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

For Shame, Ann Coulter!

piny

Oh, my God, Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot!

Say it ain’t so, Ann!

You know what amazes me here? No, not that Ann Coulter yet again used a homophobic slur against a Democratic presidential candidate. The idea that we’re hysterical lightweights because the New York Post’s unexamined prejudice is more interesting than, say, Fred Phelps’ beliefs about homosexuality. (Should I link to the latest updates at WBC? He still doesn’t like gay people. FYI.)

136 thoughts on For Shame, Ann Coulter!

  2. It was just a trackback. That’s all. Perhaps it was a slightly childish case of needling you when it could just be left to die, but whining to mom about it doesn’t help your case.

  3. The idea that we’re hysterical lightweights because the New York Post’s unexamined prejudice is more interesting than, say, Fred Phelps’ beliefs about homosexuality.

    Or maybe it was another goofy joke? I forget, joking about anything other than ideas, pure ideas is an all out attack.

  5. You know, you really need to chill out. There’s nothing at Sadly, No!’s post that could conceivably be construed as calling you “hysterical lightweights.” Get over yourselves.

  6. Strange title. I think it’s been thoroughly established that AC has no shame whatsoever.

    Which is why this queer doesn’t particularly care.

  7. It was just a trackback. That’s all. Perhaps it was a slightly childish case of needling you when it could just be left to die, but whining to mom about it doesn’t help your case.

    So I needled too. I can’t believe you’re so humorless that you’d post a sarcastic response!

  8. I don’t know the site (Think Progress) well, but from what I read about it, I can’t believe they’re allowing all the put-downs of Coulter based on her looks.

    I mean, aren’t there enough repugnant things about her to attack?

  10. You’re really more angered by a transphobic slam *at* Ann Coulter than a homophobic slam *by* Ann Coulter?

  11. Ack, that last one sounded sarcastic, and wasn’t supposed to. That’s on me.

    The idea that we’re hysterical lightweights because the New York Post’s unexamined prejudice is more interesting than, say, Fred Phelps’ beliefs about homosexuality

    Snark-free zone — piny, I think there’s a word missing somewhere in there, around “because.”

  12. A slam of any kind by Ann Coulter is Par For The Course. Unremarkable. The sky is blue. Ann Coulter says something offensive. The birds chirp in the sky.

  13. Oops, now I get it. You were completing the thought about what amazed you. I shouldn’t read these while also grading papers.

  15. You’re really more angered by a transphobic slam *at* Ann Coulter than a homophobic slam *by* Ann Coulter?

    No. See, Ann Coulter is kind of like Fred Phelps or Adam Carolla. Short of divine intervention, there isn’t a chance in hell that she will ever change. She hates people like me. She always will. She’s happy when queers get bludgeoned to death, she really is. It means that she still has a job. That’s what she is, and that’s why I don’t spend much time posting about the next entry on a long long list of hateful things she’s said and done.

    When someone who at least says that they don’t hate people like me says something hateful about people like me, I respond. That’s because I have respect for them. It’s because I think they’re just ignorant.

  16. So I needled too. I can’t believe you’re so humorless that you’d post a sarcastic response!

    Guess it’s a difference in humor, then.

    This doesn’t come across as sarcastic to me. It comes across as meanspirited and hamfisted.

    Now, if you took the “lightweights” part of the “hysterical lightweights” comment and ran with it, you might have something then.

  17. Soooo … we’re supposed to get more upset over what our enemies say about us than what our allies say about us because, of course, we have a chance in hell of changing our enemies’ minds, while our allies will continue to slam us no matter what.

    Ah, it’s a lovely upside-down world, isn’t it?

  18. No, you know what would have been both hilarious and incisive? I shoulda photoshopped Ann Coulter’s head onto John Lithgow’s body.

  21. I love the assumption by the Team Sadly Dancers that there’s an actual real live competition here. Sadly, No! declared one, so there just must be.

    Feministe has to be about Sadly, No! somehow. It HAS to be! What function could it possibly serve otherwise? And don’t give me that we’re-here-to-discuss-feminist-issues either, piny, because everyone knows feminism ended in the 1970s, when Lesley2 and Jillian left it.

  24. Jillian, of course, left feminism when she decided that silly fat jokes were not a big deal. Don’t believe her when she says she favors abortion rights, she’s already shown herself to be impure! Then she dared to *GASP* disagree with Feministe, spokeswomen for all feminists everywhere! Burning is truly too good for her!

    Anyway, during this time I have no doubt that Brad has PSed Coulter’s face onto a wide variety of men, farm animals, robots, and microscopic organisms. Ya snooze ya looze.

  25. I’m trying to take the Han Solo approach here….I just got called a scruffy looking nerf herder, and I decided to come back with “who’s scruffy looking?” It’s a choice.

    If I really thought that a feminist thought that I “left feminism” because I stated that I feel alienated by my supposed allies in the feminist movement, and I care about this fact because I do care so much about the feminist agenda (otherwise, I’d just blow it off, wouldn’t I?), I think I might finally lose my sense of humor completely.

    Alas, based on what I’m seeing here, I’d probably stop feeling alienated by some feminists if that happened.

  26. Don’t believe her when she says she favors abortion rights, she’s already shown herself to be impure!

    Always take seriously the man who boils feminism down to abortion rights alone.

  27. Always take seriously the man who boils feminism down to abortion rights alone.

    And the men who don’t actually read any feminist blogs, but nonetheless think they know all about it, because they voted for a Democrat once or twice or seven times.

    They’re born knowing all about everything, are they not? And if they don’t know it, it must be because it’s silly and unimportant, and thus they don’t HAVE to know it.

    But there’s no male privilege. That’s just something the sanctimonious women’s studies professors made up to finagle themselves onto the school payroll.

  28. I think reading all the comments in the “go fuck yourself” post was worth the time even if I didn’t agree completely with Piny, et al but isn’t it time to let it drop instead of coming over here to harass the Feministes? After all a lot of people were complaining that the Feministes were treating the Sadly, Nodes like enemies rather than comrades. Arguing with your friends is one thing harassing them is another.

  29. Ah, come on, piny. Gavin just played you like a pre-CBS Strat. Next time, let him race to post alone.

  30. Yeah, she called him that, but she meant it as a compliment, because she’s a drag queen!!!–cha, cha, cha!

    What? Is there some reason why that might not be funny? I don’t get it?

  32. Sorry I failed to list all issues which might possibly affect a woman. Believe it or not, I was aiming at humor there, not an in depth essay on the economic implications of 2nd wave feminism.

    For the record, I read Pandagon semi-regularly, but never comment since the automated signup thing would never email me a password. I don’t claim to be any kind of expert on feminism, or much of anything really. I have these odd notions that women are as deserving of respect and opportunity as men, and that government intervention to make that so can be a very good thing, but if that isn’t good enough to be a feminist for you, I really don’t give a fuck.

  33. Wow, they really, honestly don’t get that their comments are transphobic, and reaffirm the idea that being trans- is a bad thing?

    I’m pleased to say I didn’t read Sadly, No before this, and now I sadly never will. Jackasses.

  34. I love the assumption by the Team Sadly Dancers that there’s an actual real live competition here.

    You know, it’s almost like there was an ideological litmus test or something…

  35. I have these odd notions that women are as deserving of respect and opportunity as men, and that government intervention to make that so can be a very good thing, but if that isn’t good enough to be a feminist for you, I really don’t give a fuck.

    Fair enough, JRod. I am guilty of lumping a lot of you together because I’m a little worn out by the (to my mind, really arrogant) presumption that Feministe should be trying to appease Gavin’s wounded ego because we’re all on the same team here, etc. That simply isn’t the point of this blog, to the best of my knowledge, although I’m sure one of the posters will correct me if I’m wrong.

    But not that I don’t get why seeing “go_fuck_yourself” in the referrers would make a person defensive. I just think that the first 270 times it’s been explained that the post’s topic was not, in fact, “SN!: Worse Than Hitler By This Much? Or By THAT Much?” ought to settle it.

  36. Wow, they really, honestly don’t get that their comments are transphobic, and reaffirm the idea that being trans- is a bad thing?

    They get it. They just don’t care, and especially not now that a transguy was mean to them. They think you should worry about something more important and less silly, like . . . Marie Jon.

    Now, in the event you aren’t willing to do that, well, that’s just too bad, because they have important REAL human beings to talk to, like John Cole.

    Yeah, I think I’m probably through reading them myself.

  37. I can’t wait until you photoshop a sub sandwich into a picture of Ann Coulter.

    That would be so funny! No, wait. Maybe not. Maybe a pie, then.

  38. Everyone is worn out, and I’m sorry for the part I played in extending this mess. Now go have a good weekend.

  39. Hmmm, well-less important topics can be mitigated by their humor value, Ilyka. Thus, Marie Jon’.

    Incidentally, just a quick glance at Memeorandom about the Coulter thing yields two egregious liberal posts which engage in flagrant ‘looksism’: Tapped, whose headline read, ‘The Right Rears Its Ugly Head’, and TBOGG, noting that in the pundette Horserace, Coulter has now edged Malkin by an adam’s apple.

    I for one welcome y’all, our new civility overlords, and join with you in condemning these two horrible posts — and, indeed, horrible, privileged people. May they burn in hell forever!

  40. “They get it. They just don’t care, and especially not now that a transguy was mean to them”

    Which proves the point in the thread about weight. That they really do think their allies’ traits are disgusting and only to be tolerated so long as they’re on the same side of an issue.

    Of course, it’s a total coincidence that there’s no way to ridicule them in the same way, to let them know that they are worthless based on their traits along the axes of “normal” and “other.” I’m sure it’s absolutely unrelated. No correlation there at all.

  41. Mandolin, I think you’ve got it right there. When you don’t think that fat people are shameful or ridiculous, there’s just no such thing as a fat joke.

  42. I don’t know, but I tend to doubt that the S,N folks feel disgust for overweight people or transfolks. I just think that they’re willing to play on wider feelings of disgust at these people for the sake of cracking wise at the expense of wingnuts. I don’t agree with this, but I also don’t really think that they’re full of hate.

  44. I don’t know, but I tend to doubt that the S,N folks feel disgust for overweight people or transfolks

    No, I totally agree–I doubt they feel disgust, or at least not conscious, acknowledged disgust, for those groups either. But then, you don’t have to identify with manure in order to spread it.

  46. If you had a choice to be fat or not to be fat, which would you choose?

    For some people, that’s like walking up to a paraplegic and saying, “If you had a choice to walk or to not walk, which would you choose?”

    In other words, it’s a fucking rude question, along the lines of, “Hey, did you stop beating your wife yet?”

  47. I’m pleased to say I didn’t read Sadly, No before this, and now I sadly never will. Jackasses.

    I second that. Who would want to?

    Another commenter:

    After all a lot of people were complaining that the Feministes were treating the Sadly, Nodes like enemies rather than comrades. Arguing with your friends is one thing harassing them is another.

    Are you really a comrade if you resist thoughtful criticism? Not only deflect and deny, but also attempt to discredit, even attack, the person who calls you on your actions? There’s nothing progressive about thinking yourself immune from criticism. You think you should get extra credit for ‘being a good guy.’ You don’t want to fully give up your privilege, and, so, it is right (and progressive) to call you on your hypocricy.

  48. “If you had a choice to be fat or not to be fat, which would you choose? ”

    If you had a choice to be a man or a woman, which would you choose?

  49. Best thing to do with AC is never mention her. She uses her provocativeness to gain media attention and promote her unreasonable ideologies. To the unreasonable, all political debate is the same – “your a faggot” and a logically cohesive argument are on in the same to those who do not practice logic. Intellectuals should simply remove her from the conversation unless she presents reason.

  50. Another excellent question … by the way, it’s a hypothetical question for the purposes of thought and discussion … obviously you wouldn’t ask it of an actual overweight person. Sheesh.

  51. Another excellent question … by the way, it’s a hypothetical question for the purposes of thought and discussion … obviously you wouldn’t ask it of an actual overweight person. Sheesh.

    Oh, you’d be horrified at what people feel free to walk up and say to fat people, including strangers on the street that they don’t even know.

    Of course, the irony in all of this is that, right now, I’m not fat. I’ve been fat in the past, lost some, gained some, finally figured out how to maintain, gained some back after knee surgery and a stressful job, now back within 5 pounds of a healthy BMI and within 10 pounds of my official goal weight with my part-time employer. (Let’s say that they’re a huge weight-loss company whose name has a couple of W’s in it.)

    Do I prefer being thin? Yes, because, for me, “being thin” is now correlated in my mind with “eating healthy, which gives me more energy and fewer nasty digestive problems.” However, I realize that not everyone loses weight as easily as I do, so for me to brag about my weight loss in these forums is, again, like bragging to a paraplegic about my sprinting ability.

  53. I’ve walked down a few streets in my time, and I just happen to be one of those people that strangers feel they can say just about any damned thing to … including personal remarks.

    However, I’ve yet to run home crying and hide under my bed over it.

  55. You know, the ones who read this blog?

    Oh, he didn’t mean us. We’re the good fats. The bad fats are all wingnuts, and politically correct thought Nazis, and people you crush on who won’t give you their phone numbers–those sorts of people.

    We’re olive oil, they’re lard. You know.

  56. No, that is not what I meant. I meant that I am reading the words and responding to them without the first thought of the age or gender or size of the person who has written them.

    Why are you obsessed with how the people you are talking to in this medium may look?

  58. obviously you wouldn’t ask it of an actual overweight person. Sheesh.

    Obviously. Unless you were on a blog and could hide behind electronic anonymity.

    “Obviously you’d never tell a black person you thought he/she was a n****r. It’s hypothetical, stooooopid.”

  59. You’re not going to start the false equivalency nonsense again, are you? Race and weight? Really, I know you can do better than that.

  61. Why are you obsessed with how the people you are talking to in this medium may look?

    Mr. Page, you are the one who asked the commenters here a question about how they’d prefer to look. Don’t start playing dumb with me now.

    You wanted thought and discussion, right? That is a different thing than playing Socrates. Every so often, see, someone wanders in here fancying himself another Socrates. And so he asks questions to provoke “thought and discussion,” imagining that the ensuing Q and A, masterfully guided by his firm but gentle virtual hand, will lead inescapably at last to the conclusion by his responders that by Jove, he’s right! It IS better to be thin than fat! (Or whatever.)

    I don’t mind discussion. I do mind being bored out of my skull by another junior member of the League of Aspiring Philosophers, Socrates Division. Make sure it is the discussion you want, and not the hemlock.

  62. Did you have a bad experience in Philosophy 101? Sometimes a rhetorical question is just a rhetorical question, and has nothing to do with this Socrates fellow who seems to have you so upset so very much.

    And if you’re bored, feel free to stop responding.

  63. By the way, I do like the ‘Oldies but Goodies’ too … that Socrates riff was right out of the ProteinWisdom play-book. Guess you can’t stop an old dog from doing the same old tricks.

  64. Did you have a bad experience in Philosophy 101?

    No, I mention it for exactly the reason I stated: It has happened here before. It is a very tedious pattern, not one I’m dying to see repeated.

    Guess you can’t stop an old dog from doing the same old tricks.

    Yes, I am sure everyone here remembers as fondly as I do all that time I spent blogging at Protein Wisdom. What the hell?

  65. Confidential to “Nettled in NM”: Current conversant is constitutionally unable to argue non-disingenuously, and would not recognize a clue if it turned into a six-foot sandwich, crawled up his ass and died. Please consider conserving your vital exasperation supplies for non-brick-wall scenaria. That is all.

  66. I meant that I am reading the words and responding to them without the first thought of the age or gender or size of the person who has written them.

    So, then, since “obviously you wouldn’t ask it of an actual overweight person,” is that an indication you assumed everyone here is thin? How far do the rest of your assumptions go, I wonder?

  67. The point was that you reacted to something that was not happening (except in your own head.)

    And honestly, I think you did that Socrates thing every bit as well as the men who taught it to you. … “Dan Collins,” “Pablo,” et al.

    Now, since you are bored, shall we call it quits for the night?

  68. Look, I’m a regular Sadly, No! reader and I like the blog a lot, but I don’t agree with the whole Ab Hugh/fat joke business (the SN guys’ reaction to the complaints being more bothersome to me than the original fat joke). Furthermore, I disagree with calling Ann Coulter a transsexual.

    But for God’s sake, can we stop acting like being overweight – or underweight, for that matter – are perfectly healthy and the same as a regular weight level? I’m not talking about looks here: I couldn’t give a shit how your weight makes you look. I’m talking about the fact that highly abnormal weight – unlike race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. – poses immense health risks. And no, I’m not trying to patronizingly tell fat people that they “just need to work it off” or what have you. I’m just perplexed by peoples’ insistence on acting like weight is a category identical to gender or race when it quite obviously isn’t.

  69. Shorter marc page: “Dude, I can mock who I want, why I want, when I want. Fuck reasons or logic. It’s all in how I feel at the time, like totally, suckas!”

  70. I’ve walked down a few streets in my time, and I just happen to be one of those people that strangers feel they can say just about any damned thing to … including personal remarks.

    However, I’ve yet to run home crying and hide under my bed over it.

    Funny, I didn’t think that saying, “What did you say to me, you rude asshole?” and running home crying were the same thing at all.

    I’m sorry you’re so upset that you’re not allowed to walk up to strangers and ask them rude questions, even when strangers do the same to you, but that’s what being polite means — treating other people the way you’d like to be treated.

    And, yes, asking a fat person, “Wouldn’t you rather be thin?” is pretty much the same thing as asking a paraplegic, “Wouldn’t you rather be able to walk?”

  71. Actually, it would be best not to worry about marc. He;s pearl-clutching at this point. Because he’s never had to “feel offended”, obviously being offended doesn’t exist. And when you deal with morons like that, the dual-dactyl salute feels damn good. I know I felt good about it. 🙂

  72. Please consider conserving your vital exasperation supplies for non-brick-wall scenaria. That is all.

    I . . . I . . . I think . . . I think I might need a 12-step program.

  73. here is a bit of comedy; I have been a reader of sadly no! and feministe, and now, this. The problem boils down to Sadly No! not understanding that they insulted one fellow by making light of his girth and how all people of girth may take this comment. They thought they were just making fun of him. Others, and Feministe writers objected, and said, with all this fellows flaws, you had to pick jokes about his girth? Then much typing above, under, below, up above one another, and side to side.

    To the Feministe: Sadly No! thinks we are not making fun of all people of girth, but this one person of girth, and we are using his girth to do it. We are sorry if you are a person of girth, but we do not mean you when we make fun of this person of girth.

    To the Sadly No!: Feministe thinks Sadly No! should be sensitive to people of girth. There are many more traits you could ridicule the target with such as his love of genocide, militarism, the fact Hitler would have (insert your own joke here).

    If none of this correct, well I apologize, but I hate to see two blogs I read regularly fall into this sniping. I think some of it good natured, but it is hard to tell in text. I am a long time lurker, and no commenter, but you all have drawn me out. I mean all this constructively, and if all this sniping is good natured to hash out some differences and draw the wingers out, well Huzzah! you fooled me. I am crossposting this comment ad Sadly No! as well.

  74. I’m sorry you’re so upset that you’re not allowed to walk up to strangers and ask them rude questions, even when strangers do the same to you, but that’s what being polite means — treating other people the way you’d like to be treated.

    A devastating response. Unfortunately, it is a response to something I did not write.

    And being over (or under) weight, One More Time, is not equivalent to being crippled by injury or congenital defect.

    (And Ilyka can explain the Strawman gambit to you; I’m sure she picked that one up as well “back there in seminary school.”)

    And now, now, now, Jack …. “pearl-clutching?” Are you calling me a “fag,” darling?

    But yes, don’t you worry your little heads over me; after all, I am much too far beneath the likes of you folks.

  76. A devastating response. Unfortunately, it is a response to something I did not write.

    No? You didn’t stroll in here and post, “If you had a choice to be fat or not to be fat, which would you choose?”

    I guess that was someone else named marc page. You really should come up with another name so we don’t keep confusing the two of you.

    Oh, and please tell Archie Thompson that being overweight is not a congenital defect. I’m sure all of his doctors will be terribly relieved when you tell them that he does not, in fact, have the rare metabolic disorder they diagnosed him with, but just needs to eat less and exercise.

  78. I didn’t “stroll in” anywhere. No legs involved ‘here.’

    And I said nothing remotely like what you pretend I appended to my question.

    An anecdotal exception to the rule does not change the fact that for most of us, our weight is what we make it.

    And Jack? “sweetpea?” Your slip is showing, hypocrite.

  79. Well, I would say, if my comments weren’t always stuck in moderation, that Archie Thompson’s a very unusual case.

    Anyway, I was telling Jackoff, the self-described Voltaire fan, in the S,N! thread that I was personally thankful Voltaire was deader than fried chicken, not least because of the long joke about chopping steaks from the fat chick’s ass in Candide. And the ‘looksism’! Several women and quite a few men are ridiculed for their looks! And the gay joke at Frederick of Prussia’s expense! Plainly, Voltaire was someone privileged who didn’t take into account everyone’s feelings as he should; a Holocaust enthusiast, you might say. I just regret the Enlightenment didn’t die with him.

  81. Commedia dell’arte

    The performances were improvised around a repertory of stock conventional situations: abortion, jealousy, fat jokes, love, some of which can be traced in the Roman comedies of Plautus and Terence, which are themselves translations of lost Greek comedies of the fourth century BCE. These characters included the ancestors of the modern clown, and troll. The dialogue and action could easily be made topical and adjusted to satirize local scandals, current events, or regional tastes, mixed with ancient jokes and punchlines. Characters were identified by costume, masks, and even props, such as the giant sandwich.

  82. marc asked If you had a choice to be fat or not to be fat, which would you choose?

    “overweight” is probably a better word to use than “fat” because everyone has a unique weight that works for them, depending on the size of their frame, height, etc. I can answer this question (and I’m not offended by it either)… whenever i’ve been overweight i’ve felt pretty awful. clothes never fit, can’t find clothes to fit, am tired, lethargic, cranky, bitchy. naw, i have never enjoyed being over my comfortable weight.

  83. Wow, that one got through but the other is still stuck. Whatever.

    Even when I guest-blogged here, I never figured out the moderation. I literally never know what’s going to trip the filter. Basics like, don’t have too many links, don’t run on too long, don’t use too much HTML, those I get. And changing usernames will mod you every time. But then there’s this mystery random factor to getting queued that just makes the process all the more exciting (annoying).

    However, there does exist here a working preview function. I am just saying.

  84. Oh, and please tell Archie Thompson that being overweight is not a congenital defect. I’m sure all of his doctors will be terribly relieved when you tell them that he does not, in fact, have the rare metabolic disorder they diagnosed him with, but just needs to eat less and exercise.

    Momo Syndrome is a condition so rare that it is believed only three other people in the world suffer from it. One in Italy and 2 in Brazil.

    rare, only three other people in the world suffer from it. oh yes, archie is certainly representative of the larger community who are overweight. and isn’t it handy he’s in the news because when someone makes a fat joke, you can always point to andy and say “how dare you. Andy can’t help it.” because andy has a disability that can’t be fixed with diet and exercise.

    while you’ve made your point that it’s wrong to generalize, a certain amount of generalization about north americans is fair when you look at the history of food production, manufacturing, and eating habits. when the north american diet infiltrates other societies, the people in those societies begin to gain weight, too.

    this is not finger wagging, it’s a fact.

  85. Our preview button died so I’ve forgotten how to use one.

    I don’t change handles like that, so that’s not it.

    I’m not saying ‘conspiracy’. At all. Our spam filter is fuct lately, too. It’s just annoying is all.

  86. just to add a headline from today

    March 2, 2007 GLOBE AND MAIL (METRO) PAGE: A19 (ILLUS) (HEALTH)
    Diabetes putting care system in dire straits
    Sedentary lifestyle, poor eating habits cited as almost 3 million Canadians now have disease

    The research, published in today’s edition of the British medical journal, The Lancet, suggests that almost three million Canadians have diabetes. (More than 90 per cent of those cases are Type 2 diabetes, a lifestyle-related disease associated with obesity and inactivity. Type 1 diabetes — once known as juvenile diabetes — is a condition whose causes are only partly understood).

    90%. that’s not archie. there’s a genetic component, but it is ignited and defused by behaviours.

  87. If you had a choice to be fat or not to be fat, which would you choose?

    See, I think the broader point about this is that the question does not exist in a context-free world. I think most people would tell you that they’d rather be thin, but how much of that is due to living in a culture that tells you incessantly Thin = Valuable! Fat = Worthless! A world in which some guy on a fashion show mocks a size 4 model as fat. A world in which Kate Winslet and Butterfield 8-era Elizabeth Taylor are referred to as porkers. We have a very fucked-up concept of what fat is in this culture, and it’s effect is widespread.

    None of that’s about health. It just isn’t. Kate Winslet is healthier than a lot of the size 00 models who live on lettuce and diet Coke (or don’t live on them, as the case might be). In fact, most people who are overweight (not obese) are healthier than those women*. However, the bulk of our societal attention is paid to consistently informing overweight people how unhealthy they are while idolizing the über-thin. At some point you conclude that health concerns are often just a rationalization for “We don’t like the way fat people look.” A lot of feminists focus on societally-imposed body image issues as one way in which women (who get the bulk, although not the totality, of the messages) are oppressed. (Bonus troll points to anyone who suggests I’m implying it’s on the same level as not being able to vote or anything as or more oppressive than that. I’m not.)

    *Please note that I am not referring to all very thin women. I understand there are women who are just naturally very thin and healthy.

    **It is also heartening that the issue of models starving themselves in order to work is gaining traction. It’s sad that it took a couple of deaths to make that happen.

  88. OT: Ilyka, I totally love you for naming that aspiring-Socrates phenom. Words cannot fully express how utterly mindblowingly annoying the fauxcrates are (I’m just jealous; I would totally be that blithely, unjustifiably arrogant if I was male and I have privilege envy), but your words came pretty damn close– I salute you.

  89. Moderate this:

    Kate Winslet is healthier than a lot of the size 00 models who live on lettuce and diet Coke (or don’t live on them, as the case might be).

    Do you happen to have Miss Winslet’s medical file in front of you?
    I’m sure your readers have questions.

    … women (who get the bulk, although not the totality, of the messages) …

    Perhaps you should leave the jokes to the bad kids at SadlyNo.

    (Bonus troll points to anyone who suggests I’m implying it’s on the same level as not being able to vote or anything as or more oppressive than that.)

    And who would dare to drink from your ‘poisoned well?’

    *Please note that I am not referring to all very thin women. I understand there are women who are just naturally very thin and healthy.

    Noted: you may generalize about “very thin women” but will not tolerate generalizing about anyone who is (I hope this is not offensive) less than “very thin.”

    **It is also heartening that the issue of models starving themselves in order to work is gaining traction. It’s sad that it took a couple of deaths to make that happen.

    At least they did not die in vain: their deaths conveniently serve to help you make your point.

  90. We have a very fucked-up concept of what fat is in this culture, and it’s effect is widespread.

    We have a fucked up concept of what constitutes beauty. Hollywood and the fashion industry exert tremendous pressure on women to be supermodels (not just skinny, but tall and airbrushed and poreless and perfectly symmetrical). In N. America many women seem to swing from one extreme (extreme dieting) to the other. They’re rarely content with how they look because they can never meet the standard.

    The words “fat” and “skinny” are meaningless really. In fucked up high pressure Hollywood and the fashion industry, a fat woman would be defined as someone who is 5’5″ and 135 pounds (even though 135 pounds is a healthy average weight for someone who is 5’5″). They prefer her to be 110 for the camera, so she practically has to starve herself to achieve and maintain that. I’m using 5’5″ but most models start at 5’8. I’ve met tall women in the industry who starve themselves to 110. They’re underweight and suffer from malnutrition.

    Still, there’s a credible argument to be made against having a disproportionate amount of fat in one’s body. It causes disease. Fat that can kill you isn’t beautiful in any sense of the word, and this has nothing to do with Hollywood. A 5’5″ female, depending on her skeleton, should be anywhere from 125-144 pounds. If she’s 5’5′ and 160 pounds, she’s verging on obese by medical standards. (I’ve been there. I know.) It seems to me that for that woman to cry foul about the pressure to be thin (been there, done that, too) is a distraction from a pressing health issue.

    Or am I completely off track?

  91. All roads lead to the fat discussion – fucking amazing! People must just luv discussing this subject to death or you could actually be on a thread about homo/trans-gender phobia and not even come accross the discussion of “Are the fat evil – or simply pathetic?”

    So sick of it all, so fucking sick of it!

  92. It seems to me that for that woman to cry foul about the pressure to be thin (been there, done that, too) is a distraction from a pressing health issue.

    If the pressure were based on health concerns, that would be one thing. But it’s not. The reality is that most people who critique body size aren’t the slightest bit interested in health. I think there’s nothing wrong with crying foul on that. In fact, I think it’s good, because it helps women have a healthy body image, and it helps to prevent health issues on the opposite end of the spectrum.

    If societally we were so damn concerned about health, we would seriously look at what we’re serving children in schools. How to make healthy foods affordable for the poor. Any number of things that are health-related. I think that pressuring people to be thin is a distraction from that. It doesn’t encourage actual healthy eating habits. I think in most cases it discourages them in favor of extreme dieting. No one’s telling us “Be healthy.” They’re telling us “Be thin.” They’re not synonymous. You can easily be thin and unhealthy.

  93. All roads lead to the fat discussion – fucking amazing! People must just luv discussing this subject to death or you could actually be on a thread about homo/trans-gender phobia and not even come accross the discussion of “Are the fat evil – or simply pathetic?”

    Yes, I take your point. Sorry. I’ll be happy to take this particular discussion to the other thread.

  94. Eh, fuck it, as long as I were there, I might as well let myself be fucking pulled in to it. Response to Leslie2:

    Is smoking healthy?
    Is cocaine healthy?
    Is living in a state of near starvation healthy?
    Is the stress that comes with hating your own body healthy?

    But if you’re looking at a person who does all those things to stay slim, you will automatically assume they are healthier than a person who holds extra weight on their body.

    It’s funny people were obsessed with this when I was a kid in the 1980s. I grew up hating myself and my body and even when I was 100 lbs I thought I was too fat! But somehow, the level of obsession over this now, it is really like nothing I’ve ever seen before. It actually scares me a little. Because the message of it all is “We should all look the same and those who look different should be shunned” and all along there are many more Americans who fit into the “overweight” category than the “thin” category. So it’s a little like a minority imposing it’s will on the majority. And the majority go for it!!!

    Stop the insanity people! Let’s just try to live our lives as healthy as we see fit to live it and let others live as they see fit. When we start going on about the healthcare system being broken by the evil/pathetic fat folks out there (AHHHH! DIABETIES! HEART DISEASE! DEATH AND DISEASE! AHHHH!) try to remember that our whole fucking system from healthcare down is being broken by a system in which 1% control the vast majortiy of the wealth and they keep trying to take more and more. If we need to be angry, let’s direct it at them. Up with class warfare!

    But they are the strong, you prefer to pick on the weak. Ask yourself how that meshes with calling yourself a progressive.

  95. Now back onto the original point of this thread. I agree with piny. You don’t attack prejudice by trying to change the mind of the most extreme bigots. That’s a waste of time.

    However, I do think that pointing out that people like Ann Coulter or Fred Phelps are homophobes can help drive that point home to people who are bigoted themselves, but not to the extremes of Coulter of Phelps. So it’s a starting point. Since there’s still a reasonable amount of the population who doesn’t think it’s wrong and, in fact, considers it a moral position, I think this still needs to be held up and pointed out. Not necessarily by everyone, of course. But it does have its place.

    Eventually you have to move beyond that, though. Once you’ve convinced most people that homophobia is wrong, you can help to educate them on the subtle ways it appears in our culture (cf. the New York Post article). This can be done simultaneously with pointing out the extreme examples of it. I don’t think it’s a litmus test either. If one blogger chooses to point out the most extreme examples, another blogger’s decision maybe to let that slide and focus on more subtle manifestations shouldn’t be taken as an example of the dread Not Talking About Important Issues.

    WRT transphobia, I think we have a lot more work on that. More people recognize homophobia as wrong than recognize transphobia as wrong. Do I think that mocking Ann Coulter’s homophobia by pointing out her alleged resemblance to someone’s figment of a drag queen is an effective strategy? Hell no. In fact, I think it validates her argument. You’ve just ceded to her the ground on which she’ll come back and say “Look at how hypocritical the liberals are! They pretend to think I’m prejudiced, but in reality they agree with me.” What does that accomplish? It just further instills the notion that being trans is bad.

  96. Comparing Ann Coulter to a transexual or a drag queen is not done to mock her, it’s done to needle her fans who are very homophobic (and transphobic) and who consider her to represent some ideal of feminine beauty, and to a lesser extent the media system which has promoted her (at least early on) largely based on those looks.

  97. hm… I would think that the ability for a “moderate” bigot (of the “I don’t want the queers dead, I just don’t want them teaching my children” variety) to point to someone like Coulter and say “See, I’m not a homophobe, it’s not like I’m calling the queers faggots or anything” would make it more difficult to convince a less rabid homophobe that they were wrong. As long as they have a Phelps or a Coulter to set the extreme for them, they probably feel good about how “tolerant” they are.

  98. But for God’s sake, can we stop acting like being overweight – or underweight, for that matter – are perfectly healthy and the same as a regular weight level? I’m not talking about looks here: I couldn’t give a shit how your weight makes you look. I’m talking about the fact that highly abnormal weight – unlike race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. – poses immense health risks. And no, I’m not trying to patronizingly tell fat people that they “just need to work it off” or what have you. I’m just perplexed by peoples’ insistence on acting like weight is a category identical to gender or race when it quite obviously isn’t.

    I’m sorry; who’s doing that here?

    Linky-poo, s’il vous plait.

    HTML, the list of words that trip the spam filter here is vast and includes some rather common and unremarkable terms. It’s nothing personal.

  99. Comparing Ann Coulter to a transexual or a drag queen is not done to mock her, it’s done to needle her fans who are very homophobic (and transphobic) and who consider her to represent some ideal of feminine beauty, and to a lesser extent the media system which has promoted her (at least early on) largely based on those looks.

    if that’s your strategy, it’s failed.

  100. Someone at Shakespeare’s Sister linked to this post by Andrew Sullivan, in which he responds to an email asking him when he went from viewing AC’s homophobia as “vaudevillian high camp” to “standard bearer [of] the new Republicanism, one who “truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism.” I think it nicely illustrates some of the points we’ve been raising here (my emphasis):

    It’s a fair point. I once called her a “drag queen posing as a fascist.” But I didn’t mean that as a compliment. My only response to my reader is that seeing her live in front of a young, cheering crowd made me feel a lot less complacent. Being a gay man in a crowd that cheers a woman denigrating someone for being a “faggot” is an educative experience. Seeing college kids line up to worship her tore me up. These kids deserve better. They’re young and smart enough to be interested in conservatism – and this is what they are getting? From a stage where two presidential candidates just spoke? I guess I’ve been a bit of a smug ironist who just got mugged by conservative reality.

  101. Hi, I’m a trans woman. I look nothing like Ann Coulter at all, and vice versa. Since your strategy is relevant to me, since you’re using trans people as some sort of weapon, do you want to know I think of it? IT SUCKS. Don’t ever use that strategy against someone who’s bigoted against me, because it’s like a slap in the face, in the wrong direction. JUST CUT IT OUT, PLEASE. You can’t cut someone down, or “needle her fans” while saying something along the lines of “she’s not an ideal of feminine beauty, she looks like a transsexual” WITHOUT BEING TRANSPHOBIC. Don’t you see the equation there? She’s not pretty, she’s grotesque, like a drag queen / transsxual / a “bad” tarnssexual? No, no, no. Take your toys and GO HOME and never do this again? How hard is that to understand?

  103. Do you happen to have Miss Winslet’s medical file in front of you? I’m sure your readers have questions.

    Ah, so much for the thoughtful discussion you claimed to want. Sure, I might be wrong about Kate Winslet, but odds are against it. I was going with the odds. Next time I’ll be sure enough to choose language precious enough for someone as thoughtful as you are. Would the words “very likely” have assuaged your feelings?

    Perhaps you should leave the jokes to the bad kids at SadlyNo.

    I see the problem. I wasn’t trying to make a joke. Clearly that got past you. Neither was this a critique of the S!N! picture. AFAIC, that’s over. Whatever. I haven’t stopped reading S!N! either.

    And who would dare to drink from your ‘poisoned well?’

    Clearly you would, as you’re fisking my comment, although I didn’t mean that aside to refer to you at all.

    Noted: you may generalize about “very thin women” but will not tolerate generalizing about anyone who is (I hope this is not offensive) less than “very thin.”

    No, I was specifically noting that to NOT generalize about very thin women.

    At least they did not die in vain: their deaths conveniently serve to help you make your point.

    What, the point that starving yourself to death is bad? Yeah, kind of like how I might discuss that the casualties in Iraq indicate that the war is bad.

    What the hell is your damage? My original comment wasn’t an attack on you at all. This one was, sure, because you responded like an asshole. But I took you at your word when you said you raised the question for thought and discussion. My bad, I guess.

  104. Comparing Ann Coulter to a transexual or a drag queen is not done to mock her, it’s done to needle her fans who are very homophobic (and transphobic) and who consider her to represent some ideal of feminine beauty, and to a lesser extent the media system which has promoted her (at least early on) largely based on those looks.

    No. You do it b/c you’re transphobic and sexist and are judging her by her appearance like you do with every other female and failing her at womanhood based on your own prejudices. Don’t be so humble! This is not about Ann or her fans. This is all about you.

    Hi, I’m a trans woman. I look nothing like Ann Coulter at all, and vice versa. Since your strategy is relevant to me, since you’re using trans people as some sort of weapon, do you want to know I think of it? IT SUCKS. Don’t ever use that strategy against someone who’s bigoted against me, because it’s like a slap in the face, in the wrong direction. JUST CUT IT OUT, PLEASE. You can’t cut someone down, or “needle her fans” while saying something along the lines of “she’s not an ideal of feminine beauty, she looks like a transsexual” WITHOUT BEING TRANSPHOBIC. Don’t you see the equation there? She’s not pretty, she’s grotesque, like a drag queen / transsxual / a “bad” tarnssexual? No, no, no. Take your toys and GO HOME and never do this again? How hard is that to understand?

    Thank you, Holly.

  105. I didn’t say that was my strategy and nor was I defending it, I was merely pointing out that the object of the mockery is not transexuals or even Ann Coulter, but her fans. Describing things is not defending them, though obviously the nature of something can affect whether or not it is deserving of criticism.

  107. I didn’t say that was my strategy and nor was I defending it, I was merely pointing out that the object of the mockery is not transexuals or even Ann Coulter, but her fans. Describing things is not defending them, though obviously the nature of something can affect whether or not it is deserving of criticism.

    Your analysis is flat out wrong, sorry. Replace transsexual with black and see if you get it. Using an oppressed group to mock someone whose followers hate that group is not something that someone who doesn’t share hatred of that group would think to do, or would think appropriate to do.

  109. I”m finding these disagreements odd. I don’t know what the bolded Andrew Sullivan quote or Em’s comments have to do with anything I said. I never argued that it shouldn’t bother people or that it shouldn’t be criticized. The fact that the purpose isn’t to mock transsexuals doesn’t mean that transexuals aren’t collateral damage, or that to some people seeing the attempted joke fail to see “ann coulter fans neener neener” and instead see “trannies are gross and funny.”

    As for replacing it with “black” I’m not sure if there’s a direct analogue, but it strikes me as being somewhat similar to race-baiting a racist. Like calling a racist a “n*gger lover” despite the fact that you personally can’t comprehend why miscegenation would trouble anybody. You’re invoking their prejudices in order to insult them or goad them. I agree that such discourse is problematic for a variety of reasons and probably isn’t the route for high minded liberals to take on a regular basis, but the insensitivity involved does not equate with bigotry.

  110. Hey, I just said Voltaire is very hilarious, and his use of irony is one of things that contributes to that. I guess the whole “best of all possible worlds” thing escaped you when you read it, but I figured out the gist of it.

  112. The fact that the purpose isn’t to mock transsexuals doesn’t mean that transexuals aren’t collateral damage, or that to some people seeing the attempted joke fail to see “ann coulter fans neener neener” and instead see “trannies are gross and funny.”

    And you’re just a-ok with the collateral damage to people who, you know, might be your allies, as long as you show some righties what fer!

    As for replacing it with “black” I’m not sure if there’s a direct analogue, but it strikes me as being somewhat similar to race-baiting a racist. Like calling a racist a “n*gger lover” despite the fact that you personally can’t comprehend why miscegenation would trouble anybody. You’re invoking their prejudices in order to insult them or goad them.

    No, you’re indulging your own prejudices. Because when else do you get to call black folks niggers?

  113. Truly, zuzu. Didn’t you know it’s A-OK to throw those durn trannies under the bus in order to mock–not the offensive person herself, who is so far afield that arguments could be made against the worth of even mocking her–no, not her–but the peon fans of said offensive person. B/c clearly, heckling nobodies is a perfect time to inflict some collateral damage on the The Tranz.

  114. I’m out. This is bad faith arguing, putting things into my mouth that I did not say, assuming I believe things I do not, ignoring things I actually did write.

    I never said or implied anything was a-ok, and in fact said the opposite. The comparison to african-american racism was brought up by Em, not me, and I was just trying to make sense of the comparison and illustrate a point. So I get called a racist.

    I really appreciate these conversations even when they get very heated. I think it’s useful to hash out this stuff out. It’s a good way for us all to learn. But these conversations are not useful when bad faith is constantly assumed.

    I’ll return to lurking.

  115. Dude, you acknowledged that your preferred method of arguing caused collateral damage, and you still don’t see anything wrong with it.

    Pointing that out is not arguing in bad faith.

  116. the reality is that most people who critique body size aren’t the slightest bit interested in health.

    now there’s an acceptable generalization!

    the medical community is waaaaaaay off base when it says the type two diabetes epidemic is directly linked to lifestyle. those bastards!

  117. Eh, fuck it, as long as I were there, I might as well let myself be fucking pulled in to it. Response to Leslie2:

    Is smoking healthy?
    Is cocaine healthy?
    Is living in a state of near starvation healthy?
    Is the stress that comes with hating your own body healthy?

    But if you’re looking at a person who does all those things to stay slim, you will automatically assume they are healthier than a person who holds extra weight on their body.

    on what planet? really, what planet? and why would you give weight (pardon…) to any clown who thinks so, though i’ve yet to meet such a clown.

  118. If societally we were so damn concerned about health, we would seriously look at what we’re serving children in schools. How to make healthy foods affordable for the poor. Any number of things that are health-related.

    i can tell you that in canada, many schools have banned junk food vending machines and made changes in the cafeteria. the kidz aren’t happy about it and neither are the corporations who peddle the crap but it is happening here. consumers are driving change, but it’s a slow process.

  119. I didn’t say that was my strategy and nor was I defending it, I was merely pointing out that the object of the mockery is not transexuals or even Ann Coulter, but her fans. Describing things is not defending them, though obviously the nature of something can affect whether or not it is deserving of criticism.

    I apologize for saying it was your strategy. The rest of the comment stands.

  120. now there’s an acceptable generalization!

    the medical community is waaaaaaay off base when it says the type two diabetes epidemic is directly linked to lifestyle. those bastards!

    Oh FFS. First, I said “most”, not “all.” Second, I wasn’t talking about a fucking professional medical context. I was talking about the broader societal pressure that comes from non-medical circles. I didn’t realize I had to spell everything damn thing out.

    With that, I’m done with this shit. If people just want to assume bad faith on my part, they can do that without actually talking to me. Enjoy.

  121. now there’s an acceptable generalization!

    the medical community is waaaaaaay off base when it says the type two diabetes epidemic is directly linked to lifestyle. those bastards!

    Do you know how doctors are MADE? It’s kind of like sausage-making.

    So, let me put it this way: I’m willing to accept that certain kinds of food intake are unhealthy and risk-o-genic. What’s dubious is the idea that there’s anything close to a linear relationship between those risks and weight itself. IE, there are also thin people at risk of various diseases due to bad food intake, I submit.

    There’s also the issue of the cure being worse than the disease, as it is for some. For the population to become uniformly thin, we need famine conditions. Life expectancy is not great under those conditions. Just to give a boundary situation.

  122. Everyone just ignore me, but I will add that I do not think corporate marketing of ridiculously high fat/high salt etc/huge portion sizes (“giving the people what they want”) is a good thing in regards to most people’s evolutionary relationship to food (that it is essential, and fat tastes good). They are basically marketing drugs in a way. I can say that even though I am a twig, I have an extremely unhealthy relationship with food. Additionally, the fact that the large divide between rich and poor and the increasing chainification/fast-foodification of everything puts poorer people smack dab in ground zero for the unhealthiest choices in lots of areas of the country, the results are not good. I’m talking about food, which leads to weight. We don’t have to talk about weight to talk about problems with food. But I digress. Good night, don’t let the bedbugs etc.

  123. hugh’s weight was picked on specifically because of his militarism, why no one at this wabside gets this is strange. The man advocates military solutions to problems, when the closest combat experience he’s had is having to tear open a rugged twinkie package with his teeth.

  124. PP, while I hate talking about weight, I love talking about food. You raise a good point. Maybe we should all shut up with the weight moralizing until we improve the choices people have around food.

  125. You know, it doesn’t really matter why someone is overweight for the purposes of analyzing anti-fat attitudes. It makes no difference to the person mooing at me from a passing car how much I exercise, or what I eat, or whether I take medication that packs on weight. Because discussing the whys and wherefores of my weight puts the focus on me and whether I’m a virtuous fat person who doesn’t deserve abuse or a slothful fat person who does.

    Instead of putting the focus where it belongs: on the people who think it’s okay to hang out car windows and moo at fat people.

    And all of this talk about “health” and “Can we just stop pretending that fat people are healthy?” and “You just need to develop a thicker skin” is just another way to shift the focus from the abuser to the abused, and whether the abused is doing something wrong to warrant the abuse.

  126. In any event, the topic of the post is Ann Coulter and homophobia/transphobia, not weight and health. AFAIK, nobody’s taken the position that all fat people are the picture of health, so why is this being discussed now?

  127. Pingback: Siempre Contra » Stam prost…

  129. And all of this talk about “health” and “Can we just stop pretending that fat people are healthy?” and “You just need to develop a thicker skin” is just another way to shift the focus from the abuser to the abused, and whether the abused is doing something wrong to warrant the abuse.

    I’m glad you made this point (and the other things you said in your comment). The illogic you highlight is the same one that leads to people turning blame back onto alleged victims of sexual assault (“You know, you really shouldn’t dress like/be out late/etc.”). That’s done for many reasons: It’s easy, for one. But, also, there’s the benefit of denying the realities of sexual violence (that it could happen to you). It’s much easier to believe that individuals brings on various social problems themselves. Moralizing (and they say that they’re only addressing the behavior, and not the person) works exactly the way you say it does: to shift the blame for the act of violence from the person saying/doing it to the victim, to make it seem that they did something to cause that action. It’s pretty disparaging when a person’s looks themselves are thought to ‘bring on to them’ sexual, racial, gendered, etc., hatred.

    As you say, it’s plain and simple: A person shouldn’t be stigmatized for their weight or appearance, nor for their race, sexuality, gender, or class. The blame should always go onto the one who makes the attack.

  130. The point is, FAT PEOPLE KNOW THEY’RE FAT.

    I have yet to meet this alleged fat person who’s happily gliding through life convinced that he or she is the model of perfect health. I do, however, know many overweight people who constantly stress out in terror over every morsel they put in their mouths in addition to just feeling horrible about themselves. And I know people who are borderline agoraphobic, and it’s hard to say no, no one is noticing you or judging you or disliking you because of your weight when that’s not true and when they do go out they get yelled at and looked at with disgust.

    Criticizing and harassing strangers about health risks doesn’t seem like a great strategy to help anyone, even if there weren’t a lot of emotional eaters in the world. No doubt you’re legitimately concerned, but it’s pretty hard to go through life and not get the message that there are health risks involved with weight. People get that, but for every individual there are a lot of individual factors that they deal with in their daily lives. You don’t know them, you don’t know their struggles and their routines and what they deal with, and you’re not helping them by acting like they’re sedentary morons who are just sitting in BK eating 15 double whoppers because they think that’s the road to health and all you have to do is point out it’s not. Being overweight isn’t a moral failing, and it’s not really something it’s partcularly helpful to concern ourselves with in others unless they ask us to.

  131. I have a question about Ann Coulter, and I apologise if I asked this before and just don’t remember:
    There’s a line of thinking that says that part of why she gets media attention is that she’s a skinny blonde that people can stare at, and so she has more leeway in what crazy shit she can say before people are horrified. However, I have noticed that there are aspects of her appearance that, when examined specifically, detract from her perfect blonde princess look that’s helping to make her a hit. This amuses me in that the kind of people who are willing to overlook what comes out of her mouth in favor of what she looks like usually foam at the mouth when they identify these same aspects of appearance I’m seeing in others. If I wanted to talk about this without having to go through all that background and academic language, how would I do so without spitting on those I respect who may share those appearance aspects?

    In short (and here I verge into the potentially offensive in the sake of brevity, so I apologise in advance): Sometimes I can see Ann’s adam’s apple. Normally her fanboys would consider this game over as far as her hotttttness – I know I sure wouldn’t get any slack from them when they saw mine – but for her they mentally airbrush it out. It’s IOKIYAR for appearance.

    So, in all seriousness, how do I say that without being a dick? Does that work, or was that offensive?

  132. Holly: Thank you thank you thank you thank you!

    See, the thing with Ann Coulter is that she explicitly trades on her appearance. Her legions of support trolls (see this comment by Dana at Pandagon) say she’s beautiful. I happen to think she looks grotesque, a skeleton with shriveled skin and a wig. So far, that’s restricting the commentary to Ms. Coulter alone.

    It’s fine to just stop there! You don’t have to go on from there to the tranny jokes to emphasize the grotesquitude. The only things I have in common with her are being tall and being blonde. I am a transwoman, I don’t appreciate it, and it’s not funny. Even if she was transgendered, something I don’t really want to think about too closely, it still wouldn’t be funny.

    By trading on her alleged beauty, she makes said beauty fair game. But that’s the only thing that’s fair game. If she had, say, a wide nose and big lips, would it be okay to bust out with jokes about how she’s half black or something?

    (Philosophizer, maybe this answers some of your question?)

  133. However, I have noticed that there are aspects of her appearance that, when examined specifically, detract from her perfect blonde princess look that’s helping to make her a hit. This amuses me in that the kind of people who are willing to overlook what comes out of her mouth in favor of what she looks like usually foam at the mouth when they identify these same aspects of appearance I’m seeing in others.

    In terms of her general scariness (fwiw, whenever I look at AC’s face I get the mental image of what I can’t help but feel like are probably very fucking sharp scary nails; the longer she talks, the more I worry about how much it would suck to meet those nails in a dark alley), I’d have to guess that the reason she’s taken for a close-enough facsimile of the Barbie ideal might have something to do with what I hope has to be a limited number of people willing to get up in public and say the kind of shit she says; considering how much she supports hatred of women, I’d hope that a much smaller portion are women; I would imagine a proportionately very small number are skinny blonde women. [was that really all one sentence? I’ve been reading too much garcia marquez] And even though she isn’t quite a Barbie, close enough is good enough because she caters to the crowd of people who I think really do have a need to objectify women in that way. Or who, more specifically, perhaps need a woman to objectify in that role.

    But then I also can’t detach my visceral reaction upon seeing her from how much I detest the things she says and stands for; I guess I shouldn’t assume that detachment from her followers, and the fact that they love the things she stands for says to me that there is absolutely no accounting for taste.

    In re her neck, I’d say that you just have to take off the table things that your yourself do not find “bad.” If you wouldn’t hold anyone else’s adam’s apple, sexuality, size, or to use Moira’s great example, facial features against them, then don’t use them as insults. Even ever so gently. I imagine you dislike bigotry and…oh, the general evil in people other than Ann Coulter, so they’re fair game, as is any snarkyass way of pointing them out. I agree with you and Moira that she has put her beauty on the table, so that’s fair game too in my book, though I don’t usually think to mention it unless it’s brought up (the evil! it blinds!).

    I get the impulse to want to use her fans’ own bigotry against them, I do, but you can’t without hurting a lot of people you didn’t mean to hurt. You’re clearly trying to avoid that, so my advice would be to just find something else about her to snark on (shouldn’t be hard).

  134. Moira, thanks, that’s what I was looking for.

    I was thinking about someone I know who made a ‘tranny’ joke on her, but was trying to get across that her fanboys would go after anyone else they thought gave off ‘transgendered’ cues, but she’s protected.

    I told him, I know what you’re going for, but don’t say that to other people, because unless you explain all that out first, they’ll hear ‘ooh tranniez r gross’ because that’s what most people making that joke are saying.

    I was trying to get a feel for whether I called it right – I feel like there’s got to be a way to make his point without insulting the transgendered.

  135. thank you defenestrated, i posted before I saw yours.

    so have we concluded that there’s no good way to go through Ann’s marketed appearance to call out the transphobic? it just feels like there ought to be *some* way to do it without hurting those we respect.

    damn asshole xenophobes, ruining it for the rest of us.

Comments are currently closed.