Yesterday, the Alabama Senate passed the nation's most restrictive abortion ban in the US, making it a felony for a doctor to provide an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Anti-choice advocates are hoping the law will eventually be contested at the level of the US Supreme Court, since Donald Trump was able to stack the high court with two arch-conservative justices, including the one who was credibly accused of sexual assault.
This is truly dystopian misogyny that, I think, a lot of progressive feminists feared during the 2016 election.
I think now about the ever-expanding field of white male Democratic men who are now running in 2020 and can't help but think that a segment of our population, many of them well-off white men, see opportunity in this political moment- book deals, popular podcasts, political ambitions - while many women, and other marginalized populations, live in fear.
I also think about the misogynist backlash we're in and how a good portion of it comes from a complacent left that cruelly sneers at different groups of women on the regular, and puts targets on their backs on social media in these really dehumanizing ways.
Take, for instance, this piece that McSweeney's, for whatever reason, published in June 2018, "An Open Letter to White Women Concerning The Handmaid’s Tale and America’s Cultural Amnesia." It's a bad piece for many reasons. For one, it uses the same joke over and over and over again. And yes, we get it, mocking yuppy white women's names is hilarious. But like any joke, it ceases to be funny after the third time or so. It also seems to be this writer's one trick.
Secondly, it adopts the popular MRA convention of telling a relatively privileged class of women, in this case white women, that because things are worse for a different group of women, that the relatively privileged group of women should shut the fuck up with their hysterics. A difference here is that MRAs, and their more outspokenly-anti-feminist ilk, tend to use Muslim women in the Middle East as their comparison group to white women.
See, for reference, the Richard Dawkins/Rebecca Watson blowup circa 2011, in which Dawkins specifically referenced the plight of Muslim women to denigrate Watson's concerns about sexism in atheism.
I say all of this acknowledging that white women do actually have race-based privileges compared to non-white women. In addition, as a society, even within social justice movements, many folks still aren't great at knowing how to talk about groups of people who are privileged in some respects yet marginalized in others, such as white women. And, I know I'm not perfect here. I just question whether it's wise, progressive, feminist, or just to adopt MRA talking points to essentially gaslight women who actually are experiencing the loss of rights in this political moment.
Also, there are valid criticisms to be made of privileged women and then there is misogyny masquerading as social justice criticism. Part of the backlash is that we're seeing a lot of the latter these days.
Showing posts with label Ha Ha Nope. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ha Ha Nope. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Thursday, January 17, 2019
Nah, I think We Will Scrutinize Comedians
Admitted workplace sexual harasser Louis CK continues to accept invitations to do "comedy" shows across the country. Most recently, he's in San Jose, California, joking about "retarded" people, dead babies, 9/11, and how he likes to masturbate in front of people.
What I want people to understand is that, at this point, when people watch Louis CK perform, they're no longer watching comedy.
They're watching a man be rewarded and applauded for banal cruelty while they maintain a collective pretense that his work is edgy, and they - the audience - are cerebral for "getting it" when other people "don't," when what they're all really doing is simply colluding together in rape culture.
Kudos to the people there protesting Louis CK's putrid, unapologetic presence.
It's certainly braver and more ethical than the statement put out by the folks at San Jose Improv, justifying giving this loser abuser a platform (emphasis added):
What I want people to understand is that, at this point, when people watch Louis CK perform, they're no longer watching comedy.
They're watching a man be rewarded and applauded for banal cruelty while they maintain a collective pretense that his work is edgy, and they - the audience - are cerebral for "getting it" when other people "don't," when what they're all really doing is simply colluding together in rape culture.
Kudos to the people there protesting Louis CK's putrid, unapologetic presence.
It's certainly braver and more ethical than the statement put out by the folks at San Jose Improv, justifying giving this loser abuser a platform (emphasis added):
“We want [artists] to perform without scrutiny,” according to the statement. “We trust that our audiences can decide for themselves what their limits are. We understand that not everyone will agree with our decision and we respect their right to protest. We also respect Louis C.K.’s right to perform.”It's funny how it's never women, queers, and/or people of color who are given this special entitlement by the powers-that-be to perform "without scrutiny." I mean wow. WOW.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
The Iowa Polls: "I guess he'll do" 2020
It's 2019. Grab your barf bags because we're off to the 2020 races and three white men are leading in the polls of likely Democratic voters.
Here's from a recent CNN poll of likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa (cite: PDF):
That's right, Joe Biden (32%), Bernie Sanders (19%), and Beto O'Rourke (11%). These are three men who have each lost the biggest political races in which they've competed. I'll just say for that reason alone, although there are many others, I am very concerned about 2020 and our chances of defeating Trump and the Republicans.
What could it possibly mean that Democrats and major media voices are not widely shouting at these men to retire into the woods and knit for the rest of their days?
Here are some theories, any combination of which might be playing out.
(1) It's Iowa, which is about 91% white.
Yet, in national polls, Biden has tended to lead, with Bernie Sanders coming in second, and someone else coming in third - often Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren.
(2) Biden, Bernie, and Beto all have a lot of name recognition right now. Biden, who lost his previous bid badly, can ride on President Obama's coattails. Bernie has essentially never stopped running for president, even when he lost badly to Hillary Clinton. And, Beto just lost a high-profile race with the extremely unlikeable Ted Cruz.
(3) Hillary Clinton's electoral college loss to Donald Trump was deeply humiliating for American women and many women have lose their appetite to endure both the misogyny she (and her supporters) faced and another loss.
(4) The center to left has been in a moral panic about "white women" since approximately 47% of the white women who voted voted for Donald Trump. It's as if some people have discovered, and just started thinking about, for the first time the very existence of conservative white women. Yet, rather than this 47% statistic being an indictment of conservatism, Christianity, misogyny, racism, or bigotry, in the framework of Clinton's loss, the 47% statistic is widely perceived as an indictment of "white feminism," a category that no longer means "non-intersectional feminism" but has come to mean, on the Internet, "words said by any feminist who is white."
I'm still teasing out the 2020 implications of this, but I've seen many men take advantage of this collapsing of many progressive feminists into the category of "irredeemably bad feminist who needs to shut up forever" in ways that are profoundly misogynistic. I see a lot of cynical mocking of the hashtag resistance because it's perceived as being comprised of dorky, white suburban moms who wear pussy hats. I see a lot of progressive white women internalizing this misogyny. Ironically, I see a lot of progressives who have just given up on intersectionality beyond the prism of one or maybe two intersections of identity, when there are so many more.
I think all of this contributes to the perception that it will take a white man to beat Trump.
(5) Relatedly, some people might want to vote for someone who isn't a white man, but they don't think enough other people will, so they perceive it as safer to support a white man.
(6) Many people are more tolerant of flawed white men, where women/people of color have their flaws amplified and used as dealbreakers. Every woman who runs will have her own version of "the emailz" to contend with, while her male competitors could be literal traitors to the nation and receive no comparable coverage.
(7) The beltway media portrays, and many people perceive, politics as akin to a boxing match, rather than a popularity contest that is largely framed by the media. And in a boxing match, people think it takes a man to beat a man. Hence the various male politicians and their fans with their "Bernie wouldas" and "Biden wouldas" after the 2016 election.
(8) Decades of rightwing anti-Clinton propaganda and attacks amplified Hillary Clinton's flaws and contributed to many people on the center-left thinking she was a uniquely bad candidate, thus masking the misogyny that lingers among the voting population, even among Democrats and Independents. See, for instance, how Elizabeth Warren is already being treated, now that it's almost certain she's running.
(9) The mainstream media is still dominated by misogynistic, white supremacist people, especially white men.
(10) Our society still widely hates ambitious women.
(11) Trump is so bad that many people have completely romanticized the Obama years. They want the perceived safety of Joe Biden, the daddy/husband figure, even though Russia interfered with the 2016 election on the watch of Obama/Biden.
(12) It's very early. Other candidates may rise in the polls over time, with more exposure.
Note, none of these reasons are grounded in any of the leading men being uniquely good politicians.
They're not.
Yet, the thing about many white male candidates is that they rarely acknowledge the invisible assists they get from white male privilege, instead taking it for granted that their polling numbers and/or popularity are an authentic reflection of their qualifications for the job.
What else?
Here's from a recent CNN poll of likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa (cite: PDF):
That's right, Joe Biden (32%), Bernie Sanders (19%), and Beto O'Rourke (11%). These are three men who have each lost the biggest political races in which they've competed. I'll just say for that reason alone, although there are many others, I am very concerned about 2020 and our chances of defeating Trump and the Republicans.
What could it possibly mean that Democrats and major media voices are not widely shouting at these men to retire into the woods and knit for the rest of their days?
Here are some theories, any combination of which might be playing out.
(1) It's Iowa, which is about 91% white.
Yet, in national polls, Biden has tended to lead, with Bernie Sanders coming in second, and someone else coming in third - often Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren.
(2) Biden, Bernie, and Beto all have a lot of name recognition right now. Biden, who lost his previous bid badly, can ride on President Obama's coattails. Bernie has essentially never stopped running for president, even when he lost badly to Hillary Clinton. And, Beto just lost a high-profile race with the extremely unlikeable Ted Cruz.
(3) Hillary Clinton's electoral college loss to Donald Trump was deeply humiliating for American women and many women have lose their appetite to endure both the misogyny she (and her supporters) faced and another loss.
(4) The center to left has been in a moral panic about "white women" since approximately 47% of the white women who voted voted for Donald Trump. It's as if some people have discovered, and just started thinking about, for the first time the very existence of conservative white women. Yet, rather than this 47% statistic being an indictment of conservatism, Christianity, misogyny, racism, or bigotry, in the framework of Clinton's loss, the 47% statistic is widely perceived as an indictment of "white feminism," a category that no longer means "non-intersectional feminism" but has come to mean, on the Internet, "words said by any feminist who is white."
I'm still teasing out the 2020 implications of this, but I've seen many men take advantage of this collapsing of many progressive feminists into the category of "irredeemably bad feminist who needs to shut up forever" in ways that are profoundly misogynistic. I see a lot of cynical mocking of the hashtag resistance because it's perceived as being comprised of dorky, white suburban moms who wear pussy hats. I see a lot of progressive white women internalizing this misogyny. Ironically, I see a lot of progressives who have just given up on intersectionality beyond the prism of one or maybe two intersections of identity, when there are so many more.
I think all of this contributes to the perception that it will take a white man to beat Trump.
(5) Relatedly, some people might want to vote for someone who isn't a white man, but they don't think enough other people will, so they perceive it as safer to support a white man.
(6) Many people are more tolerant of flawed white men, where women/people of color have their flaws amplified and used as dealbreakers. Every woman who runs will have her own version of "the emailz" to contend with, while her male competitors could be literal traitors to the nation and receive no comparable coverage.
(7) The beltway media portrays, and many people perceive, politics as akin to a boxing match, rather than a popularity contest that is largely framed by the media. And in a boxing match, people think it takes a man to beat a man. Hence the various male politicians and their fans with their "Bernie wouldas" and "Biden wouldas" after the 2016 election.
(8) Decades of rightwing anti-Clinton propaganda and attacks amplified Hillary Clinton's flaws and contributed to many people on the center-left thinking she was a uniquely bad candidate, thus masking the misogyny that lingers among the voting population, even among Democrats and Independents. See, for instance, how Elizabeth Warren is already being treated, now that it's almost certain she's running.
(9) The mainstream media is still dominated by misogynistic, white supremacist people, especially white men.
(10) Our society still widely hates ambitious women.
(11) Trump is so bad that many people have completely romanticized the Obama years. They want the perceived safety of Joe Biden, the daddy/husband figure, even though Russia interfered with the 2016 election on the watch of Obama/Biden.
(12) It's very early. Other candidates may rise in the polls over time, with more exposure.
Note, none of these reasons are grounded in any of the leading men being uniquely good politicians.
They're not.
Yet, the thing about many white male candidates is that they rarely acknowledge the invisible assists they get from white male privilege, instead taking it for granted that their polling numbers and/or popularity are an authentic reflection of their qualifications for the job.
What else?
Thursday, December 6, 2018
Biden, Bernie, and Russia
In the purported feminist revival we're in, I continue to contemplate what it means that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders lead polls among Democrats of possible 2020 presidential candidates, with newcomer (to the national stage) Beto O'Rourke now coming in right behind them in third place.
Biden has done very poorly in previous presidential campaigns (1998 and 2008), but I think his recent popularity is due largely to name recognition, the effect of riding President Obama's coattails as Democrats continue to mourn the end of that presidency, and the fact that the Overton Window of what an acceptable candidate is has shifted quite far in the age of Trump. White men who merely quietly rape people and then half-ass apologize, as opposed to brag about it, are practically thrown ticker tape parades these days.
Bernie and Beto, like Biden, have a lot of name recognition right now, with Bernie losing to Hillary in 2016 and Beto losing a high-profile Senate race in Texas to the magnificently-unlikeable Ted Cruz.
What winners!
Plus, even those on the left side of the political spectrum can be racist and sexist. For many people who are not, they will support a white man simply because they are resigned to thinking that a woman/person of color cannot ever win because "everyone else" is still too racist and sexist to vote for anyone but a white man.
But, aside from these factors, I'm troubled by Biden because, as Melissa notes in an article about Biden's cocky comments about his qualification to be president, he "was vice-president while a foreign adversary stole our fucking election." For that reason alone, his national security credibility is, or should be, severely lacking.
With respect to Bernie, we know that Russia gave his campaign an assist against Hillary Clinton. Are they going to do so again,this time against other Democrat candidates, while getting further assists from his most hard-core, rabid online supporters?
The mainstream media should make it extremely awkward, to say the least, if Bernie and Biden in particular fail to address the integrity of our elections during their campaigns (assuming they both run).
And, given both men's relatively popularity, it seems that more Democrats need to fully understand that the Mueller investigation is less about removing Trump because he's a terrible person (which he is) and more because he and/or his campaign agents likely conspired with a foreign government to undermine our political system.
Biden has done very poorly in previous presidential campaigns (1998 and 2008), but I think his recent popularity is due largely to name recognition, the effect of riding President Obama's coattails as Democrats continue to mourn the end of that presidency, and the fact that the Overton Window of what an acceptable candidate is has shifted quite far in the age of Trump. White men who merely quietly rape people and then half-ass apologize, as opposed to brag about it, are practically thrown ticker tape parades these days.
Bernie and Beto, like Biden, have a lot of name recognition right now, with Bernie losing to Hillary in 2016 and Beto losing a high-profile Senate race in Texas to the magnificently-unlikeable Ted Cruz.
What winners!
Plus, even those on the left side of the political spectrum can be racist and sexist. For many people who are not, they will support a white man simply because they are resigned to thinking that a woman/person of color cannot ever win because "everyone else" is still too racist and sexist to vote for anyone but a white man.
But, aside from these factors, I'm troubled by Biden because, as Melissa notes in an article about Biden's cocky comments about his qualification to be president, he "was vice-president while a foreign adversary stole our fucking election." For that reason alone, his national security credibility is, or should be, severely lacking.
With respect to Bernie, we know that Russia gave his campaign an assist against Hillary Clinton. Are they going to do so again,this time against other Democrat candidates, while getting further assists from his most hard-core, rabid online supporters?
The mainstream media should make it extremely awkward, to say the least, if Bernie and Biden in particular fail to address the integrity of our elections during their campaigns (assuming they both run).
And, given both men's relatively popularity, it seems that more Democrats need to fully understand that the Mueller investigation is less about removing Trump because he's a terrible person (which he is) and more because he and/or his campaign agents likely conspired with a foreign government to undermine our political system.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Just When I Think I Can't Get More Gay
The Guardian has to go and highlight the Literary Review's bad erotic writing shortlist. Funnily enough, the shortlist is entirely comprised of male writers and wow.
[content note: sexual assault]
I know writers are, usually, in theory writing from fictional characters' perspective but it's also hard not to think these snippets are at least somewhat of a glimpse into the writers' headspace about male-female sexual relations, particularly the dude who wrote about the dude who was doing what sounds like raping a woman in her sleep while he simultaneously feared being "completely emptied out" by her "sex" and the dude who wrote about the woman who became, from her perspective (which is the best part), "an empty vessel for what feels like disembodied consciousness" while having sex with a man.
That's .... a lot to unpack.
Anyway, if you read the article, "I cannot caution you strongly enough" that you might come across phrases like "pleasure cave."
[content note: sexual assault]
I know writers are, usually, in theory writing from fictional characters' perspective but it's also hard not to think these snippets are at least somewhat of a glimpse into the writers' headspace about male-female sexual relations, particularly the dude who wrote about the dude who was doing what sounds like raping a woman in her sleep while he simultaneously feared being "completely emptied out" by her "sex" and the dude who wrote about the woman who became, from her perspective (which is the best part), "an empty vessel for what feels like disembodied consciousness" while having sex with a man.
That's .... a lot to unpack.
Anyway, if you read the article, "I cannot caution you strongly enough" that you might come across phrases like "pleasure cave."
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
I Can't Stop Thinking About This
From The Wall Street Journal:
But, I also imagine it could be disturbing for the grieving to scatter their love one's ashes only to have them vacuumed up.
Anyway, it got me thinking, what other unusual places might people do this? State and national parks seems obvious, but I imagine some people probably surreptitiously leave ashes at sports arenas, stadiums, and fields. This probably happens much more than people realize, such as tourist attractions, favorite restaurants, and stores, right?
Oh, I'm being serious,by the way. I need actual ideas. I'm not saying this to elicit sympathy, but I have my mom's ashes and I don't know what to do with them as she didn't leave her wishes, and now enough time has passed that it's getting weird, so why not ask the Internet because what could go wrong?
"No code is kept more under wraps at Walt Disney World and Disneyland than the call for a 'HEPA cleanup.' It means that, once again, a park guest has scattered the cremated ashes of a loved one somewhere in the park, and an ultrafine (or 'HEPA') vacuum cleaner is needed to suck them up.
Disney custodians say it happens about once a month."I'm sure custodians at Disney encounter a lot of weird shit, but I'd think it would be at least somewhat traumatic to have to regularly and unexpectedly vacuum human remains during the course of one's job.
But, I also imagine it could be disturbing for the grieving to scatter their love one's ashes only to have them vacuumed up.
Anyway, it got me thinking, what other unusual places might people do this? State and national parks seems obvious, but I imagine some people probably surreptitiously leave ashes at sports arenas, stadiums, and fields. This probably happens much more than people realize, such as tourist attractions, favorite restaurants, and stores, right?
Oh, I'm being serious,by the way. I need actual ideas. I'm not saying this to elicit sympathy, but I have my mom's ashes and I don't know what to do with them as she didn't leave her wishes, and now enough time has passed that it's getting weird, so why not ask the Internet because what could go wrong?
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Choirboy Kavanaugh and Rightwing Women
Whereas Donald Trump will thumb his nose at the left on the daily, performatively admitting to his fans on Twitter that he knows what despicable behavior he can get away with, Trump fan and National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage (NOM) president Brian Brown on the other hand treats the citizenry like credulous, cherubic nimrods.
Desperate and salivating to see Obergefell overturned, watch how Brown (in a 9/21/18 NOM blogpost, which I'm not linking to) describes Clarence Thomas, Donald Trump, and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh (emphasis in original):
Yet, what I really want to highlight here is how the conservative pretense for giving a damn about women really falls away here. In Right Wing Women, one of Andrea Dworkin's observations was that conservative women choose conservative anti-feminism because they believe it offers them a safe harbor from the rape culture misogyny on the left (which, yes, exists). They - particularly white Christian women - give up equality in exchange for being protected by, and privileged within, white Christian patriarchy.
Of course, a lot of the "protection" is a sham. The reality for women is that men across the political spectrum can be abusive and we're all making choices within a flawed system rigged for elite men.
Yet, what's interesting in this political moment is the extent to which conservative elite men are now openly admitting to the sham. No serious person can in good faith believe Trump treats women well. And, far from being the saintly protector of women, Kavanaugh himself was part of a frat-bro culture that relished in the homosocial humiliation of women. Brown, too, completely throws women's, and victim's, rights under the bus in his zeal for his obsessive, anti-LGBT "one man, one woman" campaign.
Since the 2016 election, we in the US have been living within a new wave of both feminism and intense, overt misogyny. The way I see it, many women, even conservative white Christians, have the capacity to be reached either by feminist messaging or to retreat backwards in fear, internalizing the misogyny, lashing out at women (especially feminists), and seeking more protection from abusive, shitty men.
This dynamic underscores just one of the many reasons it's imperative that the left continue to seriously address allegations of sexual assault, abuse, and predation committed by those on the left. Not only is it the right thing to do, but we must offer women - all women - a better, safer experience than what they're getting on the right.
Desperate and salivating to see Obergefell overturned, watch how Brown (in a 9/21/18 NOM blogpost, which I'm not linking to) describes Clarence Thomas, Donald Trump, and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh (emphasis in original):
"...[R]ight on cue, came the dirty trick they are hoping will derail or at least delay Kavanaugh's confirmation, the infamous 'sexual assault' allegation against him from his time as a high school student!It's a little hard to know where to start breaking this one down, isn't it? First, there's the reality that Donald Trump admitted to sexual assault on tape, tape that is in the public record. Yet, Brown acts as though Democrats making a big deal about that is some sort of unfair bit of fake news. Then, there's the implication that a "devout believer in Jesus Christ" couldn't possibly be a sexual predator. That would be big news to the Catholic Church. And, I suppose it didn't cross the mono-manic Brown's mind that, perhaps, many sexual predators position themselves as mentors to young people because it gives them greater access to targets.
This is so predictable. They did the same thing against Clarence Thomas when he was nominated to the Supreme Court decades ago. They tried to use this against President Trump in the 2016 presidential election. And now they are using it against a supremely qualified nominee, someone who is a devout believer in Jesus Christ, who devotes himself as a volunteer to the less fortunate, who dearly loves his wife and family and who has gone out of his way to promote and mentor young women who wish to pursue a career in the law."
Yet, what I really want to highlight here is how the conservative pretense for giving a damn about women really falls away here. In Right Wing Women, one of Andrea Dworkin's observations was that conservative women choose conservative anti-feminism because they believe it offers them a safe harbor from the rape culture misogyny on the left (which, yes, exists). They - particularly white Christian women - give up equality in exchange for being protected by, and privileged within, white Christian patriarchy.
Of course, a lot of the "protection" is a sham. The reality for women is that men across the political spectrum can be abusive and we're all making choices within a flawed system rigged for elite men.
Yet, what's interesting in this political moment is the extent to which conservative elite men are now openly admitting to the sham. No serious person can in good faith believe Trump treats women well. And, far from being the saintly protector of women, Kavanaugh himself was part of a frat-bro culture that relished in the homosocial humiliation of women. Brown, too, completely throws women's, and victim's, rights under the bus in his zeal for his obsessive, anti-LGBT "one man, one woman" campaign.
Since the 2016 election, we in the US have been living within a new wave of both feminism and intense, overt misogyny. The way I see it, many women, even conservative white Christians, have the capacity to be reached either by feminist messaging or to retreat backwards in fear, internalizing the misogyny, lashing out at women (especially feminists), and seeking more protection from abusive, shitty men.
This dynamic underscores just one of the many reasons it's imperative that the left continue to seriously address allegations of sexual assault, abuse, and predation committed by those on the left. Not only is it the right thing to do, but we must offer women - all women - a better, safer experience than what they're getting on the right.
Friday, July 27, 2018
Here's Why Some People Can't Stand Bernie Sanders
Here's Bernie Sanders on July 26, 2018, talking about how the Democrats need a 50-state strategy:
Bernie's narrative also, of course, erases the hard work that actual Democrats in red states do every day against almost insurmountable conservative and right-wing forces. Of course, this day-to-day, lower-profile, and unglamorous work is likely disproportionately done by women and people of color so it's entirely possible that Bernie doesn't know it's occurring or doesn't view it as political labor.
(Cross-posted at Shakesville)
"Sanders told me by phone from Washington, a few days after his Kansas stop, that a 50-state strategy is common sense.Yet, in March 2016, during the Democratic Primary, Bernie's campaign manager Jeff Weaver admitted to doing that very abdication:
'It is beyond comprehension, the degree to which the Democratic party nationally has essentially abdicated half of the states in this country to rightwing Republicans, including some of the poorest states in America, those in the south,' Sanders said. 'The reason I go to Kansas and many so-called red states is that I will do everything that I can to bring new people into the political process in states which are today conservative. I do not know how you turn those states around unless you go there and get people excited.'”
Bernie Sanders is hypocrite who will take any and every opportunity to trash Democrats and act as though he alone is different because he cares about all the people that Democrats have ignored, forgotten, and abdicated, even if - in fact - he and his well-paid, internationally-connected consultants are as establishment, truth-spinning, and political as they come."Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, said on the call that their campaign chose not to compete in eight of the 32 states that have held primaries or caucuses so far. Weaver identified Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia and Louisiana as the states where they didn’t mount a challenge to Clinton, who swept all of the Southern contests; he said the Sanders campaign did not broadcast television advertisements in those eight states or have 'a big campaign presence.''Almost all of Secretary Clinton’s delegate lead come from states where she faced little or no competition,' said Tad Devine, Sanders’ senior campaign strategist. 'Her grasp now on the nomination is almost entirely on the basis of victories in states where Bernie Sanders did not compete.'”
Bernie's narrative also, of course, erases the hard work that actual Democrats in red states do every day against almost insurmountable conservative and right-wing forces. Of course, this day-to-day, lower-profile, and unglamorous work is likely disproportionately done by women and people of color so it's entirely possible that Bernie doesn't know it's occurring or doesn't view it as political labor.
(Cross-posted at Shakesville)
Thursday, May 3, 2018
Area Man Terrorized By Obscure, Fake Manifesto; Promotes It On His Popular Website
Yesterday, at his blog, conservative Christian writer Rod Dreher posted a hyperventilating, novella-length piece about a document purporting to be a manifesto for helping pedophilia become socially-acceptable via using the same strategies that the LGBT community used.
Dreher begins, "I want to share with you the most disturbing thing I have read in a very long time. You need to know about it." He then shares large excerpts from this "manifesto," which by the way was originally posted anonymously at 8chan, even adding his own annotations throughout, stressing the urgent direness of the situation:
So, yeah. To anyone with even an ounce of skepticism, the document is an obvious, right-wing fabrication. Dreher himself half-acknowledges that in his original post, but then admits that he doesn't really want to look too deeply into the matter because that would be too dark:
His admitted ignorance about this text's authenticity, however, doesn't stop Dreher from treating this slippery slope "threat" as 100% real. In fact, as it becomes more and more clear to him, in real time, that the document is a fake, he only digs in further, stressing that "we" still need to be on guard anyways.
After people began commenting on his post, he added two updates.
In the first, he acknowledges that it might be a fake, but insists that "we" still ought to think about how "we" would respond to such a manifesto if it were real. In the second, he says he read it again and now doubts its authenticity. Even so, he insists that the very fact that some readers might think that this obscure fake manifesto was authentic, which he initially promoted on his website as authentic, "tells us something about the current cultural moment."
Indeed it does, good sir.
He then goes on to approvingly cite Ross Douthat's recent "redistribution of sex" garbage fire of a piece that was somehow published over at The New York Times, which is really the PERFECT on-brand capstone to Dreher's clusterfuck of manufactured outrage.
Dreher also sees TERFs as allies now because they're all-aboard the anti-trans train, which is also PERFECT, obviously.
Related:
Dreher begins, "I want to share with you the most disturbing thing I have read in a very long time. You need to know about it." He then shares large excerpts from this "manifesto," which by the way was originally posted anonymously at 8chan, even adding his own annotations throughout, stressing the urgent direness of the situation:
"It’s actually a reasonable strategy document — 'reasonable' in the narrow and amoral sense of it makes sense as a strategy to get society to accept something totally evil. We know that this can work because it has worked with other sexual minorities.""Other sexual minorities."
So, yeah. To anyone with even an ounce of skepticism, the document is an obvious, right-wing fabrication. Dreher himself half-acknowledges that in his original post, but then admits that he doesn't really want to look too deeply into the matter because that would be too dark:
"I am unwilling to do the kind of digging online in this darkness to nail down with certainty that this is an authentic document. I will only caution you that I have not seen it verified yet. Nevertheless, it is out there, and it most definitely has the air of plausibility."There is a certain dipshitted deliciousness to watch a man who regularly mocks college students for being oversensitive snowflakes confess that he can't be bothered to ascertain the authenticity of a document that denigrates LGBT political gains by suggesting that gains for pedophiles logically follow.
His admitted ignorance about this text's authenticity, however, doesn't stop Dreher from treating this slippery slope "threat" as 100% real. In fact, as it becomes more and more clear to him, in real time, that the document is a fake, he only digs in further, stressing that "we" still need to be on guard anyways.
After people began commenting on his post, he added two updates.
In the first, he acknowledges that it might be a fake, but insists that "we" still ought to think about how "we" would respond to such a manifesto if it were real. In the second, he says he read it again and now doubts its authenticity. Even so, he insists that the very fact that some readers might think that this obscure fake manifesto was authentic, which he initially promoted on his website as authentic, "tells us something about the current cultural moment."
Indeed it does, good sir.
He then goes on to approvingly cite Ross Douthat's recent "redistribution of sex" garbage fire of a piece that was somehow published over at The New York Times, which is really the PERFECT on-brand capstone to Dreher's clusterfuck of manufactured outrage.
Dreher also sees TERFs as allies now because they're all-aboard the anti-trans train, which is also PERFECT, obviously.
Related:
I know 2018 has brought us a lot of weird and misogynistic shit, but even I was not expecting Ross Douthat to tell us that the "the organs of establishment opinion" need to entertain the extremist notion that sex ought to be provided to men as a prophylactic to femicide.— Fannie Wolfe (@fanniesroom) May 3, 2018
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Mediocre White Man Is Mediocre At WaPo
The fact that Richard Cohen's absurd piece defending white men from being reversely discriminated against was written by himself, a grown-ass man, and published in The Washington Post and not, instead, written by an adolescent for his high school paper tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how real and widespread discrimination against white men is in the real world.
Yet, watch and observe this display of Peak White Man:
Cohen talks a big game at the end, uttering platitudes about fairness and the "solemn obligation" to treat everyone as individuals, and yet what, if anything, has he ever done about discrimination against women/people of color in his career except benefit from it?
And yet, just think. If Cohen had had to compete against women/people of color since the very start of his career, we all might have been spared this cold-diarrhea analysis in favor of something much, much more embiggening to the public discourse.
Related:
Here are some telling quotes from the piece itself. He acknowledges that discrimination against women/people of color is (was?) a very real and widespread thing:That Richard Cohen gets space in The Washington Post to publish his opinions is indicative of how white men are much more often rewarded for their status-quo-perpetuating mediocrity than they are treated reversely-sexist.— Fannie Wolfe (@fanniesroom) April 18, 2018
- "Let me concede right at the top that it was always better to be white in America than black. Let me further stipulate that in the workplace, it has usually been better to be a man than a woman."
- "My first real job was with the New York office of a national insurance company. Sexual harassment was a problem, for sure."
- "Our office was exclusively white and not by accident. When I asked my boss why we had no black employees, he told me directly that it was his policy not to hire any."
- "When I went into journalism, it was mostly a guy’s thing. It was rare for a woman to be a foreign correspondent, rarer still for one to cover a war. My career surely benefited from that. There are women around today who I am glad I didn’t have to compete against when I was starting out."
Yet, watch and observe this display of Peak White Man:
"Once I was passed over for a newsroom position I very much wanted. 'We needed a woman,' an editor told me. I said nothing, although I seethed. In short order, I was made a columnist, so I didn’t even get a chance to cry. But the instant rush of utter unfairness lingers. The woman chosen was qualified, but her qualification had nothing to do with her sex. I was told she was just a needed statistic.One time, Cohen wanted a job, a qualified woman got it instead, and then he got a different job he wanted anyway, and still.... he seethed with anger at the injustice to himself.
The way women have been treated in the workplace is wrong — everything from pay disparity to sexual harassment to outright discrimination. But the past does not obliterate the solemn obligation to treat people as individuals, not primarily as members of a sex or race. Fairness demands it. Democracy requires it."
Cohen talks a big game at the end, uttering platitudes about fairness and the "solemn obligation" to treat everyone as individuals, and yet what, if anything, has he ever done about discrimination against women/people of color in his career except benefit from it?
And yet, just think. If Cohen had had to compete against women/people of color since the very start of his career, we all might have been spared this cold-diarrhea analysis in favor of something much, much more embiggening to the public discourse.
Related:
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Bernie's Kids Run For Office and It's Fine Because Bernie!
It would irritate me a lot less that Bernie Sanders' son and stepdaughter are running for office if Bernie fans and white male pundits wouldn't have spent the past two years telling Chelsea Clinton to go away, never run for office, and join her mother knitting socks in the woods as if wicked witches in a Grimm Fairy Tale.
It would also irritate me less if the Twitter presence of Levi Sanders', who is Bernie's son, wasn't the epitome of what's so profoundly offensive about the unfortunate phenomenon popularly known as Bernie-Bro-ism, the predominate features of which are the pretense that it's somehow progressive to take offense at the phrase "white privilege," to disparage Chelsea Clinton for being in a news article, and generally coddling the bigotries and misogyny of the (white, male) working class.
Levi is running for US House of Representatives for New Hampshire's 1st District (in which he doesn't live). His Twitter commentary has been garnering scrutiny since he announced his campaign, as Aphra Behn breaks it down, on Twitter:
In an interview with Vice, Levi has stated that he is running on a platform similar to his father's:
For me, as someone who has been critical of Bernie, the juxtaposition of Bernie with Levi is interesting in that it taps into my fears about what Bernie is possibly really like when he's uncensored and off camera. That Bernie Sanders has a history of dodging questions he doesn't want to address doesn't help my perception of him as hiding really problematic views.
Finally, as the mainstream media largely uncritically accepts that "the Bernie wing" of the US is far left and that "Clintonites" and Bernie critics are "centrists," Levi is a good example of how, on many issues, that's simply not the case.
It would also irritate me less if the Twitter presence of Levi Sanders', who is Bernie's son, wasn't the epitome of what's so profoundly offensive about the unfortunate phenomenon popularly known as Bernie-Bro-ism, the predominate features of which are the pretense that it's somehow progressive to take offense at the phrase "white privilege," to disparage Chelsea Clinton for being in a news article, and generally coddling the bigotries and misogyny of the (white, male) working class.
Levi is running for US House of Representatives for New Hampshire's 1st District (in which he doesn't live). His Twitter commentary has been garnering scrutiny since he announced his campaign, as Aphra Behn breaks it down, on Twitter:
His commentary is cringe-inducing, really.I've had little to say re: Levi Sanders other than to note the irony of Berner complaints about political dynasties. But this thread makes it clear: he's got some issues w race, gender, and is an un-self-aware jerk who complains when Chelsea Clinton publicly voices an opinion. https://t.co/UGLGM9qhMT— Aphra Behn (@Shaker_aphra) February 27, 2018
In an interview with Vice, Levi has stated that he is running on a platform similar to his father's:
"'The basic difference is that I’m a vegetarian and he’s not,' Levi said of his father, adding that despite their policy similarities he would run his own campaign. Levi said he has talked to his dad about the race but declined to elaborate."I don't have any particular investment in the New Hampshire race as ultimately it's up to the people who live in that district to decide who they want to represent them.
For me, as someone who has been critical of Bernie, the juxtaposition of Bernie with Levi is interesting in that it taps into my fears about what Bernie is possibly really like when he's uncensored and off camera. That Bernie Sanders has a history of dodging questions he doesn't want to address doesn't help my perception of him as hiding really problematic views.
Finally, as the mainstream media largely uncritically accepts that "the Bernie wing" of the US is far left and that "Clintonites" and Bernie critics are "centrists," Levi is a good example of how, on many issues, that's simply not the case.
Thursday, December 7, 2017
The Bigot-Coddling Populism of Bernie
I would love to never write about Bernie Sanders again, but
Bernie Sanders appears to be gearing up for a 2020 run or doing whatever it is he's doing at the rallies he continues to hold.
To me, one of his biggest flaws is that he doesn't appear to listen.
To me, it appears as though he has, for at least the past two years, been traveling the country speaking at people, over and over again, about what he thinks ails the nation.
It is now December 2017, and Bernie Sanders, the most progressive of progressives to ever progress, is still repeating the falsehood that "the vast majority of Trump supporters" are motivated more by economic anxiety than by bigotry, with an added dose of: "Trump said things that made sense."
To me, Bernie Sanders is engaging in some craven, pandering bullshit.
To me, living in 2017 has meant being in an important cultural moment in which those who previously have not been listened to are now being heard. I'm referring to, of course, those who speak out against rape culture and, more broadly, the abuse of power.
Bernie Sanders is a populist who is hoping to leverage the power of the people for his movement.
And yet, while I think he thinks he's speaking for the downtrodden, forgotten man who is oppressed by The Establishment, Bernie Sanders demonstrates to me primarily that populism in a nation that has been rigged for racists and misogynists from the get-go means that the coddling of racists and misogynists is usually required in order for a populist politician to be popular.
Bernie Sanders' populism is not premised upon listening to the diverse, lived experiences of the the many people of this nation. It is premised upon talking to the aggrieved white people who get upset when people point out their various bigotries. If Bernie's populism were more than a crusty socialist version of Trump's, he would heed the call of his critics to do a better job balancing the perspectives of those who enabled the rise of Trump with those who are now disproportionately harmed by the Trump regime. He would also stop gaslighting the people of this nation about the prevalence of bigotry in our nation.
Bernie Sanders wants to lead the revolution. But what, exactly, is he tapping into, here?
Per Bernie, in the Vice profile on him:
I guess I'll leave it at that.
Related:
Throwback Thursday To When We Were Gaslit About Bigotry
The Nationalist's Delusion - by Adam Serwer
To me, one of his biggest flaws is that he doesn't appear to listen.
To me, it appears as though he has, for at least the past two years, been traveling the country speaking at people, over and over again, about what he thinks ails the nation.
It is now December 2017, and Bernie Sanders, the most progressive of progressives to ever progress, is still repeating the falsehood that "the vast majority of Trump supporters" are motivated more by economic anxiety than by bigotry, with an added dose of: "Trump said things that made sense."
.@BernieSanders: "I think that the vast majority of Trump supporters are people who are in pain, who are struggling economically… and they turned to Trump because Trump said things that made sense.” https://t.co/eoevCTIuf6— VICE (@VICE) December 6, 2017
To me, Bernie Sanders is engaging in some craven, pandering bullshit.
To me, living in 2017 has meant being in an important cultural moment in which those who previously have not been listened to are now being heard. I'm referring to, of course, those who speak out against rape culture and, more broadly, the abuse of power.
Bernie Sanders is a populist who is hoping to leverage the power of the people for his movement.
And yet, while I think he thinks he's speaking for the downtrodden, forgotten man who is oppressed by The Establishment, Bernie Sanders demonstrates to me primarily that populism in a nation that has been rigged for racists and misogynists from the get-go means that the coddling of racists and misogynists is usually required in order for a populist politician to be popular.
Bernie Sanders' populism is not premised upon listening to the diverse, lived experiences of the the many people of this nation. It is premised upon talking to the aggrieved white people who get upset when people point out their various bigotries. If Bernie's populism were more than a crusty socialist version of Trump's, he would heed the call of his critics to do a better job balancing the perspectives of those who enabled the rise of Trump with those who are now disproportionately harmed by the Trump regime. He would also stop gaslighting the people of this nation about the prevalence of bigotry in our nation.
Bernie Sanders wants to lead the revolution. But what, exactly, is he tapping into, here?
Per Bernie, in the Vice profile on him:
"[Trump] said he was going to take on the establishment, and he was going to provide healthcare to everybody. You know what, it's pretty much what I said."There's your 2020 slogan.
I guess I'll leave it at that.
Related:
Throwback Thursday To When We Were Gaslit About Bigotry
The Nationalist's Delusion - by Adam Serwer
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
The White Nationalism of Federalist No. 2
So, I've been re-reading The Federalist Papers. Here's a quote of the day for you, courtesy of John Jay in No. 2:
Two: the notion that the conquerors were one "united people" at all, coming from "the same ancestors."
Three: the notion that the "people" and the "individual citizens" within this land were one and the same, all having same rights, privileges, and protections.
As we continue to resist the rising tide of emboldened white nationalists, Neo-Nazis, and misogynists in the US, we must not forget that white, Christian, male supremacist nationalism is embedded within some of the founding documents and structure of the American political-legal system, even as these documents also, paradoxically, reference higher principles.
These roots partially explain the basic entitlement that many white Christians, men especially, are operating from in the US, as well as why Donald Trump is not a conservative populist anomaly, but an inevitable one.
The rot has been here from the beginning.
"It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.Count the fictions. First: the notion that "Providence," rather than, say, violence and genocide, has granted "one united people" the "one connected, fertile, widespreading country" of "America."
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
....To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection."
Two: the notion that the conquerors were one "united people" at all, coming from "the same ancestors."
Three: the notion that the "people" and the "individual citizens" within this land were one and the same, all having same rights, privileges, and protections.
As we continue to resist the rising tide of emboldened white nationalists, Neo-Nazis, and misogynists in the US, we must not forget that white, Christian, male supremacist nationalism is embedded within some of the founding documents and structure of the American political-legal system, even as these documents also, paradoxically, reference higher principles.
These roots partially explain the basic entitlement that many white Christians, men especially, are operating from in the US, as well as why Donald Trump is not a conservative populist anomaly, but an inevitable one.
The rot has been here from the beginning.
Monday, November 27, 2017
Susan Sarandon Is Still Speaking, I See
I mean, it's her right to speak, of course. It doesn't mean she deserves a platform or freedom from criticism.
And yet, here we are.
In The Guardian this weekend (via the Tweet below), we have a lot going on.
First, Sarandon shows us why she's a good example of how "leftwing intentions can have rightwing consequences" and of how someone can be "liberal/leftist but not feminist."
Examples:
Before the election, Sarandon (who supported Bernie Sanders during the Democratic Primary) announced that she was supporting Green Party candidate Jill Stein in the general and said that Hillary Clinton would be a more dangerous president than Donald Trump.
It's difficult to assess the impact of any one event or statement on the election, but to call her voice "little" is incredibly disingenuous.
Third, the article references the current manner that "moderate" has, to some people, come to be conflated with "Hillary supporter" rather than a person's policy positions. While the journalist notes that Sarandon is attacked by "the left" these days, rather than the right, she later says that "the moderates" hate her. "Moderates" was used in the context of Sarandon calling her harassers "the Hillary people."
Too often, mainstream media journalists uncritically accept these creative new definitions of leftist, centrist, and moderate. Yet, to what extent can someone who echoes rape culture talking points actually be considered more progressive or "leftist" than someone who does not?
It's also unfortunate that Sarandon seems to believe that gender issues ought to be subordinate to so many More Important Causes, because we could use her support and her voice on this issue -for all women, not just those she deems sufficiently "leftist." Yet, like many liberal/left non-feminist ("humanist"?) women, they leave the heavy lifting on gender issues to be done by feminists, even if they have more resources and larger platform than we do.
On a final note, the Guardian journalist profiling Sarandon added a bit of admiration for the star:
Have journalists learned nothing?
And yet, here we are.
In The Guardian this weekend (via the Tweet below), we have a lot going on.
First, Sarandon shows us why she's a good example of how "leftwing intentions can have rightwing consequences" and of how someone can be "liberal/leftist but not feminist."
Examples:
- She says she's a "humanist" rather than a "feminist" because she doesn't want to alienate people who think feminists are "a load of strident bitches."
- She's "flattered" that a prominent feminist, Katha Pollitt, has called her an "idiot." Like it's hugely brave or progressive to not give a shit what the hysterical, stupid feminists say.
- She conflates sexual harassment with 1960s-1970s sexual liberation.
- She echoes the talking point that Trump was elected primarily because of working class angst rather than a more nuanced understanding that many factors led to the outcome.
“I mean it’s very flattering to think that I, on my own, cost the election. That my little voice was the deciding factor.”Well. Of course Sarandon "on her own" didn't cost the election. But, she has a larger platform than most people to influence political and current events. She currently has 569,000 Twitter followers, a number that is likely close to what she had during the 2016 election.
Before the election, Sarandon (who supported Bernie Sanders during the Democratic Primary) announced that she was supporting Green Party candidate Jill Stein in the general and said that Hillary Clinton would be a more dangerous president than Donald Trump.
It's difficult to assess the impact of any one event or statement on the election, but to call her voice "little" is incredibly disingenuous.
Third, the article references the current manner that "moderate" has, to some people, come to be conflated with "Hillary supporter" rather than a person's policy positions. While the journalist notes that Sarandon is attacked by "the left" these days, rather than the right, she later says that "the moderates" hate her. "Moderates" was used in the context of Sarandon calling her harassers "the Hillary people."
Too often, mainstream media journalists uncritically accept these creative new definitions of leftist, centrist, and moderate. Yet, to what extent can someone who echoes rape culture talking points actually be considered more progressive or "leftist" than someone who does not?
Four, on the harassment front, women across the political spectrum are attacked for their political beliefs. It's unfortunate that Sarandon is, as well, although I'm not surprised.Tip: If you're a rich white "leftist" woman who brags that she's "not attacked from the right at all," you might actually be doing the right's work for them. 👀 https://t.co/nJJPlmlMXn— Fannie Wolfe (@fanniesroom) November 26, 2017
It's also unfortunate that Sarandon seems to believe that gender issues ought to be subordinate to so many More Important Causes, because we could use her support and her voice on this issue -for all women, not just those she deems sufficiently "leftist." Yet, like many liberal/left non-feminist ("humanist"?) women, they leave the heavy lifting on gender issues to be done by feminists, even if they have more resources and larger platform than we do.
On a final note, the Guardian journalist profiling Sarandon added a bit of admiration for the star:
"And yet I like Sarandon. It takes real courage to go against the mob. Her inconsistencies are a little wild, but in the age of social-media enforced conformity, I have never met anyone so uninterested in toeing the line."Here I'm primarily curious as to how a person in the media can be on social media and believe there's such a thing as "social-media enforced conformity." Although, it's also curious that one can be informed about current events and still think it's a good idea to lionize people for being, what they deem as, politically-incorrect truth-tellers.
Have journalists learned nothing?
Friday, November 3, 2017
Flashback Friday: Losing to Girls
Oh, you know, just re-posting this, from April 2016, for no particular reason.
Okay. So, if you believe Hillary Clinton won 4 million more votes than Bernie Sanders primarily because she and/or the DNC "rigged" the contest, you would have to also believe:
I repeat myself, but misogyny is a national vulnerability. Until we reckon with that, it will always be so.
Related:
Update 1:
Here are some fun narratives I'm picking up regarding the 2016 Democratic Primary:Now, more than a year later, there's a lot of media hyperventilating about Donna Brazile's "admission" that the primary was "rigged" against Bernie, but if you actually read what she wrote, it's slim on details and big on sweeping accusations. The facts, at least as she presents them, are that Obama left the DNC in debt, Hillary for American and the Hillary Victory Fund resolved the debt, and the DNC and Hillary's campaign signed a Joint Fundraising Agreement whereby Hillary's campaign would control the party's finances and strategy. (This is also a good reminder that Bernie Sanders is an Independent, not a Democratic).
- Bernie is only losing because he's been too nice:
"Bob Kerrey, a former Nebraska governor and senator who ran for the Democratic nomination in 1992 and who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton in the current race, said Mr. Sanders might be winning now if he had relentlessly pressured Mrs. Clinton since last fall over her closed-door speeches to Wall Street banks, her role in the finances of Clinton Foundation programs, and other vulnerabilities. Mr. Sanders did not raise the paid-speech issue, after long resistance, until late January."
- Bernie is only losing because he wasn't even trying that hard anyway (especially in the states that he's lost):
Tad Devine, Sanders' strategist:: “Essentially, 97% of her delegate lead today comes from those eight states where [Sanders] did not compete.”
- Bernie is only losing because "the establishment" has rigged the system against him:
I see this claim mostly at far left and far right websites (sometimes two peas in a tinfoil-hat-wearing pod), which I do not want to link to - although they can easily found by searching "Rigged Election 2016 Hillary." Although voter suppression is likely attributable to Republican-led legislatures, many hard core Bernie supporters believe that Hillary, who to them represents "the establishment," has a top secret "in" with voting officials in the state where she's won, thus resulting in unfair election wins for her.
- Bernie isn't even losing, and even if hypothetically he were to lose the popular election, he'll still win at the convention:
Despite the fact that Clinton is leading the popular vote (and will likely win the popular vote nationwide), yesterday Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver said he hopes and believes Sanders will come out of the Democratic Convention the nominee anyway.
Okay. So, if you believe Hillary Clinton won 4 million more votes than Bernie Sanders primarily because she and/or the DNC "rigged" the contest, you would have to also believe:
- That the impact of pro-Bernie/anti-Hillary Russian propaganda was nil, even though social media companies have just testified that Russian propaganda reached at least 125 million users.
- That she exerted power over election officials in every state in which she won, even though each state controls their own primaries and the parties exert control over caucuses (which Bernie disproportionately won).
- That a political and electoral system that was literally founded on excluding non-white, non-male persons from participating has no lingering, built-in "rigging" in favor of white men.
I repeat myself, but misogyny is a national vulnerability. Until we reckon with that, it will always be so.
Related:
- Melissa McEwan: Yeah, So, That Donna Brazile Piece
- Joy Reid: a Twitter thread on the subject of rigging
- A Twitter thread questioning if Brazile was actually citing a Joint Fundraising Agreement signed after Hillary had clinched the nomination.
Update 1:
— Fannie Wolfe (@fanniesroom) November 3, 2017Update 2: And, Brazile's claims about the funding raising agreement were, to be blunt, not accurate. Via NBC, the agreement only pertained to the general election, not the primary.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
The "Redemption" of George W. Bush
Can we not?
Back in November of 2016, I warned:
The misogyny and racism leading to the rise of Trump have been deeply, profoundly stupid.
Coming in at a close second is the way so many people in the US will not only accept, but like, a white man - even if he's a dangerous incompetent bigot - as long as he can sufficiently perform "I'm just an ordinary guy."
Related Throwback Thursday: In January 2009, I wrote a harsh farewell post to George W. Bush. I stand by most of it. But, oh what a sweet summer child I was here:
Apparently, Dems now have a 51/42 favorable view of George W. Bush, and this favorability increases by age. That is, people who actually fucking lived through the Bush II years are more likely to have a favorable opinion of the man.One of the more depressing things to happen in the Trump era is George W. Bush getting his redemption arc. https://t.co/sRVuJ17obD— Fannie Wolfe (@fanniesroom) October 25, 2017
Back in November of 2016, I warned:
"[R]emember that this normalization of Trump will make other Republicans who are no less deplorable, yet who are more subtle in their bigotries, seem normal, decent, and better by comparison.
Remember that they are not"Remember two things as people on social media boast about the popularity of this or that white man:
The misogyny and racism leading to the rise of Trump have been deeply, profoundly stupid.
Coming in at a close second is the way so many people in the US will not only accept, but like, a white man - even if he's a dangerous incompetent bigot - as long as he can sufficiently perform "I'm just an ordinary guy."
Related Throwback Thursday: In January 2009, I wrote a harsh farewell post to George W. Bush. I stand by most of it. But, oh what a sweet summer child I was here:
"In the post-9/11 world, by electing Barack Obama, I think in our own American way we've chosen to grow up a little."
Thursday, October 5, 2017
Man In Party Devoted to Regulating Evil Sneers at People Who Want to Regulate Evil
In response to the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Republican Matt Bevin, Governor of Kentucky, tweeted a scold:
As I tweeted, I'm old enough to remember that trying to regulate (what it deems as) evil has long been the very core of Republican Party politics, whether via the regulation of sex, masturbation, sex toys, reproductive rights, birth control, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, non-missionary-position sex, uppity women, gender non-conformity, bathroom usage, non-Christian religious and spiritual beliefs, among other acts, beliefs, or persons deemed "evil" by its predominately-white Christian base.
That an actual sitting politician would sneer that people who live in terror of gun violence are political opportunists primarily demonstrates that the modern Republican Party is a hopeless death-cult of despair and cynicism.
This stance on "regulating evil" would be news to many of us, yes?To all those political opportunists who are seizing on the tragedy in Las Vegas to call for more gun regs...You can't regulate evil...— Governor Matt Bevin (@GovMattBevin) October 2, 2017
As I tweeted, I'm old enough to remember that trying to regulate (what it deems as) evil has long been the very core of Republican Party politics, whether via the regulation of sex, masturbation, sex toys, reproductive rights, birth control, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, non-missionary-position sex, uppity women, gender non-conformity, bathroom usage, non-Christian religious and spiritual beliefs, among other acts, beliefs, or persons deemed "evil" by its predominately-white Christian base.
That an actual sitting politician would sneer that people who live in terror of gun violence are political opportunists primarily demonstrates that the modern Republican Party is a hopeless death-cult of despair and cynicism.
Monday, July 10, 2017
Amazing Coincidences In Troll Behavior!
It remains a real mystery as to why heavy troll, bot, and harassment often occurs around the same time big news is about to break regarding Donald Trump's potential collusion with Russia in the 2016 election, in which he lost the popular vote.
Meanwhile, the "Hot Take Appreciator" harassment account has, once again, directed their leftist wanking fanboys my way over the weekend.
Needless to say, I blocked more Twitter users in one day than I usually do in a matter of months. I do sometimes wonder why this sad troll-person spends time even stalking my timeline. I have her blocked, but she follows me through an alt-account to monitor my posts, so she can then misinterpret anything conceivably "problematic" to screenshot and tweet out to her "leftist" followers.
I usually know she's tweeted about me again when white man after white man busts into my mentions like the Kool-Aid Man, raging about some weeks- or months-old Tweet of mine, mansplaining to me what a "centrist" I am for not Feeling The Bern.
Yes, it's true that I'm far from a Big Influencer in the Twitterverse or elsewhere. I didn't even make the Bernista "Corporate Shill" hit list of shame. But, some people just need other sociopathic Internet hobbies, I guess?
More to the point of today's post, it appears I'm not the only one who sees regular trolling upticks from time to time.
I suspect that this post, too, will be screenshot and tweeted to "Hot Take's" followers, so they can have a good guffaw at the loony, hysterical woman who believes all of this Russia mumbo-jumbo.
What's sad is how easily leftist purity trolls, particularly frothing white men, allow their misogyny to be weaponized, leading them into the role of "useful idiot." As Aphra Behn at Shakesville aptly noted, the left fell hook, line, and sinker for Russian propaganda during the 2016 election. It would be foolish to think that has stopped.
All some people, like "Hot Take," have to do is render the worst faith reading of a progressive woman's Tweet and my oh my how quickly the leftist hating begins.
Shill! Neolib! Dem! Centrist! Harry Potter!
(Leftist men hate Harry Potter. Or rather, they hate that "lib women" like Harry Potter. More generally they hate when women like non-Bernie things, things that aren't about the One True Revolution! Liking pop culture is a sign of vapidity, to them. That they too might play video games or listen to music or like pop culture is of no consequence, you see, because they have "roses" in their Twitter bios, which is how they signal to others that they are Oh Wise Enlightened Ones.)
I've been monitoring and documenting the aggregate data in Fannie's Room and, you should know, from time to time I see upticks in hits from Russia. These upticks often correspond with increases in both "leftist" trolling and Big News on the Russia/Trump front, like this weekend's news that Donald Jr. met with a Russian who promised damaging info on his dad's election opponent, Hillary Clinton.
I suspect that one day those of us who care about treason will be vindicated by posterity. Perhaps not anytime soon. But one day.
In the meantime, block early. Block often. Don't spend your weekends arguing with bad faith Internet "socialists" on Twitter.
Meanwhile, the "Hot Take Appreciator" harassment account has, once again, directed their leftist wanking fanboys my way over the weekend.
Needless to say, I blocked more Twitter users in one day than I usually do in a matter of months. I do sometimes wonder why this sad troll-person spends time even stalking my timeline. I have her blocked, but she follows me through an alt-account to monitor my posts, so she can then misinterpret anything conceivably "problematic" to screenshot and tweet out to her "leftist" followers.
I usually know she's tweeted about me again when white man after white man busts into my mentions like the Kool-Aid Man, raging about some weeks- or months-old Tweet of mine, mansplaining to me what a "centrist" I am for not Feeling The Bern.
Yes, it's true that I'm far from a Big Influencer in the Twitterverse or elsewhere. I didn't even make the Bernista "Corporate Shill" hit list of shame. But, some people just need other sociopathic Internet hobbies, I guess?
More to the point of today's post, it appears I'm not the only one who sees regular trolling upticks from time to time.
Melissa McEwan has aptly pointed out that Donald's collusion has been happening in plain sight, mostly notably by him publicly inviting Russia to hack the State Department. Neither that nor the increasing evidence of collusion stops many on the left and right from gaslighting us about this issue.In case you're wondering why there's been a tidal wave of new trolling from Trumpbots foreign and domestic, they knew this was coming.— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) July 9, 2017
I suspect that this post, too, will be screenshot and tweeted to "Hot Take's" followers, so they can have a good guffaw at the loony, hysterical woman who believes all of this Russia mumbo-jumbo.
What's sad is how easily leftist purity trolls, particularly frothing white men, allow their misogyny to be weaponized, leading them into the role of "useful idiot." As Aphra Behn at Shakesville aptly noted, the left fell hook, line, and sinker for Russian propaganda during the 2016 election. It would be foolish to think that has stopped.
All some people, like "Hot Take," have to do is render the worst faith reading of a progressive woman's Tweet and my oh my how quickly the leftist hating begins.
Shill! Neolib! Dem! Centrist! Harry Potter!
(Leftist men hate Harry Potter. Or rather, they hate that "lib women" like Harry Potter. More generally they hate when women like non-Bernie things, things that aren't about the One True Revolution! Liking pop culture is a sign of vapidity, to them. That they too might play video games or listen to music or like pop culture is of no consequence, you see, because they have "roses" in their Twitter bios, which is how they signal to others that they are Oh Wise Enlightened Ones.)
I've been monitoring and documenting the aggregate data in Fannie's Room and, you should know, from time to time I see upticks in hits from Russia. These upticks often correspond with increases in both "leftist" trolling and Big News on the Russia/Trump front, like this weekend's news that Donald Jr. met with a Russian who promised damaging info on his dad's election opponent, Hillary Clinton.
I suspect that one day those of us who care about treason will be vindicated by posterity. Perhaps not anytime soon. But one day.
In the meantime, block early. Block often. Don't spend your weekends arguing with bad faith Internet "socialists" on Twitter.
Monday, June 12, 2017
BernieCon 2017
So, Bernie Sanders and his fans held an exclusive "People's Summit" in Chicago over the weekend.
Per the website, attendance was limited, so people had to "apply to register" and wait 7-10 days to see if they were approved to register.
Per the site's "Diversity and Inclusion" page, the aim with this process was to select for diversity and for attendees who reflected their "political vision," which a first come, first serve registration process would not achieve.
My observation about this process isn't a criticism. Event organizers can select attendees in any lawful manner they choose.
It's more an observation that an event purportedly for The People also seemed to have a political test, and one that at least from the website wasn't all that transparent. Judging by the hashtag on Twitter over the weekend, it looked like a predominately pro-Bernie/anti-Democrat space. In my experience interacting with very pro-Bernie people, they often present themselves as the vanguard of progressivism in the United States, yet use "support for Bernie" as a litmus test, rather than the issues themselves, as to whether someone else is truly a progressive.
I have serious disagreements with this approach.
In all likelihood, I agree with many Bernie fans on the issues probably, I'd say, 75-95% of the time. Yet, I also believe that Bernie legitimately lost the Democratic Primary to Hillary Clinton. She simply had more votes than him.
I also believe that he never had a real plan for implementing his vision within the constraints and realities of Republican power and obstruction within our political system, as indicated by his disastrous New York Daily News interview over a year ago.
Simply put, his campaign also had flaws, flaws that are often not talked about because of his fans' intense need to continue believing that "the DNC" "rigged" the contest against him. Bernie Sanders could do a lot to unite the left right now, but the fact that he chooses to not shut this myth down or address the flaws of his campaign are probably within the top five impediments to progressive unity going forward.
Many progressives supported Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders and yet are consistently erased or dismissed as uninformed shills. Many people, meanwhile, view Bernie as the leader of the leftist revolution, despite him having accomplished as of yet very little in his political career. Because he holds this place of prominence for some people, he could shut down some of the abuse that Clinton supporters continue to receive.
But, he chooses not to. And, because he chooses not to, as long as Bernie Sanders is hailed as the leader of "the revolution," the left will never be united. Indeed, from my perspective, he and his fans care more about trying to change the hearts of bigoted Trump supporters than they do about giving Hillary Clinton supporters any assumption of good faith or intelligence with respect to politics.
And holy shit, I can't believe I still have to talk about Bernie Sanders in June 2017 when an authoritarian shitlord is in power.
In conclusion, I storified my tweets about the Bernie convention over the weekend:
Per the website, attendance was limited, so people had to "apply to register" and wait 7-10 days to see if they were approved to register.
My observation about this process isn't a criticism. Event organizers can select attendees in any lawful manner they choose.
It's more an observation that an event purportedly for The People also seemed to have a political test, and one that at least from the website wasn't all that transparent. Judging by the hashtag on Twitter over the weekend, it looked like a predominately pro-Bernie/anti-Democrat space. In my experience interacting with very pro-Bernie people, they often present themselves as the vanguard of progressivism in the United States, yet use "support for Bernie" as a litmus test, rather than the issues themselves, as to whether someone else is truly a progressive.
I have serious disagreements with this approach.
In all likelihood, I agree with many Bernie fans on the issues probably, I'd say, 75-95% of the time. Yet, I also believe that Bernie legitimately lost the Democratic Primary to Hillary Clinton. She simply had more votes than him.
I also believe that he never had a real plan for implementing his vision within the constraints and realities of Republican power and obstruction within our political system, as indicated by his disastrous New York Daily News interview over a year ago.
Simply put, his campaign also had flaws, flaws that are often not talked about because of his fans' intense need to continue believing that "the DNC" "rigged" the contest against him. Bernie Sanders could do a lot to unite the left right now, but the fact that he chooses to not shut this myth down or address the flaws of his campaign are probably within the top five impediments to progressive unity going forward.
Many progressives supported Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders and yet are consistently erased or dismissed as uninformed shills. Many people, meanwhile, view Bernie as the leader of the leftist revolution, despite him having accomplished as of yet very little in his political career. Because he holds this place of prominence for some people, he could shut down some of the abuse that Clinton supporters continue to receive.
But, he chooses not to. And, because he chooses not to, as long as Bernie Sanders is hailed as the leader of "the revolution," the left will never be united. Indeed, from my perspective, he and his fans care more about trying to change the hearts of bigoted Trump supporters than they do about giving Hillary Clinton supporters any assumption of good faith or intelligence with respect to politics.
And holy shit, I can't believe I still have to talk about Bernie Sanders in June 2017 when an authoritarian shitlord is in power.
In conclusion, I storified my tweets about the Bernie convention over the weekend:
Thursday, May 25, 2017
On Cool Girl Politics
On the nauseating topic of the mainstream media's intense interest in running humanizing profiles of Trump supporters, the profile of the person featured in this Cosmo article, about a former Bernie supporter who is now a Trump superfan, is a good example of two things:
(a) The disjointed way the mainstream media buries ledes about those on the left and right who were had by, or complicit in, the spread of Russian propaganda regarding the 2016 eletcion; and
(b) The confluence of how the Cool Girl Left meets the Cool Girl Right.
Today, I'm focusing on the latter, although this particular Cool Girl's ties to Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik, briefly referenced in the Cosmo article, are certainly worth delving into further as well.
The Cool Girl featured talks about how "punk rock" it is to support the (scare quotes mine) "counter-cultural" Trump and, before that, Bernie Sanders. It might seem odd to some that a person would go from Bernie to Donald, but it's not odd to me. The men have important policy distinctions to be sure, but they are also two sides of the same white-man-privileging-masquerading-as-anti-establishment-populism coin.
Now, when I talk about Cool Girl Politics and, specifically, where the Cool Girl Left meets the Cool Girl Right, what I'm talking about is the following.
First, on a general note, we see the adoption of antisocial "just in it for the lulz" Internet behavior. Being "politically correct," that is kind and sympathetic, is largely coded in Internet culture as feminine and weak. Here's the Trump/Bernie superfan opining on her Internet behavior:
Second, and more narrowly, the Cosmo narrative of this Trump/Bernie superfan is the story of a woman who - like many - gives man after man after man, and even the worst of men like Trump and M1lo, all the benefits of the doubt, while giving none to other women - especially Hillary Clinton.
We saw that disparate treatment repeatedly when Clinton faced Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and then, later, when she faced Trump in the general election. Even though Clinton was rated as more honest than both Trump and Sanders, people consistently believed that both men were more honest than her. It was simply taken as a given by many along the political spectrum that Clinton was History's Greatest Monster.
For instance, even though Trump has admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals without their consent, the woman profiled in Cosmo is suspicious of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. She also carries a "Free Assange" tote bag and is now allied with a notorious anti-feminist man who has said "misogyny gets you laid."
White men are innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion. Women are guilty even if hearing after testimony after investigation proves they're innocent.
Three, and related, this disparate treatment of men and women is not examined or questioned. Instead, we often see a very stupid, yet enduring, narrative in US political discourse that if a woman trashes another woman then it can't possibly be grounded in misogyny.
What I've noticed when I've been targeted by Political Cool Girls is that these women often serve as gateway misogynists. Their own intentional or unexamined misogyny gives cover to male misogynists on the left and right to cheer on the misogyny and engage in it themselves. After all, many people think, if a woman starts it, it's fair game!
Finally let's examine the contention that supporting unqualified and less-qualified men over a vastly more-qualified woman is "counter-cultural." Spoiler alert: It's not.
Since our nation's founding, we've had an unbroken line of (mostly white) male presidents. Refusing to seriously examine why that is, or acknowledge the role that misogyny continues to play in that, is less "punk rock" and more your standard, shitty Ted Nugent concert.
(a) The disjointed way the mainstream media buries ledes about those on the left and right who were had by, or complicit in, the spread of Russian propaganda regarding the 2016 eletcion; and
(b) The confluence of how the Cool Girl Left meets the Cool Girl Right.
Today, I'm focusing on the latter, although this particular Cool Girl's ties to Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik, briefly referenced in the Cosmo article, are certainly worth delving into further as well.
The Cool Girl featured talks about how "punk rock" it is to support the (scare quotes mine) "counter-cultural" Trump and, before that, Bernie Sanders. It might seem odd to some that a person would go from Bernie to Donald, but it's not odd to me. The men have important policy distinctions to be sure, but they are also two sides of the same white-man-privileging-masquerading-as-anti-establishment-populism coin.
Now, when I talk about Cool Girl Politics and, specifically, where the Cool Girl Left meets the Cool Girl Right, what I'm talking about is the following.
First, on a general note, we see the adoption of antisocial "just in it for the lulz" Internet behavior. Being "politically correct," that is kind and sympathetic, is largely coded in Internet culture as feminine and weak. Here's the Trump/Bernie superfan opining on her Internet behavior:
“I'll definitely tweet things just to be a jerk and rile people up. I think it's funny. And I think that it's important to push the limits sometimes and force people to have uncomfortable conversations.”Cool Girls make a point of not just rejecting "political correctness," but bragging about how they reject "political correctness." And, they certainly don't need no stinkin' trigger warnings!
Second, and more narrowly, the Cosmo narrative of this Trump/Bernie superfan is the story of a woman who - like many - gives man after man after man, and even the worst of men like Trump and M1lo, all the benefits of the doubt, while giving none to other women - especially Hillary Clinton.
We saw that disparate treatment repeatedly when Clinton faced Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and then, later, when she faced Trump in the general election. Even though Clinton was rated as more honest than both Trump and Sanders, people consistently believed that both men were more honest than her. It was simply taken as a given by many along the political spectrum that Clinton was History's Greatest Monster.
For instance, even though Trump has admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals without their consent, the woman profiled in Cosmo is suspicious of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. She also carries a "Free Assange" tote bag and is now allied with a notorious anti-feminist man who has said "misogyny gets you laid."
White men are innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion. Women are guilty even if hearing after testimony after investigation proves they're innocent.
Three, and related, this disparate treatment of men and women is not examined or questioned. Instead, we often see a very stupid, yet enduring, narrative in US political discourse that if a woman trashes another woman then it can't possibly be grounded in misogyny.
What I've noticed when I've been targeted by Political Cool Girls is that these women often serve as gateway misogynists. Their own intentional or unexamined misogyny gives cover to male misogynists on the left and right to cheer on the misogyny and engage in it themselves. After all, many people think, if a woman starts it, it's fair game!
Finally let's examine the contention that supporting unqualified and less-qualified men over a vastly more-qualified woman is "counter-cultural." Spoiler alert: It's not.
Since our nation's founding, we've had an unbroken line of (mostly white) male presidents. Refusing to seriously examine why that is, or acknowledge the role that misogyny continues to play in that, is less "punk rock" and more your standard, shitty Ted Nugent concert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
