Friday Feminist Fuck You: Glenn Beck

Transcript and links after the jump


Miriam: I’m Miriam and this is Jos. We’re doing our first Joint Friday Feminist Fuck You, the new Double Trouble Edition. (Sorry Ann!)
I’m really excited to be doing a video with Jos and to have her contributing at Feministing. I’ve known her for a few years through our reproductive justice work and I think she’s awesome.
Jos: So we wanted to say a great big Fuck You to Glenn Beck and to a bunch of conservative white pundits in general. They’ve been kind of going nuts lately, using the recent Gates arrest as a chance to do a lot of race baiting and commentary, especially this past week.
Miriam: So two main things about Glenn Beck. He made a bunch of comments about how Obama hates white culture and white people, but then doesn’t hate white people, but he’s a racist. Basically it’s absurd, there is no evidence or rationale behind the idea that Obama hates “white culture” not that I really understand what white culture would be if he hated it. Basically it’s stupid, and wrong.
Jos: In the past white conservative commentators have gotten really upset when there have been claims of racism so it’s really interesting now their new favorite argument is that Obama is racist against white people. It’s really sensationalistic and it’s an attempt to stir up Glenn Beck’s base without any real argument.
Miriam: We also wanted to give a little bit of a Friday Feminist Fuck Yeah to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show for his witty and poignant round up of this conservative shit show. You should watch the video, we’re going to link it below. We know he uses the word douche, and some people complain about and I totally hear that but he still has a really great analysis of all that is wrong with the white conservative punditry, so watch it.
Also, if you want to take action against Glenn Beck, go here.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
So You Think You Can Douche
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Joke of the Day
and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

48 Comments

  1. Posted July 31, 2009 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    Ah yes, for this and many other reasons, Glenn Beck can suck it. A well-deserved fuck you.

  2. Ariel
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Yahoo for Jos and her FFFU debut! Well done.
    I was personally super offended by Glenn Beck this week when he was going through earmarks on the healthcare bill and called out money to the NEA going to some sort of sexual freedom-oriented project in San Francisco, and he read the project’s self-description. He came to the word “pansexual” and goes “I don’t even WANNA know what that means.” Ugh. Douche.

  3. Mighty Ponygirl
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Infomania did a segment on Beck this week (these are the same guys who give us Sarah Haskins).

  4. Jessica
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Woot! Jos, it’s so nice to actually SEE you after all of your great posts. And I’ll third (fourth? fifth?) that fuck you as well!

  5. Gular
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    not that I really understand what white culture would be
    A friend of mine and I had a discussion about what “white culture” means in an American context a couple weeks ago. Both being pretty generic white dudes, I made the argument that it’s the prevailing dominant culture of America (or, as we like to call it, the Patriarchy/Systems of Oppression). While it’s not necessarily a culture that we think of as existant, the reason we can point to cultural diversity is because we have the basic, understood “white culture” to compare it to. Oppressors compared to oppressed.
    If there was no other culture – “white culture” – then there’d be no basis to other people. While I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily white as an caucasian, it’s white as in understood to be the culturally dominant group’s culture.
    Unrelatedly, Glenn Beck is a huge asshole.

  6. FrumiousB
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    Does that mean black culture is the culturally marginalized group’s culture? I’m really uncomfortable with that definition of white culture. Like black culture, white culture is far from monolithic, and I think your definition inaccurately implies that white culture is somehow uniform. The prevailing dominant culture is highly tinged with class. It’s one kind of white culture, but it’s not white culture by any stretch of the imagination.

  7. Gular
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    The problem with defining what white culture is is that, to a large extent in the US, it’s understood to be what people normalize themselves to with Americanization.
    Whenevr you define anything by “culture” you’re going to broad brush. It’s part of swashbuckling your way through societal understanding without grasping nuance.
    Just like there’s no one gay culture or black culture or latino culture or asian culture, there’s no one white culture. But, if you’re pressed to figure out what it means, then you’re left with monolith-ing people.

  8. waitscratchthat
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    I was a bit bothered by Stewart’s use of the word “douche” when I first saw the segment the other day, but I let it slide. The rest of the segment was just too good to let that word ruin it.

  9. aleks
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Glenn Beck at his best/worst: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGeZQrpZbjI

  10. Siby
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    oh my god.. that was fucking hilarious.

  11. Audrey
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    would it be possible in the future to put the links to the daily show from the Canadian channel that carries it- The Comedy Network ? If not us Canadian ladies can’t see it.
    And yes, the claims of Obama being racist seem ridiculous.

  12. aleks
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    If it were anyone but Glenn Beck you could use the phrase “losing his mind.”

  13. Eurekamoment
    Posted July 31, 2009 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    Obama’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright is the reason some folks think he hates white culture.
    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/8/194812.shtml

  14. femme.
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    Hell yeah Miriam and Jos! I completely agree with this FFFU. Glenn Beck is a lunatic and I’m shocked that he still has a nationally-broadcast TV show. He is far-right conservatism at its most hateful and most ridiculous.

  15. Jack
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 6:01 am | Permalink

    A serious question: Why is the word “douche” offensive? Thanks.

  16. FLT
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    For me, douche is offensive on many levels. If you call a man a douche, you are calling him dirty/female. There is no male equiv for unnnecessary cleaning of genitals. If you call a woman a douche, you are calling attention to her perceived dirtiness just because she is female.
    And most importantly, it is UN necessary genital cleaning. The “hygiene” industry preys on women’s sense of self to take money, then society criticizes women for the attempt. Calling a woman a douche is reminding her she can never be “clean.”

  17. Jack
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    Thanks for your response. I hadn’t thought of it that way. I question, however, if “dirty/female” is really the connotation associated with the word when used as a pejorative.
    While I certainly understand that douches and douching are unnecessary (and often actually harmful), I’ve always thought its use as an insult to something of a non sequitur – a random appropriation of a taboo product as an insult term.
    “Douche” is usually used to describe a (male) person who behaves arrogantly and obnoxiously and is oblivious this fact – some idiot who just sucks the oxygen out of the room.
    What I’m wondering is not whether the term is offensive to the person it is being attributed too (of course it is since it is an insult), but whether the use of this word is somehow offensive to women.
    For example, if you were to call a black person a “nigger,” you are not just insulting the person for his/her behavior, but suggesting that these undesirable qualities are caused by their race. Or, if you were to call a woman a bitch, you are implying that the qualities that you despise about her aren’t just bad but female-derived.
    Is “douche” a word of the same type? I’m not sure. Thoughts?

  18. Athenia
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    But, but, Barack’s mom and grandparents were white! He grew up in a white household!* And Barack hates white culture???? HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAA.
    Just goes to show you the only thing that Glen Beck can see is the color of Barack’s skin.
    *Not that a “black” household can’t be “white”….and I’m totally digging myself into a hole, so I’m gonna stop there……

  19. FLT
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    Good points, Jack.
    We’re a bit off topic here, but when I hear a man called a douche, it is generally for histrionics/arrogance/not knowing one’s place. You don’t call a man a douche for sending people to war, but I have heard it for causing a scene or having an immature outburst. Similarly, a man is called a “bitch” when his faults are perceived as “feminine” eg, whiny rather than assertive (although women who are “bitches” are generally assertive).
    So in my view, douche is this: your problem is you are female/lesser/unclean/incapable of improving.

  20. Mighty Ponygirl
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Linking to Newsmax, Eureka? Can’t you even be bothered to find a credible news source? I mean, even WaPo if it absolutely must have a conservative lean to it?

  21. Mytrr
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    That’s not the way douche is used though. A douche is a product that has historically been sold to women by telling them that they are dirty, and therefore inferior/not good, and they must use a douche to make themselves more normal or more attractive. Old ads even claimed that using a douche could save a woman’s marriage. Research since has shown that douching actually causes more harm to the woman’s reproductive system than good. It causes the natural balance of bacteria and yeast to go out of whack, increasing the liklihood of an infection. Also, everyone’s genitals smell anyway, but telling women that their odors are bad just continues the idea that women’s bodies are shameful, and that’s just not true.
    To call someone a douche, you aren’t calling them female/inferior. You are saying that person is bad, and implying that badness is either social or physical. When applied to a male, it’s usually because that particular male is behaving in an arrogant manner, thinks he’s god’s gift to the world, but the truth is, everyone’s rolling their eyes at him. It means the same thing when applied to a female, it’s just less common. Calling someone a douche is not comparing them to a female or calling them dirty, it’s saying that person is simply no good and should be avoided.

  22. FLT
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Hmm. That is pretty much the way I see it, Mytrr. The person is being called no good, and being female is being inherently dirty/no good. Like I said, it’s unnecessary, and tells women they are unclean. I agree completely with what you say.

  23. Nepenthe
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    “Douchebag” is my favorite insult for misogynists. You see, a douchebag is a useless tool that hurts women. And a douchebag is a useless tool that hurts women.

  24. blue
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    Here’s what I want to ask people who watch Glenn Beck or Fox news in general:
    I know it can be uplifting to listen to someone who is expressing the same sentiments and anger that you feel about a particular issue but what do you actually learn?

  25. Mytrr
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    But that’s not what I was trying to say. I don’t agree that calling someone a douche is saying they are an unclean woman. I don’t think calling someone a douche has anything to do with using femaleness as an insult. It’s not the same as calling someone a bitch or a slut, which definitely do imply that femaleness is the insult. A douche is really a gender non-specific insult. If you said someone needed to douche, that would be different, but calling someone a douche is NOT saying women are unclean. It’s saying the person referred to as a douche makes those around them uncomfortable for no reason and therefore is best avoided, which is an insult that can be applied to both men and women. The only reason anyone associates this with women is because the actual product is associated with women, but as I’m stating for the umteenth time, the insult is NOT implying femaleness.

  26. FLT
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    Since I hear the term and see how it is used, I also get an opinion on whether it is gender specific. I think it is. I think that based on how people around me generally use the term.
    It’s ok if you don’t, and I think I understand you better.

  27. aleks
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Marx’s parents were Jews and he certainly hated Jewish culture.
    Judging from Dreams from my Father, there was a time in young Barry’s life when he had a very hostile outlook on white culture. There’s just no evidence that this attitude remains in any part of President Obama’s psyche today.

  28. aleks
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    What people crave: Knowledge of who is to blame for all of your problems.

  29. emilynotail
    Posted August 1, 2009 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

    I first learnt about Glenn Beck from the very funny Charlie Brooker. See clip – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aEk864YrKw Now I keep seeing him everywhere. I asked my mother’s American friend what douchebag meant because it’s not a word used in the UK and she was very shocked to hear me say it. How strong is this word in the States?

  30. Shadowen
    Posted August 2, 2009 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    Not very. Douchebag is never censored whenever it appears, though it usually only appears at shows aimed at late teens and older. In comparison, the only time Jon Stewart has ever been allowed to say “shit” uncensored was when discussing the title of an actual work, “On Bullshit”, and then only for the evening showing (because apparently, the people in the morning who watch the show are “muthas [who] can’t handle it”.
    It’s not technically a swear, but some of the connotations (see the above discussion) can be offensive, and in addition it has a certain visceral sound that makes for an excellent insult.

  31. robin.g
    Posted August 2, 2009 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    I feel that Glenn Beck should just have a standing Fuck You status every week forever. Just an automatic Fuck You Glenn, all the time.

  32. robin.g
    Posted August 2, 2009 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    How would you define the differences in various societies if not for the word “culture”? In Japan they bow instead of shaking hands. Things of that nature; is that not their culture? Or are they labeled as customs?
    Culture must mean something.

  33. LalaReina
    Posted August 2, 2009 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Glen Beck is a dumb guy followed by dumb people. I can’t deal with folks who has no detectable signs of intelligence at all.

  34. Danielle
    Posted August 2, 2009 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    Dude, I love Glenn Beck. He’s awesome!!
    He’s a Conservative Libertarian (not “just” a conservative)…yes, I have to be politically correct on that XD
    I watch him every day on FOX, and even listen to his radio show on KLIF. I own all but one of his books (the “Christmas Sweater”).
    He has my utmost respect–and 95% of what he says, I agree with.
    Along with him, I also love Sean Hannity–and for the women, I love Laura Ingraham and Greta Van Susteren. :)

  35. Jjuliaava
    Posted August 2, 2009 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    That nazi seriously scares me. I wonder if he is the grand dragon of the KKK? Rush should give him the name of his med pusher so he can calm the fuck down. He is a warmonger filled with hate.
    THANK YOU FOR A MUCH DESERVED FFFU!!!!!

  36. aleks
    Posted August 2, 2009 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    Glenn Beck is loathsome, hateful and pathetic. He is not a Nazi, so please don’t call him one.

  37. Genevieve PlusCourageuse
    Posted August 4, 2009 at 2:37 am | Permalink

    So you’re a fan of a woman who adopted a girl from Central America and yet regularly shows great disdain for Latino/a immigrants? And hypocritical, anti-feminist men? (I don’t have any real hard criticism against Ms. Van Susteren, don’t know too much about her.) You’ve really got to get yourself deprogrammed.

  38. Danielle
    Posted August 4, 2009 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Did you not read what I wrote? I said I agree with 95% of what he said. So don’t go assuming what I’m a fan of, and hiding that assumption through question.
    And I don’t remember the woman who adopted the girl from Central America. When did he do a segment on that? And anyway, just because the woman shows disdain for Latino’s doesn’t mean she won’t love that little girl. I mean, if why the hell would she adopt her if she hated latinos?
    “You’ve really got to get yourself deprogrammed.” Fuck no. I got my bearings on straight. Just because I like someone that the vast majority of feminists hate, doesn’t mean I’m wrong, or make me any less feminist than the rest of ya’ll.
    And you know what? I am neutral towards anti-feminist men. There are some I like, some I dislike and some I don’t know what to think of. Just because some dudes are anti-feminist, doesn’t mean that they’re shit-heads. Some anti-feminist men are stuck in the chivalry role (where the men pay for everything on a date, pull out chairs, open the door, want to be the main financial supporter).

  39. Genevieve PlusCourageuse
    Posted August 4, 2009 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Did you not read what I wrote? I said I agree with 95% of what he said. So don’t go assuming what I’m a fan of, and hiding that assumption through question.
    If I agree with 95% of what someone says, I generally consider myself a fan of theirs. That’s a fairly high level of agreement there.
    And I don’t remember the woman who adopted the girl from Central America. When did he do a segment on that? And anyway, just because the woman shows disdain for Latino’s doesn’t mean she won’t love that little girl. I mean, if why the hell would she adopt her if she hated latinos?
    That woman is Laura Ingraham. Who you said you liked. I’m not saying she doesn’t love her daughter, I am saying that she doesn’t think through the fact that her racism towards other people of her own daughter’s race is the exact same kind of racism her daughter will one day face in our country if people like her don’t start examining their prejudices.
    I got my bearings on straight. Just because I like someone that the vast majority of feminists hate, doesn’t mean I’m wrong, or make me any less feminist than the rest of ya’ll.
    And you know what? I am neutral towards anti-feminist men.

    I’m not so sure you can “have your bearings straight” or be “not any less of a feminist” if you’re “neutral towards anti-feminist men.” Anti-feminist men are, by definition, the enemies of feminism. Some of them might be okay guys, but their beliefs are not something about which we can be ‘neutral’ if equality for women is something we desire.
    Some anti-feminist men are stuck in the chivalry role (where the men pay for everything on a date, pull out chairs, open the door, want to be the main financial supporter).
    Yeah, and how are they going to get over that if we keep going on and babying them and being ‘neutral’ towards them? Chivalry is not cute or good or admirable, it’s just an excuse for sexism. Maybe it’s a bit of a step up from straight-up misogyny and “I hate bitches” rhetoric, but I’ve known far too many men who make claims towards being ‘chivalrous’ and then turn around and act like assholes when their chivalry act doesn’t work. Respect and equality is the only answer.

  40. Danielle
    Posted August 4, 2009 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Yes, as I said, I’m a huge fan of Glenn Beck. I do agree with 95% of what he says, but there’s also 5% of things I don’t agree with.
    I thought you were talking about some segment on Glenn Beck speaking about a woman adopting a Central American child. I knew about Ingraham’s adoption of the Central American kid.
    Now, she’s tough on subjects and people; and she’s against affirmative action because she believes we should look past color and go by qualifications. She’s also for border control and legal immigration. That does not make her racist, but it doesn’t prove her lack of racism either. I don’t believe she’s a racist because, I too, believe in tight border control and legal immigration–and, as of this moment, am undecided on the topic affirmative action.
    I said that I was neutral towards anti-feminist men–NOT neutral towards their beliefs. I don’t like their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like the person behind the beliefs.
    And who are you to judge whether I’m any “less” feminist than ya’ll are? Only I am the judge of that.
    And, I NEVER said that [mens] chivalry was cute or good. I only said that some were ‘stuck’ in that role. Hell, even my Dad and Papa(grandpa) are stuck in that role…and often say sexist things. I don’t tolerate it, but I don’t love them any less because of it.
    “Respect and equality is the only answer”. Very true, if only you followed your own words.
    I stated my opinion–stated that I liked Glenn Beck–and you responded with assumption and obvious bitterness. I don’t believe that is ‘equal’ treatment.
    It goes for both sides of the coin. Treat those with different opinions as equally as those with the same.
    I wouldn’t have minded if you began a debate with me (I love to debate), but instead you refute my statements, made assumptions and even had the audacity to say “you need to get deprogrammed”
    That is highly disrespectful.
    I admit that I didn’t show respect in my response, but that was because I wasn’t respected in my opinion–and I was quite pissed because of it.
    And, considering my opinion (first comment) was stated respectfully, I was quite surprised by the response I got. I said my peace and made a single correction about Glenn Beck’s political affiliation. I didn’t say anyone was wrong, nor did I say I was wrong.

  41. Genevieve PlusCourageuse
    Posted August 4, 2009 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry for coming off as harsh, but I just don’t see how the views of people like Beck, Hannity, and Ingraham have any compatibility with feminism when they constantly mock feminist and otherwise pro-equality beliefs.

  42. Danielle
    Posted August 4, 2009 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    I appreciate and accept your apology. :)
    I don’t quite understand your view on Beck, Hannity and Ingrahams compatibility with feminism.
    How is Laura Ingraham not pro-feminist? To me, she’s the epitome of feminism. She’s got a high position in broadcast journalism. If she were not a feminist then she would be a subservient wife at home caring for children and the house.
    Glenn Beck has many highly intelligent women on his program to help discuss certain topics. Hannity also invites female guest speakers who are well qualified to discuss topics of interest.
    To me, this is pro-feminist on they’re parts. If they weren’t supportive of that, women wouldn’t even be on the program. They support intelligent “people”–both women and man.
    Can you give me some examples on why you believe they mock feminist and pro-equality beliefs?

  43. Genevieve PlusCourageuse
    Posted August 5, 2009 at 2:18 am | Permalink

    It doesn’t matter how many women they invite on their shows or what sort of position they have risen to if they’re promoting conservative (/libertarian) beliefs which support inequality between the sexes and ultimately work to the disservice of women. One of the women who Hannity often invites onto his show is Ann Coulter, the woman who compared George Tiller’s murder to a very-very-late term abortion (mocking the cold-blooded murder of a strong advocate of reproductive rights whose motto was “trust women” is not very feminist), and who said that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because we’re all too liberal. Real feminist there. The term for these people? Colluder. If Hannity were pro-feminist, he would have female guests on his show who actually seemed to want what was best for other women, rather than hold themselves above the others.
    here, Ingraham completely belittles the idea of girls having individual thoughts. She mocks other women’s bodies (not feminist at all) and calls them idiots for having the audacity to fight back. When guest-hosting The O’Reilly Factor, she allowed a graphic to run showing Planned Parenthood’s logo in crosshairs, as if it were in the target of a gun. Planned Parenthood is where plenty of young and low-income women go for their healthcare needs, allowing it to be seen as such on a program often hostile towards women’s reproductive health is anti-woman in my book. And this may not be related to feminism, but I mentioned Ingraham’s racism before as well, so here goes: she said “I hope they nailed down all the valuables” when Al Sharpton visited the White House.
    Like Ingraham, Beck also mocks women for their bodies. Here, he speaks condescendingly to women in power and called Cindy Sheehan a slut (yes, “tragedy slut” may not be the same thing as plain old “slut,” but I doubt he’d've used these words to describe a man) and his words to Gloria Steinem completely insult feminist progress. I find them to be quite telling in their rudeness, so I’ll quote them here: “You self-centered self-righteous socialist out of control dangerous man-hating bitch. Shut your mouth. We might have bought into this crap in the 1960s because too many people were doing LSD. We’re not on LSD anymore—we need to start making sense.”
    I’m not sure how these three could be construed as anything other than anti-feminist.

  44. Danielle
    Posted August 5, 2009 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    I’ve looked at all the links you’ve given (thanks for that), but I still don’t see how they’re anti-feminist.
    Glenn Beck quoted, “I apologize, but guys will understand this. My wife is, like, hot, and she wouldn’t have sex with me until we got married. And she wouldn’t marry me unless we had a religion.”
    I find this funny–and I say “good for her”! His wife kept to her morals. And, unless the only thing you want is sex, you wouldn’t go marrying someone and finding religion just to do that. If all Glenn wanted was sex, he could just as easily found a girl willing to give it up.
    And I agree with Beck when he says, “Girl, you better check yourself before you wreck yourself!” to Nancy Pelosi. I don’t like Pelosi, she’s a liar and an idiot in the common sense department (and I lived in California, so I know).
    With Cindy Sheehan, I think it’s funny he called her a tragedy slut because, that’s basically what she is. Although, in other terms, she could be described as a “drama queen”. She’s an “attention whore”, is another way to put it. Why would she be anti-war if her son fought and died in the war? He wouldn’t have been in the army if he didn’t already know he could be deployed for battle at any moment. All she wants is attention.
    As for Gloria Steinem. She set about a great revolution for women, a revolution for equal rights and fighting for freedom. Although I admire her for that, I don’t like her. So I agree with Glenn Beck’s statement. She was a man-hater (who openly admitted it). One of Steinem’s quotes was: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” That doesn’t sound ridiculous to you? She could’ve said, a woman doesn’t need a man, but having a man isn’t a bad thing. Plus, it takes a man and a woman to procreate, so without men, you and I and the rest of the feminists wouldn’t be here. The same goes if it were without women. (And I’m a lesbian saying this).
    Laura Ingraham, I agree with her on a lot of what she’s said. I don’t agree with abstinence-only education, but I do believe it should be illegal for kids to have sex before the age of 18. Kids shouldn’t have sex because they’re still immature and, after having sex, some could become depressed and feel used and dirty.
    I’m not saying to wait until marriage–no. I’m saying, wait until you’re 18, when you’re (still immature but) more mature than you were at ages 13, 14, 15 and onward.
    Thanks again for providing the links and your examples.
    I still maintain my belief that they’re pro-feminist.
    And along with that, I happen to be a Libertarian myself :)

  45. Genevieve PlusCourageuse
    Posted August 5, 2009 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    I have no problem with Beck’s marriage or religion, that’s his and his wife’s business. I never said I did, I linked that article for the quotes at the bottom.
    I’m not going to debate Ms. Sheehan’s positions on the war, I agree with her, and furthermore she’s allowed to believe whatever she wants to believe, but that’s not the issue here. The issue is that “drama queen,” “attention whore” and “tragedy slut” are all sexist terms. These terms are predominantly used to describe women, and when they are used for men they’re for men who act “like women,” i.e. emotional, hysterical, unmanly, uncontrolled. They’re being used to demean Ms. Sheehan’s pain at the loss of her son’s life as ridiculous, unimportant, mockable. “Don’t pay attention to her, don’t think for a moment about whether what she says may have merit, she’s just a tragedy slut.”
    As for Gloria Steinem, she didn’t hate men. She was married to a man. I’ve always interpreted “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” to mean essentially, “don’t worry about whether you have a man or not, focus on other things” rather than “I hate men.” When she made that statement, reporters were often looking to her for witty, outrageous feminist statements, as she was quite well known in the second wave of the movement. That was one of many which she made. And whether you like Steinem or not, why is it okay for a man to call her a “self-centered self-righteous socialist out of control dangerous man-hating bitch,” tell her to “shut [her] mouth” and then reduce feminist beliefs to “crap” people would have believed when they were “on LSD” which doesn’t make sense? If a liberal/progressive man called Sarah Palin a bitch who needed to shut her mouth, would it be okay with you? When compiling these links, I purposefully did not link to a blogger who ordered Laura Ingraham to “shut her cakehole” because of the disrespect inherent in the statement, and because I doubted he’d say such a thing of a male pundit. And how much of an uproar was there when Perez Hilton called Carrie Prejean a “bitch” for her anti-gay statements, much of it among feminists who did not agree with Ms. Prejean on anything? Do you really think Beck would’ve gone off on an equally vicious rant against an equally outspoken, famous, left-wing man with a career equaling Ms. Steinem’s?
    Furthermore, it doesn’t matter if you like Nancy Pelosi or not. She’s not a ‘girl,’ she’s a grown woman, and she doesn’t need the sort of faux-concern/mockery Beck is giving her.
    And your views on ‘underage’ sex just prove how little you get it. You cannot regulate what people do with their own bodies. Unless the sex is nonconsensual, the government should get their noses out of it. This sort of “sex before the age of 18 should be a crime” is the exact same kind of body-controlling rhetoric which previously made gay sex acts a crime, because both are based in the idea that one person can have control over another’s sex life. As long as people are going through puberty as pre-teens and young teens they will experience sexual feelings before they are eighteen and sometimes will act on them. They should be able to do so in a safe environment with easy access to contraception, not a world in which they’ll be penalized for doing what is natural. If this is criminalized, the sex won’t stop, but it will become less safe, because please tell me how the fuck teenagers would be able to get birth control if they were not even legally allowed to have sex? Also, maturity varies depending on the person and how (and where) they were raised. As the oldest child in my family, I was definitely more mature at thirteen than my youngest sister was, due to having been expected to assume some responsibilities in caring for my younger siblings by my parents. Kids in big cities used to taking public transportation everywhere might be a bit more mature than suburbanites used to having their parents drive them around. Generalizations aren’t real helpful when talking about an age where everyone’s growing up at different rates and attempting to figure out their paths in life while doing so.

  46. Danielle
    Posted August 5, 2009 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    I disagree with your statements.
    You said, “These terms are predominantly used to describe women, and when they are used for men they’re for men who act “like women.” If you say it’s for men who act “like women”, isn’t that sexist in itself?
    “Do you really think Beck would’ve gone off on an equally vicious rant against an equally outspoken, famous, left-wing man with a career equaling Ms. Steinem’s?” Yes, I do. Glenn Beck has been going off on President Obama for a long while now. He’s also gone after the representative of AARP, who is a left-winger. And ACORN–who is full of left-wingers. He’s gone after Geitner, who’s left-wing. He’s gone after CEO of General Electrics (and GE owns ABC). He’s gone after Harvard Prof. Gates (you can’t get anymore left-wing than that). And he’s been “vicious” against them.
    “And your views on ‘underage’ sex just prove how little you get it. ” Does it? Does it really? My views are just fine. I get it, which is why I want underage sex should be regulated because if it’s not, then all these sick old perverted bastards can go and have sex with a consenting young girl. I’m not supportive of pedophilia (and I’m sure you’re not either). Under 18 is not yet an adult, so even if a young girl is consenting sex with a boyfriend who ends up being 20-30+ years of age, then that’s just sick.
    So, to get this freedom of sex at any age, you risk getting young girls preyed upon by older adults. I knew a girl in high school who was 16 years old and had a 30 year old boyfriend. Had sex for her been legalized at that age, she would’ve had sex with her boyfriend, who I repeat, was 30 years old!
    This is why I want underage sex to be illegal. To dodge the pedophilia, which will come about when young boys and girls can have control of their sexual experiences.

  47. Genevieve PlusCourageuse
    Posted August 5, 2009 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

    I sincerely hope I’m misunderstanding you and that you didn’t just attribute pedophilia to young people being able to control their sexual experiences. Pedophilia is a disease which pedophiles need lifelong therapy to overcome, not something that occurs when teenagers are told, “sex is okay, with people your own age, if both parties are willing.” Pedophilia (and statutory rape) is, for the child or teenage victim, an experience of a lack of control on their part, forced by an older, more powerful, person telling them what to do with their bodies. A government telling them what do to with their bodies by enacting draconian rules would not be any more beneficial to their overall well-being.

  48. Genevieve PlusCourageuse
    Posted August 5, 2009 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Computer messed up–the full comment was supposed to say:
    If you say it’s for men who act “like women”, isn’t that sexist in itself?
    The fact that I put it in quotation marks and then explained what acting “like a woman” would mean to people who would use words such as “tragedy slut” is not an endorsement of these views, it is an explanation of their thought processes. Explaining someone else’s sexism is not equivalent of being sexist.
    Glenn Beck has been going off on President Obama for a long while now. He’s also gone after the representative of AARP, who is a left-winger. And ACORN–who is full of left-wingers. He’s gone after Geitner, who’s left-wing. He’s gone after CEO of General Electrics (and GE owns ABC). He’s gone after Harvard Prof. Gates (you can’t get anymore left-wing than that). And he’s been “vicious” against them.
    What, exactly, has he said? Has it been anywhere near as vicious as, “You self-centered self-righteous socialist out of control dangerous man-hating bitch. Shut your mouth. We might have bought into this crap in the 1960s because too many people were doing LSD. We’re not on LSD anymore—we need to start making sense”? I heard what he said about Gates, and it didn’t seem anywhere near as harsh or ad hominem as what he said about Steinem.
    Also, I disagree that Dr. Gates is as far left as a person can go. I’ve known people who are far more radically left-wing than Gates. Get in touch with your=2 0local anarchist group and you’ll see what I mean.
    “And your views on ‘underage’ sex just prove how little you get it. ” Does it? Does it really? My views are just fine. I get it, which is why I want underage sex should be regulated because if it’s not, then all these sick old perverted bastards can go and have sex with a consenting young girl. I’m not supportive of pedophilia (and I’m sure you’re not either). Under 18 is not yet an adult, so even if a young girl is consenting sex with a boyfriend who ends up being 20-30+ years of age, then that’s just sick.
    I knew a girl in high school who was 16 years old and had a 30 year old boyfriend. Had sex for her been legalized at that age, she would’ve had sex with her boyfriend, who I repeat, was 30 years old!

    Hmm, you’re right, I don’t support pedophilia, big surprise there. I never said I wanted to change existing laws about statutory rape though, did I? I have nothing against age of consent laws, and had you said that it should be a crime for someone over eighteen to have sex with someone younger than eighteen (or sixteen as it is in some states, which I believe should be the absolute minimum; or more complex laws about maximum-two-year age differences which I think are the best way of going about it), I’d completely agree with you. But you didn’t, you said, “I do believe it should be illegal for kids to have sex before the age of 18.” And I said, “Unless the sex is nonconsensual, the government should get their noses out of it,” which automatically means no pedophilia or “sick old perverted bastards” or “a boyfriend who ends up be ing 20-30+ years of age.” (The latter being a predicament that even someone eighteen or older could find herself in, by the way.) Pedophiles already know they’re disobeying the law, they do it anyway because they have a mental disease. They’re the ones the police need to pay attention to and the ones who need help, not a couple of teenagers messing around consensually. Making any sex had by teenagers ever into a crime will not stop pedophilia but it will make a lot of harmless people into criminals. It will also make it more difficult for teenagers distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate partners if all they hear is “all sex is bad until you’re eighteen” but they still desire sex when they’re fifteen or sixteen or seventeen.
    This is why I want underage sex to be illegal. To dodge the pedophilia, which will come about when young boys and girls can have control of their sexual experiences.
    I sincerely hope I’m misunderstanding you and that you didn’t just attribute pedophilia to young people being able to control their sexual experiences. Pedophilia is a disease which pedophiles need lifelong therapy to overcome, not something that occurs when teenagers are told, “sex is okay, with people your own age, if both parties are willing.” Pedophilia (and statutory rape) is, for the child or teenage victim, an experience of a lack of control on their part, forced by an older, more powerful, person telling them what to do with their bodies. A government telling them what do to with their bodies by enacting draconian rules would not be any more beneficial to their overall well-being.

245 queries. 1.451 seconds