In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

When In Hole, Stop Digging

Oh, this is priceless. Our buddy Dan Riehl defends himself against charges that the best argument he could come up with against Amanda was that he didn’t want to fuck her by saying that he does, too, want to fuck her — and Jessica, too!

What I was pointing out was that endlessly hurling vulgar insults at men, constantly accusing them of objectifying women, but then going on to post an image of herself compared to a B movie skin princess appears emblematic of the usually disjointed, intellectually immature, confused and obviously un-informed, as well as tragically closed-minded personality type behind so much of Marcotte’s vulgar prose we’ve all read plenty of recently.

That doesn’t mean I’d throw her, or the complaining blogger out of bed.

So cheer up, ladies! Dan Riehl thinks you’re fuckable! Well, except for one little detail about Jessica:

Unfortunately, given this:

She has a Masters degree in Women’s and Gender Studies from Rutgers University

I’ll just assume the self-obsession that propelled her to study herself in college, ugh, carries over to the bedroom so that she’s either A: not much good as a partner, or B: without need of one, as her genderized-naval gazing has broadened since college.

But then most Leftist bloggers always look like they’re playing with themselves, anyway – just as this one was when she wrote her mis-informed post suggesting I said something I never did.

Sorry, Jess. You don’t meet the standards of the Riehl World Love Machine. But he is happy to imagine you typing with one hand.

(Via a comment from the Love Machine himself, here.)

Dates with Daddy

chastity
Superior hymen protection, and ostentatious appearance to make sure everyone knows your intact status. The perfect gift for your own Purity Girl.

This Glamour article has been out for a while, but it’s worth reading, just in case previous posts about Purity Balls didn’t leave you sufficiently grossed out.

The man’s date? His 25-year-old daughter. Welcome to Colorado Springs’ Seventh Annual Father-Daughter Purity Ball, held at the five-star Broadmoor Hotel. The event’s purpose is, in part, to celebrate dad-daughter bonding, but the main agenda is for fathers to vow to protect the girls’ chastity until they marry and for the daughters to promise to stay pure. Pastor Randy Wilson, host of the event and cofounder of the ball, strides to the front of the room, takes the microphone and asks the men, “Are you ready to war for your daughters’ purity?”

Read More…Read More…

Don’t Fuck with the Pink Mafia

bitch

Because we will cut you.

Amanda is getting all kinds of shit around the blogosphere for having the audacity to (a) be an adult woman, (b) use adult language, and (c) accept a job with the Edwards campaign. They’ve called her a “liability” and accused her of deleting and hiding posts (some of the missing posts are easily searchable in the Pandagon archives; others were eaten by the internets, as Ezra explains). So Amanda has a potty mouth and a handful of mouth-breathing wingnuts don’t agree with some of her opinions. This, apparently, is a huge indictment of the Edwards campaign. To borrow from Norbizness:

Shorter reactionaryosphere: I’ve seen the Constitution shredded, internment camps being proposed, and nuking Mecca bandied about as a serious policy initiative, and I can say without fear of hyperbole that occasionally using the F-word is a billion times worse than all of those things put together.

Now, Amanda’s detractors are not above posting pictures of her and calling her ugly (does there remain a feminist blogger who hasn’t had some faceless internet fuck use her appearance against her?). He’s up in arms at the fact that Amanda would have the audacity to compare herself to Shannon Elizabeth, whose image he regularly jerks to (and then cries himself to sleep for being such a naughty, naughty boy). After all, Amanda is a real person who writes things that make Dan angry, unlike Elizabeth, who is but a mindless spank-worthy sexbot, and if there’s anything that’ll make a wingnut’s little soldier abandon his post, it’s the idea of an actual, real-live human woman who can speak and who has a mind of her own (also, what is it with conservative bloggers and the Shannon Elizabeth thing?). Of course, if he had bothered to actually read Amanda’s blog instead of using one sticky hand to browse her Flickr photos, he would have seen that the Shanon Elizabeth thing was tongue-in-cheek, and came immediately after facial recognition software also compared Amanda to Hugh Grant and Rupert Everett. In other words, it wasn’t exactly a case of Amanda pimping herself out for the patriarchy. But I suppose when you’re a pathetically uncreative misogynist — pulling the But She’s Ugly! card? Really? You can’t do better than that? — who is also dumb enough to not understand why liberals just might call Bush & Co “war-mongers” (hint to Slow Dan: They monger wars), you can’t be expected to grasp the idea that women might post pictures of themselves for reasons other than to titillate/be evaluated by you.

But as Dan surely knows, bitches is crazy, always doing unpredictable shit like not suiting his exact physical ideal and writing smart-alecky blog posts that interrupt his lively afternoon of conservative circle-jerking, checking out hotconservativebabes.com, and Google-imaging Shannon Elizabeth.

Now, Dan Riehl ain’t no spring chicken himself (nor is he in the running for any sort of IQ-related prize, although he does brave carpal tunnel syndrome and raging hemorrhoids as he tirelessly toils for the 101st Fighting Keyboarders). Let’s be honest, most of us don’t look like we belong on a runway during Fashion Week. Which is why we call people out for being tremendous assholes, unwaivering morons, and general embarrassments to the human race. Not for their position on our personal attractiveness scale. Because it’s not a particularly compelling argument, and it’s too easy to turn it back around.

Although it’s certainly worth noting that your mom was right: It’s what’s on the inside that counts. And Dan Riehl is one ugly motherfucker.

Amanda, on the other hand, raises conservative ire for a reason: She is damn good. She’s a compelling writer, a brilliant thinker, and a hilarious critic. As sharp-tongued (sharp-fingered?) as she can be, she is a persistent advocate for universal human rights, and so she avoids being unnecessarily cruel or petty, even when she’s eviscerating those who would like to restrict the rights of people who are not like them. She is, without question, one of the best bloggers out there. She’s thoughtful, and more intelligent and eloquent than 99 percent of the right-wing-blogging Big Boys. Which is exactly why she’s terrifying. And why, in order to discredit her, they have to resort to bottom-feeding lies and attacks on her appearance.

AuH2O in the New York Times



Emily and Kate, originally uploaded by JillNic83.

Model Emily with Kate Goldwater, both in AuH2O Designs

Congrats to my dear friend Kate for the coverage of her line in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Her stuff is gorgeous, environmentally-friendly, feminist, and socially conscious. Check out her website, or pay a visit to her store in the East Village (7th street and 1st ave). She’ll hand-tailor anything you buy so that it fits you perfectly. And her sewing machine is covered with pro-choice and Keep Abortion Legal stickers. It doesn’t get much better than that.

Covering Their Tracks

This Michelle Malkin post made me laugh out loud. First, she attacks Amanda for supposedly taking down a post which would make the Edwards campaign unhappy. Then, whoops, turns out Michelle just doesn’t know how to use the “archives” function, and Amanda’s post is still on the site. Instead of admitting she’s an asshole, Michelle uses Amanda’s non-deletion of the archives as further evidence that Amanda isn’t deserving of her job:

Looks like Marcotte’s Katrina post is actually still available to the public here under a different URL. My bad. Or rather, John Edwards’ bad. Because it’s even worse for the Edwards campaign that its blogmaster left crackpot posts like that one up and hired her anyway.

So Amanda’s a liar if she deletes the post, but she’s even worse if she leaves it up. You can’t win with these people.

Michelle, classy as usual, rounds up her post by quoting Amanda completely out of context, attributing to Amanda sections of posts where she was paraphrasing racist wingnuts (you know, like Michelle). Not that any of this is surprising — after all, Michelle Malkin is the most morally bankrupt winger since Ann Coulter. I’m just disappointed that she couldn’t do better. After all, Amanda has written more than enough to ruffle the feathers of neo-fascist wingnuts like Michelle Malkin and her blogger friends. Are they really so dependent on outright lies that false attribution and making shit up is now the default position?

Miss Tyra: Kiss My Fat Ass

(Via)

Predictably, the fat shamers crawl out of the woodwork to express “concern” about the “health” of women who have an ounce of fat on their bodies. From the comments at Youtube:

* if youre fat youre unhealthy. stop trying to say its ok to be fat becuz simply its not healthy. unhealthy. not healthy. etc etc etc. so tyra can dress up in a fat suit to try to pretend its ok, but if youre overweight youre more likely to become afflicted by diseased related to that weight. ITS OK TO WEIGH 100000 LBS YOURE STILL BEAUTIFUL. oh wait no youre not. youre fat and ugly. and it makes me sick to see fat ugly overweight people.

(later, from the same commenter) oh id still give tyra the slippery sausage tho.

*It’s true. I’m sick of porky bitches who have trouble making it up a flight of stairs claiming they’re “healthy.” Downing a bucket of fried chicken a day is healthy, huh? I think not.

*Oh by the way Tyra, you’re fat and ugly.

*actually she insecure. she lost weight since those photos before doing a show on it. she was hurt big time from them you can see it. BTW ur a fatty

Also be sure to check out the comments at Feministing for a decidedly different take on the clip.

Because a Mother Who Has One Drink Must Be an Alcoholic

Good Lord. Ann at Feministing has a post about a Today show segment on mothers who get together for cocktails while their kids have playdates:

Many of my girlfriends have joked that when they have kids, they’re going to instruct their little tykes, “Now fetch mommy a cocktail!”

Well, the Today Show wasn’t kidding around when they put together this “trend” piece more or less alleging that mothers who have a glass of wine while their kids are playing nearby are bad caretakers. The story implies they don’t just drink, they get drunk: “There are safety issues to consider. Who would drive to the hospital if a child were hurt?” (Um, don’t know about this reporter, but I can have a glass of wine and still be under the legal blood-alcohol limit, perfectly fine to drive or watch children.)

Who would drive? If the kid really has to go to the hospital and the adults are actually impaired, how about a paramedic?

Smell the judgmentalism. From the MSNBC link:

Then, there’s the fine line between social and problem drinking. Psychologists suggest moms sometimes drink as a coping mechanism. Others say if you wouldn’t allow a caretaker to drink while watching your children, why the double standard? I’ll leave those debates to other moms (some who’ve blogged extensively on this) and the experts.

Indeed. Why the double standard? And I’m not talking about the caretaker/mother double standard. I’m talking about the double standard involving the utter absence of any sort of mention of men here. Why is it okay to see Daddy with a beer in front of the TV, but not okay to see Mommy with a glass of wine in the backyard?

In fact, Ann found a blog entry from Melissa Summers, which describes her contact with the producers and gives a window into NBC’s mentality on this one:

In the beginning they wanted to come and film my playgroup for the piece. Since our kids are now all in school full time, we don’t have a weekly playgroup anymore so this was problematic. I suggested a more ‘happy hour’ gathering where we’d meet after school and our husband’s would swing by after work for our usual family pizza night. Alicia [the NBC producer] said the mixing of dads would ‘taint’ the story (Read: “Make the subject more palatable because men keep their women in line and they have an auxiliary liver in their penises.”) So I told Alicia it just wasn’t going to work out.

She did wind up in the studio, somehow forced to defend alcoholic moms; she also discovered that somehow a gathering at which the women who did drink had one glass of wine apiece (and one didn’t drink at all) was presented as a “wine orgy.” Clearly, the idea that NBC wanted to present was that moms who drink at all are hopeless, falling-down drunks:

Alicia said it would be a live segment in the studio and there would be a psychologist, Dr Janet Taylor, there with me. Here is where the lies begin and this is a huge part of why I am so angry about the experience and am using this platform I have to explain it.

The psychologist is ‘on board’ with the whole thing. She’s a mother herself and understands. She’s just there to set limits and to explain what may be ‘a problem’. Which makes a lot of sense to me. Once we define problem drinking and how to know when you might be crossing over into that realm, we can have a light hearted conversation about moms getting together to be social while their children play. Just like Regular Grown Ups.

As time went on ramping up to my appearance. The psychologist bit seemed to be changing a little. Alicia informed me the psychologist was now feeling like she had to say mother’s of very young babies shouldn’t be drinking (something I still disagreed with, but okay….), “…you know things like that.”

Right before Alicia left town (she was not on set for my appearance….hmm….surprising) she said, (something like, I’m starting to realize why she always wanted to talk on the phone, not via email) “Now, Dr Janet Taylor’s position has changed a bit. She’s feeling like as a professional she has a responsibility to make sure women understand the risks.”

Which still, I was okay with because in my world there is a difference between drinking and drinking to get drunk.

In the end I showed up on a show with Dr Janet Taylor, well trained media machine who was not discussing drinking in moderation but was instead talking about women as children who have no clue how to drink in moderation and can not be trusted.

I was told this was going to be a ‘lighthearted’ discussion. I pictured talking about how no one is talking about ‘Kids And Keggers!’, I pictured discussing drinking as a social activity many adults do, I pictured discussing how my husband and I often drink as a social activity at kid centered activities and not a single reporter or television has ever called to ask my husband “what that glass of beer means to him”. I wanted to emphasize how silly it is to call this a trend. I wanted to emphasize how mothers are raising children, they are not children themselves.

I was not at all prepared for a debate between “Melissa Summers, blogger!” and “Dr Janet Taylor, psychologist with impressive resume and four kids.” I was especially not prepared for a debate which involved Dr Janet Taylor repeating the same thing over and over like a very tall robot.

Let me say a little something about that. My father was a hopeless, falling-down drunk, so I am intimately familiar with the damage that does to kids. The man drank a liter of Dewar’s every single night and passed out by 9 p.m. on weeknights. Weekends, he got an earlier start, so he would often be drunk during the day. I was in the car with him more than once as he held a glass of scotch between his legs. He and his alcoholism ruled the house and the family. To this day, I can’t watch TV with the volume up, because that was one of the things that would wake him up and bring him downstairs in a violent rage. Same thing with shouting. Can’t stand it. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg of the psychological damage his alcoholism did to me and to the entire family.

My mother rarely drank at all. Mostly, I think, because she felt that someone had to look out for the kids while her husband was drunk (that, and if she had a drink while we were out, someone would bug her for the cherry in her drink, which annoyed her). On the rare few occasions when she’d have a drink or two — and it was only ever a drink or two — Jesus, the kids loved it. Mom got giggly and loosened up a little. Come to think about it, that was usually when my father was away on business.

Believe me, there’s no comparison between how my father drank and how my mother did, and we knew the difference. There’s no comparision between a serious drunk and women who get together for a glass or two of wine while their kids play. It serves no one to lose the distinction between drinking and alcoholism. And I’m not even talking about denial — trust me, my father was King of Denial, so I know it when I see it. I’m talking about judging women more harshly for doing the same things that men do, and judging mothers most harshly of all.

Remembering Molly Ivins

Zuzu and Piny have already said what needs to be said, but I just wanted to highlight this bit from her NYTimes obit:

In 1976, her writing, which she said was often fueled by “truly impressive amounts of beer,” landed her a job at The New York Times. She cut an unusual figure in The Times newsroom, wearing blue jeans, going barefoot and bringing in her dog, whose name was an expletive.

Raise Hell, Molly.

Posted in Uncategorized