Why Now? Letterman Sees the Light
It took a little while, but Dave has fully apologized for his joke about Willow, realizing apparently that with her being the only Palin daughter at Yankee stadium, his joke must have been referring to her.
Good for Dave. Good for women. Amy Siskind over at Huffington Post noted recently that Letterman had invoked a new era of feminism, just as many of her co-bloggers were sadly finding new ways to excuse the sexist jokes ("hey, others have told sexist jokes - why is Letterman being punished?", or "she announced it", or "she put the kids on stage" or "they made rape/child molestation jokes about Willow in September, why'd she wait to complain until now?"). Amy's point is that old-style feminism is dead, perhaps because no one's listening anymore or all of its terms have been co-opted and twisted.
In its new guise, the blogosphere erupts, and the slurs against females young and old are reacted against. It's not perfect - it's happened rarely, but seems to be gaining a bit of steam. Hillary was able to effectively protest the phrase "pimping her daughter" because it was about her kid, with similar excuses heard at the time about "it's just language, it doesn't really mean to pimp", etc. - but she couldn't protest full page WaPo articles about her "cleavage" (then she wouldn't be a good sport), or "Nurse Ratched/ballcutter/rhymes with "rich", or a set of candidates' baseball cards where all the men were baseball heroes and she got to be a busty slutty groupie. Aside from botox jokes and numerous sexist slurs, Nancy Pelosi recently got to endure a "Pussy Galore" commercial out of the Republicans, while Meghan McCain's interesting political views are cut off by talking about her being "fat" (which really means that she's not anorexic like Kate Moss or Amy Winehouse, perhaps due to disturbing lack of substance abuse).
The Terms of Demeanment are bipartisan and focused on one sex (except when they slip over to make fun of homosexuals, cross-dressers, and a few other relatively defenseless segments of society). It doesn't help that some of the biggest proponents of "relax, learn to take a joke" sexism are women themselves, and I won't even start the long litany of reasons why this is true. It wasn't until yesterday that I got the irony of people noting Obama's "family should be off limits" in referring to Bristol's pregnancy. He of course was the child of a woman who dealt with an unintentional unmarried pregnancy at age 17, and had abortion been easy and approved at that time, we might easily have had President Biden discussing these matters instead.
The bigger issue is that women and girls carry the weight of these choices and developments - pregnancy, abortion, raising children, infant and child disability, as well as prime care-giver for the elderly and the prematurely infirm. The consistent disparagement of women from the "slutty", "ditzy blonde", "only a girl" to the various huge structural barriers to advancement to the perverse set of rules that get called into play for figures as diverse as Janet Reno, Carly Fiorina, Sonia Sotomayor, Dawn Johnsen, Sarah Palin, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi - too masculine, too feminine, got too much help, too aggressive and power hungry, too cute, too ugly, looks frumpy in pants suits, trying to be too sexy in skirts/dresses, too old and wrinkly, too tan and tight skinned.
So why now? Just because - an ugly campaign season, uglier media season, more power on the internet, the assassination of Dr. Tiller aimed at women and their choices, frustration as simple goals for equality from long ago have turned into a marsh full of excuses and rationales, just because perhaps now is when the courage and energy to fight back has started to bubble up. Rosa Parks' move wasn't an isolated one, nor was it completely unpremeditated - it was part of a larger series of actions and careful movements that built on each other.
Plus when you mess with people's kids, they tend to go postal, a well-known fact - and is the point where harassment starts to lose its defenders. But that doesn't mean just don't mess with kids - it means to get our act together, to start acting respectable towards one-half of the planet. You can't laugh at this nasty shit at the comedy show and come home and wash it out in the sink - the stink lingers over our daily lives, our daily attitudes towards people we meet and live with and read about.
So what's next? More care. Just as a "joke" comparing Michelle Obama to a gorilla isn't funny, a "joke" making Sarah Palin into a "slutty flight attendant" isn't funny, neither for female politicians nor flight attendants, whatever your politics. Putting an asterisk next to sexism in no way diminishes sexism. Just because we've always been sexist doesn't mean today isn't the day to quit, just as a drinker would always like an excuse to quit tomorrow instead. Enough's enough. Just say no. Just say now.
Update: And in answer to Gov. Palin, who contends that "And this is all thanks to our U.S. military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's right to free speech - in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect," you're quite wrong in so many respects. America's right to free speech cannot be guarded by any military efforts, as history has shown time and again that war footing only endangers freedom of speech. Our internal commitment to justice through courts and fair law enforcement, and the people reaffirming daily this principle of free speech - the most important principle of all the amendments of the Bill of Rights - these are all more important than any efforts of the military.
The cant of obeisance to might and military endeavors is the antithesis of what the Founding Fathers struggled for. The unconstitutional effort of Congress to censure and quiet MoveOn for a private opinion about a politically motivated military officer, Gen. Petraeus, is just one example of the dangerous effects of this simplistic counterfactual rubbish of "support the troops". Worse, this choosing sides of who's most American, of who's most important, with the cynical perception that the military will most often side with your party, is disgraceful. I appreciate the military for its sacrifice in times of need, and sympathize with it when used for crass political purposes or misused for unnecessary blunders of war through the power-hungry vanity of our leaders and their lackey, amoral followers and enablers. But we are all Americans, and our greatest duty is speaking up, supporting the Constitution and the rule of law, whether soldiers witnessing torture in the military or citizens witnessing the abduction of the body politic or civil servants watching the wholesale ransacking of our Treasury. The Union will not be destroyed from without - it will rot from within, if not maintained.
We have a volunteer military. It is something of a representative sampling of American society, though heavily weighted to the less-fortunate and aimless, with a selection of those with a family military tradition. But like society at large, if there is no will for survival in the society, no adherence to morals, no courage to do what's right, the military will reflect this as well. If we have the need and the sense of purpose, most any one of us can step into the military and do these jobs. There are a few who work the front lines who might end up displaying more courage, but mostly courage is a matter of plain blind luck. Few will themselves to courage - most who find it just got shoved into a situation where it either comes out or completely disappears. And there's as much courage in risking your job to speak out and save someone from injustice, to speak against racism and sexism and torture and danger and corruption, to fight off street thugs or help clean up a neighborhood, as there is in most of the jobs in the volunteer military. There's courage to give up our easy lives and do what's more difficult, to help others when we'd rather focus on ourselves, to find little things to make the nation and world a better place to live. There are a million opportunities to display courage, and to act like sacrifice and honor only come from the military side of our nation is both misunderstanding honor, and belittling the worth of people as a whole. Most all of our jobs have some honor, and giving preference to serving chum in the chowhall over handing out burritos at Taco Bell is just a type of snobbishness.
Perhaps Gov. Palin harkens back to the days when North and South grabbed their weapons and set out to bloody themselves to pieces in the name of "honor", of WWI trenches piled high with casualties of suicidal frontal attacks. But the choices in 2009 require thought as much as deed, wisdom more than rash action, persuasive and calming and inspiring words rather than hollow lingo and sheer jingoism. We suffered through the Generals' folly in WWI, and we suffer through the civilian leaders' follies now. The use of force in our arsenal is certainly not to be undervalued, but if the arbitrary use of force is the most valuable protector of freedom we have, we're pathetic indeed.
Des, you said it all. Thanks for this.
June 16, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great choice for a post and totally agree. Enough is enough and time to have some RESPECT for all people. Name calling is childish. Why can't we all behave like adults.
June 16, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel a need to say something, but I have nothing to add, Des. Hmm. All this coming from an American male.
There is hope after all.
June 16, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
All just pretty words - the truth is in the putting.
June 16, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
(This was addressed towards me, if it tweren't obvious)
June 16, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Twere, to me at least.
June 16, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't funny that Sarah Palin made herself go for into the slutty flight attendant look as a prerequisite to getting the vice presidential nod, either, but she did. And the joke was never about Willow, for Christ's sake. But it might just as well have been about one of her other daughters, Evergreen or Oak, or Potted Palm.
I don't know why Letterman apologized for anything. The joke was about Bristol, who is a joke all by herself.
Funny about how Palin gets to sling mud everywhere, shoves her family into the political spotlight, but then gets to be hypersensitive about getting called out on her hypocrisy. They can cry me a river.
June 16, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can lead an ass to water, but you can't make it think.
June 16, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Obama's kids haven't been used as political shills, the way Bristol was. And Bristol was the direct evidence that their own policies don't even work on their own kids, much less anybody else's. Palin put those kids in the race, nobody else did.
If they had a real policy disagreement with Michelle's stance on anything, they could certainly bring it on. Did they? No, they made up mud-slingable stuff. And they did it anyway, didn't they?
Palin called them socialists, terrorists' pals, baby killers, etc. . DIDN'T SHE, DESI?
"You can lead an ass to water, but you can't make it think." That's exactly what I was thinking after the pablum you wrote in the blog, Desi. Good intentions and poorly reasoned critical thinking are lethal.
June 16, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bristol talked both about prevention and abstinence, and said that abstinence is 100% sure, which seems pretty obvious.
"[Levi Johnston] admits that they used protection "most of the time" -- but not all the time."
Asked how she squared her own experiences with her new campaign, [Bristol Palin] added, "I'm not quite sure, I just want to go out there and promote abstinence and say, this is the safest choice. This is the choice that's going to prevent teen pregnancy and prevent a lot of heartache."
So what's your fucking problem? Neither abstinence nor contraception worked in her case. You just hate religious people expressing their opinion if it's opposed to yours, which gives you grounds to shit on them.
Did Palin really call the Obamas "baby killers" and "terrorists"?
June 16, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Des. Abstinence didn't work because they weren't abstinent. Contraception didn't work because they didn't use it all the time. It is very common that people who are told that sex is a bad thing, GO AHEAD AND DO IT, and don't take precautions because somehow they believe that by taking precautions they are PLANNING TO DO THE DEED.
I worked in college health for many years, and I swear this is true. Young women who were comfortable with their sexuality were not the ones who came in pregnant. It was the ones who were in denial and pretending that they weren't really sexually active that got pregnant.
You can defend Miss Sarah all you want, but she did her daughter a disservice by her unrealistic message, which obviously didn't work. Didn't work for Sarah either, because she was also pregnant when she got married, so one would think she would be wiser.
And she definitely inferred that Obama was a terrorist sympathizer, and smiled when her "base" yelled "Kill Him!" She is beneath contempt and I feel sorry for all her children. Their dysfunctional family is not their fault.
June 16, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Inferred". Right. Burn her, a witch.
Her daughter had access to contraception but didn't use it always. Oh. Bad mother. What exactly are you asking of this woman, to put the rubber on herself?
June 16, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the best known quote is that Obama was "palling around with terrorists". Her campaign put "Joe" the "Plumber" out saying that he believed a vote for Obama was a vote for the death of Israel but wouldn't say why. As previously noted, she did not oppose MURDERING OBAMA when her supporters brought it up loudly??!!
So yes, she called Obama a terrorist.
And Bristol deserves worse from the media. How is her son Tripp going to feel when he finds out his mother has taken a tour of the country, presenting him as the reason to avoid sex altogether?
We have a case of two celebrities in the same place at the same time, one famous for having been pregnant, the other famous for being promiscuous. That a comedian chose to "go there" isn't that shocking.
June 16, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only the pregnant celebrity wasn't there! Whoops!
June 16, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Obviously that's who the joke was directed at though, otherwise the joke doesn't make sense. Letterman clarified this in the fake apology. To even pretend it was about Willow is either willful ignorance or dishonesty.
June 17, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although you must allow for the possibility that it was willfullesty. Or disignorance. Or perhaps *shudder* disfull wignorance.
June 17, 2009 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
disignorance (n.) 1. Dishonesty regarding a topic which the speaker knows very little about. 2. When you don't know you're lying, but probably should.
June 17, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Letterman himself admitted, even assuming it's about Bristol (which I'd like to believe), it was still in poor taste. How old is Bristol again?
As Des points out (or suggests, I think), would a similar joke be made about a son instead of a daughter?
None of us care for Palin here (Des included, I'm sure), but that doesn't mean she's not right here, even if she's been a hypocrite about it.
June 16, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think I made it here, but yeah, imagine A-Rod stopped by in the 7th and banged up a boy-child, that would receive howls of laughter, right? No? Why not? Oh, we only do rape jokes about girls. Raping boys just isn't funny. What is it about our sexual programming?
I somewhat admire Sarah's spunk, but as for some of her ideas, my Update above gives a good indication of where I stand.
June 16, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no, now your bringing in homosexuality into your analogy. For it to work, it would have to be Madonna doing Palin's son.
BTW, I think you are making a good point above. What is actually funny anyway? Why is sexual disparagement funny? What does a society's humor tell us about that society?
June 16, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh. . . yeah you're right, I've never heard a joke about rape of boys in prison, or juvinile detention facilities.
I'm not going to go all O'Reily and start crying myself a river of pity for the injustice heaped upon white men; but jokes about man/boy rape are common place. And Letterman's joke was clearly about the daughter who HAD gotten pregnant, not the 14 y/o. That doesn't make the joke tasteful, and I'm not saying we should tells these jokes about boys are girls.
But when you reach for the most distateful interpretation and pretend that these jokes are never told about men, it dilutes an otherwise valid message.
As the kids like to say, Let's keep it real.
June 16, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typically rape of *boys* in prison is not considered a joke. (I collect jokes, don't have a single good one on this topic, though I do have some young boy jokes outside of confinement). Rape of *men* in prison is sadly considered just part of the punishment.
June 16, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously we have lived different lives.
And while I try to be selective with my friends, I can't always help who I end up hanging out with.
I'm not saying these jokes are funny, but that doesn't stop people from laughing.
June 17, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Palin, going postal? Who'd know the difference? Not much to lose there, is there?
June 16, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama's 17 year old mother was pregnant with him she was not paraded around on national TV at a GOP convention by Obama's grandmother who would use her pregnancy to enhance grandma's political image. There is no comparison.
Sarah Palin will continue to use women, her daughter, her family and anyone else she can to advance her own career at their expense.
June 16, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Michelle was being paraded around, so she's fair game for racist comments, right? Barack's daughters were dragged on stage, so we can come up with some sexist and racist comments for them too. It's easy to find an excuse to be a pig if that's what you're looking for.
June 16, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I think your first sentence clinches the argument. That's it, in a nutshell. Racist or sexist attacks or jokes are plain ole unacceptable, no matter the age/sex of the person. Full stop.
'Course, that woulda made a damned short blog. But I'd say that sums it.
June 16, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Full stop, or then cut to a Bill Hicks video? Man, the guy who can write 700 words on cutting his cat's nails as a kid, and he's suggesting I condense it down to 1-liner blogs. Am I cutting into the TPM quota? Are they rationing words, Quinn waiting in the similes and metaphors line all morning to get his angry fix?
June 16, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never had a cat.
June 16, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good thing. Can only imagine the horror stories, Stephen King meets Ming the Merciless.
June 16, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd respond to that, but I'm saving up up words for that 17,000 word special I got coming. It's a 6 hour special, so you may wanna bring a friend.
June 16, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forget, I don't have any friends, especially with that "dumbfuck" comment I made down below. But I can pack the halls with enemies if that'll be useful. What's cover charge?
June 16, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. The enemy of a guy who got no friends is my.... damned if I know.
Bring 'em anyway. You'll enjoy their suffering.
June 16, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desi:
"Update: And in answer to Gov. Palin, who contends that "And this is all thanks to our U.S. military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's right to free speech - in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect," you're quite wrong in so many respects. America's right to free speech cannot be guarded by any military efforts, as history has shown time and again that war footing only endangers freedom of speech."
Are you saying that the Patriot Act has not made us freer? I mean what is freer than Patriotism. As long as you are going with the flow so to speak.
Letterman stepped in it. He hates Palin. Been making fun of her since she showed up on the national scene. And I have an idea who was writing the routine. The same guy who just gutted w every nite. I love that guy. hahahaha
Yeah it was a lose lose situation.
Good Post.
June 16, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to denigrate the Patriot Act as I believe in Patriotism, and in fact root for the Patriots, along with Patriotic duties, and I... what was the question again?
June 16, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but I think Gawker has this right. Letterman shouldn't have given credence to Palin's complaints by issuing an apology and the whole anti-Letterman movement that's sprung up has been coordinated by Palin cronies. Dave should just keep making fun of her.
Check out Gawker's take here: http://gawker.com/5291870/david-letterman-apologizes-to-sarah-palin-again-video-added
June 16, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Gawker's a juvenile asshole. Any other point to make?
June 16, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be nice, Desi.
I guess I just expect jevnile asshole behavior from late night television. That's kind of the point of it. And... come on, Palin is just using all of this outrage for her own, ultimately malicious ends. Gawker has at least seen through her.
June 16, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, it's not about seeing through her. It's about "enough is enough". I respond to Palin's inappropriate comment up above in the Update section. Do I resort to sexism, racism, insulting Alaska, and so forth? Okay, Dave's a comedian, so Alaska should be allowed, but sex & race, I don't think so. Okay, ANdrew Dice Clay, but he's not on late night TV, he's maybe in cable.
June 16, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally respect your right not to laugh at sexist or racist humor or any humor for that matter. But the spectacle of Palin acting as if she's been uncommonly abused is just too much for me.
And to me, humor is supposed to push the bounds of propriety. But we'll never get anywhere on taste. One thing I like about you is that you're willing to give Sarah Palin's the same considerations you demanded for Hillary Clinton and I know you don't feel the same about them. So we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
June 16, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trust me, I have propriety-free side of me, Sarah Silverman as one example, other better ones if I stop and think about them. But I don't refer to Letterman as corporate comedy for nothing. These guys are part of the news media-politics-corporate control. They're never going to get really edgy on guests and ask George Bush why he's sending off people to die. Yeah, they get a bit naughty at times, and that's their schtick, but all these politicians that waltz through the studios and it's powerderpuff football just like at HardBall. Everybody's friends, no one gets hurt. At least Saturday Night Live with some of their skits seemed to try to draw blood from all sides, but still, this is at the marginal end of creativity stuffed with corporate paymasters, and not the Lenny Bruce sitting in a dive trying to cut through the farce, or George Carlin trying to cut through the arbitrary words that everyone uses but can't be mentioned on radio. If my parents can watch and listen, there's a good chance it's not really art (sorry, folks, threw you under the bus with that one). Hey Quinn, where are your "I suck Satan's cock" videos now? Getting hot in here.
June 16, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspected as much. If Lenny Bruce had been around to take down Palin... well, it would have been funnier. True enough that Letterman is no artiste.
June 16, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You rang? Ok, not Bill's rudest, but still, perhaps best not to turn this one up real loud at work. Then again, what the hell, eh?
Ok, full points for the Update. Re: Sarah, it strikes me that you kill your own arguments when you're fighting an asshole but you cross your OWN line. Why do I know this? Ummm, because I've crossed that line about 8,000 times. And each time I do, the masters of moral outrage (otherwise soulless, amoral bastards) start shouting "hypocrisy" and I get sucked under by my own anvil.
When it comes to Palin, I'd stick to the fact that she's a fascist-in-training and has no good ideas. She fires people and otherwise misuses the power of the state, she lies about her anti-pork position, etc. As for her family, I can't believe Todd had a membership in a separatist party. Are you shitting me? Even Canadians wouldn't be real tolerant of that, but you guys fought a fairly bloody war over it. And the party's leader died buying plastic explosives? Hello?
June 16, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
But doesn't that place him somewhere close to Bill Ayers? Oops, misbehaving on my own blog...
June 16, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually cut that reference from my comment, but in my books, damn sure there was a similarity. People got so focussed on her looks and the more "flamboyant" stuff that the political contours of their though exited, stage left.
Was your husband ever a member of a separatist party, yes or no? And if yes, did he ever discuss using violent means to achieve those ends? And if he discussed it, what was his position?
Because there's not really any separatist movements in the world that manages to avoid the violence debate, and the leader of the party pretty much proved out that point, and the Palin's would be hung on that nail for years. End of political career, I'd say. Instead, we walked over and debated this "Is she a good mother" crap.
June 16, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, it's okay with you that her husband is like Bill Ayers? Isn't Bill Ayers the one she vilified? Does that bother you?
June 17, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Put another way, her idiocy is gender-neutral.
June 16, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero: I wish I had your abilities to cite, analyze and distill. This is a remarkable summation and interpretation of our national experience. I will read it again, and again.
June 16, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you Desidero. Name-calling is just plain stupid, no matter who is doing it, and to whom it's against. It always says more about the name-caller than it does about the callee.
Letterman's comments were low, even for Letterman. There are plenty of ugly men--possibly even slutty men--in Washington but nobody feels the need to comment on them. Somehow, women ARE fair game. It goes back to when women were powerless and used as chattel, I'm sure. But that was then and this is now. This is the 21st Century.
To those who think they're so clever with their name-calling, I would say, build a vocabulary. Then every stupid thought might be crowded out by an actual, meaningful sentence.
(Of course that only applies to non-comedians. They build a career on stupid thoughts. And sometimes they backfire. Then we REALLY notice them.)
June 16, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And politicians' families--no matter their gender--are absolutely off-limits. That should be sacrosanct, but again, stupidity rules.
June 16, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to explain this to Desi who later in the thread calls a fellow poster a "dumbfuck."
June 16, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah yeah yeah, they're going to chase the "was Willow *really* at the game" down the rabbit hole instead of addressing their sexism.
Yes, "dumbfuck" is appropriate. Breathing, but no sign of cerebral function.
June 16, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's lovely having a civil discussion with you, Desidero, where you can disagree with someone without resorting to the tried and true "sexism" canard.
Oh wait...
June 16, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you realize that there is no evidence that "canards" have ever existed?
Some believe the term "canard" was, in fact, originally created by the neighbors of a French Doctor with a particularly ungainly walk. However, it is curious that no photos exist of the aforementioned "Docteur Canard."
Others believe the term is only used by idiots, who fail to fully understand the meaning of the term, but rather blurt it out when excited, in a sort of spasm, in the same way they might blurt, "Willow wasn't at the Yankees game" or "May I have my testicles back" or "Fark me, I haven't a goddamn clue.
I'm sticking with the French Doctor explanation.
June 17, 2009 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The resident Canardian speaks again.
June 17, 2009 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry that I assumed the both of you to be capable of rational discourse, people who would refrain from personal atttacks. My error.
June 17, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would be me, and I trust you've read the exchange in full rather than just her unprovoked personal attack.
June 16, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? So the Terms of Demeanment only operate in one direction and never include hetero males? Guess you've never heard anyone called a dick? How about a prick? How about a guy having "no balls"? Seems to me I've read, seen and heard plenty of jokes about men. Think Donald Trump attacked for his hair. Think of the men unlucky enough to be dismissed as useless appendages to female celebs simply because they aren't: Kevin Federline, Tom Arnold, anyone Madonna has slept with. Funny I don't see Tom Hanks' wife treated so caustically.
How about the movies "9 to 5," "Sleeping with the Enemy," and so-ooo many others. They all start with the premise that some guy is out to hurt women. Even "9 to 5" uses the premise to justify torturing Dabney Coleman at the end.
Now, you want to talk about equal rights and protection under law? Why are the names of rape victims shielded while the presumption of innocence for the accused offenders is always dismissed by militant feminists, who are certain the woman is always telling the truth? A lot of black men have hanged from trees over such misguided certainty. And a lot of men of all colors have had trouble clearing their names even after the accuser has confessed to lying. Is rape a real, legitimate problem? Sure, and most women tell the truth. But not all, and the system is weighted even in their favor.
Fathers' rights? Nearly non-existent in this country. Again, the presumption is that women are entitled to custody. Spousal support. In practice, that works predominantly one-way in most states.
I'm not saying women don't experience cruel sexism. Pay equity, rape, sexist jokes are all among the examples one could list. But when the argument is taken so far as to paint women as angels and men as devils, common sense has been abandoned in favor of goddess theology.
June 16, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I agree with you, too. Good points.
June 16, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spare me. The vast majority of rapists never see 1 day in jail. Most rapes go unreported. The vast majority of kids are raised primarily by the woman, so it's extremely unsurprising that child custody leans heavily towards the woman. 9 to 5? Kidding me? Poor Dabney Colman. Have you seen The General's Daughter? Good ol' real-life American action hero figures like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer who inspire great Hollywood cinema like Silence of the Lambs? Oh no, an abusive husband movie! How reality detached! Wow, that could almost challenge Basic Instinct!
Is someone painting women like angels? I've only seen them described as bitches and sluts of late.
I don't know Kevin Federline. I didn't see Sean Penn, Charles Barkley, Basquiat, Warren Beatty or Guy Ritchie hurt by the Madonna connection, but who's to tell.
June 16, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des:
I hate to break it to you, but MORE MEN are raped in the U.S. daily than WOMEN - a fact that is usually ignored by most women and feminist advocates:
"Reality: Rape does happen a lot in prisons, there is no doubt about that. In fact, in the USA, it is said that there are far more male rapes every day in prisons alone than there are rapes of all females in the USA. However, males are raped outside of prison every day of every year, in their homes, cars, at work and just about anywhere. Male rape also happens in the military and armed services as well, collages, universities, and all sorts of places. "
http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm
http://www.stlawu.edu/advocates/male_rape.php
(The 10% figure from the second site DOES NOT INCLUDE RAPES OF PRISONERS!!!)
So please temper the righteous indignation about 'rape' that you seem to think centers on women - but which most definitely does not. Rape is rape - no matter what gender the victim. Women do not have a corner on that particular market.
Or is the rape of someone confined to prison somehow 'deserved' and 'not really rape'??
June 16, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not breaking much to me - the rape you refer to is horrible but does not occur in the situations Ripper is referring to - "she said I raped her but I didn't". Prison rapes have pretty much no recourse to justice, as the system winks at it and presumes it's part of the punishment. Prison rapes can be much more violent, and often go along with a form of slavery. There is very little chance of male rape outside prison/jail walls. There's huge chance inside. Our callousness ("don't drop the soap" jokes) as we pack prisons more and more for stupid "crimes" like smoking dope is simply evil.
Does that compare the evil apples to evil oranges satisfactorially?
June 17, 2009 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, not quite. My "the vast majority of rapists never see 1 day of jail" should read "the vast majority of rapists outside of prison..."
June 17, 2009 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Des,
Your sustained fire-breathing blasts such as this and some other recent posts have always been your absolute hair-raising, smile-inducing forte. Thanks for the great commentary. You are on a wicked-smart roll lately. This post deserves a wider audience. It's brilliant.
Letterman was a cad, and he is smart enough to know it and man enough to stand up and apologize for it. Unlike destor, I don't think the blogs or any other kind of pressure had anything to do with Letterman's decision to apologize. I think he simply stumbled into one of his own (sexist) blind spots without truly realizing it at first. I think he was genuinely distressed about it. We all have blind spots, and sometimes we just need to STFU, own up to our mistakes, take the hit, and move on.
The argument that Palin somehow deserves sexist jokes directed at her daughters is totally fucked up, for anyone who doesn't know that yet, and "knocking up" an 18-year-old girl is not any more funny than knocking up a 14-year-old girl. It's just not funny, end of story. Teen pregnancy does not equate to knee-slapping, gut-busting hilarity. Duh!
June 16, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, at the root of it Dave's a comedian and he made a joke. Leno made similar jokes during the campaign, as did many comedicans both on television and during stand-up shows. Some people found it funny, others did not. That's the way it goes with comedy.
Also, comparing this to Obama's kids is apples and oranges. Obama's kids, as far as I know, haven't done anything that flies in the face of Obama's core values as a politician.
On the other hand, Palin was a figure who railed about how the evangelical Christian life is the best and most wholesome life and that abstinence only education is the ONLY effective method to curb teen pregnancy and the ONLY method deserving of government funding. All while her Christian-raised teen daughter is pregnant. Then, even after the campaign ended, both Palin and Bristol continued to tow the same line, in public appearances!
The joke is not about sexism, or teen pregnancy, or really even politics. It is about HYPOCRISY!!
Personally, I didn't find the joke particularly funny, but I also didn't find it particularly distasteful. No apology was necessary by Letterman (a clarification of which daughter he was talking about was enough) and I'll be damned if I'm going to help this lying, hypocritical, opportunist Sarah Palin keep up her phoney baloney moral crusade for one second because a few people got their feathers ruffled over a joke they probably didn't even hear until after the fact.
June 16, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jay Leno sometimes sucks too.
June 16, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes?
June 16, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reaction to, but don't want to be mean, the puss is already ready to blow....
June 16, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are Obama's core values as a politician, if I dare ask?
June 16, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what I meant. Obama is pro-environment. If one of his daughters were driving around in a gas guzzling SUV, that would be fair game. Simple as that.
And, as I said, when you run on a platform of Christian, abstinence only, family values, etc while your unwed teenage daughter is pregnant, and you take that daughter on the campaign trail, and after the campaign that daughter goes on a media tour...is nobody supposed to notice or comment or, god forbid, call bullshit on it?
This entire argument is asinine. If you want to defend women's rights, attack Sarah Palin, who wants to remove the right to choose and to allow pharmacists to withhold contraception. And so long as Bristol is on her media tour, she's fair game as well.
Ok, Im done. I've wasted enough time on this nonsensical blather.
June 16, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I can blame Christians for not reflecting this well enough, running on Christian values and being human are not mutually exclusive. This puerile rubbing of hands whenever a Christian has a problem gets rather annoying, especially since the failing in this case was not Sarah Palin, but her daughter. Parents have been dealing with wayward teens for thousands/millions of years (not sure when the first teen to be grounded was, have to check the archaeological records).
One reason abstinence doesn't work well here is because people laugh at it. But liberals will travel to India to hear an abstinent Swami detail the benefits of seed control. Liberals will gush over the Dalai Lama, who has attitudes towards abstinence, sex and homosexuality far to the right of the Pope.
Some kids respond well to "the road is dangerous, cars travel fast, you can get hurt, look both ways". Some kids respond only to "keep away from the road or you'll get a spanking". Parents have to figure out methods that work for their kids. People have been trying to find one-size-fits-all rules since at least the Vedas and Torah were written. Mixed success.
June 17, 2009 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it's not sexist to make disparaging comments about a woman's appearance for being thin.
June 16, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destroying your body with various drugs as part of that thinness routine is the height of sexism. I like both Kate and Amy, fat or thin, and they don't even need to take the drugs for me to like them. In any case, politicians typically don't need to sing or pose nude for perfume ads either.
June 16, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amy Siskind?
One of the Hillary-luvin (till she joined the administration) creators of the hatin-on -Obama site that is now claiming to be representing THE real femnists...like our darling Sarah.
Funny thing that "somebody" @ The New Agenda has "mistaken" a reader blog for the real thing and doesn't "know" the fucking difference between Josh Marshal and "Desi":
"Word is spreading. We won’t back down!!!
Our press release has already been picked up by New York area Newsday.
Prominent liberal blog TalkingPointsMemo writes:
Good for Dave. Good for women. Amy Siskind over at Huffington Post noted recently that Letterman had invoked a new era of feminism, just as many of her co-bloggers were sadly finding new ways to excuse the sexist jokes (”hey, others have told sexist jokes - why is Letterman being punished?”......"
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/06/16/our-voices-are-being-heard/#more-11089
Nice company to keep.
June 16, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the heads up on Siskind, she's borderline wacko. Anything anyone ever says about a woman is sexism in her mind.
June 16, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woo Hoo!!! All ur bases r b-long to us!!! p3wn3d, and 3x p3wn3d, I own the kingdom of TPM and I'm not even on the banner!!! Coup d'état!!!
June 16, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to point out that whether Siskind is "borderline wacko", the post in question is quite alright. I've never consciously read another Siskind piece, and I simply give credit for a post I refer to. So many bands I listened to were one-hit wonders. If you dismiss people because they're not consistent, well, it's a long road between geniuses. Better to learn how to sift gems from sand than try to find a prim garnet box in the wild.
June 16, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blind hog finds acorn , STOP THE PRESSES!
June 17, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh you wish, you silly & selective "defender" of certain vaginas, you.
For my own amusement, I sometimes check with The New Agenda when you get your rantlette on. Damned if your "concerns" don't echo "theirs" on a consistant basis.
Target acquired.....................FIRE AWAY!
Obviously, someone on The Staff of those phony femnists is confident enough of the ignorance/willfull blindness of their embittered followers to be sure that none of them will bother to click the link and correct the record. Why don't you complain and set them straight?
But hey, why let some utter bullshit detract from Teh Cause?
This little "booboo" is super-dooper ironic in that the real Josh Marshall was the target of much vitriol from these "activist" types during the primaries. Now "he" is a real hero....
How droll.
BTW...if you belong on any "banner" Desi, it's TNA's.
June 16, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I corrected the record over there myself.
June 16, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you, Desi.
TNA should "hire" you.
Altho.....you would have to edit and really dumb it down.
June 16, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although it's a damn fine label, I'm just not sure you're gonna be able to use "silly & selective 'defender' of certain vaginas" on your business card, Des.
But full points to Lally for comin' up with that one!
June 17, 2009 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm ready to redesign my Coat of Arms.
June 17, 2009 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post, and I agree with many of the points. I think that sexist humor is particularly insidious since if a woman dares to complain she's labeled "humorless" - yet another stereotype.
HOWEVER, I don't think you could have built your argument on a weaker foundation than this Letterman joke. This joke was about as much about statutory rape as 'knock,knock' jokes make light of home invasion. It's a joke that clearly is meant to mock A-Rod for being a rampant horndog and is the same tired "this guy can't keep it in his pants" joke that was made by late-night comedians about Kobe Bryant, Bill Clinton, Charlie Sheen, Hugh Grant etc, etc.
The only part of this joke that pokes fun at Bristol (and can we, unlike Todd Palin, at least be honest enough to agree that clearly this part of the joke was referring to Bristol not the 14-year-old?) was saying "knocked up" in reference to her pregnancy. I'm sorry, but if you've made yourself a national spokesperson for abstinence and have gone on the Today Show to discuss abstinence and your pregnancy, then that pregnancy is clearly in-bounds.
As I say, I agree with most of the broader points, but forgive me if I don't find Sarah Palin's newfound feminist sensitivity all that credible.
June 16, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, if you look at it logically, the joke was about the daughter at Yankee stadium that day, who unnamed happened to be Willow. Now, the way some people think about the Palins, it's easy to see that the joke works as "just another trailer trash Palin kid knocked up", especially the condemnation that they might think that abstinence might be an acceptable approach to birth prevention. Well, try to abstain from A-Rod, the joke might go. Fill in your extra jokes here ___________ (round tripper, got past first base, ....., har har har).
What you may not understand is that the Palin girls are separate human beings from their mother, so may require some respect based on that physical/physiological fact.
And many people don't find *MY* feminist sensitivity credible. In fact, people often disbelieve *ANY* feminist sensitivity because, well, people are assholes, quite frequently, dismissive of women and counter-opinion, and while I could look for a more intelligent erudite way of expressing it, I think that'll do for the current summation. Pregnancy of teenage pregnancy "in-bounds" for what, pray tell? Are you one of the mythic Vulgarians?
June 16, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In-bounds" in the sense that when an 18-year-old spokesperson for the Abstinence-Only Movement goes on the Today Show to discuss her pregnancy, there is a certain irony to that, which people are allowed to comment upon. Hopefully in a non-Vulgarian fashion.
I read the joke completely differently. For weeks Letterman has (somewhat formulaicly) used A-Rod's alleged promiscuity as the punch line for his jokes, so I assume that is about that. Your interpretation is that it's about the minxy little trailer trash that can't help but sleep with the ballplayer. Fair enough. I'm not sure that there's enough joke there to really resolve what it's 'actually' about.
In any case, I find your feminist sensitivity very credible, nor do I regularly challenge the feminist beliefs of others, however they manifest themselves. I make an exception, however, for people who used to bill women for their rape kits. (http://mediamatters.org/columns/200810070007)
June 16, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing hypocritical about becoming a spokeswoman for a situation where she's known and she can have an effect. She was not practicing abstinence and obviously her approach didn't work, so what is the big deal about her saying, "just say no, it's safer"? Her opinion, one viewpoint, might do some people some good.
Tx for other.
June 16, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you looked at statistics for Nancy Reagan's "just say no" campaign? It's not safer!
June 17, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It took a little while, but Dave has fully apologized for his joke about Willow, realizing apparently that with her being the only Palin daughter at Yankee stadium, his joke must have been referring to her."
Except that, regardless of this endlessly-repeated assumption, there's no evidence that Willow was actually at the game:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8468409
June 16, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dumbfuck.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/ap_alaska/story/822812.html
Debating with morons gets depressing. Read. Think. Evolve.
June 16, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me? The site you cited says only this:
"Palin was being honored Sunday at an anniversary celebration for the Long Island-based Independent Group Home Living Inc. after attending a New York Yankees game. She was joined by her husband, daughter Willow and a sister."
Willow's inclusion refers to the Long Island event, not the Yankee Stadium game.
Learn to read and stop insulting those who dare to point out inconsistencies in Palin's claims.
June 16, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.1010wins.com/Alaska-Gov--Sarah-Palin-in-Westchester--Long-Islan/4548870
And I was watching the game and saw her there as well. You think dumbasses would learn from the Desperate Housewives stories, but they never do.
June 16, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the site you just referenced uses the identical sentence referenced by Desidero. Again -- the sentence identifies Willow at the anniversary celebration, not at the game.
As for claiming to see her at the game -- it's curious that not one photo taken show Willow. Why is that?
But, please -- resorting to personal attacks sure proves your argument.
June 16, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Resorting to stupidity proves your arguments?
June 16, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Resorting to stupidity proves your arguments?"
What stupidity is that? Understanding what two sentences actually say?
Argue the point, not the person.
June 16, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The point" (as you define it) is too boring to argue.
June 16, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, because it might call into question the entire premise of Palin's manufactured outrage, and we can't have that.
June 17, 2009 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You, the "liberal" or "progressive" blogosphere and Letterman are fucking with her kids. There's nothing less manufactured than that.
June 17, 2009 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
accusing a lot of people of statutory rape?
June 17, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just because Willow was not in the initial shots they took before the game does not mean she wasn't there. I was at the game and they showed the Palins on the big screen and I think I saw Willow there. It was a quick flash to be honest and I can't identify on sight all the Palin kids. Plus I was booing. Regardless, I have no idea if they captured it on the TV feed though. Regardless, it's pretty simple to ask Rudy or Judi or any of the myriad NYers sitting in the section. That would be the stupidest lie ever, and totally unnecessary. Letterman was talking about the entire NYC jaunt, and the only Palin daughter attending was Willow.
And I repeat, this is just like the Trig is not Sarah Palin's baby shit some "progressive" bloggers pulled. Have some freaking decency. Egads.
June 16, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah -- earlier you wrote that you "saw her there" as if there were no doubt. Now you acknowledge that you "think" you saw her there and couldn't recognize "on sight" all of her kids to begin with. I appreciate the honesty.
But then you revert back to the untruth - Dave never referred to Palin's "entire NYC jaunt"; the joke specifically referred to the 7th inning. Which, btw, was one inning after Sarah and Todd had left the game.
See how it works? The joke was never intended to be historically accurate. Jokes rarely are. But Palin took it literally, smelled an opportunity, and took it down the obscene "rape" road.
How this is "just like" the Trig/not Sarah's baby escapes me.
June 16, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Top 10 was also about the entire weekend trip in NYC. My seats were way out here, so my view line was not that good and it was a brief blip on the big screen. That said, Bristol's the only Palin I can identify on sight and it clearly wasn't her. And it's just like the Trig story because it's really easy to prove the truth of it and a lot of you folks looking for proof of Willow there will end up being embarrassed.
June 16, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the actual _joke_ that that tied Rodriguez to Bristol was in reference to the Yankee game. I'm surprised you don't see that.
"...it's really easy to prove the truth of it and a lot of you folks looking for proof of Willow there will end up being embarrassed."
If it's "really easy to prove the truth of it," then let's see it. I'll happy acknowledge the evidence, when and should it ever be presented.
But, thus far, it hasn't been. Indeed, every contemporary article (from the site I cited above) mentions only Sarah and Rudy and their respective spouses. None of them mention Willow by name or reference ("daughter").
Am I claiming that Willow was, without doubt, not at the game? No. I'm simply challenging, as I first wrote, the oft-repeated assumption that she _was_ definitely there, when it's based on nothing but that -- an assumption.
And Desidero's complete misreading of the sentences she cited does nothing to establish Willow's presence at the game. Rather, it establishes her presence only at the Anniversary event, and that's never been questioned.
June 16, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des is a he.
Now donz go breakin' my heart by continuin' that dumb argument, or I'll have to ask for evidence that you're not a talking goiter.
June 17, 2009 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"So during the 8th inning, they tied her up in the bleachers and brutally raped her. Oh wait, it couldn't have happened! They left in the 6th!!! It's only a joke!!! Har har har!!!"
Leave her kids alone and stop looking for excuses why it's a-rod-ok, and then you can perhaps feel prouder of yourself. Leave the sexist insults towards Sarah and then you don't insult all women each time you want to blast Sarah for some of her ridiculous politics. Above I give 4 long paragraphs taking apart her "all because the troops protect our freedoms" framing, and don't have to resort to insults about her family or gender to do it. It's not that hard. There really is humor still left after eliminating sexism and racism.
June 17, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You gave no time to her implication that Letterman was a pedophile; but maybe, that would have taken some sense true values not just feminist values that you so vehemently defend.
June 17, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
YOU MEANT TELL ME AFTER ALL THESE YEARS I DON'T NEED A DOOR TO TELL A "KNOCK-KNOCK" JOKE?
June 17, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad Dave saw the light. Great post Des.
June 16, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about over-the-top hyperbole. What a waste of time.
June 16, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, Kate?
June 16, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Sarah Palin and David Letterman are inconsequential people, both entertainers. Why are we wasting our energy on them?
June 16, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
As entertainers, they have influence on society.
I don't like it, but any improvement should be celebrated, however small.
I think, I am feeling like you, though. Planet earth is blue and there is nothing we can do.
Yet, we can set some sort of standard. I am very pleased Letterman apologized, given his age and attitudes, it may make some ripples down the road.
The last bit of hope I cling to, tells me this.
New link, to your old friends.
Type your name to enter, then type in the bar down below just above the word "smilies."
June 16, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm amazed nobody's picked up on your statement that Barack Obama would have been aborted if Roe v. Wade had been around when he was born.
to Quote:
"He of course was the child of a woman who dealt with an unintentional unmarried pregnancy at age 17, and had abortion been easy and approved at that time, we might easily have had President Biden discussing these matters instead."
Sorry my formatting skills aren't up to par, I'm still kind of new to the site.
Many women today go through with unintentional pregnancies due to their own personal or religious views, or just because maybe they loved the father at the time of conception.
Or maybe you think just because his daddy was black she would have been too ashamed to carry the child to full term? Your comment is more racist than Letterman's was sexist.
Your use of the terms "dumbfuck" and "moron" to describe those who disagree with you is totally unacceptable, especially on an issue as borderline as this.
I was just going to shut up and let the "Letterman should really apologize" point of view prevail, as it may be more strategic for the Left. However after reading this load, I had to write a full response.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/credente/2009/06/letterman-caves-apologizes-for.php?ref=reccafe
June 17, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Putting your tawdry assumption in a sentence and then saying I said it is something akin to a strawman.
Abortion is more accepted in 2009 than it was in 1961. Getting married young just because you got pregnant is rather scoffed at these days (including by me, if you weren't sure). Single parenthood is much more accepted. I never heard reference of the Dunhams going to church or being tremendously religious, so I make the assumption that Ann Dunham would have likely dealt with an unwanted pregnancy at 17, just starting college, like most not-too-religious teenagers would these days if abortion were available and readily accepted.
Explain how that makes me racist.
June 17, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand Obama's mother was a pregnant teenager and that that alone doesn't make either her or Bristol a person of questionable character. That Bristol is literally touring the country promoting abstinence is the irony that makes her fodder for comedy, just like it would if Lil Wayne or Amy Winehouse went on tour with D.A.R.E. (That Bristol is actually much more nuanced than the "abstinence only" stance of her outspoken mother lessens the hyppocrisy factor, but isn't widely known.)
Des, putting race aside, can you explain the point of your comment noting Obama might easily have been aborted if Roe v. Wade was around?
June 17, 2009 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, reformed junkies often promote giving up drugs. Alcoholics often end up trying to help other alcoholics with their problems. Bristol Palin got a lot of unwanted media attention at the time, but she can use it to discourage teen pregnancy, something I'm all for. I like planned parenthood, both for the parents' and the kids' sake.
Barack was likely unwanted by a 17-year-old at time of conception, and had abortion been an easy, accepted option at the time, it is quite possible that his mother would have more likely chosen that route. This is an educated guess, not a certainty, just based on common reactions by 17-year-olds these days who roughly fit the Ann Dunham demographic.
June 17, 2009 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have restated it.
But I asked you what is your point in stating that Obama might easily have been aborted if Roe v. Wade had been around?
June 17, 2009 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note I never mentioned "Roe v. Wade", but in any case, the chortling over the travails of a 17-year-old and the frequent support of abortion-as-no-brainer-first-choice is ironic in light of the conception of the current President - people get upset that the religious especially rail against abortion, prefer marriages-of-responsibility to single parenthood, yet this is the equation that gave birth to Obama, presumably a hero to many around here, and if current attitudes prevailed back then, he would have likely never seen the light of day, aborted at first sign. In some ways, people making fun of Bristol Palin are just as well making fun of Ann Dunham and any other 17-year-old in the same situation.
June 17, 2009 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
PROMINENT TPM BLOGGER WRITES: OBAMA PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABORTED IN TODAY'S CLIMATE.
I have three friends (that I know of) who got pregnant as teenagers. Two of them elected to keep the baby, one had an abortion. I know that's a very small sample, but what specifically leads you to believe Obama's mother would have had an abortion?
And as a feminist, you should know better than to decry abortion as being an "easy and accepted option". I'm sure you're aware of the protests that go on at nearly every abortion clinic in the US.
I ask again WHAT IS YOUR AGENDA???
June 17, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des, It is absolutely NOT an EDUCATED guess! It is a sleazy, nosy, and presumptuous guess. You, Des, have gotten too big for your britches, going around making presumptions about who might really have wanted to abort their baby 40 years ago! Who the hell are you to make such a snide comment?
Do you want to tell us that Bristol and Levi discussed that option? What is your EDUCATED guess on that topic? You are way too full of yourself, and you really should just sit down and be quiet.
June 17, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for bringing some POLITICAL sense to this travesty of a conversation.
June 17, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Typically rape of *boys* in prison is not considered a joke. (I collect jokes, don't have a single good one on this topic"
Are you implying you have in your joke collection "good ones" about the rape of girls?
Des, you have the inequality of attitudes toward rape "humor" exactly backwards.
Both statutory rape of boys (e.g., Mary Kay Letourneau jokes or Scared Straight spoofs on SNL) and rape of men (1/2 of Norm McDonald's repertoire or skits on Human Giant or Dumb & Dumber pr countless prison movies) is considered edgy but within mainstream bounds. How many times on TPM have I seen comments about sending Rove or some other Neo-Con to PMITA prison? PMITA prison = Pound-Me-In-the-Ass Prison - those are all rape jokes, but I've never seen a corresponding joke about Condi.
Not that I think there should be. Rape of women is of course a horrific reality that shouldn't be taken lightly. Rightly or wrongly, rape of men is thought of as akin to making race jokes about Canadians or the super pale. Of course I'm not going to argue in defense of man-rape jokes, but this part of your argument, that they are less prevalent than those concerning women, is flat-out untrue.
June 17, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, I say jokes about "rape of boys in prison" and and you go off on "man-rape jokes" as if I said anything about them, much less that they are "less prevalent than those concerning women".
And I thought I was the one posting-while-drunk.
June 17, 2009 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your broader point is about sexism in jokes, and you specifically mentioned rape jokes multiple times as being part of this inequality:
"The Terms of Demeanment are bipartisan and focused on one sex (except when they slip over to make fun of homosexuals, cross-dressers, and a few other relatively defenseless segments of society)."
"imagine A-Rod stopped by in the 7th and banged up a boy-child, that would receive howls of laughter, right? No? Why not? Oh, we only do rape jokes about girls. Raping boys just isn't funny. What is it about our sexual programming?"
"Typically rape of *boys* in prison is not considered a joke... Rape of *men* in prison is sadly considered just part of the punishment."
June 17, 2009 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Posting-while-drunk! You have just negated any thoughts I held that you may be serious in your commentary. JUST A DRUNKEN RANT!
June 17, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Item #1 isn't about rape per se, it's about women and homosexuals as the more common targets of demeaning sexual jokes.
Item #2 refers to rape of boys vs. rape of girls as objects of humor - perhaps a bit hard to evaluate due to Greek & priest jokes, but combining incest and general content, likely heavily tilted towards girls.
Item #3 refers to prison rape specifically.
June 17, 2009 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
good examples of people who feel Letterman was wrong.
"Fire David Letterman" Protest Becomes Hatefest, Draws More Media Than Protesters
Huffington Post | Danny Shea
First Posted: 06-16-09 10:18 PM | Updated: 06-17-09 08:19 AM
June 17, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink