Why Kathleen. Your inbox sounds just like a feminist’s!
Published by Lisa Kansas October 7th, 2008 in Douchebag on Feminism, Wankers, What Patriarchy?If you haven’t already stumbled across conservative columnist Kathleen Parker’s article on Sarah Palin’s total incompetence for the position of Vice-President of the United States, check it out.
And now she’s shocked, shocked I see, to find that she is getting hate mail for having written it:
Speak Correctly
Or build a big bunker.By Kathleen Parker
Allow me to introduce myself. I am a traitor and an idiot. Also, my mother should have aborted me and left me in a dumpster, but since she didn’t, I should “off” myself.
Those are just a few nuggets randomly selected from thousands of e-mails written in response to my column suggesting that Sarah Palin is out of her league and should step down.
Kathleen, who can’t be as slow on the uptake as her series of “ah-hah!” moments illustrated in these two articles make her seem, is still flailing around wildly–she has decided that we the people are just so much more partisan than we used to be! That’s where all this fire and brimstone are suddenly coming from! —or as she says:
After 20 years of column writing, I’m familiar with angry mail. But the past few days have produced responses of a different order. Not just angry, but vicious and threatening.
Kath, we-the-people aren’t any more partisan than we ever were. Nor is this…erm, to you “new”…breed of insults and threats any different than it ever has been. Here’s some fun readin’ for ya! (I hear Sarah Palin’s voice in my head, saying that. Sigh.)
God damn your god damned old hellfired god damned soul to hell god damn you and god damn your god damned family’s god damned hellfired god damned soul to hell and good damnation god damn them and god damn your god damned friends to hell.
Peter Muggins, American citizen, letter to President Abraham Lincoln (1809-65)
My one ardent desire is that after the war he should be publicly castrated in front of Nurse Cavell’s statue.
Lytton Strachey (1880-1932) on David Lloyd George, prime minister of England during WWI
A hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor, whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any?
Thomas Paine (1737-1809) to George Washington
He would kill his own mother just so that he could use her skin to make a drum to beat his own praises.
Margot Asquith (1864-1945), writer and wife of Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith, on Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
I find this extremely funny in the same way I have been finding other conservative pundits’ sudden epiphanies on the prevalence of sexism funny–and like Kathleen, they seem to think that it isn’t that sexism has been around already forever–oh noes! It’s that sexism has just now come into existence. Just now!
…of course, you might have noticed it sooner if you had ever had or allowed a significantnumberofwomentoholdhighlyvisiblepositionsofpowerinyourparty NO NO NO, that can’t be it! Too, um, obvious, or something. Right?
Kathleen, do not follow in the path of these obvious morons. Listen to me, and I will tell you why your angry mail has suddenly turned vicious and threatening. The people you used to offend? Who sent you the angry but coherent and non-threatening mail? Those were these people: left-leaning, liberal, feminist people.
Now, for the first time, who are you offending? Not those people.
You’re offending your own people. And when your own people hear shit they don’t like, they don’t just angrily disagree, Kathleen. They want to rape you and beat you to death and they want you to KNOW IT.
Who needs feminists? You have, for the past twenty years. That’s who let you glide gently through life in the public eye, taking all the repressed rage and abuse upon themselves so you could spend all that time sneering at them and dismissing them and their efforts for you and every other woman like you who actually gets to be in the public eye in any serious professional role other than actress. Your people, Kathleen, really don’t have any use for you as other than a female talking head. Their unbelievably cynical nomination of Sarah Palin as Vice-President, as the most convenient available ambulatory vagina that might be tolerable to the horde of fundamentalist nutjobs that your people have decided to cultivate as their power base, doesn’t prove that to you?
If it doesn’t, I don’t feel sorry for you. You’re simply reaping what you’ve so enthusiastically helped sow. But maybe this’ll pull your head out of your ass…one can always hope.
You know, I’ve been a little leery of you since the “give the MRA’s a chance, reeeeeally!” posts, because they clearly aren’t dealing with you in good faith and yet you keep cutting them undeserved slack in comments out of what I presume is some bizarre self-flagellatory desire to self-check*, but this is absolutely brilliant.
* I mean seriously, Factory flat called you ’stupid’ the other day with no contextual backup and you just let that slide? Self-respect, please!
I don’t recall asking anybody to “give the MRAs a chance” either “reeeeeallly” or otherwise–which bodily orifice did you pull that out of? I’m sorry that I’m good enough friends with somebody whose opinions you don’t like that it makes you leery when that person and I exchange good-natured insults–oh, wait. No I’m not.
Seriously, Grumphy, thanks for the compliment on this post, but it’s rather a bit much to be policing my personal interactions with anybody other than yourself, isn’t it..?
I too feel compelled to post to note how hard you just pwned Parker.
We’re getting “undeserved slack in (the) comments” are we?
Can’t say I’d noticed that. Perhaps, Grumphy, you mean that everyone (with perhaps the exception of Amanda, and even her ’slap’ at Factory was at least expletive free) is disagreeing without resorting to the usual petty put-downs and ad hom attacks?
It’s been refreshing to comment on such a strongly feminist blog without enduring an avalanche of rubbishing followed by a “you’re banned” - sadly not an experience I’m used to (and I am no ‘troll’ before you go jumping to any unsupported conclusions).
I’ve enjoyed it so much that I find I can’t stay away (doesn’t that just warm you right up?!)
As to the dealing in good faith - well, I can only talk (type) for myself in saying that Lisa is very welcome at ‘His Side,’ and Glenn has publicly assured her that he’ll not manipulate or alter her posts in any way. Knowing Glenn’s ‘blog/public face’ as well as I do, I’m completely confident that he’ll follow through on that promise.
As to the dealing in good faith - well, I can only talk (type) for myself in saying that Lisa is very welcome at ‘His Side,’ and Glenn has publicly assured her that he’ll not manipulate or alter her posts in any way. Knowing Glenn’s ‘blog/public face’ as well as I do, I’m completely confident that he’ll follow through on that promise.
That alone makes Glenn better off than most of the feminist bloggers I’ve seen.
Danny,
Maybe Glenn gets less death threats.
So getting more death threats allows you free licence to manipulate other people’s material as you like? Interesting point of view.
I’ve attempted to post very ‘vanilla’ and reasonable comments on other feminist blogs before. The comments contained nothing inflammatory, weren’t sexist, didn’t belittle other posters, contained no swear words and were just a different point of view from that expressed by the majority of other commentators and the blog’s author.
The responses I received were childish, churlish, expletive ridden and invariably followed up by a “you’re banned.”
The conclusion I reached from that experience was that the people posting regularly on those sites were pretty insecure in their convictions if they couldn’t tolerate the very mild dissent my comments represented.
Dialogue isn’t promoted by death threats it’s true, but nor is it helped by massive over-reactions and a tendency to perpetuate an echo-chamber.
I would just like to say that the last five paragraphs of this post were DELICIOUS. I got good tingly feelings inside! Because it’s true.
Danny,
Maybe Glenn gets less death threats.
Could be. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that he doesn’t persoanlly attack, label a troll, and/or ban anyone that doesn’t come into the discussion already agreeing with him. In fact he specifically invites people who disagree with him to his site just to have them tell their side of the story. I myself have admitted the validaty of many feminist points on MRA sites and haven’t been threatened with death. But for some reason when I challenge sweeping generalizations stated as facts by feminists I get personally attacked and called an MRA (which they intentionally use in an insulting and condescending tone in an effort to control the word).
James H.
No, having your own blog allows you free license to manipulate other people’s material that posts on said blog. Most feminists end up having to moderate their blogs because of death threats, rape threats, or just plain arguing in bad faith.
Danny-
People try to use “feminist” as an insult as well, so I feel your pain there. But, you have to realize that “MRA” is not an insult, even if people don’t agree with you.
To everyone-
Sometimes what one person sees as “polite” others see as inflammatory, rude, boring, or arguing in bad faith. Sometimes people are polite, and it just so happens that they’re bringing up points that have already been over. Some of it is a matter of nonverbal cues being impossible to see (you might be sincere, but it reads like sarcasm, or vice versa).
Different blogs serve different purposes. Most feminist blogs are blogs for feminists (go figure). There are bloggers that invite discussion. There are blogs that serve as a safe space. There are blogs that would like to talk about things from a feminist perspective, and it’s not conducive to be arguing about if feminism is real or not. I suspect that the last type is the one where you’re getting labeled a “troll”, because you are not operating in the spirit of the blog (aka, “Trolling”: pulling the thread off-topic, not talking about the topic at hand).
Antigone:
Danny-
People try to use “feminist” as an insult as well, so I feel your pain there. But, you have to realize that “MRA” is not an insult, even if people don’t agree with you.
Yes and it is not right that people try to twist terms to their own advantage. In fact I have to admit that I used the word feminazi left and right before I started reading about MRAs and feminists. Funny thing is it wasn’t the personal attacks and insults from feminist that got me to stop (in fact they inspired me to use that term exclusively instead of just feminist). It was Glenn Sacks when he banned the term from his blog (he even has it in his comment filter). It made me lean back and think about the word and how mean it was.
I don’t let those things get to me, just pointing it out.
I suspect that the last type is the one where you’re getting labeled a “troll”, because you are not operating in the spirit of the blog (aka, “Trolling”: pulling the thread off-topic, not talking about the topic at hand).
I suspect you are right mainly because its that last type that is more suseptible to trying to pass off generalizations as fact and lies as truth. They’re in a safe space so they can say what they want right? Im sorry but being in a safe space doesn’t allow for reality to be twisted to one’s own liking. And unfortunately you can very easily “not operate in the spirit of blog” by simply not taking everything they say at face value.
“Safe Space” blogs are generally for issues of rape, harassment, and life. “Safe” doesn’t generally mean “We’re going to be extremely skeptical of anything you say” or “You’re a liar” or any number of much more unkind things that can be said. That’s what the rest of the world is for.
“Safe” doesn’t generally mean “We’re going to be extremely skeptical of anything you say” or “You’re a liar” or any number of much more unkind things that can be said.
True. What bothers me is that a lot of these feminist sites want to incite world change while simultaneously making sure that only a select group of people get to decide. If you think about it feminists want to change the world that the men at the top created at the exclusion of women….but only feminists are allowed to speak.
Antigone,
They’re good points, and I’d not argue with many of them (although I’d rather see an offensive comment just deleted or barred on a blog than to have it changed by anyone other than the original author).
Written communications are so easy to misinterpret (lets face it, it was why the ’smiley’ took off in popularity), especially when one group of people are holding long-established preconceptions about another.
I find myself putting so much material in parentheses, or including clarifiers in brackets, that I just know my old English teacher is turning in his grave on a daily basis!
I don’t frequent the ’safe haven’ style blogs you mention. I have enough respect for the process of healing to leave well alone. I’ve read so many accounts of injustices done to both men and women, and I’m very aware that a lot of the opinions people espouse whilst recovering are coloured by their immediate experience.
The problem is that some of those personal tragedies are then leveraged, without taking pause to consider the full ramifications, into draconian laws or regulations that too often have no beneficial effects - quite the contrary.
I’ll depart slightly from feminist/MRA issues for a moment to illustrate the point: Do you feel any safer, post 9/11, following the sweeping powers that the US Government (and many of its Western and Middle Eastern allies) introduced to “combat terrorism?”
Even if you say yes to that, is the price you’ve paid for that ’security’ worth the liberties you’ve lost? How about the price people in countries other than yours have paid? The innocent men (and some women) that have been tortured on the ‘nod’ of the outgoing administration? The crackdowns on genuine and justified dissent in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that have been labelled “anti-terror” operations and therefore quietly ignored by the “wellspring of democracy” (ROFLMAO).
It’s a pretty safe guess that your answer to the first part of the question is no and that you’re equally horrified by the rest of what goes on in ‘your’ name around the world.
But then why do so many liberal and intelligent women, like yourself, not see the harm that policies like VAWA, as it has been written and implemented, have done to men wholly innocent of any wrong-doing? How can women like you support, tacitly or vocally, a system that encourages false claims of abuse as a tactic in divorce? That ignores the very real problem of female-on-male DV?
That dismisses from consideration the problems of false rape reporting by using discredited ‘facts’ and that doesn’t even allow for anonymity of the accused until proven guilty even whilst extending that ’shield’ 9 times out of 10 to those PROVEN to have made a false report?
I could go on, but you’ve no doubt heard these points of view before and I’m not conceited enough to think any of this is earth-shatteringly original or new to you.
I’m just always very wary of any group of people who use the old canard that “the end justifies the means” whether that group is a bunch of “neo-con war-mongering hawks” or a gaggle of “pansy-assed liberals” (and I’m proud to associate myself amongst the latter)
Aside from the name, the text of VAWA is completely gender-nuetral: A guy could just as easily bring up charges against a woman as vice versa. There are punishments for bringing up false claims, so quite frankly I have a hard time anyone would want to bring up false claims. I don’t, as a general rule, think of people as liars, particularly when the consequences can be so harmful. As far as divorce cases go, my preference is for a mediation style, as opposed to the general oppositional style, which is catching on. However, there are some cases where mediation is just not possible, and one of those times is abuse. Full disclosure: my mother was physically abused by my dad, and not believed by the court. Anecdotal, I know for a fact that abuse does happen, and courts don’t believe it.
Female-on-male violence is a real problem, and I support any fund raising that MRAs may do to get funding for battered husband shelters, or any attempts to get federal money. We have no difference of opinion is when you start forcing men into woman’s shelters, or try and pull battered women shelter’s funding.
False rape accusations, according to the FBI, constitute about 3-4% (about the same of any other crime). Just because I’m not sure what the rest of your sentence means. Rape shield laws mean past sexual behavior can’t be brought up: I don’t see this as a problem.
But, oh look, we’re really far away from the original topic of the post. This has been polite, but ultimately, trolling. This is where the accusations of being a “troll” came in: MRA’s vs. feminism and where the beliefs overlap had NOTHING to do with this post at all.
As you’ve elected to discuss some of the above issues in more depth in future posts, I’ll leave any responses to your comment above for another place. Sufficient to say that I think you’re plain wrong on the false reporting side of things and on the effects of VAWA, regardless of its alledged gender neutrality (you have taken on board what the initials stand for, I assume?!).
As to trolling (and whether I have been in this thread), all I’d say is that NONE of the comments on this thread are particularly on-topic. That’s not trolling - it’s having a conversation and seeing where it leads.
To get back on-topic then, Lisa is (deliberately, I know, and I appreciate the humour and the point she’s making) stretching things to suggest that feminists / liberals are the only recipients of death-threats.
If you want an appropriate counter-example then I’d suggest looking at the behaviour of the ‘pot-bangers’ against the Duke Lacrosse players as a very pertinent and (reasonably) recent example of how the good old ‘lefties / fem’s’ can issue threats to mutilate and kill with the very worst of those bible-thumpin’, NRA supportin’, red-necked, Bush-lovin’ right-wingers.
Several pretty prominent feminist bloggers took that case up in the early days (and kept going long past the point where it had taken on the ’smell’ of week-old roadkill), making some very “unfortunate” comments. I’ve yet to read apologies (or even a ‘mea culpa’) on any of them. But hey, who cares about inciting hatred and good-old character assasination? (as long as the targets are ‘rich’ white boys of course).