I think of this as primarily a knitting blog. I'm free with restaurant recommendations (lunch at Cafe Orient again today: crispy shrimp!), and comments on travel and gardening, but I've mostly kept the blog empty of that which could be controversial.
In real life, politics is up there among my passions. In the afternoon, I'm knitting while watching Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. I'm a deep-dyed liberal, have been since childhood. I've read the Bible, and can't see how any follower of Jesus can be anything else.
In the last several days, there has been a disturbing blossoming of hate speech by Republican women toward men. Some of the objects of these "ladies's" scorn are Republicans, some Democrats, but they're all men whom these women have targeted as enemies. Sarah Palin described some (journalists? I didn't get the context) as "impotent" and "limp." A generation ago, those would have come under the legal designation of "fighting words." Call a man impotent, and he's not liable for arrest for battery if he socks you in the nose. A couple of generations more in the past, and the result wouldn't have been a bloody nose, but pistols at dawn.
Yesterday, a candidate for office, another one of those good-looking brunettes who are fashionable among Republicans these days, called her opponent in the Republican primary "unmanly," and said that "this isn't a bake sale," and he should put on his "man pants." Some lefty commentators (Olbermann and Maddow, for starters) saw this as an implication that the gentleman in question is homosexual. Having seen some of her campaign's other comments about him, I think that's there, but there's more. There are plenty of manly homosexuals; the military is full of them, as is society as a whole. Among my acquaintances, there are more straight wimps than gay ones. No, the "unmanly" designation, coupled with the "bake sale" and "man pants" comments, was designed to neuter him. As there is no humanity without gender, the remark dehumanizes him in a very personal and vicious way. It's mean girl bullying, and should be accepted no more than Imus's "nappy-headed ho's" remarks.
The Sauce for the Goose Rule should be applied: blatant sexism is just as bad when women wield it against men as when men wield it against women. Ms. Palin can't be allowed to hide behind a cloak of victimhood when she's hiding a dagger under that cloak
In real life, politics is up there among my passions. In the afternoon, I'm knitting while watching Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. I'm a deep-dyed liberal, have been since childhood. I've read the Bible, and can't see how any follower of Jesus can be anything else.
In the last several days, there has been a disturbing blossoming of hate speech by Republican women toward men. Some of the objects of these "ladies's" scorn are Republicans, some Democrats, but they're all men whom these women have targeted as enemies. Sarah Palin described some (journalists? I didn't get the context) as "impotent" and "limp." A generation ago, those would have come under the legal designation of "fighting words." Call a man impotent, and he's not liable for arrest for battery if he socks you in the nose. A couple of generations more in the past, and the result wouldn't have been a bloody nose, but pistols at dawn.
Yesterday, a candidate for office, another one of those good-looking brunettes who are fashionable among Republicans these days, called her opponent in the Republican primary "unmanly," and said that "this isn't a bake sale," and he should put on his "man pants." Some lefty commentators (Olbermann and Maddow, for starters) saw this as an implication that the gentleman in question is homosexual. Having seen some of her campaign's other comments about him, I think that's there, but there's more. There are plenty of manly homosexuals; the military is full of them, as is society as a whole. Among my acquaintances, there are more straight wimps than gay ones. No, the "unmanly" designation, coupled with the "bake sale" and "man pants" comments, was designed to neuter him. As there is no humanity without gender, the remark dehumanizes him in a very personal and vicious way. It's mean girl bullying, and should be accepted no more than Imus's "nappy-headed ho's" remarks.
The Sauce for the Goose Rule should be applied: blatant sexism is just as bad when women wield it against men as when men wield it against women. Ms. Palin can't be allowed to hide behind a cloak of victimhood when she's hiding a dagger under that cloak
posted by Marina at 12:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home