Attacks on Ms. California: Where’s the Outrage?
May 2, 2009
by Bruce Nahin
|May is Infrastructure Month at The New Agenda. While we are busy working on the infrastructure of our organization, we are encouraging our members and readers to submit blog pieces to be published. This piece is written by Bruce Nahin and is his opinion, not necessarily that of The New Agenda.
In the early 1970′s while a student at UCLA I first came in contact with what was then known as the Women’s liberation movement. I embraced it and was an early subscriber to Ms magazine and to various feminist groups. I was taught to understand that women are co equals with men and that they were entitled to equal respect, consideration, rights, societal benefits and the like. A view I still hold dear to. I was a supporter of Hillary and then Sarah. Likewise I was taught tolerance for one anothers point of view. Disagreements over issues should be done with respect for the others point of view and should be limited to discussions of issues not persons. Disrespect remains disrespect, whether or not you agree with someones point of view or not they as human beings are entitled to respect.
Regrettably something has happened as we observed in the last election. Attacks on Hillary and later (and still continuing) with Sarah. The attacks were not limited to issues. Sexist comments, degradation, disrespect became the order of the day. The concept of tolerance changed. It appears that tolerance means listening to and AGREEING with someone else’s point of view. Simply being respectful and listening is not enough. Hate speech, vilification and disrespect seemed to become the norm of certain groups if you did not agree with them. You become fair game for all sorts of intolerance, hate, ridicule, sexual comments. This came not from just the usual suspects but from women’s groups attacking women, degrading them, hating them. Likewise when a woman is attacked and sexism rears its ugly head, those same groups are silent when certain women with certain viewpoints they disagree with are attacked. These attacks have continued to this day against Sarah Palin on topics that are clearly sexist.
Last week a young woman who was seeking the Miss USA crown, Carrie Prejean spoke her mind on a very topical issue here in California…Gay marriage… Whether or not one agrees with her point of view is not the issue. It is how the dialog ensued thereafter that concerns me. The judge who asked the question went on his blog and called her a bi….ch and a c….t, and feminist groups as a whole did not lift a finger in this brave young woman’s defense, in her right to have tolerance for her point of view and her right to express it. Tolerance for this woman is totally absent. She has been vilified, hated upon, ridiculed and no one seems to care…probably because she is not in agreement with them. Today on Bill O”Reilly a so called feminist appeared and said that Prejean was” fair Game” because she was in tolerant of gay’s right to be married. According to this feminist, her group did not feel a need to defend Prejean because she didn’t agree with their view of marriage. She felt these venal attacks were okay with her because that was the price Prejean must pay for her views.
Last night on MSNBC Keith Oberman made repeated remarks about Prejean, her breasts, rear end etc and his guest Michael Musto went even further making incredibly crude remarks about her body using comments not fit for print…let alone television…and Oberman…that defender of tolerance said nothing in her defense but to the contra joined in with Musto (forward to 1:45 for start of the attacks)
My question for the members here is that whether or not you agree with what she said, where is your cry of outrage, where is your defense of this brave young woman’s right to speak out without such personal hatred and sexism being directed at her- Carrie needs your help- the help of her sisters and brothers who will not tolerate this type of action.
Fair point.
I agree that women’s groups have been silent on Miss California Carrie Prejean’s stance on marriage.
Whether you agree with her or not should not be the issue, it’s imperative that she be supported in her right to voice her opinion.
Everyone should be entitled to voice their opinion without being subject to the vicious villification that Ms. Prejean, Hillary, Sarah Palin, etc. have been unfairly subjected to.
White women are increasingly the target of these kinds of attacks. I believe they are hate crimes. Why is it okay to hang Sarah Palin in effigy and not Barack Obama? Neither is okay with me.
The question remains, WHY? and what can we and will we do about it????????????
I don’t think any women should have to be subject to sexist attacks because sexism hurts all of us. We should be outraged at the misogyny, but I don’t agree that we have to defend an individual woman who made an equally bigoted statement.
I am outraged at Olberman’s continuing misogyny, but I’m also outraged by the idea that we should express tolerance for bigotry against the GLBTQ community. I will always object to sexism, including bimbo and boob jokes. But no, I won’t help a homophobe and as a queer woman I am really offended by the suggestion that we should. I don’t care how much she smiles when she says it, she expresses just as much hate as Olberman.
“I don’t care how much she smiles when she says it, she expresses just as much hate as Olberman.”
Thanks Astraea.. I couldn’t agree with you more.
Where’s the outrage about the lesbian who was gang raped in the past January in San Francisco for being gay? Not on this site, even though it clearly was a misogynist crime. Hate-crimes against lesbians almost always are.
I am mostly sickened by the fact that locker room style attacks on her body and mind (I am sure neither of these men have met Prejean) are accepted on national television. We can have civil discussions about the fairness of her opinion (with which I don’t agree–actually, being facetious, I have always contended that the gay and lesbian community should have the right to go through the pain of divorce just as the rest of us have). But I am pretty sure that a young man making the same comments would not be attacked in this same way.
It’s just that this crude talk seems now to be acceptable against women in the MSM that upsets me. So yes, women should be outraged at the attack agains Prejean, and then they should also be allowed to express their anger in a civil discourse against her stated opnion.
Astraea- the point is to challenge her on the issues if you disagree with but defend her against the misogyny,hatred and vile- that is to engage in tolerance for differing viewpoints, disputing them on the issues- without personal attacks and vile behavior, name calling etc
Oh great, yet another male having a hissyfit because some women are dancing as he dictates.
Here’s a hint: It’s men who should be truly outraged by this. It’s men who should be sounding a deafening chorus insisting that the likes of Olbermann do not speak for them, nor do men who let Olbermann’s behavior pass in collusive silence represent them.
If you were really concerned with this issue, that’s who you’d be demanding action from — other men. But nope, just another dude who thinks he should get to tell women how to behave. Rather like Olbermann, really.
The Obama campaign used the excuse of outrage against perceived racism to give free rein to the sexism so many of his supporters already felt.
Over at Liberal Rapture, the excuse of a woman legislator opposing the hate crimes bill is used to allow overt, proudly sexist hate speech to dominate the comments.
Why should any woman who is not personally harmed by a particular bigotry oppose it, when those who are harmed not only don’t care about her, but are willing to let themselves be used to justify sexism?
Voltaire once said that” I may not agree with what you may say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That is tolerance for varying viewpoints. But the question I have is why have there been no attacks on Obama for his almost identical point of view as Prejean, as T said above the attacks seem to be directed against white women. Feminist groups rightly called to task Bill Oreilly for calling Helen Thomas a witch, and for the comments of Don Imus, but where was the feminist cry when Jamie foxx called a sixteen year old girl( miley cyrus) a white b—ch, and discussed ways he would like to teabag( a phrase I recently learned to my disgust) her.
Objecting to sexism and calling for tolerance are two different things IMO.
It happens that I disagree with this young woman about gay marriage. I also disagree with Governor Palin, I am of the opinion that homosexuality is an accident of birth, not a matter of choice. In the case of bisexuality, it would be a matter of choice but not in the case of homosexuality.
Still, I think all such attacks, as described above, against women “in the news” have a negative impact on women in general. This ongoing process of demeaning and disparaging women serves not only to make sexist attitudes more socially acceptable, in my opinion it increases the number of people who actually are sexist.
Therefore, I think it appropriate for TNA to object to these personalized sexist attacks.
No woman should be subjected to the attacks Ms. Prejean has suffered. That’s absolutely correct. It’s equally appalling and unsurprising that such bastions of liberal thinking as Olbermann resorted to reducing her to her body parts in order to insult her.
So why didn’t Olbermann, et. al attack her point of view, excoriate her remarks, take her to task for them without the usual sexism and hatred?
My guess would be that some people secretly agree with her, and attacking her personally is easier than admitting that. Also, it’s always the default: attack the woman’s body, face, and sexual habits.
Ms. Prejean’s opinion is ill-formed, ignorant, and hateful. Theoretically, she should not be considered a voice that represents the state of California – except apparently, the state of California (hello, Prop. 8?) agrees with and endorses her viewpoint.
She’s hardly the only person to irrationally hate LGBTQ people. But she has a megaphone with which to expound on her hateful views, and in my opinion she should not be given that opportunity.
Also, John Horning, why is homosexuality an “accident” of birth? Isn’t it just a happenstance?
And by the way, I’m with Astraea: I don’t see Ms. Prejean as some poor victim that we have to “help.” I’ll speak out against sexist attacks any time, but where’s the criticism from The New Agenda, feminist blogs, and good ol’ Olbermann for Prejean’s spewing of such vile hatred?
I don’t see a problem with the way she expressed her viewpoint. She didn’t bash anyone. She just answered the question respectfully. The sexist treatment of her is unacceptable.
I’m sorry, but women are not accessories for causes.
In the case of bisexuality, it would be a matter of choice but not in the case of homosexuality.
Um, what?
Perhaps not everyone is aware that Ms Prejean is now working with NOM, which is an incredibly hateful group fighting against same-sex marriage. She’s a bigot. I realize that’s somewhat beside the point, and it doesn’t change the fact that sexism against her is wrong. I’m just amazed that people are suggesting she’s just respectfully disagreeing with one viewpoint. She is actively fighting against the civil rights of a group of people that also includes women.
Some of us can’t just turn off parts of our identity to rally for “women,” as if that doesn’t include lesbians, bisexual women and queer women.
In the video, Carrie is called a boob, ding dong, dumb, twisted, and in need of a brain implant. “She’s the kind of girl who sits on the TV and watches the sofa.” “She thinks innuendo is an Italian suppository.” “They paid for Carrie to cut off her penis and sand her adam’s apple and get a head to toe waxing. I know for a fact that Carrie Prejean was Harry Prejean.” This rant is vile and has nothing to do with legitimate debate on an issue. It’s pure hatred. Thank you so much, Bruce for writing about this outrage.
Well here is my take. Women who participate in beauty pageants are seeking to participate in patriarchy and benefit from it. So, much like geisha, they dress and behave in certain ways to gain male approval. I am not in to it, I don’t pay any attention to it and as far as I am concerned it isn’t part of the world I live in. So evil stuff could go down and I wouldn’t be aware. Plus when women willingly collude with the forces of patriarchy for their own benefit and get craped on in the process, don’t come running to me for support, there are actual real victims in the world who I save my worry energy for.
And we have another problem and that is liberal lefts misogyny for sport that has always been prevalent in the party but was outed in the last election. I don’t really listen to the corporate media anymore since they have lost all credibility and I have distanced myself from Democrats and “liberal people” including “women’s groups” and “feminists”. So basically all kinds of evil can and I am sure does regularly go on with these morons and I would not be outraged because I don’t listen to them either and they are not part of the world I live in.
The world is full of injustices toward females. I am concerned with real problems not some corporate media feminist smack down for patriarchal entertainment.
Why on earth is Bruce-the-concern-troll even being allowed to post here?
He’s using one of the most time-honored tactics of male oppression — demanding that we budget our time and energy in pursuit of gaining his approval and deflecting his criticism. His behavior is about as anti-feminist as you can get. Why hasn’t he been banned?
Caroline, the attack on the young lesbian woman in Richmond, CA was horrifying. There was much outrage.
tinfoil hattie,
Regarding your 3:12pm, post: I stand corrected. I typically use the term accident to mean unintentional, not the common usage.
Regarding your 3:17pm post: Bisexual people obviously have choice regarding the gender of the people they are find attractive. Homosexual and heterosexual people do not have a choice in that regard.
John, in what sense do you think that bisexuals have a choice? They don’t have a choice in finding both men and women attractive. Beyond that, most of us are attracted to or fall in love with individuals just like anyone else. There’s no more choice there than everyone else has the choice to act on or not act on attraction.
We are living in a culture with an increasing anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic trend. It is disturbing on many levels.
We are also living in a culture with an increasing anti-women, particularly anti-white women trend. This is also disturbing on many levels.
Increasing violence against women (including the verbal abuse that Carrie Prejean, Hillary Clinton, Miley Cyrus, and Sarah Palin etc. have been subject to) is the manifestation of this trend.
For example, last November the prop vote in California was defeated by an overwhelming black vote against it, and Barack Obama himself is against gay marriage. Obama refused to even has his photo taken with San Fran. Mayor Gavin Newsom, a supporter of gay rights to avoid the possibility of being somehow linked to supporting gay marriage in a state that is clearly against it. Who got blamed? The small minority of white mormon voters. Where’s the outrage against Barack Obama and black California voters by the likes of the vile Perez Hilton and Jamie Foxx? The disgusting comments by Hilton and Foxx are just one example of the ever increasing attacks on white women that are going unchallenged in all media.
The issue of whether or not you support gay rights is quite separate from whether or not you tolerate physical and verbal violence against women. I understand we all see the issues through different eyes but I sense that we can find some common ground here.
Again, the issue is not whether or not you agree with what they say and do, the issue is supporting their right to say it without being subjected to the indefensible treatment in all media.
I’ve condemned the sexist attacks on Prejean by the likes of Olberman and Perez, but referring to her as a “brave young woman”?!? Seriously, Bruce? If a member of the Aryan Nation competed in a beauty pageant and used her moment in the spotlight to speak out against interracial marriage, would you call her a brave young woman too? ‘Cause this is no different, you know. Prejean is a vile bigot, and while I’ll attack those using sexism and misogyny against her, I will not defend her.
For example, last November the prop vote in California was defeated by an overwhelming black vote against it, and Barack Obama himself is against gay marriage. Obama refused to even has his photo taken with San Fran. Mayor Gavin Newsom, a supporter of gay rights to avoid the possibility of being somehow linked to supporting gay marriage in a state that is clearly against it. Who got blamed? The small minority of white mormon voters.
This is incredibly wrong. The Mormon church and other churches put a lot of money and political power into pushing Prop 8. Religion/church attendance was the most important factor in determining whether someone was likely to vote for Prop 8 because it was primarily churches who mobilized support.
The attacks on the black community after Prop 8 passed were based on a lot of false information that has since been debunked.
You think blacks don’t attend church? Many blacks and hispanics in California attend church and both voting groups tend to be socially conservative, especially on the issue of gay marriage. That’s a fact.
Most ALL of the churches, black, white, brown and yes, Mormon, mobilized support against gay marriage. That’s a fact. Mormons are but a small minority in the State of California. It is true they did help fund ads.
Barack Obama is against gay marriage. That’s a fact.
So how I am incredibly wrong?
Sometimes the truth hurts, but we must speak it.
Carrie Prejean gave an ill-formed, nearly incomprehensible answer to a simply question. I see no problem with making fun of how badly she mangled her answer. It is not a choice to be gay, and only a tiny minority of people in this country have the option to have a gay wedding. By the by, she single-handedly coined the term “opposite marriage”.
She doesn’t “believe” in gay marriage. This is the political part. I disagree with her politics, and I agree with Astraea that it’s bigoted. I will stop short of calling Ms. Prejean a bigot, because all I know of her is this one comment and her recent NOM ad. If we want to get into it, I believe marriage should be an exclusively religious ceremony, with individual religions free to decide who they will marry, but that the equal benefits of partnership should be available to everyone under the law, regardless. I can understand people who feel their religious ideology would be damaged or changed if they granted marriages to gay couples. It’s tradition. But it’s inexcusable for our government to view gay couples as second-class citizens.
Ms. Prejean was in a nationally televised beauty contest. She was fully immersed in the patriarchy’s ideals, and, in fact, fighting to prove that she embodied that ideal. Body snarking should be off limits, but she does not gain credibility for being body snarked. It’s a reflection of Olberman and the others, not of her. And they should be ashamed, and people should speak up that it’s unacceptable to speak about anyone’s body in that way.
I do not have to be tolerant of her views of gay marriage, nor defend them to anyone. I don’t think she lost because of the point of view in her answer. I think she lost because she gave a dumb answer.
Carrie Prejean is not the issue. Bigotry and hate are the issues, and they were evident both in Prejean and Olberman. Simply put, every human being deserves respect and equal treatment. Neither one seems to understand this.
The Patriarchy controls how and where women can make money. If the Patriarchy says women can make money parading themselves around in a bikini and little elsewhere, you can’t point the finger at the women and say they are supporting patriarchy. They are simply surviving because we can only play the games by the rules set up for us. If you are going to blame women competing in pageants for supporting the Patriarchy, then you might as well blame women in all female dominated professions aka typical female jobs: secretaries, nurses, and stay at home mothers.
70% of black voters and 53% of Hispanic voters voted for prop 8.(LA Times) Agreeing with a point and view and respecting the right to speak a view( even one that is wrong) is inherent in Amend I of the Bill of Rights. Free speech doesn’t run one way., and to vilify and ridicule this young woman using sexist tactics is simply wrong- attack her on the issues .
Bruce, no one has to agree with anyone else’s view, or even treat people respectfully for sharing their views. That’s not in any way part of the First Amendment. People just can’t be *prosecuted* for their statements. They can be ridiculed all day long. I can say whatever I want about what another person has said, including that it’s idiotic.
ok- I agree that the first amendment doesnt state that but isnt tolerance and respect of points of view inherent in free discussion of ideas which was John Locke’s premise and upon whose views the first amendment is based. Many people on the conservative side, especially in churches, both, black, korean,white,Hispanic etc view being gay far differently then our friends who are Gay( and they voted to prevent gay marriage in Calif)- I often hear from some communities that the church groups are intolerant on the issue of gay issues- If you suggest that tolerance is not part of free speech how can you justify this position promulgated against the church members. back to Carrie…the issue is does she have the right to speak her mind( however wrong you may feel it to be) and not be subjected to sexist ridicule and vilification as a result
Bruce, there’s a huge difference between being intolerant of peoples’ rights and not making people feel comfy and welcome in sharing their bigotry everywhere they may want to. The principle behind free speech is that there should be discussion, even impolite or heated discussion, around things that matter to us. Ms. Prejean was allowed to share her views on national TV. That’s not censorship or intolerance. Some people don’t like those views and have a right to say so. I agree they most definitely do not have a right (well, technically, apparently they do, but shouldn’t) to use hate-speech against her to shut her up.
ok- we agree on all fours- i never meant to suggest that we should feel comfy at hearing Nazi speech or anything else bigotted- but that they have the right to say it- free of hate speech,sexism to shut her up.and yes Helen free from being banned just because you dont like what is being said.I ave been involved in the feminist movement since the early 70′s and truly believe that what I have to say has some value in the public debate
Then again, maybe saying you don’t believe certain people should have the same rights as you should be considered hate-speech and not aired on national television. Enforcement is all rather arbitrary and based on what’s fashionable. Bigotry against women and LGBTQI is very fashionable right now and they’re intersecting in this situation. I don’t think two wrongs make a right, however. People who disagree with Ms. Prejean should stick to just calling her a backwards bigot.
Let us not forget that this was not a prepared speech on the part of Ms Prejean , it was an answer to a question raised by a gay man who knew that Ms Prejean was a bible college student and intentionally asked the question because it in his words” made it a national issue”, so allowing hate speech on tv isnt really on point
So it’s cool if Jamie Foxx says whatever about Miley Cyrus as long as it wasn’t planned, Bruce? Nah, I don’t think so.
What’s at issue, Bruce, is your post suggesting we defend her and tolerate her views. Your post in which you called her “brave” for speaking her mind.
Defend from sexist, misogynist ridicule yes, er views no clearly you have the right to disagree with her, the issue to me Ok and Astraea is how no one seemed to object to how she was subjected to such sexism and sexual ridicule( ie the oberman video above) because some felt she was fair game because of what she said- No Foxx was wrong, my question there was why there was no objections to his comments either- This site should be a place were such sexist comments are objected to and persons subject to same should ,Astraea ,be defended against such sexist attacks irrespective as to whether or not you agreed with the person being attacked. It is the type of attack directed at her that you should defend against- not the substance of her speech
I don’t see anyone disagreeing with you that the sexist attacks are wrong and should be condemned, no matter who is the target. Because the target ultimately doesn’t matter. No one is “fair game.” No one here is saying the sexism is okay. It’s your post I have a problem with.
The sexism aimed at her doesn’t make her own statements any less offensive or stupid, and condemning sexism doesn’t require tolerating her views or defending her as a person. And frankly, it’s offensive to call her brave for expressing opposition to civil rights for a significant part of the population.
Kiuku: I don’t blame women for competing in beauty pageants. I simply said they are participating in a patriarchal institution and expecting to benefit for it. Pageant girls, Playboy tarts, porno babes, most “actresses”, anorexic models, are the geisha of our culture. They seek to profit from male approval. Its a choice they make and they will live the consequences, some of which are pleasant, with no sympathy from me. I worked hard in school, which I paid for myself as I am not smart enough or poor enough to get scholarships and I have a profession which supports me where I work equally with my male counterparts. How on earth you get the idea that a homemaker is part of a patriarchal structure is beyond me. I was a stay at home mother for 17 years and the fact that society and feminists don’t recognize my contribution to society during that time does not change the value of my contribution or the contribution of every woman who raises the next generation. In fact if “feminists” had spent more time fostering the next generation of boys and girls or even offering an easily swallowed alternative to corporate medias anti female dreck the cause of women would have actually advanced in the last 25 years instead of slipping backwards.
Oh sheesh, the troll is still here. And it’s literacy level has dropped, as they so often do.
Hey Bruce, the New Agenda is not a government agency. Much as you might like to fantasize otherwise, there are no first amendment implications whatsoever to banning concern trolls.
Astraea,I guess we will have to disagree. I was taught to attack people’s views, their ideas,issues, not them as a person. Whether it is HRC , Sarah, Miley or Carrie the MSM and most of the feminist sites seemed quiet about the personal attacks that these women have been subjected to and that to me is wrong. It seems to me that there is a point of view that says that if you disagree with me you are fair game for all sorts of personal attacks, and that is intolerance to me. So ,yes, you should defend Carrie against such sexism and vulgarities, you said you would attack those who attacked her, I would suggest that defending her from such future attacks is as important as the attacks you suggest you would conduct. Bes, you are so correct , I think in this society we devalue stay at home moms and that is wrong as they are the cornerstone of the future
Helen, you dont know me nor i you. All you know is what my views are and yet you choose to engage in personal attacks..that is not productive to the discussion. nor are any personal attacks on anyone HRC, Sarah, Miley Carrie.if you’d like to discuss the issues I will respond
OK said:
“So it’s cool if Jamie Foxx says whatever about Miley Cyrus as long as it wasn’t planned, Bruce? Nah, I don’t think so.”
OK, what Jamie Foxx said about Miley Cyrus was outrageous and should be condemned. But if the public response was not condemnation that focused on what he said but instead racial slurs and contemptuous, racist attacks directed against Foxx, than I think people should object to both the racist response as well as Foxx’s sexist comments. Doesn’t that make sense?
As for Helen’s point about Bruce’s post directing feminists and New Agenda’s members what to do – I have to agree, though I also agree with Bruce’s strong objection to the misogyny of the attacks. Bruce, why are you telling busy feminists, who already have to pick and choose between thousands of urgent feminist issues we want to work on, how we should be spending our limited amount of time? Why aren’t you instead posting arguments like this to male audiences, who are otherwise not hearing such arguments? Isn’t it an assumption of superiority to tell us what we should be doing? Perhaps you could turn that assumption on its head, and ask us what you should be doing. I think you are articulate and rightly passionate about the issue – so take it to those who need to hear it most, though it may not be as “safe” to tell men what they don’t necessarily want to hear. It might, however, be effective in showing them new ways of seeing the issue of sexism.
Helen,
if you don’t like to talk to men that would be your choice. but TNA has stated clearly that they are happy to have about 10% male members. I enjoy quite a few of the comments from John and others. Bruce is spot on for me. We want respect from men, right? So the best we can get have men be outspoken that women of all
colors and shapes and orientations need to be respected.
I personally have no objections to gay marriage, but don’t think this the most urgent issue we have. In my youth many of us objected to marriage because it was invented by patriarchy to secure the right on children and was or is in many countries a very unfair institution for women.
Also somebody who sees marriage as belonging to a certain culture and does not want this religious ritual expanded does not appear to me equally hateful as the people in the above movie.
Amen to Helen….unfortunately the only one to get BANNED was the FIRST woman who stuck out her neck to denounce the *numerous* male concern trolls who are CODDLED here by the ladies who run this joint and want to make the men feel “welcome” to patronize…us.
I’ll go post this where it won’t be censored…and point out how T-n-A is headlining men who call antigay bigotry “brave.”
One wrong doesn’t excuse another. Homophobia and misogyny are two separate issues. I am dismayed to see gay activisists and feminists turning a blind eye to the outright misogyny of creatures like Olbermann, who view women – gay and straight – as cattle. By the way, the Daily Howler took Olbermann to the cleaners over this disgraceful display. He had his priorities right. He also pointed out that Ms Prejean’s view repeats Obama’s view: he too supports mixed sex marriage, and his words on the subject were used to prejudicial effect in California recently. The attacks on her may be compared with the scarity of attacks on him for this view. Thank you, Mr Nahin, for raising an issue which too many have been prepared to sweep under the carpet (just as they sweep under the carpet attacks on Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin) because their own prejudices have overcome their sense of justice.
[...] what she got (from Perez Hilton)” for stating her personal moral views on marriage. Bruce Nahin at The New Agenda also asked “Where’s the Outrage?” See for yourself, does Gloria Feldt speak for YOU [...]
Bruce: Your post was a condemnation of the people here. You YOURSELF were not writing a post about Olberman or body snarking. Hopefully you can understand why nobody is giving you high-fives on this. Don’t tell us what to do or how to feel. If you want people to care, and it seems a lot of people here do, how about walking your talk? Write a letter to Olberman, or the NYT, or wherever, and publish it here.
When a man tries to tell women how they should be acting/reacting, it smells a lot like patriarchy. You don’t seem to understand your own biases (stay at home moms are the cornerstone of the future generation?!).
I’m sure we will disagree, bruce, since you keep distorting what I’ve been saying and haven’t seemed to listen to any of the criticisms of the way you wrote this post. Until you apologize for calling homophobic bigotry brave, I’ll just assume you care more about shaming Those Other Feminists who don’t Get It as well as you do than fighting actual bigotry. Misogyny and homophobia are very closely linked.
And Bruce, it’s really starting to bother me that you insist on calling her “Carrie”. Are you a friend or family member? Show some respect, and if you don’t know the woman personally, use her last name. You wouldn’t call Bill Clinton “Bill”, nor Barack Obama “Barack”.
Bes, you have to participate in a Patriarchal Institution in order to benefit from it. And we all do, to some extent when we play the game. Blaming anorexic models..I mean..your post is just dismaying. Stay at home mothers are not any different.
Is there some kind of standard for rebelling against the Patriarchy that I missed that puts anorexic models on the bottom and stay at home mothers more near the top?
Kiuku, I think that’s the standard that allows for slut shaming while claiming to be feminist. I’ve noticed most of the people who claim that blaming women for being colluders is okay typically single out women who do so in a way that is sexual. Personally, I reserve blaming women for upholding the patriarchy for people who actually advocate for anti-feminism.
As for “How on earth you get the idea that a homemaker is part of a patriarchal structure is beyond me,” there is a great deal of feminist writing about this topic, starting with The Feminine Mystique.
This beauty contestant has been an easy target to go after. But, the regretable fact is, most American’s appear to be against gay marriage, including our President. If it were not so, then gay marriage would be the law of the land. To me, these attacks on her are yet another example of media bias and consumer tolerance of double standards. And, what’s additionally ironic is the fact that you know that Olberman and his guest likely got off on her body and, as his guest said, he watches the contest every year. What insanity. That these sorts of people have major media exposure to espouse their double-standard nonsense is criminal. What’s new?
Attack the message, not the messenger. Always the first rule I was taught to respond to all things said.
Mr. Nahin, there is plenty of outrage by feminist groups such as The New Agenda and as you may see in this example here: http://blog.hillarysvillage.net/?p=1829 and numerous others.
We need men such as yourself to voice your outrage just as loudly as any feminist group. Sexism and Misogyny is a MAN problem first and foremost and we need you to continue to speak out against it and lead by example. I thank you for writing about it and applaud you for stepping into the breach with us. Not many men are willing to do so.
As a feminist, gay woman and avid blogger, I was appalled by Perez Hilton and the ensuing media dogpile directed at Ms. Prejean. I was personally saddened by many in the gay community who displayed the very intolerance that they decry. Attacking the issues is fair. Using sexism and misogyny to tear someone down is not.
On our blog, we felt a need to defend Ms. Prejean against the sexism and misogyny because as you pointed out, this behavior by the media was not about the issues but just another character assassination.
While I personally disagree with her positions regarding gay marriage, I respect her right to her own opinion and will continue to stand by her side against the sexist attacks. Ms. Prejean is so very young and I believe if the gay community showed more compassion towards her, she would come to better understand our issues and struggles and maybe, just maybe she would see that the gay marriage issue is about civil rights and not religious intolerance.
This issue is almost identical to the pro-choice/pro-life issue and it will continue to divide us all unless we can learn to reach out to one another and have an honest dialogue on these differing positions.
Keeping women together as a cohesive group so that we may one day have equal representation in government is the larger goal IMHO. This means sticking together even when hot button issues are hurled our way and finding a way to keep our composure as a group while agreeing to disagree.
ROFL. The troll actually tried to scold me for calling out his flagrantly misogynist behavior. On a feminist blog. Wow, has this place jumped the shark — did someone shoot all the moderators or something?
Sad affairs, thank you so very much for articulating the views I have suggested here, perhaps with more credibility than I can bring to bear. T, that as been the thrust of this discussion, attack issues not people…do not make personal attacks on people attack the issues- thank you too for articulating the position with such clarity- Judy too
A question I do have is why do Obama and Foxx get passes whereas Oreilly, Imus and Prejean do not. Why was Sarah(over and over then and still) and HRC attacked in the media with such vehemence?
For the record I have written Oberman and MSBC several times over their actions, Oreilly ,Jamie Foxx also, and continue to monitor several sites and programs daily and will continue to so do.
You are spot on- I would like to cross post your piece- we absolutely must stop treating women like this. How can we justify the attack on this young woman?
Do I agree with Miss California on any level that I’m aware of?
No!
Do I agree with these pageants?
No!
Do I believe it is degrading to women to strut nearly naked in competition with each other?
Yes!
Do I think it is ok to attack her and degrade and humiliate her for having an opinion opposite mine?
Hell NO!
Just as this young women disagrees 180 degrees with each of my opinions and I with hers- I respect her right to hers and would never dream of degrading or humiliating her and neither should we allow anyone else to do so. I am calling for all women to learn how to disagree without denigrating ourselves and our kind. Carrie is a very young woman she was set up by a jerk who probably knew damned well what she would answer – he was probably paid off to slip her up to boot but does anyone even look at that prospect? Nah! We don’t bash gays – we don’t bash blacks but white women – yeah – open season! And like jerks the rest of us women seem all too happy to sit back and let them eat her up alive and wonder why we never get ahead. We are our own worst enemies.
Where is our pride and our dignity? I am disgusted with the women in this country who will not stand up and say enough! What are we alley cats? United we stand, divided we are annihilated! When oh when will we learn? Defend your sisters! We are not alley cats – let us be a pride of lionesses defending our own!
We do not have to agree on every issue; we just have to agree on this- it is not open season on straight white women! Obama made the same comment and it was fine. Where were all the real feminists- the gays – Olberjerk – MSNBC and the rest of the so called real media?
So let me get this straight- we cannot attack anyone but straight white women in this country?The hidden agenda behind this is: STRAIGHT WHITE WOMEN ARE THE NEW NIGGERS.
Carrie Prejean is the latest example. First it was Hillary. Then it was Sarah and now it is Carrie Prejean. What do all these women have in common? THEY ARE ATTRACTIVE, INTELLIGENT AND STRONG
so glad to see you here Free Me Now. We need to stand united against all attacks against women. respect for women has to be a common goal for all of us. whether we want gay or straight marriage or not.
I also applaud to Sad State for her fine explanation what tolerance really means. we cannot win people over by attack methods, is my belief.
“The hidden agenda behind this is: STRAIGHT WHITE WOMEN ARE THE NEW N******.”
I have a wonderful suggestion for anyone who believes the above statement to be true. Improve your civil rights by closeting yourself as a lesbian for a day. Just for one day. And do it thoroughly: go tell your family you’re a lesbian, the people at work. You’ll see how many rights lesbians have in this country.
The sexist treatment of this woman was deplorable. And not surprising to me as a lesbian. We take it all of the time from both straight men and our gay brothers. We get to deal with the sexism of everyone and the total ignorance of people like Miss California whose views are deplorable.
By the way, to correct a self-pitying myth that seems to be gaining popularity: plenty of gay people spoke out about the hypocrisy of Obama’s views on gay marriage. But to know that, you actually have to listen to gay people and not just rant about how good we have it.
Free me, feel free to do that
If I’m not mistaken, it was a gay rights group that first spoke out about the hanging effigy of Sarah Palin. I don’t see the NA as being primarily a rapid response mechanism for absolutely every reasonably high profiled person who gets slammed with mysogyny.
Any woman who thinks it’s okay to savage and sexually degrade ANY woman ANYWHERE no matter what she says, is a woman who has a use for rape and sexism.
You’re like the government who eradicates smallpox but keeps a little vial of it around in case it could come in handy someday. For all your posturing about “rape is, like, bad” and “porn is, like so awful,” you can put it to its uses to shut up some bitch you don’t agree with, even this foolish woman.
You have a use for sexism, rape, sexual degradation, and porn — and if you can think of even one instance where it’s okay, excusable, or where you’re just fine with it, you are invested in keeping it around, every bit as much as those pageant “bimbos” you decry. You have both found a way to make sexism work for you, and you’re both invested in keeping it around. Like supposedly pacifist arms dealer in a war zone.
So if you watched that woman get things said about her body that no woman anywhere should have to tolerate with any amount of smug satisfaction, you are no friend to women. I don’t give a crap if you fuck them, don’t shave your legs, and have a woman’s studies degree. Your friendship to women is nonexistent. You are a friend of the patriarchy.
and don’t try to tell me that your resentment and bile isn’t party aimed at those women because they are attractive. I don’t buy that old excuse anymore. Keith Olbershit wouldn’t have made those comments, and Eminem wouldn’t have rapped about raping Sarah Palin in the Oval Office had either of them looked like Bella Abzug.
And don’t give me that “what about what she said” garbage. This is about YOU, Ms. I’m Such A Big-Ass Huge Feminist.
If you take smug satisfaction in what was said about this woman, then you are invested in keeping rape and sexual degradation around. PERIOD. You find it useful to shut up bitches you hate.
You are a friend to the patriarchy. In fact, you ARE the patriarchy.
Janis,
Who on this comment board has taken pleasure in what was said about this woman? Everyone here, as far as I’ve read, has condemned the sexism aimed at her.
janis- so true
Neither Hillary nor Obama publicly supports gay marriage. Both have said that they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
If they truly believe that, then they are obviously both incredibly wrong. I wouldn’t be surprised if neither one actually believes that privately, but who knows.
However, both of them have declared support for civil unions with all the rights and benefits of marriage. Obama publicly called Prop 8 “divisive and discriminatory” and said that it was unconstitutional to pass such a provision. Neither is perfect on gay rights by a long shot, but to compare them with Ms. Prejean, who has become the spokesperson for NOM, makes little sense.
Also: attacking Ms. Prejean in a sexist way is unacceptable. But it is simply logical–not sexist–to point out that her answer on this question was not only bigoted, but also inarticulate, factually wrong, and just plain stupid. If we could actually choose between gay marriage and “opposite marriage” as she claimed we could, that would be fine. But we can’t . That’s the point.
In fact, such a foolish participant in a patriarchal institution is the perfect face for the anti-gay marriage crowd.
Essentially: it is correct and necessary to express outrage at sexist attacks on Ms. Prejean. And give that this is a free country, she technically has a right to voice her opinion. But those of you who call her “brave” and “intelligent” are saying that sexism is deplorable, but homophobia is not.
>>“The hidden agenda behind this is: STRAIGHT WHITE WOMEN ARE THE NEW N******.”
I have a wonderful suggestion for anyone who believes the above statement to be true. Improve your civil rights by closeting yourself as a lesbian for a day. Just for one day. And do it thoroughly: go tell your family you’re a lesbian, the people at work. You’ll see how many rights lesbians have in this country. <<
Caroline, the point wasn’t to have an oppression competition, but to identify who in the public sphere, especially the media, is it legitimate to openly shoot down with bigotry, with bigoted-based contempt. No one in the liberal media, or even Fox, would target an out-lesbian with homophobic comments and slurs in response to a bigoted or simply ignorant statement. I have to agree with straight white women, especially young attractive ones, are the new n***, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that straight white women are being held up as the Jews, for example the way the far left holds up the Jews as the face of oppression, while scoffing at the reality of anti-Semitism. Similarly, the mainstream media and the left in general feel free to target white women because in their minds, sexism doesn’t matter, it isn’t important, and in fact is great fun – unlike racism and homophobia, which are abominations. Also, while I strongly believe marriage should not be limited to straight couples, I do not think that the young woman’s belief in the status quo, based on her religion no doubt, is an active form of bigotry, like the sexist name-calling and sexual objectification directed at her in response to her traditional, status quo beliefs. It is the tradition that is homophobic. It is ridiculous to hold this 19 year old responsible for that tradition, especially when even the most liberal politicians have the same stance!
As for your follow-up post, you didn’t read the comments on this blog post carefully enough – there are several that said the sexism directed against her was not objectionable because of her homophobia.
Wow! This thread is really something to read. Gay activists attacking Feminists and vice versa.
Look. This is how white male supremacy is maintained. They divide women against blacks, blacks against gays, gays against women….. and in the end … only THEY can unite. There are many, many more of US than THEM. We need to remember that.
White women (even Carrie Prejean) are not the enemies of blacks or gays. Some of us are a bit misguided, IMO. And we may listen to the Patriarchy, thinking they speak for us. It is confusing… to be sure.
At any rate… I call for women of all colors to unite and get a grip. Noone is free, when others are oppressed. Even if that “other” is Carrie Prejean.
Oh, and I’ll say one more thing.
Laura Ingraham has an effin’ lotta nerve calling anyone out for attacking a woman’s looks. She is the one that called Meghan McCain fat. I think the exact words were “a plus sized model for the GOP.”
Gotcha, Laura. Meghan is pro-gay, so her body is fair game. Carrie is anti-gay… so hers is sacrosanct??
Give me a break.
OK, I felt this merited it’s own blog entry:
http://syd4.blogspot.com/2009/.....on-ms.html
Just because someone has an opinion you don’t agree with means you can call her a c*** and bitch? I am not too impressed with the judges. If I was the parent of a young woman there is no way I would allow her to be judged by the likes of that sexist pig.
Prejean answered a question honestly and I did not detect any hate. Obama holds the same position. Is anyone decrying his hate? No, they all voted for him. Women need to get over the issues that can be used to divide them, and focus on what can unite them. No woman should be called those names.
If you feel that way, go join NOW. They might better represent you; they think Sarah Palin is not a woman because she is pro-lfe, so according to them it’s ok to degrade her. Grow up.
Ok Gale, Obama opposes Gay marriage but supports civil unions which is the law in Calif. Prejean was not asked her opinion of Civil Unions by Hilton a major supporter against Prop 8, but marriage. So to defend Obama by saying e supports civil unions although not marriage is specious , it is comparing apples and oranges. For all you know Prejean supports civil unions as well- most people in Calif do, even Those opposed to marriage. The fact is, ow many members of te cabinet are Gay? Whatever happened to eliminating dont ask dont tell? None, Nothing. So the question is still on the table, why attack Prejean and not Obama. Why ignore Foxx but attack Imus and Oreilly? Consistency is the key to credibility
Bruce: Yes, as I said, Obama and Hillary oppose gay marriage. Neither of them is good enough on gay rights issues, and those of us who support them (or either one of them) must work to persuade them, either out of principal or political necessity, to alter that opinion.
But both Obama and Hillary have been very firm in their belief that gay people need to have civil unions with all the rights and benefits of marriage. I suppose Ms. Prejean might believe the same, but I am quite confident that she does not because if she did, that would have been used in her defense by now. Perhaps she supports some form of legal recognition, but I’ve seen no evidence of that.
Obama publicly called Prop 8 “divisive and discriminatory” and said that gay people’s rights should not be curtailed by a state constitution. Ms. Prejean, on the other hand, supported Prop 8 and now works as the spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage–an organization devoted to ensuring that gay people are now allowed to marry, adopt, etc. NOM seems to see gay people as a threat second only to terrorism, as one can see in their much-derided “storm” ad from a few weeks ago.
Obama and Hillary do not get points for leadership on this issue. But they are leagues ahead of people such as Ms. Prejean, and to say otherwise is a denial of reality. Does that make it acceptable to use sexist terms to attack Ms Prejean? Of course not. Those who do so should be ashamed.
As for Foxx, Imus, and O’Reilly: I wasn’t aware that we were discussing them. All of them have said appalling things for which they deserve censure.
Puma for life: I don’t know if you were addressing me, but : Bigotry expressed politely does not make it less bigoted. I don’t think that Ms. Prejean is necessarily a bad person. I have friends and relatives who are conservatives. They oppose gay marriage, but I still love them and consider them good people. But their beliefs are prejudiced and wrong, both logically and morally. They have every right to hold those beliefs in a free country, but they should not be applauded for them, nor should those beliefs be accepted in the public square (just as we would not want racism and sexism to be accepted in the public square). There were plenty of people–there still are plenty of people–who can politely express their sexist and racist beliefs. Does such expression make those beliefs more acceptable? Furthering the equality of women in this world is a cause of paramount importance. But sexism cannot be combatted by ignoring homophobia.
Gale, my point was that certain people seem to get a pass for remarks where others do not, and I was wondering why Foxx got one and Imus, Oreilly did not, why Obama gets a pass but not Prejean. Just thinking out loud
Whenever a prominent politician, like Obama or Clinton, say they support civil unions, you can bet that they really support full same sex marriage but are only saying civil unions for political reasons. If the SCOTUS ever mandated the allowance of civil unions, full marriage equality would not be far off because “separate but equal” statutes have generally been struck down. Prominent politicians, who are well-versed in legal issues, know this full well and only advocate “civil unions” to score political points from those who oppose gay marriage but wish to extend the benefits. So, while people may say that that Obama and Prejean generall agree, the reality is far different. A cynical take, no doubt, but one grounded in reality.
First, I must say that my views are so far away from Prejeans that we may as well be on different planets. And I have never understood how ANYONE can talk about the sanctity of marriage without discussing outlawing adultery. That being said, I applaud Bruce for writing this article. Rick Warren gets to speak at the inauguration and she gets labeled a “bimbo”. Why aren’t those speaking out against her speaking out against Obama? he has a vote in this race AND he chose Rick Warren to speak. Why do we condemn a 20 something beauty queen who has experienced so little in life but let a 48 year old president who should be more sensitive to these issues off the hook? Why are we giving her such publicity? She lost the chance for the crown, as she should have because of her absence of diplomacy skills. But this ordeal is giving fuel to conservatives by making those of us who support this cause look like zealots. Those of us who REALLY respect others rights will respect her right to express her feelings. Why can’t those of us who disagree call her an idiot (as we would call any male saying the same thing) and move on. Now they are trying to take her California crown from her because of some photos that show no more than the bikini she wore on stage in the pagaents!
Caroline, well how about this little gem:
Plus when women
willingly collude with the forces of patriarchy for their own
benefit and get craped on in the process, don’t come running to me
for support, there are actual real victims in the world who I save
my worry energy for.
And do not play this nitpicking game about “well, she just said she wouldn’t CARE if a woman who SHE judged being in collusion with the patriarchy were “craped on.” She didn’t say she’s do the “craping.”"
Personally, I’m seeing one woman who “colluded” with the Forces of Darkness by walking around in heels and a bathing suit, and another that colludes with the Forces of Darkness by cheerlieading rape, because that’s precisely what “craped on” means. Let’s get this straight. In the litany of women who, to coin a phrase, deserve to be punished for colluding with the patriarchy, I’d put the rape-cheerleader on a far lower level than the chick in the swimsuit and hairspray.
And also do not play that BS game about how it’s only one commenter in one teeny tiny little thread, either. This attitude is ENDEMIC to supposed “feminist,” and it’s fucking repulsive. Don’t tell me this isn’t smug satisfaction in the prospect of a woman being raped, degraded, or sexually humiliated. Don’t even pretend to tell me that.
Besides, do you think the men who “crape” on women like this bother to tell the fucking difference between women who “deserve it” according to feminist(!!!!!!) standards and women who don’t?! They couldn’t give a rat’s asshole one way or another. A man who’ll rape or “crape” on a woman that falls off her feminist pedestal is a man who’ll “crape” on a woman who doesn’t deserve it too — sarcasm entirely intended. The problem is the violence, rape, and degradation — PERIOD. If feminists love to whine about how men have to be held accountable for rape, violence against women, and degradation, then we have to stop thinking of the shit they pull like some sort of divine retribution, like a lightning bolt out of the sky punishing women who stray. This is MEN RAPING, MEN DEGRADING, MEN HUMILIATING. PERIOD. I dont’ give a fuck if you kick a dog that’s been taught not to bite back, you’re still a sick fuck for kicking the dog in the first place.
And again, do not tell me this attitude isn’t endemic to feminist and isn’t a problem. Some women “deserve” our protection, some don’t. Smells like patriarchy to me.
Janis, I agree. To add to that, for those who believe in not supporting those women who “collude with the patriarchy,” wouldn’t we have to cast out those Democrats who voted for Obama over Hillary in the primaries? Many of us have colluded unwittingly in our life times. Are we condemned from the support of other women for all of eternity? We need to show each other the way, not push each other into the open arms of our patriarchs.
Simon, your reasoning as to why Obama and others on the left that are not pro gay marriage is interesting. it requires us to assume that he is a deceiver, panderer, and liar to justify a pass- that justification leaves me rather uncomfortable
Caroline, If I told people I was a lesbian they wouldn’t believe me. I’m a terrible liar. And are you really unaware that straight women experience sexism too? We’re all women. We are all subjected to sexism and misogyny whether we chose to buy into the sex toy image or chose to defy it.
I think the treatment of this young woman has been deplorable. It is reprehensible to attack her in a hatefully sexist manner, whether one agrees with her political beliefs or not.
Keith Olberman is as always A PIG!
His Messiah Barak Obama holds the very same oppinion that Carrie Prejean articulated.
No wonder more and more liberal viewers keep going over to Fox News.
[...] voices her point of view on gay marriage and then becomes the target of an objectifying sexist rant by Keith Olbermann, where’s the outrage? Carrie is entitled to her point of view, and if you don’t agree [...]
[...] http://thenewagenda.net/2009/0.....e-outrage/ [...]
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...