Feminists Sometimes Suck
I've never met Gina Vivinetto personally, but back when she worked for The St. Petersburg Times, I emailed her that she'd made an error quoting a Beastie Boys song. Her reply was gracious and witty. Big fan ever since.
So it was with great interest that I read one of her latest status updates on Facebook. It provoked quite a conversation. Gina was angry that some critics of Sarah Palin had called for or encouraged sexual assaults on the governor. Two *female* critics, specifically Margaret Cho and Sandra Bernhard.
Gina had seen Sandra in person and was offended at the remarks. Margaret Cho had published the incendiary comments on her website.
I'm a big fan of both women, especially Sandra, and was saddened to hear that they'd stooped to such lows in expressing what, at its core, could have been thoughtful political and social commentary.
Then I got irritated.
Hey, Margaret and Sandra - shut up. You aren't helping us with your bitter, angry, stereotypical pose. You're just proving that assholes take up residence on both sides of the political spectrum.
Do they honestly believe they are helping to sway any last minute undecided voters? If so, they are kidding themselves. As if some person out there is thinking, "I don't know who to vote for, but Sandra's right. Sarah Palin does deserve to be gang-raped. I think I'll vote for That One."
If you are serious about wanting to see change in this country and would even like to help bring about it, lay off the hate speech. It's not funny anyway.
posted by kate @ 8:18 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
This is about definition of Sarah Palin, the Vice Presidential Candidate(tm), more than about feminism. I'm not going to defend Cho or Bernhardt's comments, mostly because I haven't read them, but I am going to say that Palin has been packaged and commoditized, by the McCain campaign, primarily on the basis of her gender and sexuality.
Palin, as a political figure, brings nothing to the table other than a semi-boring scandal. It might be said that she brings a tough stance on Big Oil reform, but she's already on record as deferring to McCain on that issue, so that means her only vaguely significant policy point and political accomplishment is gone.
It's immaterial, though, because she's not been "sold" to the American public as a policy maker. She's been sold as "Stifler's Mom"; the hot soccer mom everyone should want to bang or be. Quite literally, the GOP have pimped her out to the American public.
So Cho and Bernhardt's comments, again I haven't read them, while not exactly helpful, represent the only aggressive line of debate open in terms of Palin. No one seems to care that the woman is audaciously unqualified to be where she is.
When all you offer is sexuality, it seems somewhat naive to then complain when that's exactly what you're attacked with.
When Palin manages to get in front of a group of people and clearly articulate a policy point other than "I'm a mazer...mavirik...barrakcu...I'm a bulldog!" or "Aren't I cute? See my bazooms!" then more intelligent, thoughtful responses will be possible. Until then, the biggest mistake Cho and Bernhardt are guilty of making is fighting this battle on the Republican's turf.
I'd fully prefer they sodomize her ideas, such as they are, rather than her punani, although I imagine both are rather dark and murky.
There's plenty of room to go after Palin on policies she's supported. There's also room to go after her on the basis of sexuality. Tiny Fey does both. The difference? Tina's funny.
If either Sandra or Margaret had been humorous, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be too busy laughing.
Just because the Republicans have wrapped her in a certain package doesn't mean we have to play along. Margaret Cho seems to say that because Palin is anti-gay then anything goes. Give me a break.
Lame justification. Both are smart comedians who took the easy way out. I expect better from them next time.
Well, again, I'm not trying to defend what they said (and I still haven't actually read it). Certainly it's silly and playing right into the GOP's hands to take this line of attack.
Still, I have a hard time getting too worked up about this in terms of feminism and equality. Neither comedian is known for holding back and, while I love Fey, she's terribly conscious of her new demographic and not in the habit of offending anyone at the moment. I'm not sure if I'd say Fey does it "better". She does it "different". I'm not sure what the Venn Diagram of those who watch Fey and those who watch Cho would be, but I'm not sure you can really apply terms like "better" here.
Perhaps Cho and Bernhart should do different next time, but if the issue is level of debate, then I still maintain that's been already determined and they're just working with what they were given.
It also speaks to a certain rage, I think. Call it the Hillary Effect. A portion of successful, driven women are irked/offended/incredulous that Palin is happening at all. All this has fallen into Palin's unqualified lap and she's busily setting feminism and just plain societal views of women back by a good 10-20 years. They're understandably enraged that Palin, instead of showing that women are capable of holding the highest office in the land because of their leadership ability and political acumen, is just cementing the fact that all women have to offer is a direct shot to the gonads.
Angry people are not always at their best.
Rape has nothing to do with sexuality. Rape is about control and power over a woman. It's about Humilating her. All rape victims know that.
Also, Sandra and Margaret's comments were in very bad taste, but I also think calling Senator Obama a terrorist or stating he in "palling around with terrorists" in this day in age is just as bad. You just don't do something like that. There were people out there in the crowds yelling about killing him. He is a father of two beautiful little girls and husband a wonderful loving wife. The thought of someone wanting to take this man's life breaks my heart.
Could you please reference for me when Margaret Cho even implied rape?
I read the post when it first went up, I went to the show and squirmed in my seat. But I never thought it had anything to do with rape.
Could somebody please cite where she talked about rape?
Cho's original post on Sept. 18th went over the line with Cho sounding like some misogynistic male in sexual overdrive. I never said rape. But it can be read to imply sexual assault especially because we can assume Palin would not be willing.
For the record, I don't think Cho wants to rape her. I don't even think Sandra wants her to be gang-raped. But I think both comedians went over the line.
I'd say the same if it were a man sexualizing her and suggesting these things. So why wouldn't I go after it when a woman says it?
Because you're playing into Rick Davis and Karl Rove's hands...
Just as Cho and Sandra did...
Somewhat...
Keith,
Let me get this right. You agree with QJ that the comments that Bernhard and Cho made (that he still hasn't read) play into the GOP's hands. Then you accuse Kate of doing the same thing ("somewhat...") by calling them out for saying it? Using that logic, nothing that Barack Obama supporters do or say can be criticized without "playing into Rick Davis and Karl Rove's hands".
For the record, I STILL haven't read the comments. At this point, they couldn't possibly live up to the hype.
Doesn't matter. Miss Bernhard is now denying that she said her big black brothas in NYC will gang rape Sarah Palin.
Post a Comment
<< Home