The Jezebel Guide to Questioning Women’s Femininity
Last week, noted feminist Keith Olbermann implied that the women of Fox News are only hired because they’re attractive. In response, The Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher posted a photo gallery of women who work for MSNBC. When he got to Rachel Maddow, Treacher wrote, “Whoops, how did that one get in there? Sorry, man. I mean dude. I mean Rachel! Sorry, Rachel.”
Similar jokes have appeared in a column by Treacher’s colleague Matt Labash, prompting a writer at Jezebel to lecture “Tucker Carlson’s minions” that they must never, ever suggest that a woman looks masculine in appearance.
Making fun of women for looking or acting mannish is a time-honored way of belittling them, of trying to keep women out of both men’s clothes and men’s roles, and just because the woman in question is an out lesbian doesn’t mean jokes about her aren’t part of this misogynist tradition.
But if a Jezebel writer wants to insult Ann Coulter’s femininity? Oh, that’s totally cool:
Ann Coulter Finally Explains What’s Behind That Adam’s Apple
Got that? The guys at The Daily Caller are hateful misogynists for telling jokes that could have been written by Jezebel staffers.
This page in the Jezebel rulebook is a carbon copy of the Left’s rulebook: when someone on the Left insults a conservative woman, issue a Get Out of Jail Free card. When a couple of guys on the Right insult a patron saint of leftism like Rachel Maddow, they’re part of the “misogynist tradition.”
Pot, I trust you and kettle need no introductions.
—–
Follow Jenn Q. Public on Twitter and read more of her work at JennQPublic.com.
Where Have All the Strategic Thinkers Gone?
Michelle "Obama" has a considerable Adam's apple, very long arms and unusually large hands.
I suspect that she is a trans-gendered person, which will be revealed by "Obama" in due course, to encourage acceptance of sex-change operations.
I also suspect "Obama" is doing significant quantities of blow in the oval office, but that is another topic.
This "couple" sure makes you go hmmm, don't they?
Olbermann gave it a rest after Labash specifically cited instances where Maddow called herself a dude.
I'm appalled that anyone would make such jokes…
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/25/newsreal-s...
basically the left is jealous because conservatives have all the best looking, and intelligent women. they're stuck with pelosi, boxer and feinstein.
I realize that this is just an ad hominem at this point, but just wanted to say a couple things anyway.
This is not a left versus right issue. It's not a women versus men issue. It's straight versus queer.
Straight people on both the left and the right have something in common– they both think it's appropriate to insult people by calling them gay or transgender. Just to be clear, whether they're gay or not is beside the point. Thinking it's degrading to call someone gay or transgender as if being gay or transgender is degrading is where the insult to queer people lies.
I have seen many straight liberals respond to the Daily Caller calling Rachel Maddow a man by calling Tucker Carlson gay. Ironic no? So, congratulations, conservatives and liberals have done something bipartisan–dump on queer people.
That Jezebel link title linked to an interview regarding Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a "faggot" and her saying she was more of a man than any liberal. So, don't worry, straight conservatives are still ruder to queer people than straight liberals are.
I realize that this is just an ad hominem at this point, but just wanted to say a couple things anyway.
This is not a left versus right issue. It's not a women versus men issue. It's straight versus queer.
Straight people on both the left and the right have something in common– they both think it's appropriate to insult people by calling them gay or transgender. Just to be clear, whether they're gay or not is beside the point. Thinking it's degrading to call someone gay or transgender as if being gay or transgender is degrading is where the insult to queer people lies.
I have seen many straight liberals respond to the Daily Caller calling Rachel Maddow a man by calling Tucker Carlson gay. Ironic no? So, congratulations, conservatives and liberals have done something bipartisan–dump on queer people.
That Jezebel link title linked to an interview regarding Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a word that rhymes with "maggot" and starts with "f", and her saying she was more of a man than any liberal. So, don't worry, straight conservatives are still ruder to queer people than straight liberals are.
GrrrlRomeo, this piece was about holding a specific publication to its own standards. But in response to your comment, I see a big difference between calling Rachel Maddow a man and calling Tucker Carlson gay. The former is a juvenile appearance-based insult, the kind of thing we all sink to from time to time. The latter is an attempt to appeal to the presumed bigotry of Tucker Carson's readers to undermine his credibility. Using an accusation of homosexuality as a slur also implies that being gay is inherently bad, so it's particularly egregious when it comes from people who claim to be unimpeachably tolerant.
And by the way, many gays and lesbians reject the term queer and find it offensive when used as a catchall for LGBTs.
JennQPublic, why say LGBT when you so clearly only meant LGB?
Using an accusation of transgenderism as a slur implies that being transgender is inherently bad. I don't sink to intentionally referring to someone by the wrong gender. I'll leave that to Peter LaBarbera.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/another-day...
By the way, queer is the opposite of straight. I'm gay and queer and many gay and lesbians reject the idea that queer is offensive. So, we're at an impasse there.
I intentionally included the T in LGBT to make the point that you were sweeping people of many gender identities into one category that many of them reject. Nice try. I have no problem with you identifying as queer – more power to you. I simply don't accept it as a synonym for gay and lesbian.
Did someone at The Daily Caller call Rachel Maddow transgendered? I don't see any evidence of that. You're reaching – they joked about her masculine appearance, they didn't say anything about her gender identity.
Also, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by dropping links about Peter LaBarbera's bigoted nonsense. I think we'd both agree he's a tool.
I wasn't using queer as a synonym for gay and lesbian. I was referring to queer people. If I was talking about gays and lesbians I would've just said gay people.
I'm not reaching. The Daily Caller didn't say Rachel Maddow was just butch or mannish, but they actually called her a man. Man, woman and genderqueer refer to a person's gender identity. Trangender describes someone who identifies as a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth.
Effeminate men, butch women, Drag Kings, Drag Queens, and anyone who doesn't conform to the archetype of their culture for gender expression and behavior are gender variant. And it is indeed aversion to gender variance and transgenderism that is at the root of these insults more than aversion to just homosexuality.
I'm very aware that there are masculine gay men and feminine gay women (or lesbian if you prefer, I mean I don't know if you find calling women gay offensive too) who separate themselves. And I suppose they can just assume I'm not talking about them when I say queer and go assimilate or something.
The point I was trying to make was that Peter LaBarbera refers to Amanda Simpson as a man, a gender other than the one she identifies as. Is that also just a juvenile insult?
Is Peter LaBarbera calling Amanda Simpson a man just a juvenile insult? No, I think that's what he believes. The onus is on transpeople and their allies to change hearts and minds.
You seem to be here just to pick a fight. How's that working out as a strategy for winning people over?
Let me guess, you've read Gender Outlaw in a writing class? Your entire thesis is based on the desperate attempt by the idle nouveau riche to ensure that everyone has access to minority status so they can wallow in supposed victim hood indefinitely.
In doing so you make bigoted sweeping statements about straight people in an attempt to do to them what you claim is being done to you. I don't think it's acceptable to insult gays and have many gay readers of my radically right blog. Unlike the "queers" you speak of which include everyone from RuPaul to male nurses I was the only person to point out that Angie Zapata, the tranny murdered by some degenerate, deserved better than people claiming Allen Andrade was not responsible for his actions by way "gay rage" or whatever. Your loving queer community excused his behavior with a fantasy that Zapata's murderer was brainwashed by hetero normitivity into panicking when he found out Zapata was transgendered. None report the fact that Andrade was in court with Zapata when Zapata was called as Justin.
So who hates "queers" here? The evil straight guy who wanted Allen Andrade put to death for murdering someone or you and your ilk who excused him?
And rightwing watch? Really? Where was Rightwing Watch when DailyKos banned a Black man after allowing several of their top diarists call him a monkey? Where was Right Wing Watch when Pandagon wrote a smear piece on me implying I was gay, and used it as an insult?
You can come here pretending to be oppressed but you're clearly the bigot here.
No, you're wrong – it's a left attacking right issue. You know this, which is why you tried to hide it by saying right vs. left, instead of left vs. right (and you'd always use left first unless you deliberately changed it for calculated reasons).
I have to break something to you – homosexuality is tiresome. Freedom for gays consists in having the issue of who you screw become irrelevent – NOT the subject of draconian special rights laws that enrage the oppressed population around you. Not only is not everything about sex, most of it isn't. And historically, leftist politics uses useful idiot gays to get into power, and then kills them. Go read a book and learn something instead of spouting off your juvenile fantasies of social justice.
Well Said. Saved me the trouble. I would like to point out, however, that not all in this group (Whatever we choose to call them or whom we include) are leftists. I know a handful, four or five, gay men, who are very conservative entrepreneurs and business men who just want to be left alone.
Why does everyone use the word "gay" to describe homosexuality? The word gay was invented by a 14 or 15th century author named Chaucer. He used it to describe people that enjoyed life, were happy, and "got along". Then, along came the homosexuals, misused the word to describe their , perverted lifestyle. (That is MY own opinion), and due to political correctness, it stuck. An example: I am retired after driving a truck for 21 years. Long ago, it was a compliment to call someone a "good buddy" Here come the homosexuals again! That phrase has been hijacked too. The homosexuals now use it to make their "connections" by cb radio. It is no longer a polite phrase, now it is an insult. Why must homosexuals hijack perfectly good words and phrases to describe their lifestyle?
Why must shut ins hijack perfectly good threads for their inconsequential personal issues?
Although I must admit it was amusing for a trucker to call others perverted when there is an entire sub-culture of hookers that just service your industry. Why must truckers hijack the perfectly good term lot lizard?
By the way I'm not sure Chaucer invented the word gay though he popularized it to some extent.
Well, Earl Kirkpatrick…
I tried to answer your question about why the word "gay" is so prevalent when discussing homosexuality…but the site admins keep deleting my comment.
I guess they don't want you to know.
Sorry.
…but you might try reading "After The Ball: How America Will Conquer It's Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90's" by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
That will answer your questions.
(Hopefully, they won't delete this comment either!)
The comments that you're complaining about being deleted were automatically deleted because you used gay slurs in them. Such terms have been added to our blacklist of words which automatically cause comments to get deleted. We don't permit people to use demeaning terms for gays here at NewsReal Blog.
It's simply juvenile and banal to discuss a person's merits (or demerits) based on their appearance. Period. Double if they are in politics. Triple if they are relatives of people in politics.
Both sides do it and it's f#%#ing stupid.
Earl Kirkpatrick,
In the book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's" by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, the term 'gay' was regarded as more "marketable" and more "palatable" to the public when discussing homosexuality.
And "marketing" is the key here.
If you look back at the gains in the homosexual movement over the past 25 years, you will notice that not once has there been a monumental scientific breakthrough regarding homosexuality, its origins, or its fundamental nature. All of the social & political gains the homosexual community has made since the 1980's has been almost entirely a wildly successful P.R. campaign foisted on the public.
The homosexual community could've claimed and embraced any slur against them…"homo", "fag", "queer", etc…but the term "gay" was the most marketable.
Interestingly, the term "homo" would've been more scientifically & definitely accurate of all of them…but "gay" just sounded more appealing.