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

New Rules.

Jill

Bill Maher, who I alternately love and loathe (so funny, sometimes! but so misogynist, a lot of the time!) has some New Rules for the new year. And I like them. He suggests, among others:

New Rule If you were a Republican in 2011, and you liked Donald Trump, and then you liked Michele Bachmann, and then you liked Rick Perry, and then you liked Herman Cain, and then you liked Newt Gingrich … you can still hate Mitt Romney, but you can’t say it’s because he’s always changing his mind.

New Rule Internet headlines have to be more like newspaper headlines. That means they have to tell me something instead of just tricking me into clicking on them. If you write the headline, “She Wore That?” you have to go to your journalism school and give your degree back.

New Rule You can’t be against same-sex marriage and for Newt Gingrich. No man has ever loved another man as much as Newt Gingrich loves Newt Gingrich.

185 thoughts on New Rules.

  2. I stopped following him because his misogyny lowers him to a level of ignorance equal to the very people he shows disdain for. Okay sooooo now that I’ve protested, I have to admit – I love new rules on headlines!

  3. Maher is so dead-on sometimes, but sometimes totally full of himself. He kind of reminds me of Michael Moore in that respect.

    On another subject, many of the rules I learned in Mass Communication AKA Journalism no longer apply. The Internet has completely changed the way that information is presented and disseminated.

  5. From someone who is not following Maher’s show and has not seen that much of him: In what way is he misogynistic?

    Is he throwing more insults towards women than other groups?
    (Because seriously, he is insulting a lot of people from what I have seen)

    These are actually honest questions and not some passive-aggressive disagreement, so please give some examples and links.

    1. From someone who is not following Maher’s show and has not seen that much of him: In what way is he misogynistic?

      Is he throwing more insults towards women than other groups?
      (Because seriously, he is insulting a lot of people from what I have seen)

      These are actually honest questions and not some passive-aggressive disagreement, so please give some examples and links.

      http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=bill+maher+sexist

  7. Pingback: Chantler 411 » top mitt romney headlines

  8. I’ll join the list of those with mixed reactions to Mr Maher, but he did excel at showing up homophobes (though he’d probably only be graded B or C on non-straight issues generally). I’ve been sorting through old VHS tapes and have come across several episodes of Politically Incorrect in which he made mincemeat of Floyd Brown, Christine O’Donnell and the like.

  9. @Angel H: Yes, I did google it. But since he insults almost everyone I was not able to reach a conclusion. I was hoping for some nice analysis. Feministe is usually a pretty good bet to find people well informed about the details.

  11. Here you go, matlun: “the way” in which he is misogynist is: he uses foul words and insults that only apply to women, or that, if applied to men, are used to demonstrate just how woman-like, and thus second-rate, said men are. In other words, he behaves in the same misogynist “way” as any other misogynist.

    From nameitchangeit.org:

    Combining both sexualization and repugnance, in March Bill Maher felt it was perfectly fine to call Sarah Palin a “dumb twat” and said she and Michele Bachmann would split the “MILF” vote. Later in the year Maher essentially excused himself from charges of misogyny because he doesn’t think Palin is representing women, so anything he says about her as a woman isn’t sexist. Really, Bill? Because the more acceptable you make unacceptable terms, the more likely such terms will be used on other women politicians—even some of the ones you like.

    He also sneered at public breastfeeding, mansplaining that he doesn’t wanna see tits! Unless, of course, they are being displayed sexually, which is what they’re for.

    As long as misogynists like him get a pass because “Yes, but … he’s funny!” women will never gain a status as anything other than “commodity.”

    This kind of humor, excused by feminists, is on the same woman-hating continuum as anything Hugo Schwyzer, for example, does.

    But we can’t alienate our favorite, funny dudebros, amirite? Their funny, funny comments get space on a feminist blog! Maybe because that one time, Maher defended women from something. And usually at least 20-25% of his panel of guests comprises women.

    ———————-
    “Hi, John!”

  13. First Hugo Schwyzer, now Bill Maher. What’s next, accolades to Andrew Dice Clay?

    Hello, feminism, is this mic on?

  14. tinfoil hattie:
    He also sneered at public breastfeeding, mansplaining that he doesn’t wanna see tits! Unless, of course, they are being displayed sexually, which is what they’re for.

    Let’s not forget that he’s also on the board of directors for PETA, supports racial profiling and the death penalty, and his belief that the pharmaceutical and medical establishments are in cahoots with the agriculture industry to make people sick by flooding the market with shitty foods. Also, vaccines are bad ’cause government.

    I have such a love/hate relationship with Bill Maher. Half the time I’m laughing and nodding, the other half I wish he would just shut up.

  15. matlun 1.5.2012 at 2:01 pm | Permalink
    From someone who is not following Maher’s show and has not seen that much of him: In what way is he misogynistic?

    Is he throwing more insults towards women than other groups?
    (Because seriously, he is insulting a lot of people from what I have seen)

    If he’s insulting several groups, one of those groups being women, that doesn’t equate to “not misogynistic”. It equates to “Misogynistic and also…”

  16. I never really liked Bill Maher. The main reason is I normally don’t find him to be very funny. He has a couple good bits; but he comes across a very arrogant and kinda sanctimonius in my opinion. That said, I laughed when I read his new rules. Pretty good stuff.

    i remember one time I was watching some standup he was doing, and the topic was marriage. If was filled with all sorts of horrible stereotypes, especially about married women, and it was done in a really hamfisted, cliched way. I watched for about 10 minutes, out of morbid fascination and to see if I could have some sort of insight into that way of thinking, but eventually I got too annoyed and changed the channel.

  17. Tinfoil hattie, Hugo needs spaces like this to promote his career. I think that’s what makes his situation different. Bill Maher is a (much more) public figure. Jill posted something he said she agreed with AND noted his problematic behaviour.

  18. First Hugo Schwyzer, now Bill Maher. What’s next, accolades to Andrew Dice Clay?

    Christopher Hitchens? ohwait. 😀

  19. People who have problems with the discussion of problematic works or individuals in a positive light may find this interesting:

    http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2011/09/how-to-be-a-fan-of-problematic-things/

    I am not a Maher fan, and although I am a Hitchens fan I will rail against his stupidities alongside most of the objectors. I’m just intending to point out that sometimes you happen to like a stopped clock and there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

  20. LadyDreamgirl, I read your the article you linked, and I thought it was really interesting and helpful.

    There is a YouTube vlogger, TheAmazingAtheist, who vlogs semi-comedically about politics, religion, and life. I really, really enjoy some of his humor and videos. But he is ultra-misogynistic and actively anti-feminist. Occassionally he will make an anti-feminist video, which I can’t watch because it’s too enraging, but the more problematic thing for me as a viewer is when he inserts a misogynstic aside into a video where I wouldn’t expect it to be there. It’s frustrating to consume the media of someone where some of the stuff is so right-on and some of it is so reprehensible. But I just live with the tension because I can’t find it in me to stop viewing him entirely nor to excuse him for his massive blind spots.

  21. @Drew:

    If he’s insulting several groups, one of those groups being women, that doesn’t equate to “not misogynistic”. It equates to “Misogynistic and also…”

    Possibly. But he is insulting basically anyone he disagrees with – it kind of is his comedic shtick. Personally, I find this only sometimes funny, but that is more a question of artistic taste.

    I think his anti breastfeeding comment is probably a better example.

    Anyway, as I mentioned I am not that familiar with Bill Maher and do not know enough to defend him even if I wanted to. I guess I will leave this thread for those better informed now.

  22. So Bill Maher gets a “Yes, but … ” because he’s more popular than Hugo Schwyzer? More well-known?

    “Yes, but … he’s funny sometimes! AND, he doesn’t need this blog!”

    Yeesh.

  24. I prefer the Bill Maher Misogyny Scale used recently over on Shakesville (weighing egregiously misogynistic statements to see if they’re more or less misogynistic than the average Bill Maher comment).

    I wouldn’t listen to or watch him under any circumstances, even assuming arguendo that he is occasionally funny without being offensive. It’s not as if he announces ahead of time that he’s about to say something misogynistic so everyone can change the channel. Besides, anti-vaccine lunatics like him deserve no publicity whatsoever. It’s rather ironic that Feministe would promote him even halfheartedly after the recent post explaining how important vaccines are. Surely somebody who isn’t so generally awful has said something funny lately?

  25. He’s an anti-vaccine guy? I actually had no idea.

    Among many examples, see:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/the_2009_recipient_of_the_richard_dawkin_1.php

    The 2009 recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award (a.k.a Bill Maher): Antivaccine lunatic and quackery supporter

    Here we go again. The 2009 recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award, anti-vaccine wingnut and lover of cancer quackery Bill Maher, decided to use the occasion of the season finale of Real Time with Bill Maher to answer some of the criticisms that have been leveled against him. All I can say is this: I’m incredibly grateful that this is the season finale of Maher’s show. I don’t think I can take much more of his moronic anti-science stances being proudly trumpeted

    It was painful to watch and showed very much that Bill Maher still doesn’t get it. In fact, if anything, he escalated his quack arguments to a whole new level. True, he states up front that he isn’t a germ theory denialist, lamely claiming that maybe he was a “bit too cocky” when he said that diet and healthy living (plus avoiding the ubiquitous “toxins”) would protect him from the flu, but that’s a load of steaming, stinking, toxin-laden bullshit, as my posts on the subject over the last five years show. Here is but a small sampling:

    [Links to previous posts re Maher’s comments on vaccines]

    No, what Maher has said in the past was far, far more than just arguing that a healthy diet and exercise can maximize your resistance to infection with the flu or other infectious diseases, which is true but in a trivial sort of way. If that’s all Bill Maher had said, then I would have had little or no problem with him. But that’s not all that he said or even what he said. Rather, he parroted a lie about Louis Pasteur that he had “recanted” on his deathbed, echoing the same sorts of false “deathbed conversion” stories that circulate claiming that Charles Darwin recanted about evolution. The implication was plain: That Pasteur had doubted germ theory on his deathbed and come over to his rival, Antoine Beauchamp, who had claimed that it wasn’t the microbes that caused disease but rather the “biological terrain.” While it is true that immunosuppressed or debilitated patients are more susceptible to various infections, many, many pathogenic microbes can still cause serious disease in perfectly healthy people. The strain of virus responsible for the 1918 influenza pandemic, for instance, tended to kill younger and healthier people. Indeed, it got started in the U.S. in an Army barracks, and it doesn’t get much healthier than young men between the ages of 18-22 in the military. Similarly, the current H1N1 (a.k.a. “swine flu”) pandemic shows disturbing signs of similarly affecting the young more severely. Maher also said on many occasions that he views disease as being due to “aggregate toxicity” from all the “toxins” of modern life and the “poisons” that we ingest.

    Bill Maher’s claim that he is not a germ theory denialist rings hollow. He mouths the words, but his history shows otherwise.

    Then Bill goes completely off the rails:

    …I do understand the theory of inoculation. Yes, you give someone a little bit of the disease and it fools your body into providing antibodies which fight it. Brilliant! Bravo! Maybe there is some occasions where inoculation is a wise thing to do. I hope not. I hope I would never have to have one because, you know, to present it just as this genius medical advancement, no, it’s actually a risky medical procedure that begs long term cost-benefit analysis.

    If anyone still doubts that the 2009 recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award (Bill Maher) is anti-vaccine, pure and simple, to his very core the above statement should lay to rest any doubts. Vaccination is not a “risky medical procedure.” It is among the safest medical procedures there is. Depending on the disease, it is also among the most effective. Arguably, no medical intervention ever envisioned by human beings has saved more lives at so low a cost and so low a risk as vaccination. His ignorance is just as toxic as any of those “toxins” he fears, particularly his ignorance that vaccination has undergone and continues to undergo long term cost-benefit analyses, safety monitoring, and study.

    The 2009 recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award is an anti-vaccine loon, plain and simple. He then goes on to prove it even more conclusively:

    I mean if you don’t believe me, just look on the CDC website as to what is in the swine flu vaccine. You know, aluminum, insect repellent, formaldehyde, mercury, you know, that’s right on their website. Don’t take it from a talk show host.

    Oh, no! TOXINS! Injected into the children! Oh, the humanity!

    I suppose I should be relieved that the the 2009 recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award didn’t parrot the anti-vaccine lie about “antifreeze” or “fetal parts” in the vaccines. I suppose I should be grateful for small favors. Of course, mercury is so….2004 or 2005. For one thing, it hasn’t been in chldhood vaccines other than the flu vaccine since late 2001. More importantly, numerous studies have failed to show a link between mercury and autism–or any other neurological condition, for that matter. The idea that mercury in vaccines somehow causes autism is a failed hypothesis, so much so that anti-vaccine zealots started to distance themselves from it two years ago. Why do you think they came up with “too many too soon” and “green our vaccines”?

    More at link

  26. In other words, the guy is a POS and a lunatic; I don’t care how much he hates Republicans.

    And lest anyone think he’s significantly changed his tune since 2009, he had a weasely “I’m not saying all vaccines are always bad, but we need more studies to determine the truth” sort of piece just a couple of months ago:

    http://www.citizens.org/?p=1521

  27. @matlun:

    I understand where you’re coming from – I just think its an important point to note that it’s dangerous to use the “cancelling out” method when dealing with certain issues (as the “yes, but” article pointed out). The fact that he may also be misandrist, or ableist, or ageist, or whateverist, doesn’t make him less misognistic, the same way “Patriarchy hurts men too” doesn’t cancel out how patriarchy harms women, etc.

  28. @Drew, tinfoil hattie:
    Perhaps I expressed myself clumsily above and should clarify that I am really not defending him. I know too little of his works and opinions to be able to claim that he is not a misogynist.

    Personally I am undecided right now, but since my opinion is admittedly uninformed you should not give it too much weight.

    Btw: Like Jill, I was totally unaware of his anti vaccine quackery, but it seems fairly indisputable. For example, he presents his “defense” in Donna’s link @28, and he really does not come off well…

  29. Maher also said on many occasions that he views disease as being due to “aggregate toxicity” from all the “toxins” of modern life and the “poisons” that we ingest.

    Is that why so many more people are killed or seriously injured by diseases in the first world today than were 300 years ago? All those modern toxins? OH MY GOD YOU’RE A FUCKING MORON.

    OK, my head just exploded.

    Bill Maher: proof that you don’t have to believe in any gods in order to have no grasp whatsoever of history, biology, or, well, truth.

  30. @ TinfoilHattie

    I am failing to see this post as an expression of “yes, but…”. It appears to me that it is an attempt to share some of Maher’s material that Jill finds amusing which does not itself contain misogynistic content while acknowledging that the creator is problematic.

  31. Well, here. Lady Dreamgirl: “Bill Maher is a misogynist. He says hateful things about women.”

    “Yes, but … he’s so FUNNY! I’m so torn between liking him and hating him.”

    Easy!

  32. @matlun: I didn’t think you were defending him. However, you seemed to be implying that he should not be considered a misogynist if he also is offensive/insulting to other groups.

  33. “Yes, but … he’s so FUNNY! I’m so torn between liking him and hating him.”

    But doesn’t that happen to everybody? Am I somehow weird in often finding that my tastes do not always match up with my political commitments? And sometimes liking the people who don’t match up with my political commitments for other reasons?

  34. @ TinfoilHattie

    Fair enough, the word ‘but’ does appear in the original post (never mind that neither of your quotes do). I still stand by my point that it is possible to enjoy problematic works or the work of problematic creators without excusing their flaws.

  35. I like Bill Mahers commentary on right wingers but like many talk show hosts i like what they have to say more than i rely on them for actual news.

  36. Lady Dreamgirl, you are right. It wasn’t a direct quote. That is true.

    I still fail to see why Maher gets a pass from feminists. Because he’s only a bit misogynist? Because he’s funny? Because he … what? I’m having troublebfilling in the blanks. The man is vile, just vile, to women. Why is it so important to excuse him?

    The “yes, but” is strongly implied.

  37. But doesn’t that happen to everybody? Am I somehow weird in often finding that my tastes do not always match up with my political commitments? And sometimes liking the people who don’t match up with my political commitments for other reasons?

    I don’t think you’re too weird on that EG. I certainly know I’m the same way. I really like standup comedy, for instance, and while I won’t go for Larry the Cable Guy or something like that, most of the standup comedians I enjoy seem to deviate quite a bit from my political views. Not enough radical trans-positive-feminist-anti-racist-anarcho-socialists out there in the standup comedy world.

  39. I guess my tolerance for laughing off misogynists and giving them a pass is just lower than “everybody(‘s).”

    Gee, what a surprise, what with my being a feminist, and all.

  40. Yeah, right, Tinfoil Hattie, the rest of us aren’t really feminists. We’re just…pretending.

    Enjoying somebody’s work despite his misogyny is not the same thing as “giving him a pass” or “laughing off” misogyny. Nor does it make you a better feminist to have ideologically “pure” tastes. That’s just a matter of luck, if it’s even possible. I mean, really? There’s no book/movie/music/etc. you love even though it or its creator is racist, sexist, classist, etc.? Not only do I find that unlikely, given the society that produces such cultural works, but I’m not sure what you think those of us whose tastes are more encompassing are supposed to do–hang our heads in shame? Pretend that we don’t like what we like? Self-flagellate?

    It’s not as though Jill made excuses for the misogyny or pretended it wasn’t there.

  41. If the rule for posting things on feminist blogs is “never quoting any person or institution that has ever been misogynist,” I think we can shut this shit down now. Pretty sure someone bought feministe.us via GoDaddy. Pretty sure that a large selection of our links come from the New York Times. Pretty sure that at some point in my life, I’ve used words like “cunt” and “twat” and “bitch” and not in nice ways.

    Obviously Bill Maher is a total fucking dick and a misogynist. I have no desire to whitewash that. Which is why I mentioned it in the post where I quoted him as saying something funny and not-misogynist. I’m not promoting his work as wonderful and great and everyone should love him despite his misogyny. I’m not even saying that we should ignore his misogyny, or that he’s funny despite it. I’m just saying “Here is this funny thing. FYI it comes form a total fucking dick.”

  43. no one’s calling for self-flagellation, but a lot of feminists would like big feminist blogs to be treated as such, not as the blogger’s personal tumblr.

    1. no one’s calling for self-flagellation, but a lot of feminists would like big feminist blogs to be treated as such, not as the blogger’s personal tumblr.

      You’ve come to the wrong place then. Sorry. No one here has ever claimed that Feministe is All Feminism All The Time. That’s not our mission, and we’ve never wanted it to be. It’s a feminist-minded space, yes, but it sometimes also includes cute animal photos and hats and things which I think are generally amusing.

  44. no one’s calling for self-flagellation, but a lot of feminists would like big feminist blogs to be treated as such, not as the blogger’s personal tumblr.

    Well, it’s a good thing there’s a vast internet network where people can easily sign up for their own damn blogs if they so choose.

    But hey, I guess actually doing your own legwork takes some of the zest out of being self-righteous.

  45. no one’s calling for self-flagellation, but a lot of feminists would like big feminist blogs to be treated as such, not as the blogger’s personal tumblr.

    You see, Jill, when you signed that contract with the International Feminist Conspiracy to be the Voice of Feminism, you agreed to give up all blogging that was not Pure Feminism.

    What big feminist blog doesn’t include the bloggers’ personal interests? Amanda Marcotte does regular posts about vegetarian cooking using the ingredients she gets from her CSA. Jessica Valenti used to post about her dog.

    Personally, I find hearing about other people’s vegetarian cooking really boring, so you know what I used to do when I read Pandagon regularly? I skipped those posts.

  46. (Jill, I hope this isn’t a derail. Feel free to delete if I’ve strayed too far from the topic.)

    I really struggle with separating artists from their work. For example, when Johnny Depp and Whoopi Goldberg say gross things about Roman Polanski, I have a hard time appreciating their movies.

    How do some of you others manage that? Are there tricks to compartmentalizing those feelings? I’m not ready to give up “The Color Purple” and “Finding Neverland,” but when I see them on screen, it makes me almost sick to my stomach.

  47. Damn, Jill, where do you get off acting like this blog is something that you and the other mods maintain in your own spare time and with your own money, walking around like you own the place and can post what you want?

  48. How do some of you others manage that? Are there tricks to compartmentalizing those feelings? I’m not ready to give up “The Color Purple” and “Finding Neverland,” but when I see them on screen, it makes me almost sick to my stomach.

    I take full advantage of the fact that most of us are capable of some truly awesome feats of cognitive dissonance. Mostly I stick with whatever it is I enjoy until I just can’t anymore and then give up. For example, when it gets to the “sick to my stomach point,” I give it up. If it’s more of the “This is rather problematic, but geez do I love this movie!” I stick with it.

    So, I have given up watching Family Guy because it’s casual violence against women makes me ill, but I will still listen to “Run for Your Life” by the Beatles, because, damn it’s a really catchy song (about a man threatening to kill his girlfriend if she leaves him.)

  49. For me, Little Susie, it’s a gut feeling based on an intuitive judgment about how much I love the work vs. how intolerable the creator has been. So I just won’t give up Barrie’s Peter Pan despite its quite horrible racism, to say nothing of its gender politics, because it is so beautiful and poignantly written and what it has to say about the relationship between adulthood and childhood means a lot to me. On the other hand, Mel Gibson is Dead To Me, and I will not ever watch anything he has had a hand in ever again…

    …except when Road Warrior is on television, or I can borrow a DVD of it from a friend, and I can justify it by noting that it’s not as though he’s actually making any money off me.

    For me, if I love something, I love it. That doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge or analyze the racism/misogyny/other horrible aspects of it or its creator(s), but I can’t choose not to love, say, most of the Rolling Stones’s catalog even though “Brown Sugar” and “Under My Thumb” are repulsive (and that doesn’t mean that I don’t acknowledge that “Brown Sugar” has one of the greatest riffs I’ve ever heard). Or that I can stop loving the Beatles even though I’m given to understand that Lennon was a wife-beater.

  52. Yeah, I agree with EG and FashionablyEvil. Plus often there is an additional wrinkle that pieces speak to one vector of oppression but are total shit bags on another. In college I had this amazing Hawaiian studies prof who really taught me a lot about respecting all the indigenous voices in our community, but she thought people who were gbl (not t) should be exiled. I think we can learn from each other even in our brokenness. But I think that only holds works if (1) you try to actively engage on the issue – assuming you can, and (2) you always acknowledge the fuckedupedness.

  53. You’ve come to the wrong place then. Sorry. No one here has ever claimed that Feministe is All Feminism All The Time. That’s not our mission, and we’ve never wanted it to be.

    And yet, you wouldn’t be much more than a Tumblr fetish if it weren’t for the feminists who helped create this space for your voice — it’s duplicitous to suggest you built all this by yourself. It’s equally shaky to claim that you post items other than feminism, when for years that has been your staple.

    We haven’t come to the wrong place; you just don’t seem to like this vein of criticism.

    Which is your right; we get it. But you come across pretty nasty when you slam other women for having feminist expectations.

    1. I didn’t claim that I built this all by myself. I didn’t claim that no one can have feminist expectations. I think it’s pretty clear that if you peruse our archives, we post a lot about feminism, and some about other progressive/liberal issues, and some about stuff we just find entertaining or amusing.

      I did say that Feministe is not, and has never claimed to be, “All Feminism All The Time.” It is a feminist blog. We post mostly feminist-minded content. But we also post a ton of other stuff. And every single time we post something that isn’t about abortion, someone is all, “WHY IS THIS ON A FEMINIST BLOG?!?!?!” It’s annoying and exhausting and silly.

  54. And yet, you wouldn’t be much more than a Tumblr fetish if it weren’t for the feminists who helped create this space for your voice — it’s duplicitous to suggest you built all this by yourself. It’s equally shaky to claim that you post items other than feminism, when for years that has been your staple.

    We haven’t come to the wrong place; you just don’t seem to like this vein of criticism.

    Which is your right; we get it. But you come across pretty nasty when you slam other women for having feminist expectations.

    For real? Have you never seen the posts here about hats? Cats? Travel? Pilots? I’ve been reading Feministe since 2006, and it’s never been all feminism all the time.

    If someone has “feminist expectations” I see a variety of posts on the home page that should directly appeal to them, including one by Jill (!) talking about Rick Santorum’s strident anti-contraception views.

    (Is there boilerplate for this conversation yet?)

  55. Jill: I don’t think hyperbole suits this conversation. Maher’s misogyny is problematic. It isn’t just like hats or kitties. And you know this. Why you want to lump this criticism into the criticism of folks who can’t handle objectifying pictures of buff dudes or silly royal wedding hats, I don’t know.

  56. Q Grrl, you started in with hyperbole when you said Jill claimed she “built this all by herself”. I have never ever seen her say anything like that, not even close. Where are you getting that from, other than perhaps your own ass?

    And I would mention that the criticism on that wedding hat post was not just “This is silly” but “The concept of the royal family/monarchy is horrible and patriarchal and also this is tabloidy and consumerist and materialistic and you are awful for liking it”. It got very heavy into deep bullshit analysis of Jill as a person (and anyone else who followed the wedding, liked the hats, etc) and there was plenty of “This is anti-feminist”…so I don’t actually think there’s anything wrong with her bringing that up alongside this post.

    And again, this really comes down to the fact that no one is forcing you to read this blog, and if it’s not to your liking, you’re free to go elsewhere. You are not owed a Feministe The Way Q Grrl Thinks It Should Be. “Big blog” or not, it’s not yours. I have seen Jill and others listen to their readers and change things accordingly when they feel it’s warranted, and not when they don’t. Their prerogative.

  57. I, for one, do nothing without first thinking “Is this feminist enough?” When I go to sleep I think, “Are these monkey PJ pants fighting the gender binary or reinforcing it?” The I sleep with a thoughtful frown gracing my very serious feminist face.

  58. “Big blog” or not, it’s not yours.

    Yeah. This.

    So, no, I didn’t start in with the hyperbole.

    If feminist standards are too difficult, don’t depend upon feminist traffic. Or rather, respect when your commentariat has issues and don’t belittle them for wanting more.

    Why are so many of you willing to use shame to counter feminist critiques?

  59. Why are so many of you willing to use shame to counter feminist critiques?

    I know I got snarky, so I’m sorry. It just seems silly to me that a funny quote from a problematic source can’t be posted even when it’s acknowledged as problematic.
    Are all of the posts here going to have to be fully vetted forever by the feminist consensus? Saying Maher is a giant douche is different than scowling at Jill for even allowing his name to be typed by her supposedly feminist keyboard.

  60. Well I’m so sorry that I come to feministe for feminism, not funny quotes from misogynists.

    I, for one, will never forgive you.

  61. But Q Grrl, who decides those “standards”? Some feminists are okay with laughing at Maher’s jokes while recognizing that he’s a jackass…some aren’t.

    Some feminists are okay with wearing make-up while recognizing it’s at least partially due to patriarchal pressure to “look right”. Some aren’t.

    Some feminists are okay with listening to certain rap artists even while they talk about bitches and hos. Some aren’t.

    There is no one “feminist standard”, as I think becomes clear in nearly every thread here. So then, who decides what the standard is for a given blog? The people who run it. As I said, sometimes they do listen to the readers and make changes, because obviously a blog without readers doesn’t mean much. But at the end of the day, it is not up to us to decide what is or isn’t feminist enough for a certain blog. Your opinion is one of many…if you don’t want your opinion ignored or belittled or diminished, then what about the opinions of others that don’t align with yours? Everyone can be heard, but that doesn’t mean what everyone says goes.

  63. I, for one, do nothing without first thinking “Is this feminist enough?” When I go to sleep I think, “Are these monkey PJ pants fighting the gender binary or reinforcing it?” The I sleep with a thoughtful frown gracing my very serious feminist face.

    ANIMAL RIGHTS VIOLATION!

  64. ANIMAL RIGHTS VIOLATION!

    You know you may just be right? They have tails like a monkey but faces and attributes of chimps…oh gods they are some horrible experimental hybrids!! Alright, to the burning pile they go.

  65. There have been things I’ve disagreed with, strongly. (I remember the drooling over male cast members of “Lost” for example.) But, as a person who has both at different times moderated and administrated web forums and knows the pain in the asses posters can be, not my site, not my rules. That isn’t to say that if any administrator gets high on her pedestal we should just let shit slide, but choose our battles.

    And you HAVE to be able to let off steam from the crap that goes on. You really, really do. That is why you post the kitten videos and the goofy hats, because if it was all about the shit Gingrich is saying and how Obama is fucking us over again, we cry in corners.

    That said, Maher is a smug prick, I’ve never watched him. I would rather read him, he’s MUCH more tolerable that way.

    And as far as people I’ve had to give up for their fuckery, I think I was the most sad when I had to give up Orson Scott Card. I can’t even read “Ender’s Game” anymore, and that was a beautiful book.

  66. I know that there is no one “feminist standard”, but that always led me to believe that it was okay to disagree, critique, or downright criticize. Now it seems like only certain criticisms are valid, while others will earn you some internet mockery. What’s that about?

  67. And as far as people I’ve had to give up for their fuckery, I think I was the most sad when I had to give up Orson Scott Card. I can’t even read “Ender’s Game” anymore, and that was a beautiful book.

    I’m glad I’m not the only person then. My brother told me they wanted to make an Ender’s Game movie and I just sighed. I’ve put up with bullshit, but from Orson Scott Card it just disappointed too much I guess.

  68. So what I’m wondering, Q Grrrrrl and Tinfoil Hattie, is if there is any way to discuss complicated materials that are problematic and thorny in a feminist context? We’ve already seen a fantastic article that discusses how to like problematic content in these comments. Jill is totally acknowledging that Maher is an asshat. In a broader context, what would do you think should be done differently from the acknowledgments already made?

    Living in the world that we do, I think it’s almost impossible to escape enjoying things that contain elements of fucked up, and I think it behooves us as feminists who live in the world to engage with the fucked up and point it out, instead of disengaging from pretty much all media. Do you agree or not? If you agree, how do we engage? And if you disagree, then what is your plan for creating alternate cultural references?

  69. Correction: January 8, 2012

    Bill Maher’s essay on Jan. 1, on new rules for the new year, was incorrectly labeled. It was an opinion article, not a news analysis.

    I heart the NY Times.

  70. Jill is totally acknowledging that Maher is an asshat. In a broader context, what would do you think should be done differently from the acknowledgments already made?

    Find another source? Find another way to dig at your larger critique (the GOP candidates)?

    Our acknowledgment that Maher is an asshat is meaningless. His misogyny trumps this acknowledgment — we laugh at some of his jokes, but we’re never able to be more than token females in his world. One minute we’re propping him up with laughs and the next minute we’re fodder.

    There are other funny people in the world.

  71. And if you disagree, then what is your plan for creating alternate cultural references?

    Create alternative culture. We queers have been doing that for eternity. 🙂

  72. *sigh* Why can’t I enjoy some shit from the culture I am inundated with on a daily basis? Creating a new culture is hard *throws self temper tantrum style*

  73. It’s not like queer culture sprung forth full cloth without the influence of the larger culture, though. Or that it is without *ahem* problematic material.

    I would personally find the world really bland and boring if I could only entertain myself with saintly anti-O-approved media. Since that pool of material is so small, it ends up being necessarily somewhat homogenous. It feels good to get an infusion of jolly ol’ shit from the outside sometimes.

  74. Create alternative culture. We queers have been doing that for eternity.

    Completely seriously, can you name five people or even five literary works that do not say something oppressive? I honestly can’t think of a single one that isn’t problematic along some vector. And alot of the queer justice works I’ve read also falls into that category.

  75. And as far as people I’ve had to give up for their fuckery, I think I was the most sad when I had to give up Orson Scott Card. I can’t even read “Ender’s Game” anymore, and that was a beautiful book.

    I’ve been mulling the whole “what do you do about the problems in your pleasure?” question a lot recently (have done for ages, just stepped it up a notch lately), so much so that I even have a crowd-sourcing post up on my own blog devoted to it at the moment. What I see is that there’s just a hell of a lot of different ways of dealing with it, and it’s kind of a lost cause to try to police how someone else deals with it. This is different than someone trying to argue that there’s *no* problem because it’s not *their* problem, which would be, you know, a problem.

    Regarding Ender’s Game specifically, I find Card’s views abominable and his current writing downright disappointing and flat, even when it’s not morally despicable, yet I just re-read Ender’s Game the other week and realized that it is still one of the books I would take on to a desert isle with me. I read it at such a formative time and loaded it with such personal meaning that it’s not Card’s story when I read it – it’s mine, I’m fifteen again, and it’s my story. I even have a copy with a forward from him in it where he talks about all the different interpretations of different fans he’s run across over the years and his own realization that the story isn’t his anymore! One thing he got right. So as awful as I find him, I also find that none of that transfers over into the book at all, although I can certainly read it with a keener and more critical eye. It’s mercifully flexible enough to take on the meanings I see in it, and not whatever the hell Card might have been really thinking at the time. Not to make such a huge derail out of this, but the other point I want to throw in is that we are none of us passive consumers, and just because we work with problematic source material sometimes doesn’t mean we can’t work with it, transform it, or filter it into something useful inside our own heads. If I couldn’t do that, I’d probably have to give up on every source of entertainment I’ve ever had. I can’t think of one that hasn’t failed me in some way.

  76. I disagree with some of the points about shunning problematic media because they seem to imply emphasizing purity over results. I mean I totally get people who can’t enjoy a particular piece of art because the creator is a douche. I mean, art is supposed to be enjoyable, so if you don’t enjoy it, why bother.

    But I can’t get behind the idea it is somehow “good” to reject all problematic media as a matter of principle. What exactly does this accomplish? Any tangible good? I have trouble seeing a chain of cause and effect whereby enjoying one particular song, or one particular book (or not enjoying it) actually has a real effect on other people’s quality of life.

    So it seems more to be about purity. Not wanting to be “tainted” by toxic external influences. The association that comes to mind for me is the vegan subculture. I was vegan for 3 years, and I would do things like not buy a loaf of bread if it had a miniscule amount of honey in it. Sarah Lee made two types of loaves of whole wheat bread. One loaf had smallish slices; one had largish pieces of slices; and they tasted identical. But one of the loaves was manufactured with honey and one wasn’t. So I bought the one that wasn’t. But at some level it felt utterly absurd because I knew it would never have ANY effect on Sara Lee’s manufacturing policies or do anything to improve animal welfare. But I was concerned about my “purity.”

    But nowadays, I think purity concerns are counter-productive to movements for radical change. Purity concerns tamp people down and repress their spontaneity. Now they do work well for conservative movements (this is how you have to wear your beard if you’re Muslim, this is what you have to eat if you’re Jewish, this is how you have to have sex if you’re Christian). But I think radical movements are able to benefit human beings the most when they are flexible, non-dogmatic, and willing to engage with and critique the broader culture in a nuanced and even ambivalent way.

  77. Well, why bother with progressive movements then? It would be a lot easier just to enjoy everything, you know, if you have the privilege of not being offended.

  78. You know, all you folks are right, and so much smareter than me. GOLLY DANG, I never knew that other shit is oppressive, too.

    (“Yeah, but …”)

    And, of course, you’re really right that the problem is not misogynists like Bill Maher and avowed feminists who link approvingly to the “but he’s so gosh-darn funny!” shit he says.

    The problem, of course, is feminists who point out misogyny and hypocrisy. We are oppressing women all over the place by not giving Maher a pass.

  79. Well, why bother with progressive movements then? It would be a lot easier just to enjoy everything, you know, if you have the privilege of not being offended.

    Well, from that perspective why feminism which has historically had, and continues to have an upper middle class whiteness cisness problem? I thought the point was to fight for change not for individual ideological purity.

  80. I thought the point was to fight for change not for individual ideological purity.

    That’s funny! From where I sit, I’m on the side that is arguing in favor of change and the rest of you are upholding the status quo because of entertainment value.

    What gets changed by giving Maher a platform?

  81. We are oppressing women all over the place by not giving Maher a pass.

    Who is giving him a pass?

  82. Well, why bother with progressive movements then? It would be a lot easier just to enjoy everything, you know, if you have the privilege of not being offended.

    Well, a lot of stuff offends me to the point where I can’t enjoy it. I loved reading the Lord of the Rings and Narnia books growing up, but by the time the movies came out I considered myself agnostic and anti-religious, and I didn’t have the privilege to get behind all the coded Christian imagery in either of them. Plus, they were both too racist for me to enjoy, although as a white person that wasn’t a lack of privilege thing. I hate any movie that glorifies war. I REALLY hated 300 because it was racist, militaristic, fetishized violence, and, to me, was pretty clear pro-Western imperialism allegory.

    But yeah, generally I try to enjoy myself as much as I can. I’ve joined progressive moments because I haven’t liked that I’m oppressed, and I haven’t liked that other people are oppressed, too. I hope my involvement leads to more personal satisfaction, not less. I don’t see how self-deprivation helps anyone.

  83. Oh yeah, I also thought The Dark Knight was a piece of shit because it glorified surveillance technology and right-wing vigilantism.

  84. Oh yeah, while I’m on a roll, I liked Ace Ventura: Pet Detective as a 11 year old. I saw part of it on TV the other day and hated it because it is an utterly transphobic piece of garbage. So that was disappointing.

  85. I stopped watching family guy because I found it pointlessly offensive on so many levels, to so many groups.

    On the other hand, I still like guns n roses even though a lot of the lyrics are misogynist as all hell, and Axl is a spouse-battering douchecanoe. I can’t listen to One in a Million anymore though, which sucked because it was hella fun to play on guitar, from a musical standpoint, but the lyrics always made me want to take a long shower after.

    Kids In The Hall is probably my favorite comedy series ever, and they’ve done some really good progressive satire, but some of the characters, like the butch-lesbian straw-feminist-stereotype Shona, make my teeth itch.

    I don’t have a really good answer to how to reconcile culture you enjoy with their more problematic or even down-right horrendous aspects.

    I tend towards just feeling really bad about myself.

  86. I mean, sometimes I am really put off by the portrayal of the female characters in the new Doctor Who series. My brother and I have had some pretty interesting debates on whether or not Moffat is better at writing women than Davies was (Which is ridiculous, as Moffat helped write Coupling and has said some eyebrow raising shit). Does that mean I am a “bad feminist” because I still watch the show? Nope. I really don’t think so.

  87. That’s funny! From where I sit, I’m on the side that is arguing in favor of change and the rest of you are upholding the status quo because of entertainment value.

    What gets changed by giving Maher a platform?

    What’s changed by sharing the truth that’s in feminist literature when that lit is pretty fucked up?

  88. Oh yeah, while I’m on a roll, I liked Ace Ventura: Pet Detective as a 11 year old. I saw part of it on TV the other day and hated it because it is an utterly transphobic piece of garbage. So that was disappointing.

    I can’t stand anything from Jim Carrey in the 90’s. It stems from my nephew watching The Mask continuously for months. I have a visceral hatred for all of his movies from that era.

  89. I can’t stand anything from Jim Carrey in the 90′s. It stems from my nephew watching The Mask continuously for months. I have a visceral hatred for all of his movies from that era.

    Well that sounds horrible, so fair enough. I still like The Truman Show a great deal, which is technically from the 90s. I’m not sure if you’d be lumping that in though because it’s pretty different in style from The Mask, Ace Ventura, Dumb and Dumber, etc.

  90. Jadey regarding giving up Ender’s Game it wasn’t because my moral stance regarding the fuckery, it was because his fuckery so tainted everything he did that I just couldn’t look at his writing the same way anymore. So, even though at one point in my life I loved Ender’s Game, I just couldn’t approach it the same way anymore, I read it as having a tone that I didn’t before I was aware of Card’s politics. And that hurt.

    And does not fully decrying a media personality mean we full on support them? Or are there shades of grey? I certainly didn’t see Jill link to any videos of Maher, nor tell anyone to purchase anything he’s ever put out that might be for sale. Just that she found this one thing that skewers people that we all most likely hate in a particularly witty way.

    And the fact remains that Maher generally skews left. It isn’t like Jill found something that the grand wizard of the KKK said was awesomely funny so she had to post it, or Santorum had some bad ass joke about contraception that she just had to share.

    He’s jerky. I don’t think he’s a friend to women, but I don’t think he’s an enemy. I just think he’s a self serving asshole who, when given a lot of lead time, can say really witty things.

  91. Well, why bother with progressive movements then? It would be a lot easier just to enjoy everything, you know, if you have the privilege of not being offended.

    JFC, don’t you dare insinuate that I only enjoy non-pure media because of my insulating privilege. I doubt I have any more of it than you do, and I might even have less, though that is neither here nor there. And besides, the ‘point’ of progressive movements does not begin and end with entertainment. I read Maher’s jokes up there and I laughed. I gave him no money, and in fact will continue to give him zero money for the rest of my life. He did not benefit in any tangible way from my enjoyment of his jokes, or by Jill’s posting of them alongside a disclaimer that the guy is often misogynistically douchey. That sounds like as good a warning as any to anyone considering Maher-ing up their life a little.

    So what’s the problem, here? I agree with Lotus Ben, in that I detect the distinct stench of ideological puritanism.

  92. shfree: I guess I should be totally clear that I didn’t mean to set out my relationship with Ender’s Game as a prescription for what I think everyone should do or what the most enlightened thing is to do or anything like that. Quite the opposite – I totally understand people who feel that it is tainted by association and cannot enjoy it at all, even if they want to (as opposed to a purely moral boycott, which wasn’t what I really meant to imply, but I think I was being vague). I also totally understand people who don’t feel such a taint on it themselves, because even as a queer person who knows full well what Card thinks about people like me, I find I can still read it true to my own original, queer-positive version, and not whatever toxic crap was going through his head when he wrote it. I don’t know *why* I can do that (perhaps years of fanfiction and slash goggles and other subversive media reading, or maybe just a lack of imagination), and I don’t think it’s a failing on other people’s part that they can’t or a strength on my part that I can. But that’s why I think it’s not enough for us to say that if something’s problematic in its source (rather than necessarily its specific content), then clearly all “right-thinking” people should scorn it.

  93. I’m not sure if you’d be lumping that in though because it’s pretty different in style from The Mask, Ace Ventura, Dumb and Dumber, etc.

    I do. I saw The Mask a lot. Like over 1,000 times (hyperbole, don’t check the math.)

  94. I still like The Truman Show a great deal, which is technically from the 90s.

    Sometimes, I’m convinced my life is The Truman Show. That movie made me so paranoid.

  95. When I read Ender’s Game it disturbed me right away. At first I didn’t know why, but after thinking about it for hours, I finally realized that it was because it struck me as being a conservative narrative, subtly glorifying military victory in a way in which militarism and genocide itself were reflected in the glow, while at the same time being just ambiguous enough to leave me wondering at first why it felt wrong. And obviously that’s not the interpretation most people came away with it from, but that is how it felt to me at the time. Card’s politics were superfluous to my disapproval of the book. But even then, I can’t say that I had a complete lack of enjoyment of it, because even highly disturbing works can be enjoyable– sometimes *because* they are highly disturbing, and as the years pass, that has ended up being what I’ve taken away from it.

  96. Sometimes, I’m convinced my life is The Truman Show. That movie made me so paranoid.

    Yup, that sounds familiar. I’m also sometimes convinced my life is The Matrix.

  97. Dammit, why didn’t anyone tell me the feminister than thou pissing contest had begun again? I’ll get the popcorn!

    Have you ever noticed that the line between critiquing and just plain criticizing isn’t even remotely thin? “REALLY? On a femnist blog!?!?!? REALLY???” isn’t really a way to open a dialogue, and then you wonder why you get shut down. Seems pretty obvious that the intent was to shame and shut down in the first place, but when it’s returned in kind, you wanna play the privilege card.

    I don’t know if you noticed this, but Jill is first and foremost a person, flawed, multi-faceted, and complex as the rest of us. I may not agree with all her opinions, but I get really effing tired of coming on this blog and watching people trying to put her in her place.

    On topic, I pay no attention to Maher, so I had no idea he was a raging misogynist, and probably still wouldn’t if I had not read this, so thanks for letting me know, Jill. It’s like a two-fer. Funny things about Newt Gingrich and a warning to avoid and ignore the shit outta what’s-his-name.

  100. And yet, you wouldn’t be much more than a Tumblr fetish if it weren’t for the feminists who helped create this space for your voice — it’s duplicitous to suggest you built all this by yourself. It’s equally shaky to claim that you post items other than feminism, when for years that has been your staple.

    Self-righteous, willfully misrepresentative AND factually incorrect.

  101. Or misinterpreted. I still don’t see the self-righteousness.

    Jill has built this site through feminism and the massive input of feminists. I’ve always thought of the other posts as fluff/pretty stuff along the political highway. Maybe I’ve been wrong all these years. Maybe that’s what Jill really wants to be blogging about. Maybe the cultivation of a feminist community has happened by accident or sheer luck.

    Or maybe Jill has wanted a feminist community and a sharp, intelligent feminist blog. In this case, her (and her supporters) running out the “if you don’t like it here, take your ball and go home” tactic is disingenuous. It suggests that this place exists freely and independently of the commentators and that the success, level of discourse, and the variety of topics breached are the sole manifestation of one woman’s aspirations.

    I’m not blind to how annoying it is to have threads repeatedly interrupted by people/posters who have different value systems attached to their feminism. On the other hand, when there are certain consistencies that run through thread interruptions, you’re not looking at interpersonal conflict or “self-righteousness”. You’re looking at community paradigms that are no longer capable of peaceful co-existence.

    Telling people who are frustrated that their frustration is really self-righteousness is the bland comfort of the majority view — the view that is privileged and the view that understands that they have the bulk of the power — through numbers, through moderation, through snide mockery. And through the ability to tell posters to “leave, if you don’t like it” — as if those posters haven’t had a significant input into the birth, life, and support of this site.

    From my POV it feels as if this site is willing to pimp out the input of feminists, yet wants to pull the your-feminism-is-tedious-to-me-now card when self-reflection is immanent.

  102. Oh, this site DOES benefit greatly from the community members here. Just not the ones as obnoxious and willfully obtuse as you. “Pimp out”? Man, I miss the good old days of people likening disagreements in the comments to sexual assault.

  103. So, just to get this straight: Maher’s misogyny is okay because of it’s entertainment value, but I shouldn’t use “pimp?”

    Is that maybe because words and ideas have power, or do you just want a double standard?

  104. [and, yeah, it’s my belief that if you profit from other people’s ideas, input, and community building, and then turn around and tell them to leave when they disagree with the choices you make or the direction you are going, then, yes, without a doubt, you have violated a boundary. Sucks, but that doesn’t change the basic nature of the violation. It’s hard, I know. We don’t value women’s ideas on an individual basis — we tend to only value them when there is a certain mass of consensus behind them. And the biggest tool in devaluing women’s opinions/ideas, is to use them, get a leg up on them, and then disavow them as trivial, worthy of mockery, or just up and suggesting to women that they are unbalanced, inappropriate, half-cocked, trouble-makers, … or that their input never really existed. So, yeah. Pimp seems appropriate.]

  105. Maher’s misogyny is okay because of it’s entertainment value

    This is not the argument. The argument is that Maher can still be funny even though he has spewed misogynistic drivel elsewhere. We each have to decide for ourselves where the “Ew, there is no way I can enjoy that person’s art/humor/analysis because of other stuff about them” line is. Obviously, people’s opinion of where that line is varies.

    Also, the original complaint was that this post was insufficiently feminist, while discounting the many other directly feminist posts currently on the home page or with active comment threads. If someone thinks Feministe has suddenly become non-feminist, I would welcome some evidence of that.

  106. Q Grrl, in your obnoxiousness, you’re way less entertaining than Maher’s New Rules (and I say this as someone who tuned out Maher years ago). It’s hard, I know.

  107. I mean I totally get people who can’t enjoy a particular piece of art because the creator is a douche. I mean, art is supposed to be enjoyable, so if you don’t enjoy it, why bother.

    Just . . . no. Art is not as a class a thing designed to provide just enjoyment. You may prefer art that you enjoy, but that’s not the only or often main goal of art. Art is about ideas and communication, a larger conversation in our culture. Sometimes, as with feminism, that conversation is uncomfortable. Saying art is about enjoyment is like saying it’s only worthwhile if it’s pretty. Your preference may be for pretty things (who doesn’t like pretty things?) but that doesn’t mean that’s all that’s worth paying attention to.

  108. I think I pretty much agree with you suspect class. I wasn’t trying to imply that the main purpose of art is to provide enjoyment. I’d probably say the main purpose of art is to impart knowledge and new perspectives. I was more just saying that no one should feel obligated to participate in something that’s completely unenjoyable for them.

    And being uncomfortable isn’t incompatible with enjoyment either. I really like long distance running, for example. It’s very pleasurable, but it’s also quite uncomfortable and sometimes actively causes me pain. I believe healthy individuals and healthy societies enjoy pushing themselves outside their comfort zones and taking the sometimes painful risks that are necessary to grow. As you said, there’s more to life than just the pretty things.

  109. @Q Grrl,

    The problem isn’t someone saying I disagree. Fuck, I disagree all the damn time. Lots of people on this very thread talked about how they can’t stand and don’t listen to this asshat.

    You didn’t just disagree. You insisted that your definition of feminism and feminist is the correct one and failing to meet your expectations makes someone a bad feminist.

    So someone who devotes their time to feminist causes becomes a bad feminist because they laughed at Bill freaking Mayer? Fuck that, Seriously, you have a major case of the self-righteousies and its clouding your judgment.

  110. Art is not as a class a thing designed to provide just enjoyment. You may prefer art that you enjoy, but that’s not the only or often main goal of art. Art is about ideas and communication, a larger conversation in our culture. Sometimes, as with feminism, that conversation is uncomfortable. Saying art is about enjoyment is like saying it’s only worthwhile if it’s pretty. Your preference may be for pretty things (who doesn’t like pretty things?) but that doesn’t mean that’s all that’s worth paying attention to.

    I think you’re operating with a very narrow definition of “enjoy” if you’re equating it to “pretty.” I enjoyed seeing Picasso’s Guernica; I enjoyed visiting the Alhambra; I enjoy listening to The Clash. I guess the Alhambra could be described as “pretty,” if the describer was content with a fairly feeble and pallid description, but by no stretch could the other two. Not all enjoyment is the same, and not all enjoyment is comfortable.

    It’s equally shaky to claim that you post items other than feminism, when for years that has been your staple.

    Rice is a staple food. That doesn’t mean you don’t eat anything else, or that not eating anything else would be desirable. How is it shaky? Jill does post items other than feminist ones. What I like about this particular attack is that it’s a double bind:

    “How dare you post something that isn’t feminist? This is a feminist site, and you’re polluting it with non-feminism. You’re not a good feminist!”

    “Um…it’s not uncommon for me to post non-feminist things. Are you new here?”

    “How dare you claim that you post non-feminist things? You almost always post feminist stuff!”

    Which is it? Is this post awful because Jill is posting non-feminist stuff on a feminist blog, or is it awful because Jill almost always posts feminist stuff? If it’s the former, why does a blog have to be all-feminism, all the time? And if it’s the latter, why is one non-feminist post so upsetting given the ocean of feminism it’s in?

    And yet, you wouldn’t be much more than a Tumblr fetish if it weren’t for the feminists who helped create this space for your voice

    OK. But so what? That doesn’t mean Jill owes individual posters jack shit. The feminist space on Feministe has come about because it is largely a feminist blog and many people seem to like Jill’s sensibility. If you’re not one of them, that’s no big deal; nobody pleases everybody. But suggesting that Jill should amend her (quite successful) sensibility in order to cater to yours is incredibly self-righteous.

    As for mockery…since when was any kind of criticism not available for mockery? Feminism is not immune to silliness, and silliness deserves to be mocked. When I started commenting, I didn’t get the memo telling me that I could mock certain forms of belief and argument, but not others.

  111. I think you’re operating with a very narrow definition of “enjoy” if you’re equating it to “pretty.” I enjoyed seeing Picasso’s Guernica; I enjoyed visiting the Alhambra; I enjoy listening to The Clash. I guess the Alhambra could be described as “pretty,” if the describer was content with a fairly feeble and pallid description, but by no stretch could the other two. Not all enjoyment is the same, and not all enjoyment is comfortable.

    Well, I equated “enjoy” with “find pleasing,” and said it was just as narrow a criteria as requiring [visual, i guess] art to be pretty. LotusBen’s first comment struck me as offering a narrow criteria for art to be worth engaging with. I responded because I’m used to and tired of encountering the sort of narrow attitude about art that you seem to also be objecting to.

  112. Maybe if there was a strict moderating system for replying to a post made by Jill. And each guest post was vetted by the administration before posted to the site. And you had to fulfill a membership application to even be allowed to make an initial response at all, MAYBE then I think it would be appropriate to question Jill’s commitment to feminism by her posting a dude’s list (a dude who is commonly known to have politics that swing left) that skewers republicans asshats, because he is known to be a misogynistic dickhead from time to time.

    But the fact remains is that people are allowed to post here freely, and given the benefit of the doubt. The occasional massive shitstorm trolling or conflict between common commenters aside, it works. We are assumed to be feminists, womanists, allies of feminists, or at have the equal rights of women as a goal in our world wide societies, and are trying to be mindful of the kyiarchy, hopefully. Jill is not trolling her own damn site by posting something from Maher. And that is what I feel like people are accusing her of when they get all pearl-clutchy about her daring to post something about something they personally find an asshole. Again, she isn’t being all “Rah rah Gingrich!” Or “You get down with your awesome witty self Phyllis Shafly!” Maher SKEWS LEFT.

    Anyway. As far as art, and how meaningful it can be. Boys Don’t Cry was a beautiful, affecting movie. I never ever want to, or need to see it again.

  113. Stop giving Jill shit; If you don’t like something she posts than just don’t read it. Besides it is her blog.

  114. You didn’t just disagree. You insisted that your definition of feminism and feminist is the correct one and failing to meet your expectations makes someone a bad feminist.

    In those exact words?

    And yes, it is a pile-on here. The humorless feminists vs. the fun feminists, I guess.

    As long as nobody criticizes a funny-funny dude, then we’re all feminists together! As soon as someone points out that linking to some asshole dude’s “funny” (weak, stupid, tired) comments is not a particularly feminist act, the divide begins. Because, OMG ideological purity! OMG, too picky! OMG, either excuse Bill Maher’s misogyny enough to share his stupid shtick, or hide in a cave forever, because everything is sexist!

    I guess as long as a misogynist dude is funny, and he hasn’t admitted to trying to kill his ex-girlfriend, he’s okay.

    I’m not so concerned with going along with popular opinion, as you may have noticed.

    1. FOR THE 1,000TH TIME: No one has a problem criticizing Bill Maher. The post criticized Bill Maher! What people are irritated with (or at least what I’m irritated with) is the WHAT IS THIS DOING ON A FEMINIST BLOG?!?!?! thing that happens all the time here.

      Criticize Bill Maher. Go ahead! DonnaL, for example, put in several comments criticizing Bill Maher and explaining his anti-vaccine stance, and the reaction from myself and others was “Yeah whoa homeboy is fucked up and I didn’t even realize how bad.” EG called him a fucking moron. Etc etc. No one was like, “OMG don’t insult Bill Maher!”

      So it’s pretty disingenuous to claim that we all have our fun-feminist thongs in a bunch because commenters criticized Bill Maher. What folks are pushing back on is the suggestion that it is Breaking The Rules Of Feminism to quote someone, even with the “he’s a misogynist often but this thing he’s right about” contextualization, who is not 100% feminism-approved.

  115. It’s not like Jill doesn’t respond to critiques about things she finds humourous. Hell, on the recent “Friday Reads” post, Donna L pointed out a problem with one of the things that was posted (which was included purely for the humour value Jill saw in it), and Jill saw her point and removed the link. So it’s not like there’s a rule here that says that Jill’s sense of humour will always trump any social justice critique, and it’s absurd to set this up as “fun feminists” vs. “humourless feminists” because none of us here fit either of those descriptions.

  116. I’m not so concerned with going along with popular opinion, as you may have noticed.

    You know what, I’m so sick of this feministier than thou bullshit. Last time I checked the inner sanctum feminist cabal newsletter the headline was not: Feminism: How to feel superior to other women in 5,000,000 easy steps!

    We’re supposed to be fucking *helping* each other and working to end oppression not engaging in pissing contests over who is the best feminist.

  117. I’m not so concerned with going along with popular opinion, as you may have noticed.

    Yeah, we are well aware of that. And I’m pretty sure that for a lot of stuff, you are going to get snorty eyerolling pushback, because that is how we, the lazy feminists roll. Feel free to consider yourself more feminist than me, even though you have no idea where on the spectrum I actually stand, or what my views actually are, simply because I’m not getting up in Jill’s grill and questioning the purpose and ethical purity of a post she made on her blog about someone I can’t stand.

  118. I guess as long as a misogynist dude is funny, and he hasn’t admitted to trying to kill his ex-girlfriend, he’s okay.

    I’m not so concerned with going along with popular opinion, as you may have noticed.

    Uh, yeah, actually. Personally, I do find the distinction between “has tried to kill his ex-girlfriend” and “hasn’t tried to kill his ex-girlfriend” to be pretty fucking significant. Your mileage obviously varies, but I’m going to stick to my standards on this one: trying to kill your ex-girlfriend is leagues worse than saying douchey misogynist things, even on national television.

    And sure, keep telling yourself that the rest of us are just too scared to take a really iconoclastic stance; we’re just so much more concerned with popular opinion. It’s not that we actually disagree with you.

    I’d personally love to see the list of Feminist-Approved Cultural Items. I’m gonna go ahead and guess that it’s fairly short.

  119. The humorless feminists vs. the fun feminists, I guess.

    So…there’s only the two groups? I have a feeling “feminists” occupy way more points on a spectrum of levels of humor than one extreme and its opposite.

    And FFS, what about the concept of choice? As in, each of us can choose what aspects of pop culture/media/etc we want to engage with and what we don’t. If, for you, Maher’s misogyny makes you not want to read anything he writes or watch his shows or whatnot, that is your choice and it is 1000% valid. Just as someone else’s choice that his misogyny is disgusting but they don’t mind reading some funny fluff piece he writes once in a while is *also* a valid one. Because what else is it? An invalid choice? A wrong choice? Who decides that?

    No one here is demanding that you like Maher, that you find him funny, or even that you refrain from criticizing him. What is being asked is that others who have different opinions or views are not themselves criticized as though they are setting feminism back by allowing a guilty pleasure here or there. Perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.

    I can’t think of a single blog where I agree with and enjoy every single post that goes up. I also can’t imagine having such an expectation.

  120. On one hand, I am certainly in the camp of “I enjoy many problematic things, and I don’t think it makes you a bad feminist to enjoy problematic things.”

    However, this is what I see to be tinfoil hattie’s point- Keep that problematic shit to yourself, yo.

    For instance, I love BDSM, and part of my love for it, and indeed my sexuality, has to do with humiliation. Humiliation based on misogyny. That leads to me enjoy A LOT of problematic media. Media that depicts rape and domestic violence as sexy-fun-times. Ew, right? I recognize that it is ew, and I don’t think it makes me a “bad feminist” to enjoy it- HOWEVER, I would hardly go posting about that shit on a site dedicated to (mainly, among other things) feminism. Because I’d recognize that my audience is probably not going to be nearly so appreciative of that nonsense as I am.

  121. HOWEVER, I would hardly go posting about that shit on a site dedicated to (mainly, among other things) feminism.

    And if Jill had posted a link to a misogynist routine, that would indeed be a reasonable analogy.

    But she didn’t. She posted a link to a non-misogynist routine by someone who has also done misogynist routines. The analogy would be if you posted a link to an essay making fun of, oh, small yappy dogs written by someone who also wrote non-con slashfic. The question is not whether or not non-con slashfic is appropriate for a site that focuses on feminism most of the time; the question is why a blogger who does occasionally write about random shit she finds amusing on a feminist blog should avoid the yappy-dog essay because the writer also does non-con slashfic. And what the line is when it comes to whose work she can express admiration for on the damn blog without having to listen to “you’re not feminist enough” crap.

    Singin’ in the Rain is misogynist. Should feminist bloggers also make sure never to express appreciation for Gene Kelly? Which entertainers/artists/thinkers are actually acceptable, and is there a central database that we can all go look this stuff up on?

  122. @EG

    It’s not a perfect analogy, no. But when we’re talking about Problematic Media (TM), it isn’t just about things that are problematic in and of themselves (as has been pointed out), but also things that are created by problematic people. Note the people here who have sworn off entire categories of works by super problematic people.

    I’m not going to say that it’s black and white. It’s obviously shades of gray- in terms of “is this work so ‘problematic’ (either because it is misogynist in its own right, or the creator of the work is so problematic themselves) that its value as entertainment on a feminist-specific space is perhaps inappropriate?” Some people here obviously feel that it is. Some disagree. But I certainly don’t think the people that feel that it is are out of line for their criticism. It’s a very valid concern. Generally us feminist-minded folks come to feminist blogs to ESCAPE the onslaught of misogynist shittery that we’re surrounded by in everyday culture.

    Personally, I’m not sure how I feel, myself, about whether I would have posted this. But I certainly respect the people that think “x person is so misogynist and shitty, that nothing they ever create should be posted on a feminist blog”. I’d be surprised if anyone here would feel there is NO level that someone can stoop to to warrant exclusion from feminist-minded places (I mean, most here thought Schwyzer didn’t rate)- so I’m confused as to how the same type of criticism here is brushed off as being “holier-than-thou”. As I said, there are certainly different *scales* of misogyny, but it’s not out of line for feminists to want spaces free of that kind of bullshit.

  123. EG- also, for the record, your analogy wasn’t perfect either. Just because someone writes non-con slash doesn’t mean they are actually sexist or misogynistic. Bill Maher clearly is.

  124. The thing is depending on the feminist one may or may not agree with your beliefs and while this blog is feminist/progressive oriented there are a wide range of beliefs within that spectrum so when you say we feminists you really are talking about yourself and those who share your beliefs which is obviously not the entire feministing/progressive community who may not mind Jill or anyone else posting stuff like this.

  125. Hey, I never said that non-con fic was misogynist. I was working within the framework you provided, and the framework you provided was one in which “rape being presented as sexytimes” was something that feminist readers wouldn’t want to read. Don’t blame me if that equation doesn’t hold. You made it.

    The differences between the Schwyzer debacle and this post are manifold. One significant one is that the Schwyzer interview went up with no acknowledgment whatsoever of Schwyzer’s lousy history regarding women of color and his attempt on the life of an ex-girlfriend. Jill noted Maher’s misogyny right off the bat. Another significant difference is the one between being a misogynist douche and attempting to kill your ex-girlfriend. I find it amazingly bizarre that both you and Hattie have now tried to elide this difference by saying “most people are OK with noting that Schwyzer isn’t welcome, why is Maher different.” Well, because Maher didn’t try to kill an ex-girlfriend. Actual violence against actual women is different from saying sexist things in a dickish way. A difference of degree, and a difference of kind.

    An even more significant difference? Clarisse Thorn was actually arguing that Schwyzer was some kind of feminist model and qualified to be a feminist authority; she was discussing Schwyzer’s opinions on feminism. Jill made no such claim about Maher; she was linking to an essay of his on a completely different and entirely unimportant topic.

    So yes, reacting as though Jill, by having the gall to link to something funny by Maher while acknowledging his misogyny is doing anything similar to lauding Schwyzer as some kind of feminist role model and authority whose feminist wisdom we would all benefit to read in a feminist way is completely ridiculous.

  126. @EG

    “Hey, I never said that non-con fic was misogynist. I was working within the framework you provided, and the framework you provided was one in which “rape being presented as sexytimes” was something that feminist readers wouldn’t want to read. Don’t blame me if that equation doesn’t hold. You made it.”

    Um, no. I never talked about non-con fic. You did. I said I like a lot of media that portrays rape/DV as sexy-fun-times and is problematic (which is very different in terms of feminist analysis than written porn). AKA “Problematic Media (TM)” Another type of Problematic Media (TM) is media created by misogynists or bad people of other stripes. See: Roman Polanski films. (Or Bill Maher quotes) You compared Roman Polanski films to other work written by a non-con fic author. That is not a legit comparison because Roman Polanski is a shithead (as is Bill Maher), whereas a non-con fic author is not (necessarily). So your analogy does not work.

    You’re just repeating the Schwyzer argument made earlier, but that doesn’t make it any more legit. Of course there are differences. OF COURSE attempting to kill your girlfriend is worse. OF COURSE. Did you read where I said I acknowledge that some misogyny is worse than others? And it is a scale? I am not sure that you really read that.

    My whole point is that it IS a legitimate form of feminist critique to say “I find this media problematic (because it is misogynistic and/or because the creator is misogynistic) enough to the extent that I don’t think it should have a place on a feminist site”. And I think it’s unfair and UNfeminist to immediately shoot down such critique with “oh you’re just being holier-than-thou”, “leave if you don’t like it”, etc. Some women have raised valid objections and while saying “okay, I just don’t find Bill Maher problematic ENOUGH to be excluded from commentary” is a legitimate response (that Tinfoil Hattie and others may still disagree with), saying that they shouldn’t even raise such concerns seems wrong.

  127. @Raja

    I agree with you. I just think it is valid and worthwhile for commenters to put forth feminist critiques of how feminist spaces are run. I disagree with many of the views that Tinfoil Hattie and some others espouse, in terms of feminist principles, but I think it is worthwhile to talk and consider them instead of saying “if you don’t like it, leave”.

  128. @EG And also, while you and I and some others may be discussing “how problematic is too problematic”, many posters were indignant and/or asking “well what are we supposed to do if we like problematic media?! we ALL like problematic media!!@!” And my answer to that was- on a feminist space with a feminist audience? Keep that shit to yourself, yo.

  129. And my answer to that was- on a feminist space with a feminist audience? Keep that shit to yourself, yo.

    Yeah Jill, its not like this is your blog.

  130. @librarygoose

    Jill can post anything she wants, obviously. But if I ran a feminist site, and I started posting about how Mel Gibson is an awesome actor- I wouldn’t be surprised to get some “what this shit is this shit?” comments. And thus, I’d probably think twice before posting about liking his movies. And maybe not post at all about it, because if I really wanted to discuss his movie awesomeness, there are probably better venues.

    What’s your indignation all about? Because your whole response was “Jill can post anything she wants”. Yeah, so? Did anyone debate that? Are we not supposed to offer any feminist critique of the things Jill chooses to post? Seriously, wtf is your point?

  131. My point is that it does seem finger wagging to say “keep that to yourself.” Well, the point of a blog is to talk about things and Jill has never denied what a fuck Maher is, so I see no point for all the goddamn finger wagging. Jill isn’t the one who is trying to stifle the conversation. One post about one liberal guys comedic thoughts and Jill is advocating “misogyny ain’t half bad.” because he is a sexist asshole, which was never denied by anyone. This entire debate seems so fucking pointless.
    And as an aside, I liked the Lethal Weapon series and I try so hard to watch them with a mental “LA LA LA” to no avail…

  132. while you and I and some others may be discussing “how problematic is too problematic”, many posters were indignant and/or asking “well what are we supposed to do if we like problematic media?! we ALL like problematic media!!@!” And my answer to that was- on a feminist space with a feminist audience? Keep that shit to yourself, yo.

    I asked that, because it is absolutely impossible to say “Keep that shit to yourself, you,” unless you have some kind of standard for how problematic is too problematic. Jill doesn’t think that Maher is, so why should she keep that shit to herself?

    I said I like a lot of media that portrays rape/DV as sexy-fun-times and is problematic (which is very different in terms of feminist analysis than written porn).

    You do realize that writing is a form of media, yes? “Media” encompasses more or less all forms of mass communication; it doesn’t just mean “visual porn.” “Media” encompasses the written word, radio, internet, TV, the whole shebang. If you mean to specify non-written stuff, then you should have done so. But if you feel it’s necessary, feel free to translate the analogy into “a short film making fun of small yappy dogs” and “a porn flick featuring rape.”

    That is not a legit comparison because Roman Polanski is a shithead (as is Bill Maher), whereas a non-con fic author is not (necessarily).

    But somebody who makes porn movies that feature rape is? If the analogy doesn’t work, it’s because you made a poor analogy.

    Some women have raised valid objections and while saying “okay, I just don’t find Bill Maher problematic ENOUGH to be excluded from commentary” is a legitimate response (that Tinfoil Hattie and others may still disagree with), saying that they shouldn’t even raise such concerns seems wrong.

    They didn’t raise those concerns, though. They said, point-blank “You shouldn’t link to Maher on a feminist site, this isn’t your private Tumblr.” Concerns would be “Look at this ignorant, douchey, anti-vax crap Maher has been espousing.” “You shouldn’t link to Maher” is finger-wagging bullshit.

    As for “what about the fact that I said that some misogyny is worse than others”? Well, good for you. But this is very much like making an analogy, and then when it doesn’t work out, claiming it’s not because of your analogy. If you bring up Schwyzer as a point of comparison, and it’s a comparison that is not even close to being valid on a number of levels, including the severity of the actions and the way Maher is being presented in the post, then no, you don’t get to back away from the comparison all “Hey, don’t you realize that I get they’re not the same thing?” If you don’t think they’re similar enough to be worth comparing, don’t make the comparison.

  133. I agree with you. I just think it is valid and worthwhile for commenters to put forth feminist critiques of how feminist spaces are run.

    This concept feels rather anti-feminist to me. If you keep narrowing the definition of what is appropriate feminist discourse and demanding Jill stay within the parameters of a very fluid definition (last time I checked there wasn’t a list) you’re going to put her in a very tight box. Telling her she can only write about certain things is limiting her freedom to put forth her views. I just don’t think that’s fair.

    Also I don’t see anyone’s ability to critique being censored here. The comments have not been deleted and nobody’s been banned. And at the end of the day, I think a firmer line really needs to be drawn between blogger and commenter/community. Yes, community is vital to a blog, but it’s her space. Jill does the heavy lifting, and constantly silencing her left and right (with what feels to me to be nothing short of bullying) is going to harm this blog alot more than any subject she covers.

  134. And my answer to that was- on a feminist space with a feminist audience? Keep that shit to yourself, yo.

    I don’t entirely understand how it’s helpful to ignore the fact that misogyny and racism and homophobia and transphobia and fatphobia and and and…are so prevalent in our culture that it’s nearly impossible to like something that doesn’t have “problematic” aspects to it. Bill Maher says shit about women, but I still find him funny. One of my favorite shows is Buffy and there were 0 fat people on that show (except for disgusting demons because ew fat). And, yes, there is a place in my heart for Mad Max, even though Mel Gibson is a fuckhead.

    Shit is problematic because…kyriarchy. So should we just pretend that we don’t like anything? Ignore anything that may be associated with anyone who holds kyriarchal views? I’d love to be able to only partake in media that is ideologically pure, but it just doesn’t seem particularly realistic. The best feminism, in my opinion, is feminism that acknowledges the practicalities of now. And, right now, even funny, progressive comedians hold abhorrent, misogynist views. Sucks, don’t it?

  135. @Shoshie, librarygoose

    Where did I say you shouldn’t enjoy problematic media? My post specifically said that I do enjoy problematic media. My point was just that when you ask, like you just did, what you should do about that fact- my reply is that in specifically feminist-minded spaces, maybe not post about it, and perhaps stick to feminist-minded stuff. Now, that doesn’t mean no cute photos of animals. But maybe no misogynist dudebros, ya know? And as I said, it is shades of gray. Jill clearly thinks that Maher is not “problematic enough” (and I’m not even saying I disagree!), but some women here are saying “hey, this is a feminist space and maybe saying how amusing you find some misogynist dudebros is not really what we, as community members, feel this space should be about”. And what is wrong with that critique? They disagree about the “shades of gray”. They didn’t say “hey cats are ugly, don’t post about them”. They had a feminist-based critique about the content of the blog. Brushing that off as “finger-wagging”, as librarygoose did, seems dismissive and insulting.

    @EG

    Well perhaps you and I have a different opinion on the level of misogyny that would have to be inherent in an author of someone that writes non-con fic. I don’t think it is Problematic Media (the way, for example, the song “Hey Joe” is, which I love and consider Problematic Media). But that is just me and my sex-positive leanings.

  136. Speaking just for myself, I didn’t have a problem with tinfoil hattie or QGrrl or others criticizing that Bill Maher was linked on a feminist website. Now linking to him didn’t personally offend me (though he’s misogynstic and obnoxious). But I could see why it would offend others, and it makes sense to me for them to voice their concerns.

    Also, one of the things that interests me about Feministe is that there are arguments here. I mean, I’ve seen a few good threads where there weren’t arguments, like the gaslighting threads where people were sharing stories of abuse. But generally, if there are no arguments then the comments kinda bore me because people don’t have to delve that deeply into what they’re thinking because no one is challenging what they’re saying. A lot of times I don’t even bother reading a thread if there’s less than 30 comments because that means it hasn’t really heated up yet.

    And I mean, I especially appreciate discussions like this because not only are people arguing but since there’s no trolls and everyone is speaking in good faith, the commenters are delving into things even deeper than normal.

  137. Clearly, I struck a nerve.

    Not once have I said, I am a better feminist than anyone.

    Y’all are awfully defensive, for people who are so secure in their views.

    And ad hominem attacks are not a good defense. My not caring about popular opinion warrants nasty name-calling and eyerolling? Good to know that’s how you advance your discourse.

    Also: Maher’s misogyny is on the same continuum as Schwyzer’s. It’s patriarchy, and I call it out, wherever I am.

  138. This argument is giving me a headache. Can’t we all just agree that Bill Maher is a dick, rejoice in our shared contempt, and move on?

  139. @tinfoilhattie,

    RIGGHHHTT…That whole “fun feminist” vs “humorless feminist” schtick wasn’t at all about setting yourself up as more feminist than others.

    You keep telling yourself that…

  140. My not caring about popular opinion warrants nasty name-calling and eyerolling?

    Of course it warrants eye-rolling. You can pretty much take for granted that people who self-identify as feminists to the point that they are regular commenters on a mainly feminist website aren’t slaves to “popular opinion,” so you making a point of posturing about how iconoclastic and what a rebel you are is like somebody going to a board about, oh, atheism, and saying “Well, you may have noticed that I don’t believe in supernatural entities!” OK, good for you. But the implicit ending to a statement like that is “…unlike you,” which is just a silly game of “I guess you’re all just too conformist to see the truth, like me,” and deserves eye-rolling.

    Well perhaps you and I have a different opinion on the level of misogyny that would have to be inherent in an author of someone that writes non-con fic. I don’t think it is Problematic Media (the way, for example, the song “Hey Joe” is, which I love and consider Problematic Media). But that is just me and my sex-positive leanings.

    Well, you made the analogy, and you didn’t qualify it. I’m not a mind-reader.

    Maher’s misogyny is on the same continuum as Schwyzer’s. It’s patriarchy, and I call it out, wherever I am.

    Right. It’s on a continuum. It’s a difference of degree. And degree matters. If you honestly can’t see the difference between trying to kill a woman and making sexist jokes and insults, you are refusing to recognize some pretty significant variations in shades of gray, so much so that one could be excused for thinking that you didn’t recognize shades of gray at all.

  141. Maher’s misogyny is on the same continuum as Schwyzer’s. It’s patriarchy, and I call it out, wherever I am.

    Damn, how could you ever get anything done?? And no, I’m not being hyperbolic, here. We all know it’s a stinking morass of patriarchy out there in the wide open world, and I was scared to death to toss my daughter out into it alone once she visibly hit puberty, because I wasn’t sure I gave her the tools to navigate her way through while maintaining her own sense of self. But you would have to have no other outside activities if you were calling out every single instance of patriarchy you saw. Especially if you spend time online. You must be tied to your computer.

  142. @ the-r-evolution

    “in specifically feminist-minded spaces, maybe not post about it, and perhaps stick to feminist-minded stuff”

    And I disagree with you out of practicality. What is defined as feminist-minded stuff? Something that contains no misogyny? Something created by someone who is a feminist? And what of other modes of oppression? There are loads of feminist creations that participate in other axes of oppression. And creations composed by feminists who, in other works, participated in oppression. Basically, I think ideological purity is bullshit and the idea that there’s some clear line of feminist-minded stuff and non-feminist-minded stuff is also bullshit. Some things are clear. Rape jokes? Stuff written by people who have abused women? Not feminist-minded. List of stuff by professional douchebag Maher? Meh.

    I also think it’s important to have conversations about how we interact with people/creations that we enjoy but have problematic aspects to them.

  143. @Shoshie

    “And I disagree with you out of practicality”

    Disagree with me about what? That some things might not be the best to post on a feminist site? Are you saying that there is literally nothing that doesn’t belong? Because, that doesn’t seem to be what you are saying. You go on to say:

    “Some things are clear. Rape jokes? Stuff written by people that have abused women? Not feminist-minded”

    So it seems you do actually agree with my statement:

    “in specifically feminist-minded spaces, maybe not post about it, and perhaps stick to feminist-minded stuff”

    when it comes to certain topics.

    So I ask again, what is it that you disagree with me about?

  144. So I ask again, what is it that you disagree with me about?

    I thought this answered that pretty clearly:

    What is defined as feminist-minded stuff? Something that contains no misogyny? Something created by someone who is a feminist? And what of other modes of oppression? There are loads of feminist creations that participate in other axes of oppression.

  149. No, the-r-evolution is right- it’s a gray area. “Meh.” – exactly. No rules have been clearly defined. I wasn’t disturbed by Maher, but nor was I disturbed by Schwyzer. But I was wrong about Schwyzer, I wasn’t wrong about Maher. But if zounds of women came forward with stories of how Maher’s work ruined their lives, and reading about him was massively triggering? Then it would be a different story.

  150. But the implicit ending to a statement like that is “…unlike you,” which is just a silly game of “I guess you’re all just too conformist to see the truth, like me,” and deserves eye-rolling.

    Nope. That’s on YOU. Making shit up and then claiming I said it is arguing in bad faith. I’m not responsible for what you think I said.

    It’s no fun realizing and admitting and acknowledging and talking about the fact that we swim in a fucking cesspool of misogyny. I know that! But yes: Even “classic” movies like “Singin’ in the Rain” are borne of misogyny. Yes. All of it. Every single thing we do is borne of the belief that women are lesser human beings. Male is the default. Female is the afterthought. Women are the sex class.

    Divide “women” into race, sexuality, sexual characteristics (i.e., transmen and transwomen), religion, mother vs. non-mother, and it just gets more and more hateful.

    But primarily, it all starts with “Women are less-than. Now, let’s go from there. I’m still funny!”

    If acknowledging that and talking about it and refusing to pretend it’s not true is somehow contrary to feminism, then I really don’t know what feminism is.

    The truth sucks. Really, really badly. Yeah. I know. And every day, I make choices about which sucky thing sucks less.

    Maher isn’t even on the list of things I have to choose from. He’s pretty damn misogynist.

  151. Or you know, wait for Shoshie, since they were the one I was asking.

    Alright then, fuck you too.

  152. Alright then, fuck you too.

    Bah no. Not this. Sorry, it was heated and I shouldn’t have said it. Please accept my apology on this one.

  153. @librarygoose

    Hey, you were the one that refused to actually answer the question, heh. If you’re going to answer a question I asked someone else (about their own opinions and views), you might as well actually ANSWER!

  155. ey, you were the one that refused to actually answer the question, heh. If you’re going to answer a question I asked someone else (about their own opinions and views), you might as well actually ANSWER!

    I still fell the quote I used was the point of what Shosie was disagreeing about. How can you decide what is feminist enough to be posted? A lot of stuff from people who call themselves feminists is problematic in some way. What sort of non-offensiveness litmus test should Jill use?

  156. @librarygoose

    Honestly though, I don’t see what Shoshie is disagreeing with me about. So if you actually would like to answer that, instead of just quoting them, I would be happy to engage.

  157. @librarygoose

    Yes, I saw those questions. But how do those questions answer my question of “what is it that you disagree with me about?” What, specifically, have I said/put forth that you/Shoshie is disagreeing with me? The answer I’m looking for is “I disagree with you that x”. Just asking questions isn’t telling me what you disagree with me about.

  159. You said: “in specifically feminist-minded spaces, maybe not post about it, and perhaps stick to feminist-minded stuff” (as quoted by Shoshie)

    What I agree with Shoshie about is, what defines feminist minded? A lot of feminist stuff is problematic. It may be offensive in terms of race or trans* issues, but it still written by a feminist. I mean, not to Godwin this hit anymore, but Shwyzer calls himself a feminist. Should his stuff be allowed? A lot of media and the dominant culture is problematic, banning all of the stuff that offends is well…problematic.

  160. Blah. Stupid internet eating my comment.

    @librarygoose

    Right, I get that. But you still didn’t answer my question. How is asking “what defines feminist minded?” answering the question “what do you disagree with me about?” It is not.

    Seriously. Think about it. What exactly have I said that you (Shoshie) “disagree” with me about? Why are you unable/unwilling to formulate a response along the lines of “I disagree with you that x”?

    If you’re going to tell me you disagree with me, you should be able to tell me what you disagree with me about.

  161. “So I ask again, what is it that you disagree with me about?”

    That it’s an easy answer to just stick to the awesomely vague category of “feminist-minded” stuff.

    As I’ve pointed out a couple of times now, that category is not exactly cut-and-dry. There are some things that clearly don’t belong. Like, y’know, writing of someone who’s tried to kill women. And some things that clearly do. Like deconstructions of misogyny that are thoughtful and take intersectionality into accounty. But there’s a whole gray area in between. Where does liberal political humor belong? Well, I would generally place it in the feminist-minded category. But then Maher is a douche. So does that stick it in the non-feminist minded category? I dunno. Clearly Jill thought that mentioning his misogyny was important, but also that funny thing was funny. Especially if you’re a liberal person living in the US and despairing of the current political climate.

    Secondly, I disagree with your statement that we shouldn’t talk about the fact that we often enjoy problematic works. In fact, I think that pretending we all exist in a state of ideological purity (by simply not mentioning any works that are not “feminist-minded”) is problematic itself. I believe that some of the most important conversations we have are built upon the realities of living in a non-feminist world and how we navigate those realities.

    And if you agree with both of those things, then fine, we agree. So what’s the problem?

  162. @Tinfoil hattie

    The reality is that people draw different lines between what media is so problematic they never enjoy (or promote) it and what media is acceptable in some contexts as long as you note the problematic bits. If you had just said that Maher is farther down the sexist continuum than you’re comfortable with, you wouldn’t have gotten blowback. But you started with this:

    But we can’t alienate our favorite, funny dudebros, amirite? Their funny, funny comments get space on a feminist blog! Maybe because that one time, Maher defended women from something. And usually at least 20-25% of his panel of guests comprises women.

    And are still saying this:

    If acknowledging that and talking about it and refusing to pretend it’s not true is somehow contrary to feminism, then I really don’t know what feminism is.

    The truth sucks. Really, really badly. Yeah. I know. And every day, I make choices about which sucky thing sucks less.

    Maher isn’t even on the list of things I have to choose from. He’s pretty damn misogynist.

    No one was refusing to acknowledge the bad things he says. Jill explicitly noted them in the OP. But you pretended that everyone was a) ignorant of or willfully blind to the misogynist things he’s said, and b) doing so because they want the dudebros to think they’re cool. That’s the holier-than-thou attitude that is pissing people off.

  163. @Shoshie

    Thanks for the response!

    “That it’s an easy answer to just stick to the awesomely vague category of “feminist-minded” stuff.”

    But I never said that :-X Nor do I think that.

    “Secondly, I disagree with your statement that we shouldn’t talk about the fact that we often enjoy problematic works.”

    I also never said that, nor do I think it.

    So, I guess we don’t really disagree?

    See, this is why it’s important to know what other people are really saying/disagreeing with you about! Otherwise you just end up talking past each other.

  164. @Shoshie

    Sorry, as to “what is the problem”-

    My main problem, and reason for posting was to point out that 1) yes, in fact, sometimes you should just not post about stuff on a feminist site because it is too problematic, and 2) while I certainly agree that it is a scale, and that attempted murder is worse than sexist comments, I think it is dismissive to portray other women that disagree about where something falls on the “scale” as “finger wagging” and say things like “leave if you don’t like it” and also disingenuous- because on one hand it’s all “this is Jill’s blog, she can post what she wants” and on the other hand “OF COURSE Schwyzer shouldn’t be welcomed and OF COURSE it’s a scale.” Well if it’s a scale, what is with all the indignation at the women that disagree with you on something that you agree is hard to define?

    Like I said, I didn’t have a problem with anyone saying they just disagree on where Maher falls on the “problematic scale”, I had problems with people that had a problem with Tinfoil Hattie and Q Grrl having the audacity to (level a feminist) critique (about) what Jill chooses to post about.

  165. So, then, I guess I don’t understand what you meant by this:

    “in specifically feminist-minded spaces, maybe not post about it, and perhaps stick to feminist-minded stuff”

    Do you mind elaborating?

  166. But you pretended that everyone was a) ignorant of or willfully blind to the misogynist things he’s said, and b) doing so because they want the dudebros to think they’re cool.

    Nope. I didn’t “pretend” any such thing.

  167. @Shoshie

    Sure. That was in response to some people asking what to do in cases of liking Problematic Media. Since I think there is a scale, I’m not saying that should be the solution for ALL Problematic Media, but it is certainly one solution. I like a bunch of Problematic Media that I wouldn’t post about in a feminist space.

    Also, I am not saying we shouldn’t talk about our issues with liking Problematic Works. We should! But this post wasn’t really an example of that. It wasn’t “how should I deal with the fact that I find Bill Maher funny sometimes? should I post about it on this feminist space? no?” It was just “Bill Maher is a misogynist but also I am amused by him”. That wasn’t really a discussion about feminist issues regarding Problematic Works. Now, it has evolved a bit into that in the comments, which I think is good.

    There’s a difference between, for example, my hypothetical of linking to DV stuff I like (like “Hey Joe”) on a feminist blog, and my posting a thread on a feminist blog that was “So, does anyone here enjoy Hey Joe? Let’s talk about how it is Problematic, but also popular and enjoyed by many, including me, and how to best navigate that as a feminist.” One is just posting something I like that is Problematic for shits and giggles, the other is writing a post to discuss how to deal with liking Problematic Works.

    So, in that quote of mine, I wasn’t saying we shouldn’t have feminist analysis and critique of Problematic Media or how to deal with it, and I wasn’t saying that *all* media that is problematic in any way, shape or form, should not be posted on a feminist site- I was just saying that sometimes the way to handle liking Problematic Media, in the context of a feminist site, is to just keep it to yourself. No need for me to link you to a live version of Hey Joe and say I think it’s awesome.

  168. I wasn’t saying that *all* media that is problematic in any way, shape or form, should not be posted on a feminist site- I was just saying that sometimes the way to handle liking Problematic Media, in the context of a feminist site, is to just keep it to yourself. No need for me to link you to a live version of Hey Joe and say I think it’s awesome.

    What is the bright dividing line here? I don’t see one. Also, even if there is a line, who decides what the line is?

    This is NOT the same thing as linking to an openly misogynistic song and saying “Hey, I like this song!” It’s about linking to something else the artist did that you think is funny (and non-problematic) and saying, “Hey, I’m not wild about this dude, but this particular piece is funny.”

  169. This is NOT the same thing as linking to an openly misogynistic song and saying “Hey, I like this song!” It’s about linking to something else the artist did that you think is funny (and non-problematic) and saying, “Hey, I’m not wild about this dude, but this particular piece is funny.”

    Everybody’s different in how they process media, though. I know, for me, who the creator is doesn’t make much difference. I’ve never been much of a “fan” of people. I’ve rarely had a favorite actor or favorite writer. I tend not to read too much up on the people who make works I’ve enjoyed. In fact, I like variety so much that I rarely re-watch a movie or re-read a book; I’d rather experience something new. And when I interpret things, I usually prefer projecting my own meanings on to them rather than puzzing over the artist’s intent.

    To some people, however, the creator is extremely important. Certain artists or writers or comedians or whoever they really really love and others they really really hate. And they might think a lot about what a piece is “intended” to communicate, maybe doing research about the creator’s life or political views or whatever to get a sense of that. So for a lot of these people, every work a media figure produces is synonomous with the media figure themselves. If Bill Maher’s problematic, then Bill Maher’s problematic, regardless of the content of the particular piece. So I can see that if you really dislike someone because he’s super-misogynistic, you wouldn’t want him to be linked positively on a feminist site at all. And Jill did even say she “love[d]” Bill Maher, at least some of the time.

  170. tinfoil hattie:

    post 143:

    Not once have I said, I am a better feminist than anyone.

    post 41:

    Gee, what a surprise, what with my being a feminist, and all.

    You didn’t say it explicitly. But surely you can see how people would interpret your statement in 41? Intent isn’t magical, so you can’t just hide behind saying that you didn’t explicitly say anything – it’s a very clear implication that you are being more of a feminist than others in this thread.

  171. This kinda reminds me of the GOP debates where the candidates argue who is more ideologically pure….

  172. Nope. That’s on YOU. Making shit up and then claiming I said it is arguing in bad faith. I’m not responsible for what you think I said.

    Bullshit. Implications are real. They’re just not explicit, which is why we have a different word. Tell me, if the implication was not “unlike you,” what was the point of noting that you’re oh-so-impervious to popular opinion.

    It’s no fun realizing and admitting and acknowledging and talking about the fact that we swim in a fucking cesspool of misogyny. I know that! But yes: Even “classic” movies like “Singin’ in the Rain” are borne of misogyny. Yes. All of it. Every single thing we do is borne of the belief that women are lesser human beings. Male is the default. Female is the afterthought. Women are the sex class.

    Uh, yeah. You do realize, of course, that I was the one who noted that Singin’ in the Rain was misogynist? The issue is not whether or not things are misogynist. The issue is whether being various degrees of misogynist automatically and always trumps any other redeeming or intriguing quality a cultural text may have. Given that you say that “all of it” is misogynist, then the answer is either “yes, all of it should be thrown out,” or “no, some of it is worthwhile despite being born of misogyny.” If your answer is the first, then we don’t have enough values in common to bother discussing anything further; if it’s the second, then Jill thinks this particular piece by Maher has enough redeeming qualities to make linking to it worthwhile. You disagree, and since the only argument you’ve advanced is “He’s misogynist,” which nobody has denied, you’re not going to change anybody’s mind. So live with the existence of the post on Feministe.

    And by the way, no, not “all of it.” If you can explain to me how the “Moses Supposes” dance in Singin’ in the Rain is born of misogyny, I might reconsider. It’s very clearly a dance regarding masculinity–one that recognizes different varieties of masculinity as well–but unless you want to claim that masculinity can only be constructed along a hierarchical principle, and that the dance demonstrates this, then you’ve got nothing, and quite frankly, I don’t think you have any supporting evidence even if you do want to make the above argument. There are even dances in American in Paris, which I find leagues more offensive, that aren’t born of misogyny (“I Got Rhythm”).

  177. To some people, however, the creator is extremely important. Certain artists or writers or comedians or whoever they really really love and others they really really hate. And they might think a lot about what a piece is “intended” to communicate, maybe doing research about the creator’s life or political views or whatever to get a sense of that. So for a lot of these people, every work a media figure produces is synonomous with the media figure themselves. If Bill Maher’s problematic, then Bill Maher’s problematic, regardless of the content of the particular piece. So I can see that if you really dislike someone because he’s super-misogynistic, you wouldn’t want him to be linked positively on a feminist site at all. And Jill did even say she “love[d]” Bill Maher, at least some of the time.

    And we should defer to those people and never link to anything where the creator has done something racist/sexist/ableist/pick-your-ist? Because that’s the argument I’m hearing.

    Don’t like Bill Maher to the point where anything by him bothers you? Fine. Say so. But there’s no need for the level of vitriol and shaming that we started from.

  178. This is NOT the same thing as linking to an openly misogynistic song and saying “Hey, I like this song!” It’s about linking to something else the artist did that you think is funny (and non-problematic) and saying, “Hey, I’m not wild about this dude, but this particular piece is funny.”

    It be more like posting Hendrix’s version of All Along the Watchtower and saying ‘OMG this is awesome’ and somebody saying ‘Uh… but.. Hey Joe?’

  179. “Maybe because that one time, Maher defended women from something.”

    The only thing he wants to defend for women is our right to do him.

Comments are currently closed.