage of the situation.
Since when did Palin care so much about rape? After all, this is the woman who made rape victims in her state pay for her own test kits.
Oh, and if Palin so much as cared about positive image of women, and protecting young women from the ills of the world, why is she against comprehensive sex education, a tool that empowers women, rather than simply letting them figure out sex and body image, and consent on their own?
While she's priming up for 2012, one thing is clear - Sarah Palin is no feminist, nor are any other conservative Republicans who pay so much lip service to feminism, but when it comes to actual politics and policies, leave women behind.
Marc
So, you like what Sarah Palin said, but you're annoyed that SHE said it as opposed to a "bonafide feminist." Well how dare she! She's not supposed to sound like a feminist!
Look, in all seriousness, I agree that many people on the right don't care about feminism one bit and only use it to defend conservative women. But if Democrats, progressives, liberals, etc. want to claim the moral high ground, they really need to clean up the misogyny on their side of the fence.
"Democrats, progressives, liberals, etc."
You're using blanket terms to describe events that apply to specific individuals. This is ridiculous. There are Democrats, progressives, and liberals who are often misogynists. There are also self-identifying Republicans and conservatives who believe in gender equality. This doesn't make Democrats and liberals misogynists anymore than than it makes Republicans and conservatives feminists.
If organizations who want progressive change and equality they should call for change that leads to a more progressive and equal society, as well as call out the opponents of equality and progress. They DO NOT have to appeal to the moral standards of conservatives, many of whom use, twist, and exploit patriarchal ideals of morality for their own social, political and personal gain.
What are you talking about? Marc's complaint is that Palin is co-opting feminism to increase her publicity. Palin is demonstrably NOT a feminist, therefore it's irksome for her to use feminist platforms or language. It's not misogynistic to call out an anti-feminist woman-- and in fact this whole post is about defending women, no matter their political allegiance, from sexism.
Okay, so we should defend ALL woman against sexism. Except Sarah Palin.
You don't see a problem with that?
Umm, have you read any of the several Palin Sexism Watch articles posted on this blog, or the other Sexism Watch articles that deal with conservative or not quite feminist women?
Feminists have defended Sarah Palin from sexism--see the article above. And that's the right thing to do.
It's also the right thing to do to call her out for her anti-woman ideology.
It's also the right thing to call out the anti-feminist conservative media for only giving a shit about feminism when their own anti-feminist women are attacked.
Did you see my post further down on this comment thread? Did you read Lady G's post? My thoughts reflect hers regarding the Palin Sexism Watch.
"It's also the right thing to call out the anti-feminist conservative media for only giving a shit about feminism when their own anti-feminist women are attacked."
Why are you pointing this out to me when I never implied otherwise in my post?
Because katie never said we should defend all women against sexism but Palin, and her point was that we need to attack the conservative media for exploiting feminism. If you didn't take issue with her point, then why'd you attack her for saying something she didn't say? If you attack someone for their argument that they need to call out the conservative media for exploiting feminism, then I'm justified in responding to you on that point.
And if you have read the Sexism Watch articles, then why would you claim that anyone here thinks it's okay to attack Palin in a sexist manner? Nobody makes that point, katie80andstuff did not make that point, and this blog is squarely against this, so it's perfectly logical to ask whether or not you paid attention. It's normal to have to qualify one's position when they defend someone they don't agree with. If you have a problem with that, fine, but in a world where so much depends on such an important issue, and in a world where people make snap judgments about people's opinions, its necessary to clarify our positions before we move forward. The fact that you don't see this makes me wonder once again whether you missed the point.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get out of me. I agree that the conservative media exploits feminism when the chance arises. I've seen it several times.
And how exactly did I attack Katie? Katie and Marc feel that Palin is anti-feminist because of her policies. Does she mean she can't defend her daughter against Letterman? How exactly did she exploit feminism by defending her daughter?
I think the issue with Palin-in this case-is not that she has "co-opted the language of feminism" or is even pretending to be feminist, or anything. I think the issue is that she made an idiotic, rambling statement about the matter that comes of as pure political opportunism, especially because of the context in which she deliberately placed her family as part of her political campaign (or allowed her family to occupy). Every time Sarah Palin appears on TV, or talks some trash in an interview, I think to myself "Haven't you gotten into your head yet, you schmuck? REJECTED."
So yeah, Palin has a right to defend her daughter and Letterman was out of line, and she shouldn't be subjected to jokes about her own "sluttiness." But don't use a dumb joke as a political platform, Sarah. It's not becoming.
Again, what are you talking about? Who here has said it's okay for Palin to be subjected to sexism?
Second try: people like Marc and myself are rankled by the fact that Palin is using feminist rhetoric to blast Letterman despite the fact that Palin is anti-feminist, espouses anti-feminist views, enacts and supports anti-feminist policies, etc. This is not equivalent to saying that Palin deserves sexism.
Then how would you like Palin to respond to Letterman?
Of course she should defend herself (and her daughter)! I never suggested otherwise. What I'm saying is that it's ridiculous for the her to portray herself as some sort of bastion of feminism when she most clearly is not.
And what exactly are her anti-feminist views? Pro-life, pro-abstinence, the rape kit thing?
And even if you consider her anti-feminist, why do you criticize her for speaking out about Letterman? Why care whether she used "feminist rhetoric" to get her point across? You may consider her anti-feminist, but she's still a woman.
Yeah, pretty much those three (and many more) are why she is an anti-feminist. That's an empirical statement, not some sort of slur, so there's no need for the scare quotes. The policies Palin enacts hurt women. Period.
It's upsetting for Palin to use a feminist stance to defend her daughter because she is not a feminist, and does not use it to defend any other woman. I am allowed to be angry when a figure antithetical to feminism uses the movement to suit her own ends.
And for the record, I wasn't saying that Palin couldn't defend herself or her kids against Letterman. I was saying that it is disingenuous and harmful to feminism for her to pretend she's doing it because of her "feminist" views.
Also, this "she's still a woman" totally mystified me. Have I said or intimated anything suggesting she's NOT a woman? What does that have to do with anything?
Because her so-called feminism isn't consistent. She'll only spout feminist ideals when they fit her - that is, to make her family look like the victim, or to further her image as one who stands for women's rights. As I clearly stated, the message isn't wrong, it's the way in which it was delivered that I have problems with.
If Palin truly cared about women, she'd be pushing for legislations that actually empower women. As in this case, she's not doing that, but merely creating press coverage for herself. While she has every right to defend her daughter, I have the right to call out her faux feminism, and point out that she, indeed, is not feminist, unless it benefits her.
She has every right to defend her daughter - but to do the whole "David Letterman needs to apologize to all the young women in America," and linking Letterman's sexism with the assaults of young girls and their body image is, at the very least, contradictory to her politics, and as a voter and Democrat, I have every right to call her out for that.
Want to be a feminist? Do so in actions and legislative actions, not just spouting some feminist primer and expect us to believe you're a feminist.
While I'm not a huge Palin fan, I'd prefer her to challenge Letterman rather than brush it off.
Honestly, I feel Palin is getting a huge education of the necessity of feminism...perhaps someone needs to show her the link between Letterman's sexism and her own policies.
I agree on the importance of not rewarding diametrically opposed publications/organizations/websites with links of outrage (as if that's what they weren't going for to begin with) and hope for the expansion on the non-linking policy on this and many other feminist websites.
Excellent analysis of your own voice and the overall global culture in which you write, Ann. Thank you.
Much more than the Playboy “hate-F-word” article, this week’s brouhaha over Letterman's verbal violence (in context cruelly lobbed in humor's guise against sentient beings and wordsmiths like women) reflects concerns about male cruelty as usual. You can be credited with female genius in adopting the "feministing" imagery as a way to manage the male-dominant cruelty, i.e., the upthrust middle finger on the Playboy-manufactured playgirl icon of naked womanhood at your blog. It's similar to the adoption of the N-word by comic Chris Rock in his comedic romps against racism, or self-adoption of "bitch" and the C-word by some women who know what men call them behind their backs (because they've also heard it called to their faces).
To put verbal violence (including imagery and words) against women in the biggest-picture context possible, consider what Harvard and Oxford men of science have said about “Demonic Males.” Demonic not as woo-woo religion but as the anthropological and zoological cause of male-dominant violence. This is the violent multi-cultural ground of being --- no abstraction of theory --- by which women are subordinated to male-dominant views (if not violence) throughout global culture. Blogging about the Harvard and Oxford science today at the pro-feminist venue, http://thelongestwar.wordpress.com/
At a certain point, you really just have to pick your battles.
We're smart enough to know that even using the best reason and analysis will likely not make as much a difference to those who read "Maxim" or "Playboy" as it might to an audience of basic mainstream news media.
I feel it's safe to say that readers of those publications are already especially complacent in regards to sexism, more so than the average reader.
It can feel like trying to reason with the average McCain supporter back in October of 2008 as an advocate for Obama; not much is going to get through to them.
It is purely for its "gotcha" value to the conservatives, nothing more. They know that their sexism and homophobia are a drag on their party and are looking for any way to appear friendly to these causes without actually having to do anything. Keep in mind that the idea was floated (and then tossed) to pay some of Hillary's campaign debt to win over some of her supporters, and there is no one more hated on the right than Hillary. NOW wrote:
To which Allahpundit at Hot Air responded:Even in the course of admitting that the point is valid (!) Allahpundit can't help but dismiss it as an "ass-covering knock on conservatives." And of course, he insists that we have to stop pointing out that anti-choicers have a deep seated hostility to and hurt women in order to get them to stop being sexist. Some deal, huh? With that sarcastic condition attached, Allahpundit has given away the fact that he doesn't give two shits about this issue except whatever advantage it can garner for his movement. In other words, until feminists give up on choice, the right will continue to turn a blind eye to misogyny in its ranks. Thanks for clarifying, Allahpundit, that you are still the enemy of feminists everywhere.It's difficult to deal with people who just don't operate in good faith and will try to take advantage of others' sincerity.
I do commend Feministing for the Palin Sexism Watch articles. But glancing through the comment sections it's quite obvious that many feminists did not appreciate having to defend Palin. That's not Feministing's fault, but it was eye opening to see the statements there.
"I hate Palin, but.."
"I can't stand this woman, but.."
It reminds me of this: "I'm not a feminist, but.."
What a shame that people can't defend a woman against sexism unconditionally.
Since when does defending someone against sexism mean you have to love them or agree with their ideas?
I never said that it does.
So...what is your point?
The point is that everyone feels the need to qualify their statements. It should be enough to say the sexism is wrong period, but a lot of people feel the need to state that they don't like the woman before they can defend her against sexism. I understand why people do this. I'm not saying it's wrong. It just seems sad that people who comment on a feminist website feel they have to do this.
How is that sad?
Really, you can't see how that's sad?
This is why some people feel that feminism is dead. After reading this thread, I have to agree.
That's a real cop-out, IMO.
Yeah, I miss the good ole days, back when feminism was Alive, and you were never allowed to criticize or disagree with another woman, and if you did that meant you could never, ever, EVER feel anything but antipathy towards them.
Alas, times change.
Come on. This is a feminist website that has criticized many known feminists (gasp!) and also come to the defense of conservative women. What's really sad is people who can't understand that feminism is a tad a deeper than "She has a vagina, therefore I must only think loving thoughts about her and never utter a discouraging word amen".
Rather than making blanket statements about how feminism is dead - how about you tell us why you feel that way?
Heaven forbid that we should criticize a woman for her viewpoints and politics. Feminism isn't about coddling women or saying that everything they do is correct - it's about ending sexism - and if I have to call out Sarah Palin's bullshit, or any other woman's for that matter, I'll happily do it.
Um, your comment states that disagreeing with someone's political views somehow undermines the ability to defend that person from sexism.
Breaking News: feminists are able to disagree with someone (even vehemently!) and simultaneously believe that sexist attacks against that person are wrong!
Maybe you need to take another look at the Palin Sexism Watch and read the comments there.
Read them. Maybe YOU need to tell the rest of us why,by prefacing our statement with "I disagree with her ..." makes the situation sad.
I don't like the woman, I think she's an idiot, and I think she is anti-feminist, but it does not mean I am not going to speak out against sexism directed against her.
Now, clearly and succintly tell us, why is being against Sarah Palin's politics so wrong?
If anything, your idea of not liking a woman equaling sexism is sexist in itself ...because all women are the same, right? Thus we must always agree with or like them?
Newsflash: feminism is a political movement, too.
First of all, I NEVER said that a feminist could not criticize Palin or any other conservative woman for her political stance. Are you people even reading my posts? I know I'm not the most articulate person, but it seems I keep having to repeat myself.
I think the whole point of this post was that Feministing was criticized for not addressing sexism against conservative women. Ann stated that was wrong and gave examples with the Palin Sexism Watch articles. I noticed those articles when they first appeared and I was glad that Feministing did that. When I read the comments to these articles, many people were in agreement. But there were some who seemed to either not care at all or thought that Palin deserved the sexism directed at her.
I am just pointing out the half-hearted attempts by some feminists to defend conservative women against sexism. Note that I said SOME feminists. It could even be a minority of feminists. But that won't stop the conservative media from noticing and exploiting it.
I completely agree. This is a site that is so hell-bent on making sure that women of any kind are treated fairly as women. Sensitive to minority issues, prejudice, etc. I never understood why a feminist needs to say "Hey, look at me, I am defending this woman from sexist attacks, but before you think I agree with her, I think that she's CRAZY!" (Yes, I have seen posts alluding to this in the community)
So, why does one's view on Sarah Palin even MATTER? It feels like such a defense mechanism, and it almost makes feminists look like women who really only want to defend women that agree with them. It makes the defense of other-minded women almost seem reluctant. I know that conservatives might not agree with you on many issues, but conservative women are still women. Any true feminist who thinks that defending Sarah Palin against these attacks means that you agree with her political views is just nuts.
I am not saying that certain people at Feministing ARE reluctant to discuss this topic, because I like to believe that there are feminists who are truly outraged at how the media discusses her. However, posts and comments give off that kind of tone, and as a conservative woman who is interested in feminist issues, won't lie, it pisses me off.
Back during the election, any time I brought up the sexism against Palin among friends and family, both pro-and-anti the McCain/Palin ticket, I found myself having to explain that no, I wasn't supporting her politically just because I was speaking out against the sexism. I had a really hard time convincing any of them that I was concerned about the sexism and yet dead-set against her being our VP. After too many comments like, "Pffft, what, so now you're a Palin fan?" and "So you finally realized Obama's not qualified?" I found myself prefacing any sexism-defense with, "I don't support her politically, but..."
So in some ways it IS a defense mechanism, at least for me, because the attitude I found (in the real world, not on this site) was that there's no way in hell you can defend someone while at the same time not being "for" them.
The faux outrage over sexism and misogyny is indeed unbelievably frustrating and specifically designed to be "important" because: "these folks just don't talk about sexism/misogyny, so when they do it must be really bad." It's illogical, false band-wagon-jumping, and a disservice to those who try and fight against sexism and misogyny every day outside of political gains.
The most recent faux outrage over Prejean, the hate-fuck list, and Letterman's inappropriate Bristol-joke is profoundly evident of the above.
However, I have to take issue with your defense of why Feministing doesn't cover these "smaller" issues more.
You're absolutely right that writing about every single sexist article, picture, or ad in Playboy, Maxim, etc. will only serve to direct traffic and make a daily part of "our" lives the sexism so endemic in "theirs." It's the "losing the forest for the trees," argument and I'm totally with you. Furthermore, I think you nail it on the head when you say, "I'd rather spend my time calling out widespread media narratives that are sexist (i.e. Palin is a "VPILF") and trying to change them."
So what the hell am I taking issue with?
You seem to be denying the fact that those small number of articles or situations that become a part of the national discourse (as the Letterman scenario has, and to a smaller extent the hate-fuck list) defacto makes them a part of widespread sexist narratives being played out in the media. And when they becomes a part of the narrative as the hundreds, nay thousands, of similarly sexist and misogynist articles, etc. blithely pass by, we, as a community, should stand up and pay attention. We shouldn't pay attention and comment because someone guilts us into doing it. We should do it because sexism is wrong, regardless of who is targeted and who cries foul first.
And I mention the community because I think the community here exists to supplement and augment the awesome job y'all editors do. Because of how important the community board has become, we should all be concerned about overturning the narrative.
I'm with you on this, but at the same time Feministing is only a handful of awesome women doing good work and there's only so much they can do.
At the same time, there is another point to be made that you have to balance the extra publicity you're going to give to certain outlets with the incremental progress one is going to make, and on these individual articles and such the ratio of publicity to progress is often too high.
Absolutely. Which is why I tried to focus on the community board response instead of just the editors, and why I think, in principle, Ann is on the money.
With all due respect but if you truly believed in the injustice, you'd make a quick blurb (one sentence) saying that this article was offensive and you didn't blog on it initially because you don't have the time to comment on every nook and cranny. However, you didn't and decided to make it into a "anti-conservatives" thing. Conservatives do believe in feminism-- maybe just not your type of feminisim.
Conservatives do believe in feminism-- maybe just not your type of feminisim.
What are some feminist issues that conservative feminists commonly support?
I am not going to speak for every conservative woman out there...and I don't identify myself as a feminist, but I do have an interest in women's issues, so I can try to answer it.
1) I am a woman too! Everyone thinks that just because we're conservative means that we get a 'pat on the head' from the patriarchy and they open the door and let us in to the political realm. And yes, in a way, I got my pats on the head from my previous political involvement and writing. But they were absolutely the most condescending 'pats'. I was once interviewed on a radio show (i'll hide my identity here, heh) and it was the most ridiculous thing. They were going to interview me about Hilary Clinton's run for the White House, but then they started talking about 'does she need a face-lift?' and disparaging her looks. As if that was the only thing I was capable of talking about!
I was beyond stunned. I froze, and all I could manage to do at that point was try to steer the discussion towards her political agenda. And then the radio host starting asking about my male preferences! I did this radio show when I was 18 YEARS OLD! It was an hour-long phone interview, and I'm sure that they were completely disappointed that I didn't take any of their bait. I was crushed too. This is just one of the several times that I experienced this as a woman. As I said, I can't speak up for every conservative woman, but it has been a heck of a fight to gain any respect. So I have extreme respect and support, in principle, women in politics. For conservatives who aren't blind, we face many of the same issues that liberal women might in politics. I even know of some conservative women that were going to switch to D to vote for Hilary in 08! (I don't agree with voting for her just because she's a woman, but it's the truth)
2) One of the things that attracted me to feministing was the posts on sexism in advertising. Mainly the sexualization of young girls, and the over-girlifying of them. Maybe we're coming from a different place (conservative values, religion), but the sentiment is still there.
3) A lot of conservative women help out other women in different organizations. I know, I know, we obviously 'don't value women' in the same way as the feminist viewpoint (as I've heard said on this site), but I know of women who work with unwed mothers, teenage girls victims of domestic abuse, etc. My special interest is women in third world countries and microfinancial organizations that are targeted to support women's businesses in the developing world.
You could argue that we don't approach women's issues in the same way, but that is how I'd try to answer the question. I don't know if that conservative women could ever truly be considered feminists (certainly not 'third wave' feminists), but I know of some conservative women who do suppport some of the same issues that feminists support. Of course, you could then argue that we don't 'truly' support women in some cases, but *shrugs* I do see myself as someone concerned with women's issues.
Not trying to portray conservative women as feminists here. I know many who aren't, and I know that some of the views differ too much. But I think that there can be some common ground between 'conservative feminists' and feminists at large (who WOULDN'T be against domestic abuse? At least that's what I'd think). I just like to think that we're not blind or immune to sexism, regardless of what side we're on.
Thanks for your perspective on this. It's always good to remember that there IS some common ground. It sounds like you do embrace some aspects of feminism -- where do you find yourself departing from it? (I know there are many ways to define feminism -- I'm thinking of the mainstream liberal variety).
I really don't mean to start a debate on personal views, heh. So for those who might want to ask me "why do you believe in x and x," I don't want to derail the thread too much. I'm sure I'll mention it somewhere else so we can argue then! ;)
To put the icing on the cake, I am a big fat born again Christian! I have very conservative views on certain things. I am an advocate of abstinence, (heterosexual) marriage, and I'm pro-life, based on my faith. Despite all this, I am politically libertarian. This for me means that I carry very conservative views, but I don't generally think that my government is responsible to regulate certain things. I personally don't see the U.S government as being 'morally responsible' for anything, probably because I'm disillusioned by the whole system. So, in a pretty sad way, I really could care less about certain laws or acts passing. My main interest in the government is its role in protecting the citizens, so things like homeland security and the military are what I focus on. I work with pro-life groups and things like that, but I have stepped out of the political arena as much as I could. I'd rather work with people than stand with a placard all day in D.C. and chant slogans or harass people outside of clinics.
I'm generally more interested with society in general, which is why despite my conservative views, that I would have an interest in women's issues.
Hmm..trying to think of a tangible example. For instance, I am pro-abstinence. I support being abstinent before marriage. However, I support teaching sex-ed in high schools. Where I might depart is that I also think that abstinence should be taught with this. I'm all for teaching students every option, even if society thinks it's 'uncool' and 'unrealistic.' I don't care, abstinence is 100% effective if you are truly practicing it! I think that it's a bad idea to just dismiss it as impractical. I think it's a darn good option to teach alongside of telling students what to do if they're going to have sex. I'm pro-life, so I also support teens knowing what to do so that there are less unplanned pregnancies.
And although I agree with supporting women and women's programs, I don't agree with the government getting involved in funding certain programs or demanding certain quotas of women in positions. I don't believe in affirmative action or gender quotas. Yes, I have studied about privilege, class issues, etc. etc. It just personally freaks me out that the government needs to put a number on it. Since when does a fact that purple grobads represent 10% of society mean that they should be 1/10 in certain positions as well? I'm all for changing a society's perceptions of certain races and genders, but I guess that my idealism thinks that it should be accomplished without government intervention.
So without going too much into it (and scrolling up and re-reading my response, I think I already have!), I have your basic conservative viewpoints. Despite my backwards-ness ;), I recognize sexism and racism and reflect on those topics a lot, although I don't necessarily agree with feminists on how I see those issues or how to deal with those issues.
(anyone can e-mail me if they want to ask more questions. I just don't want to derail the thread with talking about my personal viewpoints!)
Very interesting post. Personally, I have no problem with people who have conservative political/social opinions, as long as they aren't publicly advocating them. So please, stay disillusioned! America needs more conservatives like you!
Well, unfortunately, the conservative like me also has some feminist 'leanings'. And then I don't support some of the things they are advocating, although I respect what they're trying to do.
As I always tell my liberal and conservative friends, "You win some, you lose some." Seriously, I think that this is the one political leaning to be hated by everyone!
I appreciate the explanation. I'm very liberal but sometimes I just want a dispassionate exchange of information, you know?
Just one note, comprehensive sex ed programs do teach about abstinence in addition to birth control. And I agree with you that both are important!
Yeah, I thought that both were usually taught, but I sort of sense a mocking of abstinence around here in general...like "Oh, we can't expect the teenagers to hold off on teh sex! That's sooo Victorian ages!" Not that I expect it, but just because Bristol Palin didn't even adhere to it doesn't mean that I think that abstinence is ineffective and impractical. It IS when you're doing it correctly. ;) (and yes, it's way more difficult than using a condom. Not gonna lie.)
I don't believe in affirmative action or gender quotas. Yes, I have studied about privilege, class issues, etc. etc. It just personally freaks me out that the government needs to put a number on it. Since when does a fact that purple grobads represent 10% of society mean that they should be 1/10 in certain positions as well? I'm all for changing a society's perceptions of certain races and genders, but I guess that my idealism thinks that it should be accomplished without government intervention.
What's a "purple grobad?" Is it someone who doesn't care if a human being is brown, black, or green?
'Cause it reads to me like there's a whole lot to unpack there. That one little statement is replete with a whole lot of subtext that has nothing to do with the subject of government intervention or quotas. And I think that that's where a big difference lies: no matter how much I, as a self-identified feminist, can study about privilege, I know that I can't stop living it. And I believe that I can't write it off as a matter of minor importance.
While I can't condone Letterman in his feud with Sarah Palin this week, especially the "Slutty Stewardess" rhetoric he employed in his humor, I have three things to say about it.
1. I believe in and work for gender equality, but I still laughed and I am okay with this. Feel free to criticize me for that one, I deserve it.
2. There's something to be said for the fact that Letterman probably didn't use this language because of the negative content of the phrase, but because Sarah Palin ceratinly is aware that she uses her sex appeal for her personal and political gain. She knows very well herself that there's a patriarchal stereotype that she can use to her advantage and perpetuates it.
3. I wouldn't go about it Letterman's way. I would never criticize women for their style choices; women and men should dress however the fuck they feel like. I DO approve of calling out Sarah Palin for capitalizing on and glamorizing the male gaze while at the same time trying to impose a sex negative society on us and for successfully doing so on Alaskans.
I was just watching Hannity's America last night, and this exact subject came up. Letterman had said something nasty about Palin's daughter (she had a slutty flight attendant look, which is nasty.) I couldn't help but yell at the television. They were dead wrong about so much. For one, they said just this; women's groups don't care about when conservative women are attacked. It's like, it happens all the time that women get attacked verbally like this. We don't have the time or energy to start a riot every time it happens, but we do have the time to go on our blogs and call it out, or fume to our close friends about it. Unfortunately, they don't bother to check blogs, and can't hear us fume.
Also, the women they got on there (which I assume were chosen based on sexism since they were conventionally pretty) got all up in arms about Obama not saying that we need to keep our paws off of the children of political people. She was half right, this is something he should have said. Where she was wrong is that he actually DID say this, and from what I remember, he seemed quite upset about it.
So thank you Hannity and the two prettiest conservative women (nothing wrong with pretty, just assuming not-pretty women aren't allowed to be allies on Fox News) Fox found to report on sexism and how feminists are fine with sexism against conservative women. Thank you for fact checking and only reporting the feminists that don't seem to care about sexism against conservative women.
Uh? I thought someone here HAD posted about that Playboy article, perhaps in a quick hit, because here is the only place I remember hearing about it. Didn't someone post something on the article's douchebag author because it isn't his first time writing dumb offensive shit? Sorry, I'm too lazy right now to look, and am at work. :o)
On the other hand, and not just playing devil's advocate on my previous post, any traffic generated to the Playboy or Maxim site by this site would be much more negligible to its baseline traffic than, say, highlighting some misogynist novelty toy or some dipwad's website post.
As for whether Sean Hannity thinks anybody's a hypocrite, who fucking cares? There's no point in trying to measure up to the ever-shifting standards of a sociopathic reactionary. However, pressuring Letterman is likely to do x5000 the good of going after some asshole who just wanted some attention with his offensive CafePress T-shirt (given the respective audiences).
My mother-in-law is in a nursing home. She has Huntington's disease, and lately her symptoms have included a certain demanding attitude toward the staff, as in a constant repetition of: "You were supposed to bring me more water! I need more water!!" , and "Whose responsibility is it to dress me today? Why can't you people help me?"
So, some members of the staff have been responding by pushing her away, because that is the response to demanding and difficult people.
While it is understandable, we believe her care has suffered. It's not that my MIL isn't difficult, BUT nether is she any less deserving of the same care. She *should* be responded to with true compassion.
My point? I think that your response, Ann, has a little of this normal human annoyance in it. It is really difficult, I am sure, to be a public face of something and have obnoxious people looking for the "gotcha" chance from you.
But it doesn't change the fact that some things deerve to be calledout as wrong. I agree with the poster above who said that you caould have put something short and sweet about it that refused to pander to those who play "gotcha".
I have seen columnists who couldn't even bring themselves to say "this is bad" wihout ALSO saying, "But you know what? So and so on the list disgusts me." Which seems like a qualifier. And since when do we accept qualifying statements that imply there are exemptions to the fight against sexism? I am all for discussion and reason. But I am really disappointed by your apparent inability to get past the normal desire to reject the demands of difficult people and just do a simple, right thing.
It really would have been better ifyou said nothing at all, I think.
First of all, I think we all agree that this kind of thing does deserve to be called out. But I have never seen anything here attacking Playboy for an article, and I have always assumed that the reason is that pretty much every edition of Playboy has something sexist in it. I'm not sure if that's the right policy, but it's a consistent one.
But there is something else going on here, which ALSO deserves to be called out. That is a large number of people hostile to feminism who aren't trying to hold Ann accountable to calling our sexism (something I would hope the genuine feminist community can do ourselves), but rather they are trying to undermine Ann's voice by portraying her as a hypocrite (without, of course, really having examined the evidence). Their concern is FALSE, and we don't need it. My post below discusses this further. THIS needs to be called out too, because it's a calculated political and rhetorical strategy, and an increasingly common tactic among the anti-feminists out there.
I agree with you but I don't think they need to be done in one and the same post, and especially when one is shortchanging the other, which is what I see here. Defensiveness really comes across, you know? And the rest of the point is lost. Also see my response to katie.. below.
It seems as though there is a nuance here you are missing. When Feministing comes to the defense of an anti-feminist, and follows that with some statement about not agreeing with them politically, this does not undermine or erase the earlier defense of that person.
The fact is, the person/s being defended (in this case Sarah Palin or the conservative women on the "hate-f*ck" list) generally support the patriarchy and its tools (including sexism), which hurts women (and anyone who isn't a straight, cis, white, rich male). Therefore I think it is extremely important to distance one's self from the sorts of people antithetical to your cause (for feminism, the end of patriarchy), while at the same time rising to their defense should they be subjected to a sexist attack. Feminism is not about unreservedly supporting every woman no matter what-- women can (and often do) play a role in their own oppression by reinforcing the patriarchy.
Understanding that these people (Sarah Palin & the conservative women) occupy a uniquely privileged spot in society, and calling them out for their own blindness, does not nullify or lessen feminist outrage over sexist treatment of them.
I think that what I am "missing" is an acknowledgement that you can not use "conservative" and "anti-feminist" interchangeably. (For examples, see lots of posts in this thread) As if, you know, people don't get the NUANCE when other people hold a variety of beliefs that qualify as "feminist" or "not feminist"...but also are NOT trying to enslave women to the patriarchal machine. (At least not consciously.)
And also I am missing any awareness of the defensiveness that is so obvious in these kind of "sexism is bad even though I hate her" statements.
I am in agreement that you can disagree with someone and also stand up for them. But why do it in simtultaneous breaths? you undermine both efforts. Unless it is being done because you secretly DO think there IS a qualifying category, but you just don't want to admit it.
(And by you, I don't necessarily mean you in particular...just, something for everyone to consider.)
I disagree with this. I think saying "I don't like so-and-so but this sexist attack on them is still wrong" actually INCREASES the power of the defense. What you're saying is sexism is ALWAYS wrong. Sometimes sexists abuse people you like, sometimes they abuse people you might not like, but sexism is always wrong, regardless. This show our opponents that we aren't just trying to support our side, we are, in fact, REALLY, REALLY opposed to sexism, even when the victims of it are people we REALLY, REALLY don't like.
For an analogy, I oppose almost everything Dick Cheney politcally stands for. I also strongly dislike him. I hate that he advocates for torture. But sometimes people make jokes about torturing Dick Cheney to get back at him for all he's done. When this happens I'll say "you know, I dislike Cheney as much as you, but torture is still NEVER okay, and it's not really even funny, when you think about it. No no one should EVER be tortured, not an innocent person, not a terrorist, not Cheney, not even Adolf Hitler."
Sorry for thread-jacking.
I think what some people are missing here is that anti- feminists have never been afraid of using other anti- feminist women to promote their cause. They actually delight when liberal males make sexist attacks on women such as Palin and Prejean, because it allows them to further their goal of undermining feminism, which is their real goal.
The decision for McCain to choose Palin was a very deliberate one influenced by Bill Kristol, who said earlier in 2008 that "white women are a problem." He knows that by thrusting a high profile anti-feminist woman into the spotlight, it can split women by forcing feminists to choose between issues and personalities. If feminists choose issues, they can attack us for not supporting their anti-feminist personalities. If feminists choose personalities, we are forced to side against our allies on the issues. The conservatives know this, they know it puts feminists in a bind, and this is why they love it.
Also, in my opinion, the support that Palin receives from the right is another form of the Patriarchy's benevolent sexism. They only support her because she is pro-life and virulently anti-feminist on social issues. While this support for such a high profile woman in politics, (perhaps even for President) may seem like a huge positive, in reality it's based on the fact that she is a woman who adopts anti-woman policy views (they don't similarly support more qualified Republicans such as Kay Bailey Hutchison, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, or Olympia Snowe-- all of these women happen to be pro-choice and/or social moderates). By rewarding a woman like Palin (and Bachmann and Prejean) who take anti-woman views with political support, the message to women is "adopt views like Palin's and we'll reward you." Meanwhile, adopt views like Hillary Clinton's and we'll hate you more than ever. It's all a punishment-reward mechanism, designed to get women to adopt anti-feminist views; the reason it can be so effective is that progressive men don't particularly mirror this behavior. They have no interest in (specially) supporting women like Hillary Clinton.
The Patriarchy's hope is that if they make being a feminist hard enough, and if they sufficiently reward anti-feminist women, then women will stop being feminists and they win.
So while I really think Letterman went over the line, I am also aware of the deeper dynamics going on here and why conservatives are so eager to play gotcha politics. That's something we as feminists must find a way to fight back against.
Qi - absolutely.
Anti-feminist women get a nice pat on the head from the patriarchy. For not being one of those mean ol' demanding PC feminists. And they know it.
The right have no interest in supporting women who dare to have views they don't agree with.
Grrrrrrrrrr.
I don't get how it is not possible to hold two positions:
1. Sexism is bad
2. I disagree with Sarah Palin (or *insert conservative woman here*)
There is no contradiction there.
Yet so many people think there is, which is why people may feel the need to spell out that they disagree with Palin before calling out her views.
For the deotriation of politics in the media is everybod to blame who tuned out a serious discussion because it was too dull.
Sadly people who generate strong emotions get all the attention and as long as they are being validitated through attention it is an recepy the media will keep using.
And there's more -- including a recent post calling out the misogyny against Miss California Carrie Prejean.
The woman had knives taken to her breasts and bags of goo inserted into them in order to look "sexy" for a beauty contest, and these people finally find feminism because she gets called stupid for being a homophobe?
Where the fuck were they when she was about to go under the knife in order to look more like someone's jerk off fantasy?
If she chooses to be someone's, as you put so elegantly, jerk-off fantasy, it is her choice as an adult. I wish she showed the same respect to other folks' choices.