Showing posts with label Editorials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Editorials. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Hooker alert - they don't deserve common decency

From the winners over at the Minnesota Daily (the student newspaper at the University of Minnesota):

Prostitute Gone (Legally) Wild

Holla [the paper's editorial/talk back section] realizes that if "Girls Gone Wild" founder Joe Francis is one thing, it's a dirtball. That said, America (and certainly disgraced American Elliot Spitzer) can find themselves behind the smut king this week. Turns out Ashley Dupre, Governor Spitzer's glitzy call-gal, dropped a ten million dollar lawsuit against Francis, claiming that she was exploited and underage when she - uhh -went wild.

First things first, does someone who made a career out of sleeping with sleazy businessmen really have any moral high ground … anywhere? Holla thinks not. Under most circumstances, pulling up your shirt and screeching "WOOO!!!" really takes a backseat to banging the governor of one of the most important states in the union. On top of THAT, it was also revealed that Francis has a video of Dupre showing an ID confirming her age and verbally consenting. Score one for the Grimester …

In an "ONLY IN AMERICA!" moment, comments from Dupre were taken from her publicist. This particular piece of advice should serve as hope for thousands of illiterate and sexy American girls: if you sleep with a married man who's important enough, you'll be famous enough to hire a publicist.

God Bless America. Holla's moral of the story/life moral to carry with you always: hookers, never try to swindle a John. Especially John's with the power to buy every minute of T.V. programming after midnight.

Complete crap. Slut shaming, anyone? Where's the outrage over Spitzer's behavior? Just condemnation for that slut who got caught.

Here's the real moral of the story: Anyone that works in the sex industry is a dirty whore and doesn't deserve legal rights, much less kindness or respect.

Contact for the MN Daily:
Letters to the Editor
letters@mndaily.com
Complaints and Corrections
errors@mndaily.com
Editorial and Opinion: 612-627-4080
opinions@mndaily.com
Front Desk: 612-627-4080

Thanks to K. Elizabeth for the heads up.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Anonymity, Internet Enable Sexism

Cross-posted at XXBlaze

Anonymity gives people the gall to do and say what they would never think of doing if it had their real face and name attached to it. I suppose I am as guilty as many; I usually avoid frontal head shots in profile pictures or using my very distinctive surname. I like to use this anonymity to say things that I do not have the courage to say, or to say the things that I feel I have no real audience for. After all, no one in my Jewish family really wants to hear any negative thoughts about Palestine, do they? More importantly, anonymity allows me to act the way I wish, instead of how I think that others expect me to act. I am free to share my same-sex relationships here, away from people that know me, because of the judgment that I fear will follow me in my professional pursuits.

This anonymity has allowed me to grow as a person. I can be who I feel like I need to be, and say what I want to say without a fear of consequence. I can stand up for what I believe and what I think and not be just another cog in the machine. I have taken this opportunity to be anonymous with open arms, embraced it, and turned it into a marvelous experience of self-awakening and growth.

However, I increasingly find that this use of anonymity is fairly rare on the internet. In my public face-to-face feminist protests and meetings, very little negativity is said to my face. Most people have tact so instilled in them that they will not say something sexist to a very vocal feminist's face. I am increasingly aware that this does not mean that they do not hold their misogyny very close to their hearts, and perhaps talk about that "bitch of a cunt at that Vagina Monologues table on Senior Lawn" to their friends. Most of all, I am very aware that if given the opportunity of anonymity, the expression of their patriarchy socialization knows no tact.

Anonymous message board postings have ruined my chance at an elected position in our large campus Democratic organization by references to my "feminazi adherence to Hillary Clinton" and the worry that I will "vote with my vagina" in university matters as well.

Myspace bulletins helped drive a high school classmate of mine to a suicide attempt when it was leaked that she was about to prosecute a high school teacher, the coach of the nationally placed soccer team, for sexual assault. Messages like "whore", and "stupid slut, ruining an the life of an important part of our community" were commonplace. The case was dropped, the man who tried to rape an ex-student after plying her with alcohol goes free, and the combination of the injustice, betrayal, and shame land someone I brushed elbows with in Pre-Calculus in the hospital with charcoal and aspirin being bumped out of her stomach.

A political forum I frequent claims that I "give feminists a bad name", urges that I "lighten up and remove that stick from your vagina", or that I should "listen up you cunt". JAP (Jewish American Princess), slut, attention whore, feminazi, Daddy's girl are common slurs and double as argumentative tactics. A large group of seemingly liberal and educated politically-minded people find no fault with attacking a woman for daring to be a feminist in a public space, for having the gall to accuse them and their society of misogyny.

These are only my personal experiences. I do not doubt that most of you have had similar, and perhaps even more serious instances of shaming, assault, insult, harassment, and sabotage by expressing your adherence to women's issues, by not having a penis, or any combination of the above. Once respectable communication outlets and blogs like DailyKos is overrun with bigots and trolls that harass female bloggers. TIME magazine mocks the feminist movement. The lowest of the low, 4chan.org's random image board (very NSFW), is populated by anonymous users that share rape porn, inform women "[show us your] tits, [or] get the fuck out", and circulate pictures of underage girls with cries to "stick it in her pooper"!

Meanwhile, new studies are showing that sexist jokes, the very kind of low-brow excuse that sexist pigs use when called out on their bigotry, foster discrimination towards women and higher toleration of sexism. Our days are littered with the corpses of thousands objectified and mocked women, and still it seems that nobody seems to grasp that there is some sort of negative consequence for the defense of the patriarchy that masks itself in humor and anonymity.

We have known for a long time that the streets are not safe for women. Public forums do not welcome those that do not adhere to their feminine socialization and titter appealingly at sexist slurs and demeaning groping. Even in our own homes, we are not safe. Not only are women at risk of being assaulted by their brothers, fathers, and husbands, they are verbally assaulted every day under the excuse of the First Amendment and humor and enabled by anonymity in chatrooms, by email, and in social websites.

The internet has allowed me to be who I truly am. However, the internet has also allowed many others the same opportunity, and it seems that they truly are sexist pigs.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Reaction to Charlotte Allen Op-Ed: Live Q&A!

I had to miss the "live" part because I was in my calculus class being dim.

But here's a link that shows some questions submitted by readers, and Charlotte Allen's responses to them. In case you're new to the story, read this to see why she made readers of The Washington Post so mad.

"Washington: You write that you doubt women's representation in such fields as law (the Supreme Court) and medicine (brain surgeons) will rise much in the 21st century. However more women than men currently are graduating from law school and medical school. Could you please comment on this apparent contradiction?

Charlotte Allen: That's absolutely true, but the proportion of women at the highest levels of these fields is going to remain relatively small, I predict."

Hmm, Charlotte. You could be right, there. But honestly...I wonder why that might be (and I'm kind of guessing that it's not because women are stupid).

And just so you know, the moderators at washingtonpost had complete editorial power to decide which questions got asked in the first place.

Monday, March 3, 2008

It just keeps getting better...

Just read this update on Feministing:

Apparently that Charlotte Allen editorial that I blogged about yesterday provoked a large backlash among readers because The Washington Post changed its headline from the assertive "Women Aren't Very Bright" to the questioning "Why Do Women Act So Dumb?"

Now we only act dumb.

EDIT: On Politico: Washington Post Outlook editor, John Pomfret, said that Allen's article was supposed to be "tongue-in-cheek."

I don't care. What did publishing her editorial accomplish besides pissing off a lot of would-be readers? Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion (and let's face it, Allen's opinion is probably hugely profitable for her), but why publish something that is only going to hurt people? What was the merit in publishing her opinion? It advanced nothing but the ludicrous idea that women are inferior. It made sweeping generalizations, and that is NOT a basis for sound argument, and personally, I believe that ONLY sound arguments should be allowed to be printed. It shouldn't have been published, and The Washington Post should just own up to their grievous error.

AGAIN: In case you missed it, Charlotte Allen annoys me [thanks to Dark Matter for showing me the way to a concise listing of why Charlotte will never be on my good list].

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Women, let's focus on what's important, like homemaking.

The Washington Post published a riveting editorial today that was written by Charlotte Allen, an anti-feminist member of the Independent Women's Forum. Golly, there was so much I didn't know about being a woman until I read this! For example, women are stupid. You should really read it for yourself.

About women's reactions to some of Sen. Barack Obama's rallies, Allen had this to say (emphasis mine):

"…I can't help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women -- I should say, "we women," of course -- aren't the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial."

Oh, and this on the proper role of women!:

"…So I don't understand why more women don't relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home…Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts' content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim."

Yeah…good point. Why am I spending thousands of dollars on a college education when I could take care of people (like babies!) and focus on being a homemaker? That would suit my innate stupidity. Wait, I’m not fond of children, and I can’t even keep my room clean. And I guess graduating as valedictorian was just some kind of fluke, right?

Write a letter to the editor of The Washington Post here.

EDIT: Along those same, stupid lines.