Sexist in The Mirror
That
post led to my response..........
When it
comes to sexist statements, Desidero's own words...............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........is just as sexist
as Letterman's Palin joke. Both statements attack underage girls.
No Palin
daughter got "knocked" up by Rodriguez at Yankee stadium. No Obama
abortion occurred. Both statements have an undertone of ridiculing the
difficult choices women and girls have to make with an unexpected pregnancy.
Both Bristol Palin and Ann Dunham choose to go through childbirth and both wind
up being part of witticisms from Letterman and Desidero, respectively.
Desidero's
statement is an attack on a Caucasian woman who decided to give birth to the
child of an African man. Letterman, at least, apologized for his rape joke.
Will Desidero follow suit an apologize for talking about a nonexistent
abortion?
Posted
by rmrd0000
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/desidero/2009/06/gollum-and-mordor-making-the-b.php#comments
Desidero
responded with...........
Sheer
nonsense. I'm just point to statistics.
In 1990,
60% of unmarried pregnancies under age 25 didn't complete. 1 million
pregnancies to teenage girls a year, and 80% of them unintentional.
What's
the abortion rate for 17-year-old, not-hard-core-religious girls starting
college? Pretty damn high, I'd hazard.
Race had
little or nothing to do with it. But given acceptance of abortion these days,
do you think a free-spirited girl who wants to see the world would tie herself
down so easily to a guy she's known for 2 months given a choice? Hardly the
attitude these days.
Denying
reality or acting like I said something awful doesn't change the facts.
Followed
immediately by another Desidero post.....................................
PS - Obama put his whole family tree on stage with him, with Dreams of My Father, his sister campaigning for him, meeting his great aunt in Kenya, etc.
---------------------------------
Looking
at Desidero's statements above and
comparing them to the outrage that Desidero feels about Letterman's sexist
joke, I am bewildered. Neither Sarah, Willow or Bristol Palin got knocked up at
Yankee Stadium. Letterman's joke was over the line. Letterman apologized and finally
had the apology accepted by Sarah Palin. Palin did have a daughter get knocked
up and said daughter was paraded on stage with the baby daddy at the RNC, but
the Letterman joke was still offensive. Apology given and accepted with hopes
that Letterman will evolve.
Turning to the issue of Desidero's
abortion comment, 19 year old statistics are used to validate Desidero's
statement. According to the Census Bureau there are 10.4 million single mothers
in the US today, up from 3.4 million in 1970, a three-fold increase. I could look
at the numbers and suggest that it might be more likely for Ms Dunham to keep
her pregnancy today than in the past. Single mother's have enough trauma to
endure without taking abuse from Desidero. I am outraged by the lack of
compassion. The Obama abortion statement added nothing to the Letterman debate
and served only as an attack on a now deceased single mother.
In his
second post in response to my comment, Desidero says that Obama wrote a book
detailing his family tree. I have no idea how this justifies the abortion
comment. Obama was running for President after having been a Senator. Governor
Palin was running for the Vice Presidency. Both were pubic figures. The public
nature of their careers did not make the Palin daughter joke acceptable. I don't
think that attacking a deceased single mother (who had a three fold increased
chance of keeping her child) is justified either. Desidero should apologize.
The original
post containing the abortion reference can be found at http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/desidero/2009/06/why-now-letterman-sees-the-lig.php
Frankly, I think this is silly. Des is about as sexist as Betty Friedan and Andrea Dworkin put together. Go back and read some of his old posts. He's consistently been an advocate for the fair and equal treatment of women.
Was the comment you are so outraged about in poor taste? Yes. But he was making the comment to make a point about comments in poor taste. I cannot put words in his mouth, but I doubt very seriously that he was advocating the idea that white women should abort children of African American fathers. That is, I believe, a strawman.
June 18, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the abortion comment was in poor taste. Letterman's joke was in poor taste. Desidero did not own up to the fact that his comment crossed the line. Desidero then suggested that because Obama had written about his family in a book, the abortion comment was allowed. Palin is a public figure, but one can still note that the joke was outrageous.
Letterman is not a pedophile. He made a joke in poor taste. Using the jokes told about Chelsea Clinton with Limbaugh comparing the pre-teen to dog a , McCain calling Chelsea ugly, and Chris Farley appearing on SNL in drag as Chelsea Clinton, I guess I thought Letterman's apology was enough.
So we have a situation where someone you respect Desidero told a joke the was in poor taste, you are here defending him. How does that differ from the Letterman situation where Liberals are not out in force attacking the NBC comedian?
June 18, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not defending someone I respect. I disagree with almost everything Des writes. But in this case, he's right and you're whining.
June 18, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the Census Bureau there are 10.4 million single mothers in the US today, up from 3.4 million in 1970, a three-fold increase. I could look at the numbers and suggest that it might be more likely for Ms Dunham to keep her pregnancy today than in the past.
Technically, depending on how you define it, Ms. Dunham was not exactly a single mother, at least at first, because she married Barack Sr. On the other hand, the legality of that marriage is questionable, as he was already married to someone in Kenya at the time.
But the increase in single motherhood is, I believe, driven more by a decrease in pregnant women getting married, not a decrease in them having abortions, so the conclusion that she would be more likely to keep her pregnancy today is not necessarily a good interpretation of the statistics.
June 18, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You use your imagination, the way you wish, I'll use my imagination the way I wish. In my view of the future, Dunham kept her child. in your and Desidero's view, she had an abortion.
June 18, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des was not joking about Ann Dunham or judging her (like so many have done to Bristol). He was making a point that a young girl in Ann Dunham's situation today would have the option of abortion available to them. How on earth is that sexist? It's called empathy or compassion for how any 17 year old pregnant girl might feel in those circumstances. It is trying to point out the hypocrisy of those calling Sarah Palin a horrible mother because her daughter got pregnant. What does that say about Barack's grandmother who also had a career and a family? Can we stop judging other people's family choices yet?
Letterman's joke (at best case scenario) Bristol Palin's going to hop in bed with Alex Rodriguez and get pregnant - because any girl who gets pregnant as a teen must be a slut willing to have sex with anyone. You defend that shit and call Des sexist? The sexists in the mirror are so-called progressives who attack Palin's family or demean her in a sexist way are no better than the right wing GOP folks attacking Obama with racist references I have no respect for that. I don't need to demean Condi Rice by her race or her gender to criticize her asshattish policies.
Palin's given plenty of fodder for jokes - I can see Russia from my house. Resorting to attacks on her gender or children is bottom of the barrel. David Letterman realized this (after his mother talked some sense into him) and gave the full and complete apology that was deserved. Perhaps you'd like to move along as well or keep embarrassing yourself with this nonsense.
June 18, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
We disagree obviously, you see a comment that supports women, Orlando sees a comment that was in poor taste. I see a comment from a person who celebrated the Confederacy and belittled the contributions of African-American soldiers during the Civil War now talking about aborting the first African-American President of the United States. So I interpret the comment from a slightly different perspective.
June 18, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aha, so at least you are dropping the original sexist claim and acknowledging it's because you have issues with Des based on another blog. Baby steps, but I think we are getting somewhere. Nowhere in those blogs did Des celebrate the Confederacy. He was pointing out that both the North and the South were complicit in slavery. The North ended it first because economically it was easier for them, not out of some inherent moral superiority but history is written by the winners which means the evils of slavery in the North is glossed over and they become the "good guy." That's a lot more complicated than "celebrating" the Confederacy. You might want to give some thought as to whether your interpretation resembles anything close to what the person actually said. There's a line between honest disagreement and falsely asserting someone is a Confederate apologist or celebrator and you are way over that line with your comment.
June 18, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say you dramatically misread those Southern blogs, and it's carrying over into believing Des has some deep seated hatred in play here.
1st though, Do a poll, check the stats, whatever - but abortion just IS easier now. The sentence before your quote, Des outlined WHY he raised the issue, which made sense to me. Namely, that Bristol Palin and Obama's mother were in the same shoes - as young, unwed mums-to-be. And that they made the SAME choice. And yet, many of us on the left critique the Palin's for their failed family values, and insist we're permitted to do so.
This is considered a sexist or racist statement? I didn't think so.
As for the Southern blogs, I found it outrageous how badly people misread them. If you didn't line up with a pure Evil South/Good North storyline, then you were "apologizing for slavery," and a racist, etc.
For me, to understand why racism lived on after the War, even in the North, then you have to understand that its roots went wider, and deeper, than just slavery in the South. But oh no, we couldn't discuss that, people had to lose their shit at the thought that the South wasn't 100% evil, completely, forever. It was, as I've said before, the intellectual low-point of my time here at TPM.
People couldn't even see that pulling apart the arguments about secession from those about slavery might actually be possible. Hell no, you had to hammer the South as traitors as well, and thus, deserving of death and dishonor.
In particular, you got pissed over Des' statement on the numbers of black soldiers. Yet you two didn't actually disagree on the numbers. Or on their courage or sacrifice. But you read those numbers as meaning they were of huge importance in that war. Des isn't convinced. You feel that's a racist view. But what if I told you that 40-100,000 Canadians joined the Civil War. Including Edward P Doherty, the guy who formed and led the detachment that caught and killed John Wilkes Booth. How would you weigh their role? Did Canadians turn the tide in the US Civil War? I just think that's pretty open to debate.
You guys also fought over whether the South would ever have evolved out of slavery. You don't think so. In fact, you make what read to me to be a fairly wild charge that "The innate Southern desire for cheap labor would have kept slavery going." Innate??? And why would you somehow think that when dozens of nations, hundreds of regions, left slavery behind - the South wouldn't have? Are you telling me that disagreeing over this makes Des a racist?
Des may be a lot of things. Irritating. Bad-tempered. The guy that pisses in the punch. Factually, flamingly wrong. (I could go on.) But I do not buy the sexist charge, and I didn't buy the apologist for slavery and pro-Confederate bit.
June 18, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
We disagree, but I appreciate your response. Regarding the ending of slavery, let me recommend "Slavery By Another Name" a Pulitzer Prize winning book by Dougls Blackmon, that reveals the ongoing use of Black cheap labor in the South with the help of police forces, the courts, and the penal system. Effective slavery persisted in the South. It is a little known part of US history.
Regarding the role of Blacks in the Civil War. Work slowdowns by slaves, massive slave escapes as well as Black Union soldiers were important in the war effort. Desidero needs to broaden his education.
When the person discussing the Confederacy responds to a post about Black Union soldiers with the words "Romantic B.S.", you are not going to regard that person with a great deal of respect.
I generally don't read most of Desidero's stuff. The exchanges with Jade on the Civil War did catch my eye. I view as a Confederacy apologist as someone who tries to shift blame to the North. That is what Desidero was doing.
Pennsylvania is known as Philadelphia surrounded by Alabama. When Southerners try to point fingers to the North, they are tuned out. We have the GOP in SC referring to Michelle Obama's ancestor as a gorilla. A Tennessee GOP state ep aide sending out an image of the Presidents with Obama as only wite eyes against a black background, etc. Se a theme on region of origin?
Desidero can be as irritating as he wants, but he shouldn't complain when his own behavior gets a negative response. When the Black union soldiers were "romantic B.S." guy brings up aborting the product of a relationship between a White woman and a Kenyan man, he will get called on it.
June 19, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're not "calling" anyone. You're showing that you can't read for shit. And that's the brass ass out of your pants in this debate.
You threw out a dozen ideas in your comments on that Southern thread, but have treated anyone that disgarees with you as though their ideas must be wingnut, or racist or defending slavery. You actually made statements like - "The innate Southern desire for cheap labor would have kept slavery going." - and you don't even blink at their nastiness. I mean, HOW is this innate? Economically? Culturally? Genetically? Careful now.
I'll give you a story. My GGG-grandfather ran a tiny rural post office, harbor and railway station during the mid 1800's. In Nova Scotia. And was the main player in our little region, in terms of the Underground railroad. Blacks came in, he housed them, got them their first jobs, was generally a good man. And 100+ years later, it's still remembered. Now, Nova Scotia got rid of slavery early, supported the Underground Railroad, things like that. So if that's the be-all and end-all of racism, then we'd be fine, right?
WRONG.
Because almost NO blacks were permitted to live in the same communities, streets, houses as whites. I can drive around the province and point out the streets and towns and hamlets which were black, and often didn't even show up on official maps. Yoho. Ben Jackson Road. Names like that. Communities were very largely TWINNED. Whole black communities in the major city were even BULLDOZED, in the 60's. Africville. Gangs of young white kids that would go looking to fight in the black communities. All the problems we see everywhere else.
Now. Since NS wasn't Southern, please explain how all this happened to us. What's that? You had that SAME shit in Northern cities and states? Well, imagine that!!!! But surely, the pure and original sin, the one that's innate and forever festering and dirtying up the American garment is SOUTHERN slavery? So if there's hellacious racism, where could it be coming from, if not THE SOUTH?
Do you really not GET that people on the LEFT might want to look at the roots of racism more deeply, and at racist institutions outside the South, instead of sitting around like a bunch of teenage boys jacking off to stories about how bloody grand and noble the actions of their states were back in the 1860's?? Do you not GET that all the bleating about the innocence of the North actually serves to HIDE the roots of its own racism? And the same goes for Canada and Britain. Just because we got rid of slavery BEFORE the South doesn't mean we were somehow cut from completely different moral or intellectual or spiritual cloth.
Do you not - finally, once and for all - get that your glorification of that bloody Civil War may be BLINDING you to the dozens of other ways that racism got entrenched in your society? Not see that the celebrations and the grand myth serve as a perfect way to let people OFF the hook? That the re-enactments and the martyrs and the myths and the scapegoating and the endless on and on about that one great war... might actually be blocking the country from getting at wider race issues?
June 19, 2009 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, I'm simply stating that Ms Dunham could have chosen not to abort Barack Obama if she were in the same situation today. (See Bristol Palin). It is sexist to say that she would not have made that choice.
It seemed interesting that part of the discussion centered around a teen who went to term, but assumed that another teen, Ann Dunham, would choose abortion. The option of Ms Dunham to carry to term is dismissed. It remains a possibility.
Since we have a living breathing President as the result of Ms Dunham's decision, I decided to argue for the live birth if the pregnancy occurred today. Bristol made a choice, Dunham made her choice. Other women should be able to make their choice without worrying about my opinion, or the US Governments.
Now on to secondary points, Desidero, in defending the South, made points that could have come from "The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Civil War", written by a Southern wingnunt. Included was the idea that the South would have ended slavery without the Civil War. A concept shared by Desidero. The slaves only had to wait a quarter century. I guess if you died as a slave in that time period, oh well, stuff happens.
Often overlooked is the fact that even after the war the South used Blacks as cheap labor by biased arrest procedures and kangaroo courts. The cheap labor required woul have transformed slavery into a more sophisticated, if not less brutal form. Douglas Blackmon won a Pultizer for detailing the situation in "Slavery By Another Name". This continued by up WWII.
But what stood out, was Desidero's dismissal of the role that African-American Union soldiers and the slaves themselves played in the defeat of the South. I've dealt with some Southerners and their curious view on the "Peculiar Institution". Many Southerners have moved on. Some Southerners vigorously defend the States Rights issues, others point their fingers at the North.
So, in addition to arguing for the life birth of Barack Obama even in theory, did I add in the Confederacy thing and add the White woman-African father into the mix, yes. And I do consider Desidero a Confederacy apologist.
In summary, the sexism is that Ann Dunham would make only one choice....abortion. And yes I do find the dismissive attitude that Desidero had in his response to my question about a Dunham abortion identical to his dismissal of the contribution of The African-American soldiers.
June 19, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You need to reread - and rethink, because this is absurd. Des said, and you quoted, "... had abortion been easy and approved at that time, we might easily have had President Biden discussing these matters instead."
Do you understand what "might" means? What it does NOT mean is what you go on to say, that "Ann Dunham would make only one choice." So assuming you know the meaning of this word, why are you doing this? MIGHT does not mean ONLY ONE CHOICE.
As for the Southern stuff, you describe the idea that the South would have ended slavery without the Civil War as an example of a "wingnut" concept. Personally, I don't care if you have a dozen Pulitzer winners behind this position. YES, it might have been the one part of the industrialized world where even today, slaves would still exist. But you're gonna try and tell me that THAT idea - your idea - is soooooo strong that anyone who questions it is a wingnut? Dozens of other countries had slavery and their experience throws up lots of support for Des' "wingnut" position.
NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE CIVIL WAR WAS A BAD IDEA. MAYBE IT WAS WORTH IT - TO FREE THE SLAVES EARLIER AND PAY IN BLOOD. These are real questions though, they're not automatically decided the moment YOU make up your mind. Jesus. And just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them a fan of slavery or a wingnut or a racist or a Confederate.
In sum, you wrote an entire post attacking another poster by name. Which ISN'T an acceptable thing. Your post is built around a misreading... by you. Now you've doubled-down, and Des is not only sexist, but racist. All I'm gonna say is - WTF is wrong with people around here? You think because you're against Palin and against Slavery that somehow means your ideas are the only ones in play, and everyone else is a secret GOP-backer of a fan of slavery and you can just throw names like that, and it's all ok?
June 19, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I did thank you for responding, even though we disagree. So I'm not cutting off discussion. You are upset that I don't fall in lock step with your position. Apparently, since you are asking what is wrong with the PEOPLE here suggests that I am not alone in my position. So I guess I'm in a leftist position as opposed to a wingnut position.
In a discussion on race, the idea that all the slaves had to do was wait a quarter century and see what happened will meet some opposition, isn't that obvious?
The point of mentioning the Douglas Blackmon book was to provide just one source that suggested that the South continue to use what was slave labor even after the Civil war ended.
So let's rehash, I appreciated your response, you are upset because I disagree. I point out some contradictory evidence to the end of slavery position that you have and you don't care if I have multiple Pulitzer prize winners. I think the actual experience here in the South trumps the experience of events in other countries.
Again, we disagree, but I do appreciate the exchange.
June 19, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Quinn said, your post is built upon a misreading of the other posts by desidero.
June 19, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
...........NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE CIVIL WAR WAS A BAD IDEA. MAYBE IT WAS WORTH IT - TO FREE THE SLAVES EARLIER AND PAY IN BLOOD
Suppose we argue, that the country could have waited for the British to eventually relinquish control and free the American colonies. The Revolutionary War would not have had to have been fought. Several African countries and India had that experience. Was the Revolutionary War worth the effort?
Despite the Revolutionary War there is no hatred of the British today. Despite imprisoning Japanese-Americans in camps in the United States during WWII, there does not appear to be the same degree of ethnic bias as is directed towards African-Americans. I don't think the War Between The States explains the lingering anti-Black racism in the United States.
June 19, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 19, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
...........Baby steps, but I think we are getting somewhere.
...........You are starting to get it.
How condescending of you.
---------
but are we talking personal experiences with racism or observed events?
June 19, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was not trying to be condescending (though I see your point as in how it came across). Baby steps - as in I knew there was no logical way you could think Des sexist and there had to have been another issue that caused your reaction. You are starting to get it - as in acknowledging that I saw the beginnings of *some* common ground between where you ended up and where Des was originally. Sometimes when people are really they lose perspective of the other person's side of the argument and just start vilifying them. You hear what you think they are saying rather than what they are actual saying. I was not a part of the TPM Civil War, but those were my thoughts after reading those threads.
And personally, I was never (directly) called the N word in Savannah, but I have been in Staten Island. And yeah, I've observed one or two or a ton of racist events in Staten Island. So I don't think the North has inherent moral superiority to the South on race issues. And I tend to judge people as individuals, not their accent or their ancestry.
June 19, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
In mentioning Pennsylvania as Alabama, I did think I acknowledged Northern racism.
The fact that Al Sharpton gained his view of race in New York City along with the turmoil that arises when an unarmed Black citizen or undercover police officer is shot by NYPD or other agencies also provides evidence of the racial strife in the North.
To me, parts of the "intellectual" argument about the Civil War are frankly, idiotic. Let's argue that the colonists should have waited until the British decided that the colonies should be freed. Other countries waited for Britain to free them why not the US? The Revolutionary War was unnecessary.
I think that having Jeremiah Wright discuss Black and Jewish relations or Gingrich, McCain, or Ensign discuss martial fidelity would be outrageous. That is how Desidero comes across to me in his view of the South. Especially when HIS initial response referred to equine defecation.
The Douglas Blackmon book was mentioned because it details how slave conditions persisted after the Civil War in the South. Those conditions wrre standard operating procedure up to WWII. So I have at least some evidence that a form of slavery persisted much longer than the 25 years without a Civil War argued by some. That evidence I believe is more powerful than the argument that some other country abolished slavery peacefully.
I am not the one rejecting facts, as in "I don't care how many Pulitzer Prize winners you have."
Every response that I got was negative, and yet I thanked one person for his response and pointed out where I disagreed with others. The person I thanked attacked said that I thought that my view was the only one. Since I was willing to continue talking to people who disagreed with me, I obviously was not unwilling to exchange points of view. Those on the other side are as rigid and arrogant as they find me to be.
I enjoy Harry Turtledove alternative histories, I just disagree with many interpretations offered by Desidero.
June 19, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink