A popular feature and one we got a lot of e-mails asking for this week. Dona said, "Keep it short. We need short pieces." And we're all trying to avoid last week's nightmare edition. Ty works the e-mails more than any one else, so he's pulled the ones included here.
"How we got to this point" resulted in a lot of positive e-mails. Marcia wrote one of the most passionate noting that the Ann Coulter moment "did accept, from most libs, the construct that gay was evil, wrong, bad or not as good. The defenders were as offensive to me as Coulter. Thank you for including that." Rod wanted to wanted to know if Jess was afraid of pissing his father off. ("A Note to Our Readers" explained some of the portions pulled, as did Mike's "Sunsara Taylor, Third Estate Sunday Review.")
Jess: It wouldn't have been a problem like that but my dad had the same question as Rod. The point in pulling the prison sections is that this is a very serious issue and it's a very big issue to my father. What was originally written was strong in that section. In terms of editing it down, the sun was already up by then and I didn't want to take a serious subject and screw it up because I was tired. Would my dad have been pissed? No, but I wouldn't want him disappointed. Pissed I can handle but knowing how important this issue is to him, I'd rather pull it then disappoint him. He thinks it gets enough bad coverage as it is.
On the same feature and on "Parody: Mud Flap Gals," Jen05 e-mailed the dissenting voice saying she thought it was sad that the Mud Flap Gals are under attack.
Rebecca: I'm grabbing this and anyone can go after. C.I. and I have argued for years about whether or not it is "good" for feminism, the term, to be popularized by everyone using it? While it does make it easier for others to use it, it's also true that some who use it don't necessarily agree on it. C.I. would say, "That's because feminism has many different branches." That's true. But I'm not in the mood for the weak branches. I'm not in the mood for things that hurt feminism. Feminism is a system of beliefs. So many have come along and said, "I'm a feminist!" And they seem to think it means something small and tiny -- such as "I can wear whatever I want" -- and only that. It's a great deal more than that and it gets distorted far too often.
Elaine: I'll jump in while Rebecca's taking a breath or done and note this really is a topic that Rebecca and C.I. have strongly disagreed on over the years. The three of us have been friends forever and the easiest way to start an argument is to pursue this topic. Rebecca's opinion is valid and so is C.I.'s -- and I don't just say that now, or when an argument's going on, to avoid the fireworks -- but we have seen something really sad develop. Take Madonna, whom I consider a no talent. In real time, she was called out. Now days, there are feminists who seem to be the children of Madonna and find her the height of feminism. I believe that's the kind of danger Rebecca saw. And it is a serious problem. I don't think feminism is factoring in.
C.I.: Well, one point that Rebecca's made consistently is that this nonsense of all choices are feminism is nonsense. I agree with her on that. Feminism is about everyone having the right to choose for themselves. When people extend that to every choice is a feminist choice, no, it's not. Some choices are very much backlash and hurt other women. Feminism, my opinion, being about choices should be looked at as free speech. Both give you the right, but not everything is worthy of praise. And one thing that's really hit home over the last few years, and I've told Rebecca she was right and I was wrong on this about a year ago, is that a lot of 'feminists' are doing damage. Now in terms of the Mud Flap Girls that Jen05 is writing of, she's taking two different pieces and seeing them as the same thing. That may or may not be accurate. One, however, is clearly billed as a parody. The other is in response to Martha, a Common Ills community member, being very upset that Maryscott O'Connor, who runs a political blog for the left My Left Wing -- -- was being pulled as a link from various sites that linked to her. Martha's point was that the Mud Flap Gals are being linked to by political sites and she didn't understand why that was happening at a time when O'Connor -- and others at her site -- address issues like Iraq? That's a good question. Should supposed political sites be dropping the woman that's actually addressing issues but keeping the site that's consumed with what Vanity Fair tossed on the cover? A site that has nothing to say about Iraq? It's a valid question. In the essay, we're addressing that question and how, when the token links go to the Mud Flap Gals -- which is more than just one site -- it does give the impression that women are superficial, obsess over sex and consumerism and don't have any thoughts about a larger world around them. When a voice like O'Connor is purged but the Mud Flap Gals are kept, by political sites, that's sending a message which appears to suggest that a sleight paragraph or two better represents women than does a woman like O'Connor who rips herself apart, or appears to, as she tries to address Iraq and other topics. On the parody, my opinion it captured those sites perfectly, it's intended as humor. If you didn't find it funny, I'm guessing Jen05 didn't, then you didn't find it funny. Rebecca's dubbed this type, offline, the Madonna babies and they came of age around the time of the Porn Wars. You had a wide variety of opinions on the topics of pornography and erotica and that was largely reduced to one group screaming "Prude!" at the other. The second you come out on the side of sexuality -- which the other large group was not against -- you win the approval of men and end up with one of those "Women We Like" Esquire features. The reality is those sounding the alarms about pornography were not "prudes." They had very serious, very real concerns -- and that debate is not over and will flare up again. But it was an easy out for some women, who identify as feminists, to scream "Prude!" and win the approval of men. They would point to some right-wing, Christian group, who for different reasons, supported a measure some feminists did and accuse those feminists of being in league with that group of right-wingers. The New York Times fave 'feminist' of the 90s was in the "Prude" screaming group -- and that woman is no feminist -- but you didn't hear the feminists seriously concerned about pornography saying, "You're just like C--- P---!" If the ones who screamed "Prude" are bothered now by some of the current fashions, and some are, I've heard them complain, they have only themselves to blame. They won't own up to it, but it's true. They boiled a multi-faceted discussion down to "Prude!" and passed themselves off as the sexual beings who were pro-free speech unlike those "prudes." They distorted what was at stake and I think a number of the Madonna babies came of age with a very poor understanding of the period that preceded.
Jim: Are you offended by the fashions today?
C.I.: No. I could care less what anyone else wears. But I have heard some of the "prude" screamers talk about that. And it's always interesting because they never connect it back to the own climate their writing created.
Jim: Jen05 was especially offended by the parody and the remarks about an upcoming book.
C.I.: My reply: "Too damn bad." That book put out by a feminist press could feature a nude woman, in full on the cover, and make a point about our bodies and body images and much more. That book put out by a non-feminist press, with that photo which is about titillation and that title which is doing the same thin,g is exploitation. We'd call it that if a man did it and it's the same thing coming from a woman. It's not 'reclaiming' sexual objectifying -- as if that's a goal a feminist should stride towards. It's just sexual objectifying. It didn't make anyone working for the publisher nervous. When Gloria Steinem posed, fully clothed, for Moving Beyond Words, it made the publisher nervous because of the stance she was sitting in. Tossing a portion of a naked woman on the cover isn't feminism. It's using sex, which generally means using women's bodies, to sell a product. That a woman wrote the book doesn't make the cover any less objectifying. Maybe the woman thinks the book's cover follows in the footsteps of Germaine Greer? If so, I never found Greer to be that much of a feminist. Even before she entered her own personal backlash, she was cooing and flirting with men she was supposed to be debating. I believe the big debate, at Town Hall in NYC, prompted no discussion of the issues afterwards, just wonderment over whether Greer and Norman Mailer hit the sack after.
Dona: And I'll jump in because I personally find the Mud Flap Gals offensive. I've seen the guys who giggle over those sites and use words like "Slutty" and "Smutty" and when I identify as a feminist to a group of people my age, there's always some moron in the bunch who'll bring up one of those sites with a leer often backed up with some really bad come on.
C.I.: In fairness --
Jim: Everyone just exploded with groans.
C.I.: Well let me just insert this and then we can go back to the conversation; however, Dona, this is already not a short piece. But in fairness, it needs to be noted that it's when other voices are eliminated, such as O'Connor's voice, and the Mud Flap Gals are all that is promoted that the stereotype sets in. The fact that every male political blogger in the world seems to feel the need to link to that site as opposed to women like O'Connor makes that appear to be "the" voice of feminism.
Dona: And that's a good point and I agree with it. But I also think it's true that the Mud Flap Gals are immature sites. I mean, Sandra Day O'Connor has announced she's retiring and day in and day out they're blogging about their vacation? It's superficial, it's immature. They're like my sister when she was 12, trying to be naughty for attention. But my kid sister outgrew that phase.
Jim: Anyone else want to jump in?
Kat: If Jen05 thinks she's offended by last week's edition, she certainly doesn't want to hear my thoughts on it.
Betty: I'll just toss out, and I'm glad Ava and C.I. included this in their review of Madonna's concert, we hadn't talked about it beforehand and it was one of those moments where I was really hoping they'd address something but not sure they were aware of it, Madonna's really not the 'friend' to the Black community people seem to think she is -- in her work. I don't know her personally. In her work, there's been a lot of stereotypes and, certainly in her documentary, stereotypes abound. I just want to add that because there's a whole other level going on that's often overlooked.
Ava: Well, I'll jump in. I agree with Dona 100%. If you're a woman and you're trying to address issues seriously, the last thing you need to hear is what smutty little thing the Mud Flaps did today. I don't think they are the face of young feminism and I'm bothered by the fact that so many men seem to think they are. What Dona talked about, the way other male students will look at you because of that crap, I get even more than Dona because toss in that I'm Latina and that's runs with the "Latin spitfire" or whatever other nonsense. I've got more on my mind than sex. And I come alive and come out fighting on more issues than just abortion. I'm strongly pro-choice. I'm strongly against the illegal war. But the Mud Flaps only seem to get their Flaps in a wad when the issue can be taken back to sex. And I'll never forget hearing, on campus, about that stupid post they did on the idiot woman who attended an Abu Ghraib hearing carrying the book C**t which they seemed to find delightful, a real "You go, girl!" moment. It wasn't. But it did lead to two men pressing in close and asking me if I was turned on by Abu Ghraib as well? I think they do far too much damage and never get called out on it. I'm with Rebecca, the term is not elastic, feminism, and it's not just 'every woman should do what she wants.' Some choices hurt other women. You have the right to make them, as C.I. was saying, just like you have the right to use your free speech, but don't try to pass it off as feminism.
Dona: I'll just back that up by noting that the same guys who would think they were flirting with me re: Mud Flap would just crowd Ava. With me, they gave me my space. With Ava, and it did have to do with her ethnicity because they'd usually toss out a reference to that, they wouldn't just leer from a distance, they'd be crowding her. Just to finish this out, unless someone else has something to add, as long term readers know, Ava will be a little more reserved. That's when she's with friends or people she's not sure of. With friends, she'll wait her turn. But from the start, the first day I met Ava, she's never had a problem telling some creep to get the hell away in much stronger language than that. One guy reached over and grabbed her breast, this was the first week I knew her, and Ava hauled off and punched him out. She gave him a bloody nose. I love to tell that story because people always assume Ava's this delicate flower and, you push her and you'll see really quick that isn't the case.
Ava: Well all the women in my family are feminists. And that sort of thing was drilled into me, how you don't just gasp or scream and run off -- because he's probably going to chase after you. But in terms of punching, that's my father. The women in family taught me, and I'm talking when I was very little, that you use your knee on their groin. In 3rd grade, there was some little creep running around the play ground grabbing girls' butts and my father said, "Forget the groin, punch him in the nose, make it bleed and he'll back off." And he drilled it in, where to hit. I don't normally hit people. But if someone's grabbing my butt or breasts or is threatening me, I will haul off and give them a bloody nose. And I want to be clear that you can talk about sex in a feminist way. But I don't think you write smutty little posts. Leave that crap, the whole zipless fuck, to Erica Jong whom, for the record, I've never considered a feminist.
Ty: I just want to note that 8 women e-mailed about the crap they have to put up with on campus because of that kind of writing and the fact that it's promoted as feminism. When I read those, that was the first I was aware of it. But I promised Roberta we would address it some form so I guess that takes care of it.
Okay, the next e-mail was from Nicholas who wanted more music covered and also wanted to know when Kat was going to "finally" do another review.
Kat: Well, I've just done one. It'll be up here, reposted, and it's already at The Common Ills. In terms of music, the gang wrote an intro for the piece that addresses music coverage here.
Wally: And we're still hoping to do a thing on David Rovics DVD and a thing on Dolly Parton's singles.
Mike: And Ava and C.I. review a music special this week.
Next question was do you have any real regrets about anything that's gone up here. That was from Matthew?
Jim: Not a bit.
Jess: I think when we have a regret it's that we had to cut something or we didn't go far enough.
Dona: And Kat and I were talking about this last week in a way, we were noting that it's written in the present, if you're talking about criticism. We say what's on our mind. Kat compared it to EST. We get it out and we're usually done with it if the person being criticized moves on. If they repeat the same behavior that infuriates us, the criticism repeats.
Cedric: Betty has a regret.
Betty: I really do. C.I. and I both did. The same feature.
Jim: What was it?
Betty: I figured it wouldn't be remembered. When the Diana Ross retrospective was written, C.I. and I both enjoy her music and we weren't expecting the piece to turn out the way it did.
Jim: Really?
Betty: Really and we expressed that but it seemed to sail over heads. What we would have liked was something, anything, just a paragraph even, that would have reflected what we did enjoy about her work. And it's a strong piece and the overall points are good. I'm not saying pull any of them. But I felt like it could have had something and C.I. offered, "A list of some her strong solo tracks?" and I immediately agreed to that. It would have been nice because even on her worst albums, for me, I can find a track I like. But the point was she'd made a lot of bad albums and that's a strong point and not one that I disagree with. But, yeah, that's the only time I ever considered saying, "Don't put my name on it." I don't disagree with it, I want to be really clear about that, but I did fill like it could have had something else with it.
Jim: Well I am sorry about that and we can put a Diana tracks thing on a future list of features to do. I wish I'd caught on before we put it up.
Cedric: I didn't catch on until the next day. Then I called C.I. because I didn't want to bother Betty at work and I said, "I'm only now registering the comments you and Betty were making, you two weren't pleased were you?" That's how I found out. If you think about it, you'll remember they were being loud about this, it wasn't a case of them not speaking out, but it was being treated by the rest of us, including me, as a joke.
Betty: We just felt, C.I. and me, that the point being made was she wasn't really an album artist for the majority of her career and, within the text, some songs were noted that were strong on each album. We just felt like that should have been emphasized at the end. We weren't sure it was. Then when it got the title --
Ty: That Jim and I did.
Betty: Yes, it was like, "Ooo-kay . . ." Again, it wasn't a case of disagreeing or thinking, "Well they are wrong." It was a case of feeling that it needed something more. Now everyone was tired and that played into it and I can live with it and think there are many strong points in it. I reread that feature. I enjoy it. I just wished it had contained a listing like "Top 10 tracks" or "Top 20 tracks."
Dona: C.I. want to add to Betty's comments?
C.I.: I think she's made her comments very well. The track list would have been a good idea because we were dealing with a Motown artist, someone who grew up at Motown, and the label didn't generally produce album artists. Of the 60s performers, my opinion is Stevie Wonder was the only albums artist. I don't think Marvin Gaye was. I think it goes to the fact that the single was the most important thing to Motown. 60s' 'albums' were rarely albums. They were plucking songs from recent sessions, older sessions, and just tossing it on a disc and calling it an album. I think Marvin Gaye could make a good album and that Marvin could make a lot of stuff, I'm referring to the post 60s period, that didn't qualify as an album. Smokey Robinson had even less success, my opinion. Stevie Wonder has a few bad albums in his discography but even when you're dealing with those that didn't quite pull it off, you're still aware that they are albums. His worst album, you can listen to it and appreciate what he's striving for, grasp it even though it doesn't come to pass. So to deal with a singles artist, like Diana Ross was groomed to be, a list could have made that point. But it was a long piece, and Betty and I both knew that, what were we covering -- over 50 albums?
Betty: Right. So to steal from Kat, "It is what it is." But that's the only time I had a regret and as Jess was saying earlier, it wasn't over anything said. It was over something not being said, due to time mainly. That was a really long piece.
Our last e-mail will be the one from Chuck who feels that Kat's "NOW members endorse Dennis Kucinich" (Kat's Korner -- Kat wrote it, we signed on), Elaine's "I endorse Dennis Kucinich for the 2008 primary" and Rebecca's "this now member is endorsing kucinich" was the entire community endorsing Kucinich. He's offended by that and says he's supporting Hillary.
Mike: Well I haven't endorsed anyone and Kat wrote "NOW members endorse Dennis Kucinich" but a number of women signed onto it.
Jess: And I'll note, I'm a Green. I haven't endorsed any Democrat.
Dona: Kat's entry reads "of The Third Estate Sunday Review," it reads: "Dona and Ava of The Third Estate Sunday Review." It does not read "Dona and Ava for The Third Estate Sunday Review." That was us doing a thing by ourselves.
Kat: I think Chuck needs to get a life. C.I. didn't sign on. C.I.'s name isn't listed as a sign on and I made a point to includes "notes" with that post and I make it very clear that C.I. isn't signing on to it.
Elaine: NOW PAC, not NOW, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. NOW can't legally endorse. But everyone's going to confuse the two. I had said no when Kat called me about it. My reason for saying "no" was that I really wasn't interested in doing an endorsement. Kat understood and it wasn't a problem for us. After I got off the phone, I started to blog and was thinking about it. NOW had removed the dove and the slogan "Peace is a feminist issue" from their website. Then NOW PAC goes an endorses War Hawk Hillary. Dennis Kucinich is the only one standing up for peace. As someone who believes in peace, believes in what Kucinich is saying, it made no sense for me to refrain from signing. I needed to stand up for peace. So I finished my post and called Kat to ask her if it was too late to sign on. If Chuck's bothered, that was one of the reasons I didn't want to endorse. But I don't regret doing it and would do it again.
Rebecca: I'll just say that I have endorsed at my website before and will do so again. When Kat called, I said, "You bet!" She said, "I'm working on the statement and I'll call you back." I said, "Kat, you're going to be calling everyone to get them to sign on. Just put my signature down and call me when it's up." I think Kat did a great job and think the choice to include the excerpt from Ava and C.I.'s review as brilliant because it was exactly what they predicted in 2005.
Betty: I'm going to talk about something and if C.I. wants to pull this, that's fine with me. I was for Hillary before the speech about if you need someone against the war you can look elsewhere. When I was for Hillary, I was very well aware that others weren't or might not be. I was really moving strongly towards her. I called C.I. and shared that and shared that I was worried it would be a problem. I was told it wouldn't be -- and it wasn't. No one here criticized me for it or ragged on me about it. But on the phone, I was explaining my reasons and C.I. said, "I'm not going to tell you who to support but Hillary Clinton does have some good qualities and if you're feeling that you're choice is seen as wrong, we can go over them. And we can do that with any candidate." And C.I. proceeded to go over good qualities with me. I have no idea who C.I. will support, I couldn't even guess. But I do know that when I was for Hillary, I got support from everyone. And when I was afraid that I wouldn't, C.I. was more than happy to listen to my reasons for supporting Hillary and to offer other qualities she had that were good qualities for a president. There was no attempt to change my mind or to embarrass me. I was undecided between Kucinich and John Edwards and I made my choice last week. I'd still be on the fence if NOW PAC hadn't forced a decision with their own endorsement. But I'm proud of my decision and proud to be supporting Kucinich. [Note before the e-mails come in: C.I. said there was no reason to pull Betty's statement.]