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

Old Ladies Talking? IN PUBLIC?!?!

Jill

“I know older men in comedy who can barely feed and clean themselves, and they still work. The women, though, they’re all ‘crazy.’ I have a suspicion — and hear me out, because this is a rough one — that the definition of “crazy” in show business is a woman who keeps talking even after no one wants to fuck her anymore.” -Tina Fey

Seems pertinent, given this Wall Street Journal op/ed by James Tartano. James is upset because a bunch of women have the audacity to have opinions — and they’re old! [read that sentence in this voice].

The headline of the article is, no joke, “That 70s Show: Elderly feminists try to turn back the clock.” Get it? Because Gloria Steinem is 77. Robin Morgan is 72. And Jane Fonda is 74. Crazy old ladies, is his point, in case you didn’t get it (crazy old ladies who no one wants to fuck anymore, actually, which is pretty much what he says at the end of the piece).

You know who’s also in his 70s? Antonin Scalia. John McCain. Lots of CEOs and law firm partners and politicians and activists. And you know how often someone writes those guys off? You know how often a reputable paper publishes an op/ed denigrating contributions and opinions from those guys because they’re “elderly”? You know how often someone implies that clearly no one wants to bang those guys anymore, so they should just shut their sweet little pie-holes?

(…yeah still waiting for it).

97 thoughts on Old Ladies Talking? IN PUBLIC?!?!

  2. Honestly, the constant reminders that these women are old and so no one should care what they think? Possibly the least offensive thing about this article. What a piece of trash.

  3. I read the whole thing, and may have tried to throw myself out the window afterwards. Feminism is based off a false premise of equality? What is this, the 14th century?
    It just keeps getting worse from there, with the usual accusations that women want men to act like gentlemen (ie: not call them sluts) while said women refuse to act like ladiez (ie: by not having sex). Clearly the women don’t realize that equality is only given when you act the way men want you to! COME ON!
    *bangs head against wall*

  4. Depressing and infuriating.

    Allred is trying to have it both ways. She wants to use criminal law to enforce standards of gentlemanly behavior while rejecting any reciprocal obligation for women to act ladylike.

    Translation: If you don’t want to be called a slut, don’t act like one! [by having sex or taking birth control]

    Fluke’s testimony that she is a single woman in need of birth control would seem to provide Limbaugh with an airtight defense.

    Did anyone criticizing Fluke actually listen to her testimony???

  7. Did anyone criticizing Fluke actually listen to her testimony???

    Don’t be silly. Single women who use birth control for any reason whatsoever are slutty slut sluts. Good girls never have sex and they don’t have any chronic reproductive system conditions that need medical management either. Those kinds of conditions are God’s way of punishing them for being slutty women, and they have no right to go against his plan.

  8. It just keeps getting worse from there, with the usual accusations that women want men to act like gentlemen (ie: not call them sluts) while said women refuse to act like ladiez (ie: by not having sex). Clearly the women don’t realize that equality is only given when you act the way men want you to! COME ON!

    Naw. I actually agreed with the guy on this though he is a total dutche.

    If we don’t want the cultural expectations to be like ‘ladylike’ and things (I don’t) then we shouldn’t expect men to be all ‘gentlemenlike’. It’s a two way street. We should be able to have proper verbal sparring with male bodied people without being all like ‘waah, sue for libel’ (btw, libel suing is BS, and I haven’t changed my mind on that). It’s like what you always see in feminism, women (rightly) do not want all the lady gender role bs. But they still want men to have the male gender role. This is not true feminism if you ask me, I am a more true feminist.

    Like seriously.. a ‘feminist’ is suggesting that we use a law that just reinforces the importance female ‘chasteness’ or whatever to sue some baldish guy. What kind of a mixed message is that? If someone calls you a slut just call them a virgin back. That’s what I do.

    1. What kind of a mixed message is that? If someone calls you a slut just call them a virgin back. That’s what I do.

      Uh, speaking of “mixed messages”…

  9. Don’t be silly. Single women who use birth control for any reason whatsoever are slutty slut sluts. Good girls never have sex and they don’t have any chronic reproductive system conditions that need medical management either. Those kinds of conditions are God’s way of punishing them for being slutty women, and they have no right to go against his plan.

    I don’t want to feel like I’m always disagreeing with you because sometimes you say some good stuff.

    But I think it’s wrong to a line in the sand between women who need birth control for sex, and women who need birth control for ‘chronic reproductive system conditions’ as you put it. Because then conservatives will be all like — let’s get reasons for birth control usage and if we don’t like them we can deny them.

  10. If we don’t want the cultural expectations to be like ‘ladylike’ and things (I don’t) then we shouldn’t expect men to be all ‘gentlemenlike’. It’s a two way street. We should be able to have proper verbal sparring with male bodied people without being all like ‘waah, sue for libel’ (btw, libel suing is BS, and I haven’t changed my mind on that). It’s like what you always see in feminism, women (rightly) do not want all the lady gender role bs. But they still want men to have the male gender role. This is not true feminism if you ask me, I am a more true feminist.

    It is not an expectation that men retain male gender roles that creates the expectation they do not call a woman a slut or a prostitute. It is an expectation of respect that transcends gender roles for men and women.

    I’m not expecting men to pay for meals, to throw their coats over puddles of water, or to hold doors open for me. I’m expecting men (and women!) to not demean me for my sexual choices – just as I won’t demean them for theirs. That isn’t the entirety of my feminist philosophy, but it is an important aspect of it.

  11. But I think it’s wrong to a line in the sand between women who need birth control for sex, and women who need birth control for ‘chronic reproductive system conditions’ as you put it. Because then conservatives will be all like — let’s get reasons for birth control usage and if we don’t like them we can deny them.

    And buried among dozens of her nonsense comments, Chiara gets to a sensible point. This I agree with wholeheartedly. It’s good to emphasize that there are many reasons women need birth control, but it’s also dangerous to rely too heavily on the non-sex-related ones.

  12. But I think it’s wrong to a line in the sand between women who need birth control for sex, and women who need birth control for ‘chronic reproductive system conditions’ as you put it.

    I agree. That’s why I never suggested that we do such a thing.

    If we don’t want the cultural expectations to be like ‘ladylike’ and things (I don’t) then we shouldn’t expect men to be all ‘gentlemenlike’.

    The standards and expectations for those two things are radically different. Men should not attack women for having sex because there’s nothing wrong with having sex. Men should not force their attentions on women because it’s obnoxious to do so. That has nothing to do with holding to a misogynist mindset that dictates that good girls don’t have sex.

  13. and look, someone’s being kind enough to make sure I get a bingo here in comments too! Today’s my lucky day!

  14. But tell me, what masculine gender roles do feminists expect men to uphold? “Being a decent human being” is not a traditional masculine gender role. Not by far, alas.

  15. If we don’t want the cultural expectations to be like ‘ladylike’ and things (I don’t) then we shouldn’t expect men to be all ‘gentlemenlike’.

    Can’t we just expect that everyone, men and women, will treat others with respect? I have no problem with anyone criticizing Ms. Fluke’s position, even in strongly worded terms. I do have a problem with people who misrepresent what their opponent’s position is and resort to vicious personal attacks in order to degrade their opponent. I don’t think I’m adhering to a double standard when I think that men should not engage in attacks on women’s sexual behavior as a means of tearing down their beliefs or even their right to be heard on an issue. Ms. Fluke, rightly, has not resorted to name-calling and attacks on Limbaugh’s appearance or sexual behavior. It would be nice if he were half as “gentlemanly” as she was.

  16. @ chiara- i really don’t understand what you’re saying. how exactly are feminists expecting men to be more ‘gentlemenlike’? you’re referencing rush limbaugh- is asking for a woman not to be called a ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute’ for talking about contraceptive coverage what you mean?

    We should be able to have proper verbal sparring with male bodied people without being all like ‘waah, sue for libel’ (btw, libel suing is BS, and I haven’t changed my mind on that).

    you’re not getting it. sandra fluke had attacks directed at her because she dared to be a woman who talked about birth control. there was no attempt at debate going on.

  17. @gratuitous_violet

    and look, someone’s being kind enough to make sure I get a bingo here in comments too! Today’s my lucky day!

    Checking my bingo card, I’ve got:

    Feminists have got it all wrong. I’m an equalist.
    It’s your job to teach me about feminism. Now do it.
    Patriarchy hurts men too.If you want to be treated like a lady, you’d better start acting like one.
    You give feminists a bad name.
    I’ll tell you what’s wrong with feminism…
    But I want to talk about this. Listen to me!

    But I don’t have bingo. 🙁 What am I missing?

  18. Not only did this article infuriate me, but the real outrage began as I started scrolling the pages of comments. It was basically an orgy of male women-haters. Disgusting.

  19. *blush.* you caught me cheating at solitare. It’s always really bothered me that many of the statements are framed with a gender-specific speaker so those are there as applicable and I’m extra liberal with the concept of a “free space,” which is super appropriate in this case: “can’t you take a joke?” Add in the classic “You’re being silly and over-emotional!” and you get a half-frame, top row and right column!

    what can I say? I used to play a lot of bingo with children, and in order to keep ’em entertained a more creative approach is required.

  20. Right I never said that feminists have got it all wrong most of the feminists and feministish people I know agree with me. It’s just people like Gloria Styneriern and such people give feminism a bad name with their old fashioned nonsense. And also that old woman who’s always on talk shows in my country doing nonsense.

    Uh, speaking of “mixed messages”…

    It’s not a mixed message. Having sex is normal and pro. Being a virgin means that you’re awkward or weird or whatever unless your asexual in which case it’s OK. So it’s a good insult.

    Anyway my main point is that these peeps are reinforcing the male-bodied gender role by utilizing a law that exists because of gentlemanly and ladylikely things that is female-exclusive in order to sue Limbough.

    1. It’s not a mixed message. Having sex is normal and pro. Being a virgin means that you’re awkward or weird or whatever unless your asexual in which case it’s OK. So it’s a good insult.

      No, it’s not. First of all, “virginity” is basically a made-up concept anyway, and by using it as an insult you’re reinforcing the idea that it exists.

      Second, even if we do accept that “virginity” is a real thing, everyone was a virgin at some point. So if you’re still a virgin, it doesn’t mean that you’re “awkward or weird or whatever.” It just means that for whatever reason you haven’t done this one thing that society puts a lot of emphasis on. I wasn’t an awkward weirdo until someone finally put a dick in me, and then I magically transformed into a socially adept normal person.

      Third, lots of people are awkward and weird (myself included, and I bone a lot). Ain’t nothing wrong with being awkward and weird. Ain’t nothing about having PIV sex that transforms one into a not-awkward person. Plenty of awkward weirdos have sex.

      Finally, you seem to be implying that people who are virgins are virgins because no one wants to have sex with them. That is… demonstrably, patently false. And insulting.

      Having sex is normal. So is not having sex. How we choose to have sex, and when, and if, and with whom are not reflective of good or bad personality characteristics, assuming that everyone involved is happily consenting. It’s fucked up to insult women for being sexually active. It’s fucked up to insult women (or men) for not being sexually active, for whatever reason. So no, “virgin” is not at all a good insult.

      What is a good insult, though? “Ignorant fool who needs to learn a little bit more about the world before she continues to leave asinine comments on blogs.”

  21. Being a virgin means that you’re awkward or weird or whatever

    I’m invoking Poe’s Law here. You must be trolling.

    Being a virgin means that you’ve never had sex. That’s it. There is nothing objectively, inherently positive (as many religions proclaim) or negative (as you just claimed) about virginity, making your “good insult” merely a derogatory statement about people who haven’t had sex.

  22. If we don’t want the cultural expectations to be like ‘ladylike’ and things (I don’t) then we shouldn’t expect men to be all ‘gentlemenlike’. It’s a two way street. We should be able to have proper verbal sparring with male bodied people without being all like ‘waah, sue for libel’ (btw, libel suing is BS, and I haven’t changed my mind on that). It’s like what you always see in feminism, women (rightly) do not want all the lady gender role bs. But they still want men to have the male gender role. This is not true feminism if you ask me, I am a more true feminist.

    Thank you for telling me how to be a true feminist. If you hadn’t told me, I never would have known!

    Before starting on the One True Path of Feminism, I think I will explain my un-true version of feminism (just so I can put it behind me, and move on to calling everyone who insults me a virgin).

    As EG so eloquently put it, I don’t want men to act like gentlemen. I want them to act like decent human beings. That means not being a sexist jerk. Which, in turn, means not using sexist language (like the word slut).
    According to the author of the article, expecting that men not use sexist language is expecting them to be “gentlemen” – ie, to go above and beyond the call of duty. To be “special,” “elite” men. And to that I do not hold. I expect more. I expect that all men will treat women like decent human beings. If they want to insult said women, there are plenty of unproblematic, non-sexist things they can say! Hey, invest in a thesaurus! Use your imagination!

    Moreover, according to the author of the article, women are only entitled to be treated as human beings (rather than as sexualized objects) when they act the way men would like them to (ie: as ladies). Again, something to which I do not hold. I expect people to treat women as human beings whether or not they approve of that woman’s conduct.
    That’s my version of feminism.

    Before you ask: “but then do you mean that women don’t have to treat men like human beings?” I shall say: “No, I expect women to act like decent human beings, and to treat men (and other women) like human beings, and not use gendered insults etc. HOWEVER, men being treated as subhuman by women (or by the larger society) is not the issue at hand (nor, in fact, is it nearly as much of an issue as women being treated as subhuman by men/society at large)”*

    *I’m generalizing horribly here. It’s not all men who can escape the label of subhuman. Mostly it’s White, able-bodied, straight, cisgendered men.

  23. But I think it’s wrong to a line in the sand between women who need birth control for sex, and women who need birth control for ‘chronic reproductive system conditions’ as you put it. Because then conservatives will be all like — let’s get reasons for birth control usage and if we don’t like them we can deny them.

    Yes, I agree that we shouldn’t get into a game of “but I use birth control for a NON-slutty reason” or set up “good and “bad” reasons to use birth control. But I don’t think Fluke or anyone here is doing that. It is important to point out the myriad medical reasons for birth control use, including but not limited to pregnancy prevention (which is itself a medical reason) precisely because so many people think that

    Single women who use birth control for any reason whatsoever are slutty slut sluts.

    The point is not that some reasons are “better” than others, but that the extreme misogyny underlying the hostility towards women’s reproductive health positions women as simply baby factories. Women are more than this, and their “reproductive” systems are as well. Hormones, ovarian cysts, menstruation, etc. can all contribute to a woman’s overall health in ways that are unrelated to whether or not she wants to conceive or give birth to a child. So, looking at hormonal birth control *only* as a way to control birth and ignoring the other reasons (which is what I see the conservatives doing here) is an extension of the “woman as baby making machine” garbage.

  24. Well if you want to go by this logic, then Limbough’s insult to Fluke for being a slut or whatever is not really an insult at all, because there’s nothing inherently wrong with being a slut.

    However we have to actually live in the real world. Where Limbough calling Fluke a slut is offensive because of the malice and such behind it. Just like we have to live in the real world where my calling people a virgin insult is good, because people do get offended by it and it therefore has value as an insult, you see? We can’t live in some super good world.

  25. I was about to respond to the “virgins are weird and awkward because sex is awesome” statement, and then Jill and auditorydamage did it in a far more eloquent and intelligent way than I could muster up. Thanks, Jill! And thanks auditorydamage!

    I particularly like how being a virgin means you’re awkward or weird or WHATEVER.

    There is a gleam of truth in that sentence. Because yes, indeed. Being a virgin means you are “whatever.” It does not mean you are any one particular thing. You are neither good nor bad nor creepy nor awesome. You just happen to exist in a particular physical state.

    You’re whatever (else you are as a human being).

  26. Now I have

    You’re being silly and overemotional.
    You’ve just got a victim mentality.

    (I missed those two on the last count, drat) plus

    You just don’t like sex, so you want to spoil it for everyone else.
    You’ll never get laid with that attitude.

    and kinda

    I’m a nice guy(tm), why don’t I get any? [based on the assumption that all normal people are entitled to have sex]

    and definitely, definitely

    Can’t you take a joke?

    That’s most of the bingo card.

  27. As EG so eloquently put it, I don’t want men to act like gentlemen. I want them to act like decent human beings. That means not being a sexist jerk. Which, in turn, means not using sexist language (like the word slut).

    Yes I agree with this (although I disagree that there should be any repercussions for being a sexist jerk in the sense of getting removed from the radio or whatever).

    However, the bit in the article was in response to Steinenme or one of those types suggesting that feminists use sexist laws that mandate gentlemanly and ladylikely behaviors in order to get back at Limbough. Because using a law that prohibits male-bodied men from making comments about the sex-lives of women is sexist and reinforces this gentlemanly thing. Because there’s no corresponding law for men to sue women who accuse them of being unchaste. You see what I mean?

  28. It’s just people like Gloria Styneriern and such people give feminism a bad name with their old fashioned nonsense.

    Her name is Gloria Steinem. And, though I disagree with her on whether or not the FCC should make decisions about renewing stations’ licenses based on some nebulous idea about the “public good”, I find it odd that you think Steinem is old fashioned in protesting continued degradation of women based on their sexual proclivities. I think that, if nothing else, Limbaugh and his supporters (and the current furor over birth control coverage in insurance policies) prove that the idea a woman should not be judged as a person because she has sex or wants to have sex is still a radical notion. Not nearly old fashioned enough for the likes of me.

  29. It’s just people like Gloria Styneriern and such people give feminism a bad name with their old fashioned nonsense. And also that old woman who’s always on talk shows in my country doing nonsense.

    Is this irony intentional? This post being in large part about ageism toward women…

  30. Her name is Gloria Steinem. And, though I disagree with her on whether or not the FCC should make decisions about renewing stations’ licenses based on some nebulous idea about the “public good”, I find it odd that you think Steinem is old fashioned in protesting continued degradation of women based on their sexual proclivities.

    If she was just doing that then I wouldn’t think she’s old fashioned. But the fact that she wants to use weird laws about chastity and chivalry and stuff makes her old fashioned and trying to assert the male-bodied gender role or however it’s termed.

    Also in her crew is people like ‘Germaine Greer’, right? Well she’s always on TV over here complaining about men being manly and also coming out with some transphobic bs. I mean if you had Germaine Greer commenting on Feministe then you’d see that she’s even less gooder than me at getting stuff right.

  31. It’s not a mixed message. Having sex is normal and pro. Being a virgin means that you’re awkward or weird or whatever unless your asexual in which case it’s OK. So it’s a good insult.

    That’s it, it’s time to re-purpose an old meme:

    OH CHIARA NO

  32. Finally, you seem to be implying that people who are virgins are virgins because no one wants to have sex with them. That is… demonstrably, patently false. And insulting.

    This.

    Having sex is normal. So is not having sex.

    And this.

  33. Also in her crew is people like ‘Germaine Greer’, right? Well she’s always on TV over here complaining about men being manly and also coming out with some transphobic bs. I mean if you had Germaine Greer commenting on Feministe then you’d see that she’s even less gooder than me at getting stuff right.

    If you mean Steinem and Greer are around the same age (73 and 77 respectively) and became active in the feminist movement around the same time, then yes, Greer is in Steinem’s “crew”. If you mean people who frequently work together and/or are friends, then no.

    Steinem has problematic statements regarding trans rights and trans people. That’s a real problem and a real issue, and if this was a discussion about that particular issue you’d be right to point out Steinem’s past problems regarding trans rights.

    However, in this case we’re talking about an article about how these three women are old and also wrong for thinking men shouldn’t call women sluts when women are doing slutty things like trying to get insurance coverage for birth control. How if women want to be treated with respect by men acting like gentlemen, then they should be the ladies those men expect them to be.

    I didn’t see Steinem, Fonda, and Morgan talk about how “ungentlemanly” it is for Limbaugh to demean women and other minorities on the radio. If they went that route, if their reasoning was “men should be gentlemen and treat women like ladies”, then that would be old fashioned. But they didn’t. They made the argument that Limbaugh dehumanizes people as a tactic, has taken that tactic for decades, and will continue to take that tactic on public airways – and so people should complain to the FCC. I agree with the first part, and I disagree with the second, even though I don’t want Limbaugh on my airways any more than they do. It doesn’t mean they’re doing feminism wrong or are old-fashioned.

  34. Yeah, I’ve been holding off suggesting that Chiara is a troll, but I’m pretty well convinced at this point. There is no way that someone who knows the word “transphobic” wouldn’t know that “even less gooder than me” is a massive grammar fail. Or that she would correctly use the phrase “male-bodied gender role” but then say “ladylikely”.

  35. There is no such thing as virginity. It is undefinable, and the only uses it has are counterproductive in any sense. It has no place outside the context of a society where women are property and men preserve the property’s value by guarding access to reproductive organs — that is, the world that Taranto and Limbaugh see passing away and are desperately trying to defend to the last trench.

    “Virginity” as a concept belongs in the ashcan of history.

  36. @ Esti

    Actually, I think Chiara has mentioned before that English is not her first language? (If I’m wrong, I apologize.) The systematic errors she makes aren’t unreasonable in that respect (e.g., over-extension errors and logical if incorrect phonetic variants) – it probably depends on whether she has seen the word written down or not or is aware of the exception to a grammatical rule for a particular English word.

    I don’t care about her grammar – I care about how hurtful and offensive her remarks are. It’s pre-101 at this point on some of this stuff. She needs to take a hint sooner – Jill’s first comment to her should have been a red flag that she had ventured beyond the limits of her knowledge and her second comment, if any, should have been a request for clarification, not a defense of her original statement.

  38. If she was just doing that then I wouldn’t think she’s old fashioned. But the fact that she wants to use weird laws about chastity and chivalry and stuff makes her old fashioned and trying to assert the male-bodied gender role or however it’s termed.

    Figured out one of your problems. It wasn’t Gloria Steinem that suggested using Florida’s chastity law to prosecute Limbaugh. It was Gloria Allred. Two completely different Glorias.

  39. Steinem has problematic statements regarding trans rights and trans people. That’s a real problem and a real issue, and if this was a discussion about that particular issue you’d be right to point out Steinem’s past problems regarding trans rights.

    If that were the issue here, I’d be way more concerned about Robin Morgan’s involvement in this enterprise. At least Steinem (I believe) has apologized for her past comments. Morgan, so far as I know, is unrepentant, and her history of transphobia is far more egregious (trans women “parody female oppression and suffering,” etc.), almost approaching Greer/Daly/Raymond/Bindel/Jeffreys territory. Perhaps I can have the FCC ban her from the airwaves right along with Limbaugh, on the ground that her very presence oppresses and marginalizes me, regardless of her words? If I’m going to be a totalitarian feminist, I might as well clean out the Augean Stables entirely.

    Signed,

    Old Person (from Chiara’s viewpoint, anyway)

    PS: I don’t care about Chiara’s grammar either. (I think it’s entirely possible that someone could have a substantial vocabulary while having a tenuous grasp of the rules of grammar.) It’s the content of her comments that bothers me.

  40. Pingback: This, Too, Serves a Purpose « OVERLADY

  41. Well if you want to go by this logic, then Limbough’s insult to Fluke for being a slut or whatever is not really an insult at all, because there’s nothing inherently wrong with being a slut.

    Just like it’s not an insult to call a black person a n*gger? I mean, that would imply that being a n*gger is a bad thing!

    /sarcasm

    No, Chiara. There is nothing wrong with doing the things one does to become a “slut” in the eyes of assholes, whether that’s having sex, or just believing that women should be allowed to have sex, or even deciding to hold off having kids for a while after marriage and using birth control to do so. There is something wrong with using terms like “slut” to demean all women, and there is really something wrong with using such terms as a political fucking argument against women’s rights.

  42. I’m a big free speech advocate, so as much as I agree that Rush is using dehumanizing language and is a vile person all around, I can’t get on board the “Let’s use the FCC to shut him down” argument. Encourage people not to listen to him, encourage sponsors not to support him, keep up the pressure on Clear Channel.
    If his comments are classified as hate speech, the issue is still that in the U.S., hate speech isn’t prohibited by the constitution. I’m very nervous about the consequences for everyone that go with changing that.

  44. No, Chiara. There is nothing wrong with doing the things one does to become a “slut” in the eyes of assholes, whether that’s having sex, or just believing that women should be allowed to have sex, or even deciding to hold off having kids for a while after marriage and using birth control to do so. There is something wrong with using terms like “slut” to demean all women, and there is really something wrong with using such terms as a political fucking argument against women’s rights.

    OK I get it. My problem was mostly just with the using the ‘unchaste’ law. Which Gloria Steiner wasn’t doing but some other Gloria with an A. Thanks for the wisdom peeps. I agree that using ‘slut’ as an insult is wrong though personally I think it should be reclaimed but not in a ‘Slutwalk’ way, because that was messed up. However I do not believe that one should be able to incur legal action against someone who uses ‘slut’ in such a way.

  45. Actually, I think Chiara has mentioned before that English is not her first language? (If I’m wrong, I apologize.) The systematic errors she makes aren’t unreasonable in that respect (e.g., over-extension errors and logical if incorrect phonetic variants) – it probably depends on whether she has seen the word written down or not or is aware of the exception to a grammatical rule for a particular English word.

    What… you think because I’m from Wales that English is not my first language?? We mainly speak English in Wales fyi, I’m only barely fluent in Welsh.

    The grammar mistakes is just because I can’t be bothered to figure out the correct grammar all the time. ‘less gooder than’, ‘less good than’, ‘more worser than’, it all sounded wrong in my head, so I went with ‘less gooder than’. And the phonetical mistakes or whatever is just with big words, not with standard issue words.

  46. What… you think because I’m from Wales that English is not my first language?? We mainly speak English in Wales fyi, I’m only barely fluent in Welsh.

    Hi, Chiara, then I definitely tender that apology. I did not know what country you were from as I have not seen a comment from you yet which specified (I don’t follow every thread), but I thought I had a specific memory of you saying that English was not your first language, which was clearly inaccurate on my part. I am aware that English is spoken in Wales.

  47. Certainly not limited to showbiz. In dudely science fields, any woman who is old enough to (i) be a true expert (and hence a threat) and (ii) be unfuckable, is by definition ‘crazy’. The younger, P compliant ones may notice the lack of older women around, but they put it down to a recent change of culture, rather than listen to what the ‘crazy’ women try to tell them. Or maybe they do listen, but if they ever admitted it to anyone, they would suddenly become ‘crazy’ too. And as someone who was abused for long enough to earn the ‘crazy’ label from her abusers, for extra reasons independent of the sin of having opinions, and then of course the discrimination and permanent ostracism that goes with it, I have to say that in my world the label ‘crazy’ has become synonymous with ‘sane’.

  48. It’s just people like Gloria Styneriern and such people give feminism a bad name with their old fashioned nonsense.

    Can you give an actual example of Gloria Steinem’s old-fashioned nonsense? Because I guarantee you, without her old-fashioned nonsense, you’d be a lot worse off than you are now.

    Well if you want to go by this logic, then Limbough’s insult to Fluke for being a slut or whatever is not really an insult at all, because there’s nothing inherently wrong with being a slut.

    Limbaugh’s insult is offensive because it rests upon the assumption that there is something wrong and bad with women who have sex.

  49. Chiara is obviously trolling. The irregularities in both her syntax and her substantive points are too contrived and inconsistent to be accidental.

  50. No probs Jadey — you are writing good so you’re cool in my book.

    Anyhow my last post is in moderato, but I basically said that I agree that using the word sl.. as an insult is bad. Even though being a sl.. isn’t necessarily bad if that’s your kind of thing. I think if I write sl.. my post goes in moderation. But I still disagree that it’s OK to use some ‘unchaste’ anti-sex law to get back at Limbough. Which is where I said the original article author had a point.

    But I do think that the peeps like Greer and Steinmin are not so much identifiable with by the younger generation today. For example when I was in my teens there was some cool feministish role models on the go like Kim Gordon or Buffy even though she’s a fictional character. What do we got today in the way of that? Twilight is a load of bull and the girl in that is rubbish, and I can’t even think of any female bassists in any bands today. We need another feminism revival thing like we had in the 90s.

  51. But I do think that the peeps like Greer and Steinmin are not so much identifiable with by the younger generation today.

    I know it’s hard for members of the younger generation to believe, but that is not actually the be-all and end-all of a person’s value.

  52. Before Steinem, Morgan, et al, arrived on the scene, women faced shunning for an unwed pregnancy, employment termination for living with a man without the license, for wedded pregnancy, or for even being suspected of homosexuality. The wage gap exceeded 50% and the ceiling was, not glass but solid concrete. WSJ’s Tart (dare I?) is appalled that the heavy hitters have arrived swinging solid experience and solid logic. His last recourse in defense of Dimbaugh was to imply that the Second Wave’s team are outdated, unfashionable, and a little dotty. The Rush team is sounding more desperate and s**t-scared with each volley.

  53. But I do think that the peeps like Greer and Steinmin are not so much identifiable with by the younger generation today. For example when I was in my teens there was some cool feministish role models on the go like Kim Gordon or Buffy even though she’s a fictional character.

    Personally, as a quasi-member of the ‘younger generation’ (mid-twenties is still younger generation, right?), both Steinem and Buffy Summers are people I identified with and continue to identify with heavily. Like, heavily. Steinem is one of the people I most admire. She continues to be a strong voice for progressive causes. She continues to agitate for women’s rights. She is someone who, when asked about the fact that young women do things like show off their midriff responded with the fact that in the 1960s and 70s she wore mini skirts and a pin that said “Cunt Power”. That is a voice that is authoritative and doesn’t fall into the “those kids today with their tattoos and nudity” caricature of older feminists. Are there problems with Steinem? Indubitably. Are there problems with Buffy Summers as a feminist icon. Most definitely.

    But I think that throwing out Steinem and replacing her with Buffy is sad. Because Gloria Steinem is a real woman who continues to grow and write and participate in activism, even if it’s just going on the Colbert Report. She lives a life, and has lived that life wholly and completely, 24 hours a day and seven days a week. And, as much as I love Buffy, she’s a fictional character who now only lives in the two-dimensional space of the comic books.

    I know it’s hard for members of the younger generation to believe, but that is not actually the be-all and end-all of a person’s value.

    Well, it should be. We are the arbiters of what’s cool and all.

    Seriously though, it depresses me to think that people like Steinem can be (and maybe are) ignored by the younger generation as if she’s no longer applicable. Because she is. And wholly separate from what we of the younger generation can get by reading her, or listening to her, or analyzing her and critiquing her (and I think that we can get a lot), to me there’s something fundamentally not feminist about looking at someone and saying, “You no longer apply, not because of anything you did or didn’t do, but simply because we the youngsters say you don’t”. If that’s what the next generation of feminists do to those that came before us, then we as a group are perpetuating sexist notions of what women bring to the table and when they arbitrarily stop being worth our time. And we just prove Tina Fey’s observation right.

  54. even if it’s just going on the Colbert Report

    I seem to be implying here that I think this is as far as Steinem’s activism goes, and I don’t think that at all. So it’s a poorly worded sentence in that regard…

  55. Being a virgin means that you’re awkward or weird or whatever unless your asexual in which case it’s OK. So it’s a good insult.

    Wow. As one of those awkward weirdos (who hasn’t had consensual sex ever), fuck you.

  56. Chiara is deeply boring and also a troll. Can the mods please at least consider banning her? Every comment thread she participates in stops being about the actual topic and becomes All. About. Chiara.

  57. Chiara:

    First of all: Steinem. Steinem, Steinem, Steinem. Even if you’re going to completely dismiss the timeliness of her work, at least bother to spell her name right. It’s written on this very thread, like, a billion times for reference.

    Second of all: Don’t comment anymore. I’m serious. It’s not something I usually say, but I’m saying it. Read comments, research context, observe discussion, and educate yourself before trying to engage in the conversation, because you’re wrong all the time and frequently actively insulting, and it isn’t the job of the commenters here to take time out of every single thread to educate you. Stop.

  58. Thus feminism’s theory of equality between the sexes dissolves into incoherence in the face of real life.

    Who is this guy? And how does he know that the theory of equality “dissolves into incoherence”? I was pretty sure things “lost coherence.”

    Moreover, even though I’m First Amendment middle-roader (I disagree with RAV – sort of interest balancing, but still more strict about regulation to the point where I disagree with “the Troika,” which is, in spite of it’s intent and connotation, a cool nickname), I find his protracted legal analysis to be exactly the sort that one could impute as protesting too much. I don’t think many students of the First Amendment would find Limbaugh’s speech sanctionable. Why devote a good third of the article to it then?

    We suppose we should mention that we don’t care for Limbaugh’s term “feminazi” either. While there’s no denying its euphony–and euphony counts for a lot in radio–feminism is fundamentally different from National Socialism in that the latter is based on a theory of racial supremacy while the former is based on a false theory of equality. If only there were a catchy portmanteau of “feminism” and “Gramsci.”

    I see what he did there. Apparently, racial supremacy isn’t false. He can use words like “euphony” with abandon, but that he hints that the existence of an Aryan race is credible escapes his studied scrutiny. Moreover, I like how Taranto refuses to engage with the accusation that Limbaugh uses rhetorical frames to make abject lies seem believable – a substantive beef, because in so doing, he does the same thing that Goebbels did and Limbaugh does. For instance, is staidly relating Limbaugh’s rhetorical method to Goebbels in an op-ed at all comparable to hurling sexually charged insults at a law student from Georgetown on national radio? In specific relief, one is an incisive commentary on a man’s methods, the other is junior-high style bullying. It’s not really a double standard of civility, is it then?

    The whole article reeks of the rationalization of a misogynist rage so virulent as to suggest that the battle being waged over birth control in the United States is pretty important.

  60. Wales my arse! I’ve lived in Wales for 13 years now, and have NEVER heard anyone–even adolescent native Welsh speakers whose English is still a bit wobbly–slaughter the English language like Chiara does.

    I gotta agree: I call troll.

  61. Wales my arse! I’ve lived in Wales for 13 years now, and have NEVER heard anyone–even adolescent native Welsh speakers whose English is still a bit wobbly–slaughter the English language like Chiara does.

    I gotta agree: I call troll.

    Fuck you, I’ve lived in Wales my whole life and English is my native language. The reason I suck at English is not because I’m from Wales but because I just suck at English. OK? If I concentrate hard I can get the grammar right most of the time, but I can’t be bothered to do this all of the time. So just shut up about my grammar, OK — criticize what I’m saying if you want not how I said it yeah?

    And I’m being unfairly treated in all of this. I’m just trying to express my feeling about these things, not saying that what I’m saying is like objective truth or something. I’m not trying to diss Steinem — see, spelt that shit right — I’m just saying that I FEEL that MAYBE youths these days might not be able to identify with her so much. I know she’s done a load of good stuff, no doubt. And in an optimal world age wouldn’t matter but we live in a real world and it does. So I’m just saying that for younger women and possibly men to get into feminism they may not be so into checking these people out.

  62. Chiara, people disagreeing with you does not equal you being treated unfairly. You’re free to feel however you want, but that doesn’t mean that anyone else is obligated to validate those feelings.

  63. And I’m being unfairly treated in all of this. I’m just trying to express my feeling about these things, not saying that what I’m saying is like objective truth or something. I’m not trying to diss Steinem — see, spelt that shit right — I’m just saying that I FEEL that MAYBE youths these days might not be able to identify with her so much.

    How are you being unfairly treated? What we are saying is that your feelings about “these things”–and many other things on which you have commented–are ignorant, insulting, and lacking in any evidential support. And what I am saying is who CARES if “youths these days” don’t identify with Steinem? That is not the measure of whether or not somebody is a worthwhile feminist or has something worthwhile to contribute to political discourse. That is the POINT of this post.

    And you’re not trying to diss Steinem, you merely dismiss her work as “old-fashioned nonsense”? Try again. Or, you know, take Caperton’s advice and don’t.

  64. Well I didn’t really know anything about Steinem but someone said she was in Germaine Greer’s posse. And she’s always on the TV over here saying some pretty bad old fashioned nonsense. But I’ve looked at more about Steinem and she seems a bit more cool to me. Anyway I know this stuff is not actually so relevant to the original post, sorry about that.

    On the topic of the original post, I think the writer of the article is an idiot and furthermore he seems posh.

  65. Well I didn’t really know anything about Steinem but someone said she was in Germaine Greer’s posse.

    Chiara, don’t you see that this is the whole problem? You continue to comment about things you know nothing about, and then you act all surprised and hurt when people are angry and point out that your comments are ignorant and incorrect. If you don’t know anything about a topic or a person, try not commenting about it.

  66. I’m sorry, Chiara, but you’ve been warned several times already. Get it together. [ETA: Which is to indicate that Chiara has been removed, and if further commentary could be directed to the original post, that would be swell.]

  67. @chiara could it be that Steinem and her posse don’t resonate with you because you don’t understand the American history and culture she/they were apart or/fought against?

  68. Gah it’s too bad. This comment thread could have been super-interesting but it totally got derailed >_<

  69. to me there’s something fundamentally not feminist about looking at someone and saying, “You no longer apply, not because of anything you did or didn’t do, but simply because we the youngsters say you don’t”. If that’s what the next generation of feminists do to those that came before us, then we as a group are perpetuating sexist notions of what women bring to the table and when they arbitrarily stop being worth our time. And we just prove Tina Fey’s observation right.

    Quoted for truth.

  71. The reaction of younger women to older feminists such as Steinem or Greer is a very clear example of internalized oppression. Most of it is unconscious: we are all programmed, both men and women, to value older women less than older men, or younger people as a whole. Even as older women, we may subconsciously gravitate away from our own peers.

    There’s also a strong herd reflex at work, because as individuals within a social group, we will naturally pay more attention to those people who already get it. Plus, it’s easier to do this. So the marginalization of older women, like the marginalization of many other groups, is a self-perpetuating phenomenon that becomes hard to break out of. It takes a constant conscious effort.

  72. The reaction of younger women to older feminists such as Steinem or Greer is a very clear example of internalized oppression.

    I won’t speak to Steinem. As to Germaine Greer, your assertion is nonsensical. The reaction of younger women to Greer generally reflects an entirely appropriate recognition that she is, and always has been, a virulently transphobic bigot who has expressed her contempt and digust for trans women in the cruelest of terms, and has gone out of her way to destroy other women’s careers for the sole reason that they had trans histories (viz. her campaign against Rachel Padman).

    There are so many examples of her viciousness; here’s one from only two years ago:

    Nowadays we are all likely to meet people who think they are women, have women’s names, and feminine clothes and lots of eyeshadow, who seem to us to be some kind of ghastly parody, though it isn’t polite to say so. We pretend that all the people passing for female really are. Other delusions may be challenged, but not a man’s delusion that he is female.

    And this is from The Whole Woman, more than a decade ago:


    The lack of insight that MTF transsexuals usually show about the extent of their acceptance as females should be an indication that their behaviour is less rational than it seems. There is a witness to the transsexual’s script, a witness who is never consulted. She is the person who built the transsexual’s body of her own flesh and brought it up as her son or daughter, the transsexual’s worst enemy, his/her mother. Whatever else it is gender reassignment is an exorcism of the mother. When a man decides to spend his life impersonating his mother (like Norman Bates in Psycho) it is as if he murders her and gets away with it, proving at a stroke that there was nothing to her. His intentions are no more honourable than any female impersonator’s; his achievement is to gag all those who would call his bluff. When he forces his way into the few private spaces women may enjoy and shouts down their objections, and bombards the women who will not accept him with threats and hate mail, he does as rapists have always done.

    And then there’s this, from 1989, highlighting the joy she’s always taken in being unspeakably cruel:


    The Independent – UK News – July 22, 1989

    “Why sex change is a lie”

    by Germaine Greer

    On the day that The Female Eunuch was issued in
    America, a person in flapping draperies rushed up to
    me and grabbed my hand. Thank you so much for all
    youve done for us girls! I smirked and nodded and
    stepped backwards, trying to extricate my hand from
    the enormous, knuckly, hairy be-ringed paw that
    clutched it. The face staring into mine was
    thickly-coated with pancake makeup through which the
    stubble was already burgeoning, in futile competition
    with a Dynel wig of immense luxuriance and two pairs
    of false eyelashes. Against the bony ribs that could
    be counted through its flimsy scarf dress swung a
    polished steel women’s liberation emblem.

    I should have said You’re a man. The Female Eunuch has
    done less than nothing for you. Piss off. The
    transvestite (sic) held me in a rapist’s grip….
    Knee-jerk etiquette demanded that I humour this gross
    parody of my sex by accepting him as female, even to
    the point of allowing him to come to the lavatory with
    me. Bureaucratic moves were afoot to give him and his
    kind the right to female identity, a female passport
    even … It is strange though that a vocal and
    combative body of feminists did not throw the whole
    idea out on its ear before it was quietly and sneakily
    implemented.

    So, reacting negatively to Germaine Greer reflects internalized oppression? Sure. If you speak from ignorance, please educate yourself. If you agree with her, or think her views on trans women just aren’t important compared to the gloriousness of her oeuvre as a whole? I don’t need to say what I think.

  73. Ugh, I hate that younger feminist critiques of Greer and Steinem are dismissed as internalized oppression. Unlike Chiara, I’m familiar with both of them and their contributions to feminist theory. I can’t stand Greer (see Donna L’s quotes from The Whole Woman above), and while Steinem has her moments, she represents a kind of feminism that I don’t find all that interesting.
    That being said, attacks on them because of their age are entirely inappropriate.

  74. Critiquing Steinem or Greer because of the content of their arguments? Totally fine. Dismissing them because they’re old? Not cool. The post seems to be pretty clearly about dismissing them because they’re old, with the idea that the only feminists worth listening to are the ones whose pants you might like to get into (which is really a dismissal of all feminism). Youth and hipness are neither necessary nor sufficient qualifications for having good ideas.

  75. I knew she was anti-trans, but I did not know her writing on trans women was so hateful and vicious. On the one hand, I’m grateful for the knowledge, but on the other, I’m really sorry, Donna, that you had to re-read it in the cause of educating us.

  76. Dismissing them because they’re old? Not cool.

    Obviously. But you may have noticed that even Chiara, when she introduced Germaine Greer’s name into this thread in comment #32, specifically brought up transphobia — not age — as her reason for disliking her. So I don’t think that Dominique’s characterization of the reaction of younger feminists to Greer as supposedly reflecting internalized oppression can be so neatly limited.

  77. Oh, and thanks, EG. It isn’t easy to read such things, let alone to comprehend emotionally that this still-admired woman despises people like me so very much, and would undoubtedly say equally vile things about me if given the opportunity, even if I managed to keep my enormous, knuckly, hairy be-ringed paws from her sight and she pursued the “deception” angle instead (because, of course, it’s always one or the other.)

    And if there’s anyone out there who thinks I’m derailing, too bad. I’m not the one who brought up Greer in this thread, let alone condemned the negative reaction to her. What’s more, Robin Morgan is almost as bad.

  78. It isn’t easy to read such things, let alone to comprehend emotionally that this still-admired woman despises people like me so very much, and would undoubtedly say equally vile things about me if given the opportunity,

    Yes, DonnaL, I hear you. I’m so sorry hateful rhetoric like that exists, especially from someone who identifies as a feminist.

  79. I knew she was anti-trans, but I did not know her writing on trans women was so hateful and vicious. On the one hand, I’m grateful for the knowledge, but on the other, I’m really sorry, Donna, that you had to re-read it in the cause of educating us.

    Co-sign, thank you Donna, and I am so sorry.

  80. Thirding, or fourthing, thanks to Donna, and also thank you for this:

    But you may have noticed that even Chiara, when she introduced Germaine Greer’s name into this thread in comment #32, specifically brought up transphobia — not age — as her reason for disliking her. So I don’t think that Dominique’s characterization of the reaction of younger feminists to Greer as supposedly reflecting internalized oppression can be so neatly limited.

    I was really irritated at all the age-based generalizations and considered replying “It may be hard for older feminists to believe, but not all critiques from people under the age of thirty are based on shallow personality judgments!,” but you put it much better than I did.

  81. Ignorance on my part, in that I didn’t realize Germaine Greer was so virulently hateful. I should have used another example. When I speak of internalized oppression, I do, in fact, mean the unconscious reaction against age, not ideology.

  82. The troll scratched its little head to render Steinem as Styneriern (@21), Steinenme (@29), Steiner (@46), and Steinmin (@52) before getting hit with the banhammer at last. Better late than never.

    DonnaL, thanks for enduring that awful prose to help the thread. Interesting that our dumbtroll couldn’t think of even one way to mangle the name Greer, let alone four.

  83. HEY. I didn’t want to derail anymore, but since it seems to keep coming up… Can we stop with the whole “people who don’t spell correctly are stupid and have nothing to contribute” schtick? It’s the exact same problem as slagging people for being old when the real issue is that they are transphobic.

    For the record, my sister has similar spelling habits as Chiara does, as do my friends and family with learning disorders. It doesn’t make any of them stupid or thoughtless. Has Chiara been thoughtless? Yes. I’m certainly relieved that she’s not going to be posting anymore. But IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HER SPELLING AND GRAMMAR and it’s all kind of fucked up that people keep harping on that.

  84. Those Greer quotes are really painful to read and it’s disturbing to know that she is still a voice that people listen to. 4thing or 5thing the appreciation and cyber hugs for Donna L.

  85. Scene:
    At a party, a group of people converse.

    Lady past age-of-fuckability- “opinion.”

    Dudes: *body snatcher scream*

    Then they chase her like in Logan’s Run.

    CINEMA.

  86. Just out of curiosity, how old does a woman have to be to be considered past the age of fuckability these days? 40? 30?

    (Whatever it is, I’m afraid I passed it a while ago.)

  87. I dunno. We could make some sort of panel (all men, natch) and have every lady judged. Then when they are past AoF (age-of-fuckability) the judges pull a lever and she falls into pit. Then we’d actually have the death panels that Republicans seemed so into a couple years ago.

  88. But IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HER SPELLING AND GRAMMAR and it’s all kind of fucked up that people keep harping on that.

    Dude, this. I tend to have serious spelling issues and pretty can much only thank the little red dashed line for spelling most things correctly. I’m plenty smart and educated, I just can’t spell to save my life.

  89. You know, you’re absolutely right that proficiency in spelling and grammar aren’t a measure of a person’s intelligence, but they do matter. They matter because they affect how clear and intelligible a person’s writing is and therefore whether or not that person can make his/her/zir ideas understood. And particularly when the ideas are as muddled as Chiara’s are/were, I think it’s no accident that the writing is as well.

  90. Just out of curiosity, how old does a woman have to be to be considered past the age of fuckability these days? 40? 30?

    Yeah, there is no way I can know this as a woman and will have to wait for that all-man panel to decide. But, I just want to add that some women are *never* “fuckable,” no matter how young they are. Tina Fey’s quote- while I do love it on one level- sort of implies that everyone was- when they were young- “fuckable.” Some women have never been able to attain that [asinine] standard.

  91. some women are *never* “fuckable,” no matter how young they are

    .

    As a woman with a trans history, I can assure you that I’m well aware of that fact! Which more often than not seems to apply to trans women no matter what they look like, no matter what their age, and no matter whether they’re gay, straight, or neither, once their history is disclosed or otherwise known. (Obviously there are many exceptions, but I think it’s a fair generalization to say that trans women are excluded per se from the “fuckability” category, except by so-called admirers a/k/a chasers, about whom I’ve commented before. Not that I wasn’t well aware of all this when I transitioned 7 years ago, so I can’t really complain too much about it, I suppose. It’s just a fact of life.)

  92. DonnaL, you are right, and while I did quote you I want to be clear that my comment was not directed at you specifically (I didn’t think you were unaware) but to the readership in general.

  93. Also, any & all straight men get to be final arbiters as to which women are “fuckable” and therefore allowed to be seen (preferably still not heard) in public – q.v. various hateful things said about Michelle Obama’s physique.

  94. I recently picked up the WSJ for the first time since Murdoch took it over (it was free at my hotel). I was shocked to see how dull and utterly unimaginative its news coverage had become. Before Murdoch, the WSJ had some of the most dynamic business coverage in the U.S. Now they have features about things like old-time haberdashers.

    Its editorials were as stupid as ever, though. Guess some things never change.

  95. im probably showing my age here, but i remember a time once long ago when what happened in the bedroom stayed there—between the tell-alls and the snoops, that time is long gone

Comments are currently closed.