Feminists Are Wrong Because They’re Ugly

And they’re totally not funny, too!

Not sure what’s going on lately with the trend of bashing feminists for not being hot enough to have opinions. Or, scratch that: it’s not “lately,” and it’s not just feminists. This is a regular argument to discount the opinions of just about any woman. Of course, liberals — especially feminists — are more likely to bite their tongues when it comes to physical appearance, but women from all political views get attacked for not being attractive enough to speak their minds.

But feminists seem to get it the worst, because the charge of “You’re only a feminist because you can’t get a man” isn’t as easily lobbed at other people. The “you are so not hot” insult tends to be coupled with accusations of lesbianism (which should be even more of an insult than being called ugly, apparently) and man-hating. And, occassionally, cat-loving.

For the record, I hate cats.

The immediate reaction is to say, “But that’s not true! Feminists are totally hot!” Which is certainly true in a lot of cases. And putting up pictures of conventionally attractive feminists is helpful only because it directly refutes the “feminists are ugly” insult.

But that doesn’t make it a very good argument, considering that feminism, like any other belief system, includes a cross-section of people from just about all walks of life. It includes some people who are conventionally attractive, and some people who aren’t. Big friggin deal.

So the problem isn’t with the truth or un-truth of the statement itself, because it’s so easily proven false. It’s with what the statement is intended to do: To shame women out of expressing themselves by emphasizing that the most valuable thing a woman has is her looks, and to steer women away from feminism by marking it as an ugly woman’s viewpoint. Check out how certain anti-feminist women use their physical appearance to gain credibility if you need further evidence.

This is something that men simply don’t have to deal with. Are men occassionally mocked for being unattractive? Sure. But it usually doesn’t affect how credible we think they are. It doesn’t usually affect their job prospects. And it definitely doesn’t affect their perceived right to hold particular political beliefs.

For an easy example, look at how many female TV newscasters are older, or conventionally unattractive. Then look at how many male TV newscasters are older and/or conventionally unattractive. We trust old ugly men to give us our news because, on men, wrinkles mean “experience” and “intelligence.” Male TV journalists can have careers that span decades. Women just can’t; they’re largely ornamental.

This, unfortunately, replays itself even in the blogosphere. The authoritative male voice rules even here, and the pretty girls (who must post pictures to prove it) finish first — just look at blog rankings.

So when I see fellow feminist bloggers being shamed for their apparent unattractiveness — and I should further point out here that no one, no matter how attractive, can win the prettiness game when their photo is put on on the internet for the express purpose of mockery — it bothers me, and not just because I’m one of the people who occassionally has the “you’re ugly” insult hurled at her. It’s because this is a place where we’re supposed to be on slightly more equal footing. Everyone here, in theory, is evaluated only by how strong we are as writers, and how interesting people find us. For me, it’s not even a question of how highly we rank, or how many hits we get. It’s how well we’re able to establish a community here, how faithful our readership is, and how engaging our conversations are. Given those standards, I’d say we’ve been quite successful. So has Pandagon, and so has Rox (we’ve all also had the dumb luck of doing fairly well in the rankings game). Even given that, we’re still not consistently evaluated on the same terms as the boy bloggers. (I don’t recall anyone ever telling Atrios that he’s a liberal because chicks don’t dig him.) What excited me about blogging from the get-go was that it felt different from the kinds of journalism I had done before. It was group work; it was community-oriented; I could bring in components of my personality, but I was being judged entirely on what I wrote and not how well I delivered it, or what I looked like when I was saying it. That’s part of why I find the infiltration of these kinds of sexist cultural values into the blogosphere (I hate that word, someone think of a new one) to be very troublesome.

No one is hiring us. We aren’t on camera. Some of us voluntarily post pictures as a way of connecting with our readers, but we aren’t here to win — or even participate in — any beauty contests. So how is it that we’re losing?


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

151 comments for “Feminists Are Wrong Because They’re Ugly

  1. April 2, 2006 at 11:45 pm

    If I may be brief: fuck ’em.

  2. April 3, 2006 at 12:16 am

    Remember, the royal flush in this soon-to-be bloated comment thread comes in a five-word string: “Sean Connery, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Entrapment.”

    And, to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure that trip to the Ecosystem taught me anything. It’s a lot like the Biosphere, and the Bio-Dome.

  3. April 3, 2006 at 3:28 am

    I know I’ve seen the accusation that men who support feminism (whether they accept the label or not) are “only doing it to score” but I don’t know if it’s a slam on their looks or their masculinity in general.

  4. Bobby
    April 3, 2006 at 3:51 am

    [img]http://www.thecry.com/existentialism/debeauvoir/simone3.jpg[/img]

    Now that is hot

    [img]http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.data.image.f/f782426a.jpg[/img]

    This guy on the other hand clearly needs to get laid

  5. April 3, 2006 at 7:52 am

    The answer to your larger question here is fairly simple. They attack extraneous, personal details because they can’t address the arguments. So they grasp at straws, contort, foam at the mouth, gin up faux outrage, etc.

  6. April 3, 2006 at 8:42 am

    Well, women exist only to fuck, so if they’re unattractive, they don’t deserve any of those them there rights, do they?

  7. April 3, 2006 at 9:10 am

    One tiny quibble; you say attractiveness “doesn’t usually affect job prospects” for men. In fact, studies have indicated that attractiveness is more highly correlated with income for men than for women. So men (at least those of us who aren’t gorgeous) should be even more interested in stamping out this emphasis on appearance than women.

  8. Dreamweasel
    April 3, 2006 at 10:42 am

    “So how is it that we’re losing?”

    It’s a sexist double standard that affects all aspects of life, not just in American society but pretty much everywhere. The sick part of it is that for many men (particuarly the ones who lash out at feminism), it’s an either-or dichotomy: you’re either an ugly, man-hating bitch or a hot babe they’d like to fuck. Either way, it’s a way to assert their superiority, and your humanity is successfully suppressed.

  9. Chet
    April 3, 2006 at 11:52 am

    In fact, studies have indicated that attractiveness is more highly correlated with income for men than for women. So men (at least those of us who aren’t gorgeous) should be even more interested in stamping out this emphasis on appearance than women.

    Confusion of correlation with causality. It may simply be the case that male attractiveness is a function of the appearance of wealth, prosperity, influence, etc.

  10. Matan
    April 3, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    It’s a sexist double standard that affects all aspects of life, not just in American society but pretty much everywhere. The sick part of it is that for many men (particuarly the ones who lash out at feminism), it’s an either-or dichotomy: you’re either an ugly, man-hating bitch or a hot babe they’d like to fuck. Either way, it’s a way to assert their superiority, and your humanity is successfully suppressed.

    I’d actually take it further. In this discourse The solution to man-hating women is to fuck them, too. Not for one’s own pleasure, mind. Just to set them straight (yes, in a patriarchically heteronormative sense).

    I really cannot count the times I’ve heard men around me claim that screwing a woman who inconveniences them is the solution. On the other hand, this is an industry where we frequently have fantasies of massacring people who piss us off. Of course, those are jokes, where the stuff directed against women…I’m not so sure.

  11. Josh
    April 3, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    (I don’t recall anyone ever telling Atrios that he’s a liberal because chicks don’t dig him.)

    It’s not nearly as prevalent as the “you’re only a feminist because you can’t get a date” slur, but right-wingers do sometimes assert that men who sympathize with feminists are just doing it to get laid.

  12. April 3, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    The answer to your larger question here is fairly simple. They attack extraneous, personal details because they can’t address the arguments.

    Unlike Rox, who posted pics of Pee Wee Herman to represent me, or Amanda Marcotte, who is constantly going on about my tiny dicks and high school popularity.

    Oh. And the criticism of me being a stay-at-home dad? That shit is very substantive. And so pro feminist!

  13. Dianne
    April 3, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    …going on about my tiny dicks

    If you have more than one (natural) dick of any size, go see a urologist so he or she can write a case report: most men only have one. They could also take the spare(s) off if you don’t want it/them.

    (Sorry, not on topic, I know, but I couldn’t resist.)

  14. April 3, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    Oh. And the criticism of me being a stay-at-home dad? That shit is very substantive. And so pro feminist!

    In hindsight, I do see how the tagline on the parody site could be interpreted as a slap at the fact that you’re a stay-at-home dad. I saw the parody site before it was officially launched, and that didn’t even occur to me. I interpreted “Stay home and spew” as the equivalent of “Sit at home on the computer” — as in, a general joke about bloggers who sit on their asses and write constantly (myself included), not a reflection of your parental status.

    However, it was brought to my attention after the site was launched that other liberal blogs had given you shit for being a SAHD. I didn’t have much of a role in the parody site — I looked it over, read some of the posts before they were published, and thought the Molly Bloom award was clever — but I really think that if Rox or any of the other feminists involved in putting the site together had realized how that would be interpreted, they would have changed it. I do hope that you can accept our contention that it wasn’t meant to criticize you for being a SAHD. I didn’t think it was. From talking to some of the contributors afterwards, it seems that no one even thought it would be interpreted that way.

    That said, we probably should have been a little more self-aware on that point. But no feminist worth his or her salt would criticize a stay-at-home father for making that choice.

  15. Lux Fiat
    April 3, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    I know I’ve seen the accusation that men who support feminism (whether they accept the label or not) are “only doing it to score” but I don’t know if it’s a slam on their looks or their masculinity in general.

    If anything, it would be a slam on their masculinity. Men, in my experience, don’t mock each other for their substandard looks. Especially among the sort of men who would be casting that aspersion, looks aren’t discussed, ’cause if you’re paying attention to another dude’s looks, you’re totally gay.

    I don’t think it’s even that, though. Saying that men who support feminism are just in it to get laid is just an extension of the broader conception of women as the sex class. As in: you don’t talk to a chick unless a) you have to for work or at a social gathering or something, or b) you want to get her in the sack. So if you, as a dude, vocally support feminism, you’re saying positive things about women you don’t have to, so you’re trying to get them in the sack. Q.E.D. If you believe that a woman’s place is prone, you’re going to view every interaction between genders through that lens.

  16. Josh
    April 3, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    Oh. And the criticism of me being a stay-at-home dad? That shit is very substantive.

    Not nearly as substantive as jokes about Oliver Willis eating ribs.

  17. Josh Jasper
    April 3, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    Cats hate you too.

  18. April 3, 2006 at 7:36 pm

    And they say Feminists don’t have a sense of humor!!!

    You guys _do_ realize that that entire thing was a joke, right?

    http://www.moveonandshutup.org/?q=i_am_the_great_opressor

  19. April 3, 2006 at 7:49 pm

    Ha ha ha.

  20. piny
    April 3, 2006 at 7:59 pm

    You guys _do_ realize that that entire thing was a joke, right?

    You do realize that a parody doesn’t work if it’s indistinguishable from the real thing, right?

    And Dan? You’re not the Great Oppressor. You’re not even Murky Dismal. Jill was commenting on a trend that you apparently have noticed yourself, not announcing to the world that you’re its worst offender.

  21. April 3, 2006 at 8:40 pm

    reading comprehension is so 9/10

  22. April 3, 2006 at 9:02 pm

    Piny, come on. Seriously, the post was a joke, the second post was a joke, and the “I am the great opressor” thing is clearly sarcasm.

    Come on folks, it was april fools day. I certianly can’t help you guys determine what is meant as a joke and what isn’t. I just have to trust that you’re smart enough to figure it out on your own.

    So laugh at it or be disgusted. Either way, walk it off.

  23. April 3, 2006 at 9:24 pm

    The stay at home and spew thing is in reference to Jeff’s cowardice and chickenhawkery. I made it up. I’m not interested in mocking stay at home dads. Chickenhawks, however, are fair game.

    As for small dick jokes, I don’t have much of an excuse. I make them not because I care, but mostly because Jeff is trying to act like a big man and I know it bugs him to point out that he’s a coward. I shouldn’t reference masculine definitions of bravery, but trying to speak the idiot’s language.

    That said, I will point out that I don’t make small dick jokes on my blog. I go over to Jeff’s and shoot them off at him to piss him off. It’s not a laughing behind the back thing for my readers to pretend like they’re one to judge. Mano y mano insult. These ridiculous slams at the looks of conventionally attractive women, however, are made in the traditional chickenhawk manner. Jeff makes them on his site where he and the cowards can have a big game of Pretend We’re Studs but don’t actually take it to our blogs because they know reality would be a big slap in the face.

  24. Lowly Knave
    April 3, 2006 at 10:37 pm

    I’d like to marry a feminist. One with a dowry.

  25. colklink
    April 3, 2006 at 10:48 pm

    Amanda, who hurt you, sweety?

  26. April 3, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    These ridiculous slams at the looks of conventionally attractive women, however, are made in the traditional chickenhawk manner. Jeff makes them on his site where he and the cowards can have a big game of Pretend We’re Studs but don’t actually take it to our blogs because they know reality would be a big slap in the face.

    Ohhhhhh Amanda. Tell ya what: You come up here Chicago (I don’t leave large metros, by rule) and I’ll buy you dinner. We can talk about your anger. Come on, I’ll even take you to the best $22 martini place I can find.

    Um. I uh. Won’t make out with you. No matter what you say.

  27. Lowly Knave
    April 3, 2006 at 11:06 pm

    Amanda,

    Not all of us are “studs”. Some of us have difficulty communicating with women that are constantly angry, thus, we become “Chickenhawks”. But what exactly is a “Chickenhawk”? A male that is unmanly?

  28. April 3, 2006 at 11:42 pm

    I don’t get the problem. Why not just post a picture of some random hottie, claim it’s yours, and be done with it? If you can’t beat em, join em.

  29. April 3, 2006 at 11:58 pm

    Men don’t look down on Fem bloggers for being unattractive, after all, who can really be sure that say, Mensa Barbie, isn’t really a sweaty 260 lb. meatpacker from Milwaukee?

    Men look down on feminists and other liberals for lacking a sense of humor.

  30. piny
    April 4, 2006 at 12:36 am

    Piny, come on. Seriously, the post was a joke, the second post was a joke, and the “I am the great opressor” thing is clearly sarcasm.

    No, it was sarcastic hyperbole meant to communicate the message that Jill is a hysterical bint who can’t take–or even recognize–a joke. I got what you were saying. I don’t think you’re in any shape to call other people on their inability to recognize sarcasm, Lurky.

  31. April 4, 2006 at 1:17 am

    Piny, I have only just arrived, but already, I feel like I totally don’t know you.

    BTW, Pliny called and he wants his scrolls back.

  32. April 4, 2006 at 6:04 am

    Come on folks, it was april fools day. I certianly can’t help you guys determine what is meant as a joke and what isn’t. I just have to trust that you’re smart enough to figure it out on your own.

    Too bad you weren’t smart enough to figure out how to spell the domain of this website. Or was that a joke, too?

  33. ZiPpo
    April 4, 2006 at 6:48 am

    Hmmm. Where is Bobby Riggs when you need him?

  34. April 4, 2006 at 7:48 am

    Oh no!! I missed the E!! It must mean that I’m dumb!!! I r teh 1d10t!

    Should we tell Jill how to spell “occasionally”?

  35. Veritas Regina
    April 4, 2006 at 11:46 am

    Here is what is unattractive: elitist Ladies who are so preocuppied with this mindless drivel that they aren’t demanding an end to Sharia law, Female Genital Mutilation, forced marriages, and “honor” killings. All it will take for evil to conquer is when good women do nothing.
    At present, the greatest liberator of women seems to be George W. Bush! Most “feminists” appear to be useless.

  36. April 4, 2006 at 11:55 am

    Here is what is unattractive: elitist Ladies who are so preocuppied with this mindless drivel that they aren’t demanding an end to Sharia law, Female Genital Mutilation, forced marriages, and “honor” killings. All it will take for evil to conquer is when good women do nothing.
    At present, the greatest liberator of women seems to be George W. Bush! Most “feminists” appear to be useless.

    Here’s what else is unattractive: People who bitch about “elitist Ladies” and our apparent lack of concern for the world’s women, but who clearly haven’t bothered to read this fucking blog.

    I know this may amaze you, but some of us are able to attack problems on multiple levels, and clean our own house at the same time that we criticize others.

  37. April 4, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    Well, when you’re done cleaning your house, my kitchen and bathrooms need some work.

  38. Stacy
    April 4, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    Here is what is unattractive: elitist Ladies who are so preocuppied with this mindless drivel that they aren’t demanding an end to Sharia law, Female Genital Mutilation, forced marriages, and “honor” killings.

    Bwa ha ha… someone read the parody of JeffG’s site and actually took it literally (“That’s the bestest talking point ever! I’m going to use it in every argument I have!”). Tool.

    Not all of us are “studs”. Some of us have difficulty communicating with women that are constantly angry, thus, we become “Chickenhawks”. But what exactly is a “Chickenhawk”? A male that is unmanly?

    LowleyKnaive: Totally different thing. A ChickenHawk is someone that promotes war, has no problem sending others to fight in war, but will not go (or have never been) themselves. Cheney is a good example of this. I suppose it could be seen as kind of a false studlyness, as in Cheney is beating his chest about war by day and then relaxing at home with a cocktail by night.

    Oh no!! I missed the E!! It must mean that I’m dumb!!!

    No Dan, you’re dumb because you honestly think that “parody” was (a) a parody or (b) original. There’s nothing remotely clever in that post of yours. It’s nothing new. Feminists have no sense of humor. Ho hum. Pass the remote.

    Look, the whole “(Bitch, girl, feminist) shut up and get (your ass, your bitch ass) into the kitchen and make me a (sandwich, pancakes, pie)” line was funny when Eric Cartmann said it on South Park back in 1997. And it was cute for a few years after, when someone with great timing could fit it into the right conversation. But now, when we find it on every 15 year old boy’s MySpace profile and it’s a staple joke in the high school cafeteria… I’m sorry, but it’s just not funny anymore. It’s old. It’s tired. It’s buried in my backyard with “Get ‘er done!” and Carrottop.

    On a side note, this situation always amuses me. Okay, I’m going to make a joke at the expense of some group (Actually, I’m going to make a barbed joke, because I believe what I’m actually saying here, and then when someone calls me on it, I’ll hide behind humor because I’m a coward). Then, when the group reacts badly, I’m going to piss and moan and whine and cry about it, all while accusing them of not having a sense of humor.

    Pfft.

    If little crybaby DanL, with such delicate sensibilities over whether or not people like his “joke”, had to be a woman or a feminist for even one day, he’d be shooting up the damn McDonalds by now in a blinding rage like the little whiney brat he is. Aw, sniff sniff… No one likes your bad joke, so now your nuts are in a twist? Please. Try walking down University Avenue sometime with me.

    Groups that are most often the target of “jokes” like that tend to develop a sense of humor pretty quick; it’s a survival tactic.

  39. Josh
    April 4, 2006 at 12:30 pm

    The trolls are really bringing teh funny today. “Clean my bathroom!” “Cook my meals!” “You’re ugly and I won’t make out with you!” Original insights delivered with subtle humor, every one.

  40. piny
    April 4, 2006 at 12:39 pm

    Piny, I have only just arrived, but already, I feel like I totally don’t know you.

    BTW, Pliny called and he wants his scrolls back.

    God, why does everyone think I’m referencing Pliny? It’s PINY, as in “piny-fresh,” and it’s a reference to the pungently sportif antiperspirant I slather on every morning. I have macho Alpine-scented armpits, not pretensions toward classical philosophy, you idiot.

  41. colklink
    April 4, 2006 at 12:47 pm

    Jill iZ t3h h0tttZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

  42. Veritas Regina
    April 4, 2006 at 1:09 pm

    Feminists aren’t wrong ’cause they’re ugly. They are wrong because they don’t have any new ideas. But it’s easier to blame your irrelevance on your looks –“those nasty boys don’t take me seriously ’cause I ain’t purty!” Puh-leeze!!!

  43. habbs
    April 4, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    Michael Moore always gets ripped on for being fat. As a matter of fact, I sometimes get ripped on for being fat, and I’m in reasonably good shape.

    Bush gets ripped on for looking like a chimp.

    Clinton’s relative attractiveness and it’s relationship to his election was widely discussed.

    I’m not sure if this is a real issue.

  44. karpad
    April 4, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    Stacy got it right, but I’m gonna extrapolate:

    Listen to the Jew here. we invented Comedy, that’s why we own hollywood. If someone doesn’t like a joke of yours, the WORST thing you can do is say “lighten up, it was a joke!” because they STILL won’t think it’s funny, and it makes you look like a tool. Never ever EVER explain a joke. now, that’s what you’ve done wrong here.

    what was wrong with your joke-blog in the first place is you don’t have a firm grasp of what comedy is. Comedy is Truth plus Pain. If all you have is pain, people won’t relate, and it’ll just seem like a string of insults, which is what you did. if you have truth without pain, all you have is the weather report. and remember, insulting yourself is always a million times funnier than insulting someone else. self-depreciation with a touch of the human condition, that’s what makes for comedy.

    Goofus: “You ladies need to realize that you can only be happy with a family, and the only way to get a family is to get over here on my dick!”

    Gallant: “While I have spent much of my carreer as a feminist, I realize now that women need strong men in their lives. To this end, I will now be referring to myself as Tom. I’m getting a sex change, and shall immediately begin solicitations for a suitable wife for my newly minted maleness.”

    Goofus: “You feminazis just want to cut off men’s balls to make necklaces”

    Gallant: “Liberal women are emasculating, and that’s why I love them. you see, I have a giant cock. 3 feet long, as thick as my arm. hauling around that 60 pound pillar of flesh is most uncomfortable, so I look forward to the day when some good, feminist woman will take pity on me and strike that abomination down. of course they won’t. because they hate men. but that’s why I have the breast implants and a wig, so I can trick the evil lesbian feminazis into cutting off my penis because they think I’m a woman.”

    Goofus: “boobies”

    Gallant: “Mukluk”

    you get it, kiddo?

  45. April 4, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    God, why does everyone think I’m referencing Pliny? It’s PINY, as in “piny-fresh,” and it’s a reference to the pungently sportif antiperspirant I slather on every morning. I have macho Alpine-scented armpits, not pretensions toward classical philosophy, you idiot.

    Trolls are dangerous things.

    But you lose for name calling. ;p

  46. Lowly Knave
    April 4, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    “LowleyKnaive: Totally different thing. A ChickenHawk is someone that promotes war, has no problem sending others to fight in war, but will not go (or have never been) themselves. Cheney is a good example of this. I suppose it could be seen as kind of a false studlyness, as in Cheney is beating his chest about war by day and then relaxing at home with a cocktail by night.”

    So you berate them for failing to be real men or what?

  47. April 4, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    So you berate them for failing to be real men or what?

    Funny how you missed the glaring hypocrisy there.

  48. April 4, 2006 at 4:47 pm

    FIrst, let me say that an attack on someone’s looks is almost always petty, juvenile and counterproductive. A casual observer can be excused for thinking that a looks-obsessed critic didn’t have a decent counter-argument to his opponent’s logic. If a woman raises an issue, and all you have to say is “you’re ugly,” I may (and probably will) assume you have nothing substantive to say in response. Andrea Dworkin said a great many outrageous things. You really don’t need to attack her looks to deal with her arguments. To that degree, I agree with the gist of your post.

    That said, it’s an unfortunate truth, but pretty people do indeed get extra “points” in the game of life just for being pretty. No one who’s spent much time looking into it can reasonably argue that most folks are not especially responsive to attractive people. The words of pretty people are simply more powerful. Their jokes are funnier. Their positions seem more reasonable. Attractive people are like real-life Jedi knights, running around telling us “these aren’t the policies you’re looking for.” Because of his special “hotness” powers, we really are more likely to believe Brad Pitt than we might believe, say, Steve Buscemi (all other things being equal).

    Some sociologists believe that attentiveness to attractive people is innate. Studies show, for exampe, that newborn babies spend the most time looking at the prettiest people. If it’s not innate, it’s definitely one of the earliest learned behaviors. We can complain about it, but it’s not going to change anytime soon.

    What really puzzles me, though, is that you (Jill) are here complaining about the “attractiveness bonus” when you’re out there on the far end of the “conventionally attractive” scale. If your theory is correct, then you’re a beneficiary, rather than a victim, of this phenomenon, such that your position comes off as more than just a little hollow.

    – Ragnar

  49. April 4, 2006 at 4:50 pm

    Raritus Vagina:

    Feminists aren’t wrong ‘cause they’re ugly. They are wrong because they don’t have any new ideas. But it’s easier to blame your irrelevance on your looks –”those nasty boys don’t take me seriously ‘cause I ain’t purty!” Puh-leeze!!!

    Tlaloc? Is that you?

  50. April 4, 2006 at 4:50 pm

    Oh Lord, just got caught up with this thread.

    Jill, I have nothing to add that I didn’t say in January, except that I too hate cats, and I’m reconsidering posting pics of myself.

  51. April 4, 2006 at 5:08 pm

    What really puzzles me, though, is that you (Jill) are here complaining about the “attractiveness bonus” when you’re out there on the far end of the “conventionally attractive” scale. If your theory is correct, then you’re a beneficiary, rather than a victim, of this phenomenon, such that your position comes off as more than just a little hollow.

    I think she would use the term “irony” with you. Although, per my theory, those aren’t really her pics. ;)

  52. Lowly Knave
    April 4, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    Hypocracy? Like the suggestion that I should like unattracive people more than attractive people? That would be similar me me listening to screaming angry people rather than a calm, coherent one.

  53. Stacy
    April 4, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    So you berate them for failing to be real men or what?

    No, you berate them for demanding that others make sacrifices that they are not willing to make themselves.

    The term doesn’t have anything to do with gender roles. It has to do with cowardice and credibility.

    Sorry, you’ll have to find something else to go after Amanda about. I don’t think the feminist “gotcha” you are trying to do is going to work. Try to define the terms correctly next time before you try to launch an attack.

    Funny how you missed the glaring hypocrisy there.

    I’ve a strong feeling it’s intentional. S/he desperately wants one us to take it up and say, “Yeah! That’s unmanly! Those unmanly wussies!” as an insult to Jeff’s commenters so that s/he can gloat about having to lecture the feminists (“angry women”) about our hypocritical sexist views on gender stereotypes.

  54. April 4, 2006 at 6:07 pm

    Plus, you know, misspelling hipocrisy is only funny on Protein Wisdom thanks to the inside joke.

  55. April 4, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    God, I’m on a spelling kick today.

  56. Lowly Knave
    April 4, 2006 at 6:14 pm

    God, I’m on a spelling kick today.

    Look it up again, Sweety.

  57. April 4, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    Jesus christ, I misspelled my own correction. I’m taking a nap now.

    Luckily, you made me laugh out loud. Bonus.

  58. Lowly Knave
    April 4, 2006 at 6:22 pm

    At least I didn’t misspell “Sweety” like “Sweaty”. That would have been aweful.

  59. April 4, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    Indede.

  60. April 4, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    What really puzzles me, though, is that you (Jill) are here complaining about the “attractiveness bonus” when you’re out there on the far end of the “conventionally attractive” scale. If your theory is correct, then you’re a beneficiary, rather than a victim, of this phenomenon, such that your position comes off as more than just a little hollow.

    Here’s the thing about beauty, though: No one, no matter what they look like, can meet everyone’s standards. I’ve been called ugly and fat and whatever else along with the rest of ’em. While there are recognizable beauty standards, there isn’t a a single static standard.

    As for the “you’re pretty so why do you care about beauty standards?” argument, that’s about as cogent as “You’re white, so why do you care about racism?”

    Additionally, just because in one person’s view I fit a particular standard doesn’t mean that I universally benefit from it.

  61. Adonis aka Lowly Knave
    April 4, 2006 at 6:32 pm

    No one, no matter what they look like, can meet everyone’s standards.

    And don’t I know it, sister.

  62. Tuomas
    April 4, 2006 at 7:17 pm

    No one, no matter what they look like, can meet everyone’s standards. I’ve been called ugly and fat and whatever else along with the rest of ‘em. While there are recognizable beauty standards, there isn’t a a single static standard.

    Of course. However, there is “sexual market value” (such value exists and is easily observable, no matter the PC protests people make against it): You are probably considered good-looking by far more people than an older, obese woman would be, hence, your SMV is high (and the hypotehetical examples SMV is low) and you may benefit from it.

    Obviously, for women at least, high SMV is sometimes dubious: You get unwanted sexual attention for it, because anonymity combined with bad values makes for an ugly coctail.

    No, you berate them for demanding that others make sacrifices that they are not willing to make themselves.

    The term doesn’t have anything to do with gender roles. It has to do with cowardice and credibility.

    Blech. I can not understand this line of thought: I demand that police should arrest dangerous criminals (as do feminists, at least when the crime is rape or DV), am I a coward now, because I’m not in the law enforcement?

    My field of study has to do with health care, and there are risks involved (higher risk of infection, dangerous prsychiatric patients etc.), do I accuse people who consider health care important, are pro-health care of lack of credibility? Firemen should put out fires, I’m not a fireman, cowardice?

    Of course not.

    If leftists are serious about their opposition to war, they need to stop this “nyah nyah, you’re not a soldier!” juvenile act. The army is an instrument of society, and does what it must, and in the case of U.S at least, it consists of volunteers and professionals. U.S had draft in Vietnam War, yet I fail to see why the left is mocking people who avoided that war, considering they largely consider it to be a huge mistake.

    You folks are like those kids who always egged the daredevil to risk himself and do stupid stuff with “you wouldn’t dare, you’re too chicken” (since you consider the war to be wrong). You rant agianst militarism, yet you yourself enable it.

  63. Tuomas
    April 4, 2006 at 7:20 pm

    I’ll use the foreign language -excuse against the spelling police. :/

  64. April 4, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    @Stacy: As for me being a ‘crybaby’ because I pointed out that the clique of crazy was going ga-ga over an April Fools Day thing, Frankly, I couldn’t give any less of a shit if a small army of mildly neurotic, attention depraved, cheese eaters are upset. I was just pointing out that it was, in all intent: a joke. The guy who posted has said nothing serious since late 1994. The only reason I stated the ol’ stereotype that feminists lack a sense of humor, is the fact that it was made obvious by observing the madness here.

    Have you ever considered that your false sense of entitlement might be why people think you’re crazy?
    Stomp your right hoof if yes, your left if no.

    @Piny: I can help you pick out some better cologne if you’d like. Lighten up brother.

    @Lauren: I love how cynnical you are. I think I’m in love. Seriously.

    @Jill: Isn’t it at least possible that you’re over reacting?

    @Lowly Knave: Signature Room has a really hot bartender on Thursday nights. We should go and tell her how conventionally attractive she is. You never know.

    Shit. I’m sorry. I’m not sounding like your typical right wing blogger. I’ll make up for it.

    MSM MSM MSM MSM OMG I LOVE MALKIN MSM MSM MSM LOL MOONBAT

  65. Tuomas
    April 4, 2006 at 7:29 pm

    And on the subject: Personal attacks are what people who have lost an argument resort to. That much is obvious and universal.

    YMMV, but whenever people use ad hominems against me, I know I have already won.

  66. piny
    April 4, 2006 at 8:19 pm

    Re: (65)

    This is the problem! Your jokes are abominable. They’re not even jokes. They’re perversions of humor. It’s like that scene in Alien: Resurrection where Ripley meets all the hideous frankenRipley abortions. Your jokes are begging for death. They’re that bad. You’re Sally Field at the beginning of Punchline. You’re Larry the Cable Guy. You’re Carrot Top’s long-lost brother. That’s why we don’t think you’re funny. You’re not.

  67. April 4, 2006 at 8:21 pm

    So, Dan, I’ll take your April Fools’ excuse for meaning that in actuality you are deeply in admiration of Amanda Marcotte (who happened to think your joke was awfully funny — so much for the humorless feminist shit).

  68. ballgame
    April 4, 2006 at 8:38 pm

    “I’ve been called ugly and fat and whatever else along with the rest of ‘em.”

    Oh please. It’s quite unseemly for hotties to protest that not everyone thinks they’re hot … it’s like listening to the independently wealthy talk about all the taxes they have to pay.

    “Additionally, just because in one person’s view I fit a particular standard doesn’t mean that I universally benefit from it.”

    *rolls eyes*

    Oh wait a minute … I get it … you DO have a sense of humor! For a second there I thought you were serious.

    My bad.

  69. April 4, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    Oh please. It’s quite unseemly for hotties to protest that not everyone thinks they’re hot … it’s like listening to the independently wealthy talk about all the taxes they have to pay.

    I think you missed my point. I’m not complaining that not everyone thinks I’m hot. I’m saying that beauty standards can hurt us all, regardless of how conventionally attractive some people perceive us to be. I’m arguing that what I look like should have no bearing on how seriously people take me, or how they go after my arguments.

    I’m white, and I also protest against racism, despite the fact that racism benefits me. But I suppose that’s unseemly as well.

  70. Anne
    April 4, 2006 at 9:18 pm

    I fail to see why the left is mocking people who avoided that war, considering they largely consider it to be a huge mistake.

    “The Left” is mocking people who supported that war and this one but who apparently feel that they themselves are too good to do the fighting.

  71. April 4, 2006 at 9:23 pm

    Stacy, the fuck are you talking about? I’m female, for starters, and I’m a soldier second, and I’m a feminist who has no fucking patience left with assholes who send people off to war when they themselves have a history of ducking war and lying about it besides. Yeah, and that’s before the Swiftboating starts.

    And Lowly Knave, when chickenhawks start wars but don’t fight in them, that’s hypocrisy, however the fuck you spell it. Especially when, as noted above, the chickenhawks have themselves fought only to avoid war. War is for the lower classes, evidently.

  72. April 4, 2006 at 9:30 pm

    “The Left” is mocking people who supported that war and this one but who apparently feel that they themselves are too good to do the fighting.

    I would enlist but I don’t look good in green.

  73. Tuomas
    April 4, 2006 at 9:38 pm

    “The Left” is mocking people who supported that war and this one but who apparently feel that they themselves are too good to do the fighting.

    Or maybe they have no talents as soldiers, and better talents on some other stuff. And the “other stuff” can include writing. Words have power.

  74. April 4, 2006 at 9:39 pm

    I myself am fighting the war of ideas at home.

    (That’s probably my favorite chickenhawk excuse, although I do like Jonah’s excuse that his family needs him; presumably those who are serving were not needed by their families… or something.)

  75. April 4, 2006 at 9:41 pm

    …And I refresh to see my post, and what do I see above it? That is too perfect.

  76. April 4, 2006 at 9:44 pm

    Or maybe they have no talents as soldiers, and better talents on some other stuff. And the “other stuff” can include writing. Words have power.

    Yes, the power of saying that those who are against the war hate soldiers, are traitorous, etc. It is also impossible to write and be a soldier at the same time, right, ginmar?

    Oh, I forgot Tom DeLay’s excuse: that the brown kids had taken all the slots.

  77. April 4, 2006 at 9:44 pm

    Man, you guys got slammed with what PC types like me call “the differently evolved”. You guys could get better at pretending to be the Big Men you’re not–for instance, real life men of courage actually don’t wilt and toss pathetic insults at a woman for daring to have an opinion.

    “Oh my god! A woman who has anger! I must act like a total asshole and shut her down because I’m so incredibly weak and stupid that even the merest whiff of a female with passion makes my testicles retreat and my dick go limp! I swear it’s not that small, ladies”–at this point, think George Costanza in the swimming episode–“it’s just that women with vocal cords make it shrink!”

  78. April 4, 2006 at 9:46 pm

    Chickenhawk: People who love the idea of war, so long as they don’t have to fight it. Unsurprisingly, many chickenhawks hate women, because we have fingers that enable us to point and laugh.

  79. April 4, 2006 at 9:54 pm

    Jill sez:

    Here’s the thing about beauty, though: No one, no matter what they look like, can meet everyone’s standards. I’ve been called ugly and fat and whatever else along with the rest of ‘em. While there are recognizable beauty standards, there isn’t a a single static standard.

    I must say, it takes a fair bit of mental energy to summon the will to disagree with a woman as unquestionably attractive as yourself, but the fact that there is some likelihood that at least one human on the planet might find you unattractive doesn’t establish that there aren’t generally accepted standards of human physical attractiveness. There are those individuals (within all races and having a variety of looks) who would be considered physically attractive by the vast majority of humanity. At the same time, there are people (within all races and of a variety of types) who would be considered physically unattractive by an equally large margin. No one who reads your words is going to buy that you don’t fall into the former group. Someone may have called you ugly and fat once or twice, but that doesn’t make it so, and I suspect that you know it. There are those who actually are ugly and fat and have to live with it every day of their lives. They don’t get the good jobs. They don’t get the hot dates. They live pale, grey existences eating store-brand vanilla ice cream and watching the beautiful people frolic about in 90210 reruns. For you to act as if you’re just as ugly and fat as the next girl is just silly.

    Jill sez:

    As for the “you’re pretty so why do you care about beauty standards?” argument, that’s about as cogent as “You’re white, so why do you care about racism?”

    No, it’s very different than that, in terms of cogency. A white person can (and should) care about racism visited on others without raising an eyebrow. Your position is different. You’re like a white person claiming to be a black person having to live with racism. It comes off as a little silly because we can all see that you’re not what you’re claiming to be.

    Jill sez:

    Additionally, just because in one person’s view I fit a particular standard doesn’t mean that I universally benefit from it.

    True enough. I’m tall and halfway intelligent, but I don’t universally benefit from either. Nevertheless, I generally benefit from being tall and halfway-intelligent, just like you generally benefit from your looks and brains. I don’t know if you realize how offensive it is to those of us in the “attractiveness challenged” community to hear you attempt to take on the mantle of the “lookism oppressed.”

  80. Tuomas
    April 4, 2006 at 10:00 pm

    Hey, I’m not particularly enthusiastic about Iraq, and I haven’t tossed “pathetic insults” at women for daring to have an opinion.

    I just think the chickenhawk meme is BS. (#63)

    Chickenhawk: People who love the idea of war, so long as they don’t have to fight it. Unsurprisingly, many chickenhawks hate women, because we have fingers that enable us to point and laugh.

    And this encourages men to fight in wars, to prove their bravery to women. Is that what you want?

  81. April 4, 2006 at 10:00 pm

    Oh, whatever. The point, if we all have forgotten it, is that everyone is all gung-ho about dismissing women’s arguments in favor of posting a picture for visual mockery. It’s bullshit and it doesn’t matter how fuckable you are or if you’ve passed your sell-by date. Women are immediately dismissed if it’s possible to slam her looks, because if you won’t fuck her she ain’t shit, opinions or none. And as Jill has diligently reminded everyone, every woman is up for this judgement no matter what she looks like.

  82. April 4, 2006 at 10:02 pm

    What Lauren said.

    Oh, and if you would fuck her, then apparently she isn’t entitled to have opinions on beauty standards, either.

  83. April 4, 2006 at 10:07 pm

    Amanda Marcotte sez: Chickenhawk: People who love the idea of war, so long as they don’t have to fight it. Unsurprisingly, many chickenhawks hate women, because we have fingers that enable us to point and laugh.

    That’s quite an indictment. Tell me, does the term equally apply to those who hate the idea of war and the misery it brings to the soldier and the civilian, and yet can also believe that the turmoil and misery are sometimes worth enduring? I think that very few people who know anything at all about war could be said to love it. There are many, however, including myself, who believe that war is sometimes better than the long-term consequences of peace. I am not in the military. Am I a “chickenhawk”?

  84. April 4, 2006 at 10:09 pm

    True enough. I’m tall and halfway intelligent, but I don’t universally benefit from either. Nevertheless, I generally benefit from being tall and halfway-intelligent, just like you generally benefit from your looks and brains. I don’t know if you realize how offensive it is to those of us in the “attractiveness challenged” community to hear you attempt to take on the mantle of the “lookism oppressed.”

    I feel like you aren’t quite getting my point. I’m not trying to say, “I’m ugly, some people think I’m ugly, and they point it out and that’s mean.” I’m saying that, no matter what we as women look like, people will use our looks against us. Do I recognize that my fitting into conventional beauty standards confers some benefits onto me? Of course. I don’t think I ever said otherwise. I’m just pointing out the flaws in a system where women’s looks are considered more important than anything else. I’m pointing out that this system harms everyone, and that no one, no matter how attractive, is immune. Does that mean that I am on the receiving end of fat-phobic discrimination, or general appearance discrimination, the same way that a whole lot of people are? No. But that was never what I was trying to argue.

  85. April 4, 2006 at 10:12 pm

    And of course, most young women who are perceived as attractive are keenly aware that their appeal will fade with time, at least in the eyes of the broader culture. No one, no matter how lovely, is allowed to be as desirable at 50 as she was at 25. Thus “lookism” affects absolutely everyone sooner or later — and thus it’s an issue with which we will all eventually contend. All the more reason to fight.

  86. Tuomas
    April 4, 2006 at 10:15 pm

    …And I refresh to see my post, and what do I see above it? That is too perfect.

    Your tactic is hardly new. White Feather.

    I don’t understand why the hell anti-war women want to do that shit.

  87. ballgame
    April 4, 2006 at 10:18 pm

    Jill: I get your point, though it’s a strain to do so. If an objective judge could be found, though, I’d wager a whole heap ‘o’ money that men have been more adversely affected by sexism than you’ve been adversely affected by ‘looksism’.

    Ginmar: I agree with you. I want that on the record, because that’s not something I thought I’d ever actually say. (The internets is a strange and wonderful thing.)

  88. April 4, 2006 at 10:25 pm

    I’d wager a whole heap ‘o’ money that men have been more adversely affected by sexism than you’ve been adversely affected by ‘looksism’.

    So Jill isn’t allowed to comment on beauty standards because of fuckability.

    The train left awhile back. Recheck your schedule.

  89. Tuomas
    April 4, 2006 at 10:26 pm

    I don’t think I ever said otherwise. I’m just pointing out the flaws in a system where women’s looks are considered more important than anything else. I’m pointing out that this system harms everyone, and that no one, no matter how attractive, is immune.

    Correct. I believe it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t for women, ugly women are considered bitter because they can’t get a man, and beautiful women are brainless and superficial.

    And men are judged by the looks of their GFs, among other status stuff.

  90. Tuomas
    April 4, 2006 at 10:28 pm

    Not my thoughts, the first paragraph. Don’t shoot me, shoot the stereotypes I observed.

  91. April 4, 2006 at 10:35 pm

    I would enlist but I don’t look good in green.

    I don’t think you should judge your sex-attractiveness-in-green value by the standards set up by the hierarchy. Give yourself a break. Personally, I dig chicks in BDUs.

    Oh, and if you would fuck her, then apparently she isn’t entitled to have opinions on beauty standards, either.

    We’re not bitter about something, are we? Good lord.

  92. ballgame
    April 4, 2006 at 10:36 pm

    Lauren: Not what I said. Jill can comment on beauty standards from here till doomsday (and her basic point has merit, as acknowledged). Jill will be more persuasive though if she refrains from implying that she has been excessively burdened by such standards.

  93. April 4, 2006 at 10:42 pm

    Lauren Says:

    Oh, whatever. The point, if we all have forgotten it, is that everyone is all gung-ho about dismissing women’s arguments in favor of posting a picture for visual mockery. It’s bullshit and it doesn’t matter how fuckable you are or if you’ve passed your sell-by date. Women are immediately dismissed if it’s possible to slam her looks, because if you won’t fuck her she ain’t shit, opinions or none. And as Jill has diligently reminded everyone, every woman is up for this judgement no matter what she looks like.

    Jill sez:

    What Lauren said.

    Oh, and if you would fuck her, then apparently she isn’t entitled to have opinions on beauty standards, either.

    “Oh, whatever”? Powerful.

    Now, did I say you’re not entitled to have an opinion on beauty? No, I didn’t. I don’t know why women so often play the “so I don’t get to have an opinion?” card whenever someone disagrees with them. Trust me, unearned victimhood rarely makes people more likely to take your arguments seriously.

    What I said was: your personal opinion on beauty doesn’t fit with reality. I also said you should acknowledge that this emphasis on looks you complain about is to your own personal benefit. How do I know what you look like? I know what you look like because you have a link directly from your blog to 91 pages of pictures of yourself and all your young, very attractive friends. I don’t have a problem with that at all. They’re great pictures. You apparently have a lot of friends and get invited to a lot of parties with lots of young, hot people. Believe me, I’m jealous!

    Now, you may want to pretend to wish that looks weren’t so important in this world, but they clearly are, and I’m sure you work them to your advantage as necessary. I’m not faulting you for this in the least. I just think that it comes across as silly to pretend that you don’t: a) benefit from your looks and b) cultivate those benefits.

    That’s all I’m sayin’.

  94. April 4, 2006 at 10:57 pm

    It’s interesting to actually compare who served and who didn’t. For example, the only person in bush’s cabinet with any military experience is Rumsfeld, and he didn’t see combat. I have more time in battle than Bush’s entire cabinet put together, and I’m not combat arms. What makes it personal is that they don’t trust women with their own dmaned ovaries, but they do trust them with M-16s, .249s, and so on.

    And the fact is, the conservatives will abandon all that support the troops bullshit if the soldiers don’t toe the conservative line. That goes double for women soldiers. It’s the liberals that I’ve found support the troops, no matter what, while the chickenhawks do so only to those of their own persuasion.

  95. Adonis aka Lowly Knave
    April 4, 2006 at 11:00 pm

    Lowly Knave: Signature Room has a really hot bartender on Thursday nights. We should go and tell her how conventionally attractive she is. You never know.

    That’s my sister, Dan L, I’ll break your fingers if you even try to dial her number. Wait, she is a Marine. Nevermind. She can break all the fingers she wants.

    It’s like that scene in Alien: Resurrection

    Who watches movies anymore? Isn’t watching movies a form of escape? It’s all crap- get a boyfriend and bake some cookies.

    So, Dan, I’ll take your April Fools’ excuse for meaning that in actuality you are deeply in admiration of Amanda Marcotte (who happened to think your joke was awfully funny — so much for the humorless feminist shit).

    Yer gunna get a spanking.

    “The Left” is mocking people who supported that war and this one but who apparently feel that they themselves are too good to do the fighting.

    But I am fighting. Against the fifth column. And I have proof of my effectiveness.
    When the barbarians are at your door who will you seek to defend you? The police? Aren’t the police a voluntary force?

    War is for the lower classes, evidently.

    Right. Just like Pat Tilman, ginmar.

    I would enlist but I don’t look good in green.

    Sure you would Lauren, you’d look good in even if I was the last man on the planet.

    I myself am fighting the war of ideas at home.

    So does that make you a hen-hawk or something? Balk! Balk!

    …real life men of courage actually don’t wilt and toss pathetic insults at a woman for daring to have an opinion.

    Real men would never listen to this tripe. Usually they would say shaddup and get me a beer. Why do they always pretend they have something to say when it is so meaningless? Here’s an idea, say something intelligent.

    It’s bullshit and it doesn’t matter how fuckable you are or if you’ve passed your sell-by date.

    I’ll be the judge of that.

    Oh, and if you would fuck her, then apparently she isn’t entitled to have opinions on beauty standards, either.

    Sorry, Jill, that’s called rape.

    But that was never what I was trying to argue.

    Welcome to the world of democrats.

  96. April 4, 2006 at 11:04 pm

    Jill sez:

    I feel like you aren’t quite getting my point. I’m not trying to say, “I’m ugly, some people think I’m ugly, and they point it out and that’s mean.” I’m saying that, no matter what we as women look like, people will use our looks against us. Do I recognize that my fitting into conventional beauty standards confers some benefits onto me? Of course. I don’t think I ever said otherwise. I’m just pointing out the flaws in a system where women’s looks are considered more important than anything else. I’m pointing out that this system harms everyone, and that no one, no matter how attractive, is immune. Does that mean that I am on the receiving end of fat-phobic discrimination, or general appearance discrimination, the same way that a whole lot of people are? No. But that was never what I was trying to argue.

    Well, on that point, I believe the “I’m just too pretty to be taken seriously” point is also way overblown. In my business, I’ve been fortunate to work with a number of very smart, gorgeous women. Not once has it crossed my mind that a good-looking woman shouldn’t be taken seriously simply because of her looks. Quite the contrary. I’ve seen a young, attractive woman run circles around the “good old boys” in front of the “powers that be.” Did she get her way partly because she knows how to bat her eyelashes? Maybe. Would I be a fool to disregard the power of those eyelashes? Most certainly.

    In my experience, smart, attractive women are taken pretty seriously by smart people, and they sometimes have the power to move things and open doors that even a perfect adonis couldn’t budge.

    OK, so perhaps you want to be judged solely on the power of your mind. Fair enough. Give up your powers. Stop wearing makeup. Cut your hair short. Stop watching what you eat and how you dress. Put your looks aside and be ordinary. I’ll almost guarantee people won’t think you’re smarter. You will be treated as a mere mortal, just like Superman when he gave up his powers in Superman III (except hopefully you won’t get beat up by some redneck in a diner like Superman did. That’d suck.)

  97. karpad
    April 4, 2006 at 11:41 pm

    Knave:

    this is important. I need you to listen. very. carefully.

    you. are. not. funny. Your non sequiturs are painful or confusing, at best, and always meaningless.

    you suck. you need to give up on humor and go back to reading Hardy Boys books.

    Dan L, Ragnar, du auch.

    Tuomas, you’re at least not trying to be funny. I can respect that. but you’re also profoundly, painfully wrong.

    Jill, get out the goddamn banhammer. this stopped being fun like 30 posts ago.

  98. Adonis aka Lowly Knave
    April 4, 2006 at 11:47 pm

    du auch.

    Du dreg sow!

  99. Tuomas
    April 4, 2006 at 11:51 pm

    Tuomas, you’re at least not trying to be funny. I can respect that. but you’re also profoundly, painfully wrong.

    In what part?

  100. karpad
    April 5, 2006 at 12:07 am

    two things, pretty much.

    first, denegration of “the chickenhawk meme”

    anyone who persues a policy of war (ie “We belong in Iraq”) but will not volunteer to serve is doing about the same thing as saying “Someone should paint the living room” but not paying for paint, or doing it.

    except the chickenhawks are “Only people who love terrorists wouldn’t paint the living room” and then still not doing it, because they’re busy watching TV.

    Second, that ad homs mean you win. in many cases (say, whenever I use them) you haven’t demonstrated worthiness of response.

    If you were to say “Hitler is alive in his secret moonbase, where they’re harvesting cheese to use against the mud people on earth in the next war” the “you’re crazy, shut up” is not recognition of inability to refute your claims, but that you aren’t worth the effort.

    but you are right, I got a bit carried away with frustration from the asshats, and you got unfairly swept up in my blanket dismissal. you’re opinions aren’t really trollish, but having to wade through the other crap (Dan, Knave, looking at you.) has significantly shortened my patience.

  101. Tuomas
    April 5, 2006 at 12:17 am

    anyone who persues a policy of war (ie “We belong in Iraq”) but will not volunteer to serve is doing about the same thing as saying “Someone should paint the living room” but not paying for paint, or doing it.

    The bolded parts aren’t analogous. Not paying for the paint is analogous to not paying for the war, or paying salary to soldiers. It is not analogous to not serving.

    War is something that requires lot more than just soldiers. To expand from the wall-painting analogy, someone needs to determine the need for walls to be painted (say, that wall over there is in bad paint), someone needs to make the paint, someone needs to buy it etc.

    The chickenhawk meme would be analogous to saying “You don’t have a right to say that this wall needs to be painted if you personally aren’t a wall-painter”.

  102. April 5, 2006 at 12:32 am

    Blimey, where’s me post?!?

    I submitted a reply some 11 hours ago, and no sign of it.

    Roughly, I said:

    It is not specifically feminists, but rather almost the entire left that lacks a sense of humor. Granted, they TRY, but Bush=ChimpHitler gets old after the 10,745th time.

    Ok – trollish, yes… So over the top that, given the level of invective here, it should get banned or deleted? No.

    Then again, perhaps I’ve just missed it somehow. It is getting late.

  103. randomliberal/Robert
    April 5, 2006 at 12:49 am

    Ragnar, just because you personally don’t take attractive/sexy women less seriously in the workplace doesn’t mean that a lot of people don’t take them less seriously. Personal experience ≠ what happens for most people. You’re making the mistake of thinking that smart people actually run things. Trust me, they don’t.

    Also, Superman lost his powers in Superman II, not that “Superman” movie-which-shall-not-be-named.

  104. piny
    April 5, 2006 at 12:59 am

    The white feather women attacked men who didn’t fight in the war because they believed that the war was a good thing and that all men should be willing to die for their countries–as soon as possible. The people complaining about chickenhawks are complaining about people who are eager to start a war, but unwilling to fight it or send their children to fight it. That’s not a principled stance. That’s hypocrisy. Had the white feather women demonstrated like the Grandmas do now, the analogy would work. It doesn’t.

  105. April 5, 2006 at 2:54 am

    but you are right, I got a bit carried away with frustration from the asshats, and you got unfairly swept up in my blanket dismissal. you’re opinions aren’t really trollish, but having to wade through the other crap (Dan, Knave, looking at you.) has significantly shortened my patience.

    (softly) Belch.

  106. Tuomas
    April 5, 2006 at 3:11 am

    Second, that ad homs mean you win. in many cases (say, whenever I use them) you haven’t demonstrated worthiness of response.

    Well, I did say YMMV.

    But of course, occasionally ad hominems just mean that the person I’m debating is an egomaniacal jerk.

  107. Tuomas
    April 5, 2006 at 7:17 am

    The people complaining about chickenhawks are complaining about people who are eager to start a war, but unwilling to fight it or send their children to fight it.

    But the end result, I believe, is the same. Chickenhawk -memeists are therefore edging young men towards joining the Army (which isn’t bad in itself — on the contrary — but shouldn’t be done to prove how tough or manly or whatever you are). And still, what’s up with this belief that you aren’t allowed to be for war if you aren’t a soldier yourself? It’s a stupid idea, and comparisons to other fields (law enforcement, crisis management, health care…) show how stupid is to argue that only people who do those themselves are allowed to support them. If “chickenhawkism” is hypocrisy, everyone expect radical anarcho-libertarians are hypocrites.

    And send their children to fight it…

    Um, what? Children should be kept as far away from war as humanly possible. Volunteer, professional armies aren’t about sending children to fight a war. Adults join the military by their own volition.

  108. Adonis aka Lowly Knave
    April 5, 2006 at 7:40 am

    The point, if we all have forgotten it, is that everyone is all gung-ho about dismissing women’s arguments in favor of posting a picture for visual mockery. It’s bullshit and it doesn’t matter how fuckable you are or if you’ve passed your sell-by date. Women are immediately dismissed if it’s possible to slam her looks, because if you won’t fuck her she ain’t shit, opinions or none.

    Maybe if someone would take Sharon Stone’s advice more often, I wouldn’t be thinking about sex when someone was speaking.

    And I don’t really want to hear what Sharon Stone has to say after that. Now that you mention it, maybe it is her views that makes her so ugly.

  109. April 5, 2006 at 9:01 am

    Ragnar, just because you personally don’t take attractive/sexy women less seriously in the workplace doesn’t mean that a lot of people don’t take them less seriously. Personal experience ≠ what happens for most people. You’re making the mistake of thinking that smart people actually run things. Trust me, they don’t.

    Also, Superman lost his powers in Superman II, not that “Superman” movie-which-shall-not-be-named.

    You’re right. That was Superman II. Superman “which-shall-not-be-named” was the one with Richard Pryor and the “fraction of a penny” embezzlement scheme. Good catch. My bad.

    As to your other point, your first statement is unquestionably correct, but I wasn’t saying that my personal opinion was the universal rule. At the same time, I don’t agree that one person’s personal experience is necessarily different from that of others. It may or may not be in a given situation. My daily life involves a lot of speaking English. That puts me in the minority of mankind. My daily life also involves breathing air and drinking water. I’m guessing that probably puts me in the majority.

    Now as to the particular situation under discussion, my personal experience, within which women are generally (not universally, but generally) respected in business according to their ability to produce may or may not be generally applicable. (It’s almost certainly true that some number of people don’t take women seriously under any circumstances, but that doesn’t go to my point.) I’d say my situation is similar enough to that of other mid-30s urban professionals to serve as some (non-conclusive) evidence as to what happens generally. I’m sure there are counter-examples to mine, which also serve as some evidence of what happens generally. There’s no conclusive evidence one way or the other (which is what makes this so much fun!) Just to be clear, I’m not saying women aren’t generally less respected in business than men are. They may be. I just don’t agree with Jill’s claim that it’s generally true that an attractive woman is less likely to be respected for her brainpower.

    BTW, I’ve never believed that “smart people actually run things.” I think most smart people stay away from the hassle of “running things.” Everyone knows that “the Man” runs things.

  110. piny
    April 5, 2006 at 9:03 am

    But the end result, I believe, is the same. Chickenhawk -memeists are therefore edging young men towards joining the Army (which isn’t bad in itself — on the contrary — but shouldn’t be done to prove how tough or manly or whatever you are). And still, what’s up with this belief that you aren’t allowed to be for war if you aren’t a soldier yourself? It’s a stupid idea, and comparisons to other fields (law enforcement, crisis management, health care…) show how stupid is to argue that only people who do those themselves are allowed to support them. If “chickenhawkism” is hypocrisy, everyone expect radical anarcho-libertarians are hypocrites.

    Oh, bullshit. The day any of the fighting keyboarders actually enlist is the day I’ll shut my mouth.

    Um, what? Children should be kept as far away from war as humanly possible. Volunteer, professional armies aren’t about sending children to fight a war. Adults join the military by their own volition.

    Grown children. As in the sons of privilege, the ones who can use Daddy’s money and Daddy’s connections to get degrees and jobs–and, when necessary, to avoid the draft. I don’t believe you honestly misread that.

    Here in this country service in the armed forces is volitional only in a technical sense. Kids too frequently join the army because they have no other option, because it’s the only employer that wants them and the only employer that will eagerly take a seventeen-year-old kid sans diploma for life. Remember Pvt. Jessica Lynch? She joined the Army because she wanted to get a teaching credential. Enlisting was the best way, probably the only way, to get the money she needed to do so.

    War is something that requires lot more than just soldiers. To expand from the wall-painting analogy, someone needs to determine the need for walls to be painted (say, that wall over there is in bad paint), someone needs to make the paint, someone needs to buy it etc.

    The chickenhawk meme would be analogous to saying “You don’t have a right to say that this wall needs to be painted if you personally aren’t a wall-painter”.

    No, it’s analagous to saying, “Gee, this desert is kinda boring. Wouldn’t some pyramids look just fabulous out here? And I need a place to spend the afterlife, anyway.” The dirty work–the actual fighting and inevitable dying–will be done by other sorts of people. They’re taking advantage of a system in which there’s a cannon fodder class.

  111. April 5, 2006 at 9:13 am

    Pat Tilman? Hey, dipshit, show me hundreds of thousands of Pat Tilmans, and I’ll show you all the Young Yellow Republicans hammering away at their keyboards and brewskis while they denigrate Dems who did serve.

  112. April 5, 2006 at 9:15 am

    BTW, on this silly “chickenhawk” meme, if I can’t discuss the case for war without personally being in the military, does that mean Cindy Sheehan can’t legitimately speak against America’s “illegal war” if she’s not personally willing to put her money where her mouth is and at least renounce her American citizenship, if not join al Qaeda?

    Does this chickenhawk mortorium mean I can’t discuss Bush’s stupid decisions if I didn’t personally run for President? I can’t discuss the positive aspects of pregnancy at all, since I can’t (given current technology) become pregnant? I can’t be in favor of the Cowboys making it to the Super Bowl if I haven’t personally tried out for the team?

  113. Tuomas
    April 5, 2006 at 9:21 am

    Oh, bullshit. The day any of the fighting keyboarders actually enlist is the day I’ll shut my mouth.

    So you don’t want to touch the comparisons to law enforcement etc.? No one has.

    And what do you hope to accomplish with the chickenhawk -meme, anyway?

    As in the sons of privilege, the ones who can use Daddy’s money and Daddy’s connections to get degrees and jobs–and, when necessary, to avoid the draft. I don’t believe you honestly misread that.

    Tough, but I dont see how that is a military matter. If your daddy is rich, lot of things are easier. Misread? You talk about sending one’s children to war. As in: Hey, government, here’s my son, use him well. Such system does not exist.
    And there is no draft.

    Remember Pvt. Jessica Lynch? She joined the Army because she wanted to get a teaching credential. Enlisting was the best way, probably the only way, to get the money she needed to do so.

    So? Again, this isn’t a military issue, but a social one (education opportunities, job opportunities…). Are you saying that it is so terribly unfair that people for whom motives of joining the military are economic, are, you know, expected to do what militaries do in the times of war? “When I enlisted, I just wanted the easy money, I don’t want to do my job.” A real tear-jerker, I’m sure. Not.

    No, it’s analagous to saying, “Gee, this desert is kinda boring. Wouldn’t some pyramids look just fabulous out here? And I need a place to spend the afterlife, anyway.” The dirty work–the actual fighting and inevitable dying–will be done by other sorts of people. They’re taking advantage of a system in which there’s a cannon fodder class.

    You’re moving the goal-posts presented by karpad.

  114. Tuomas
    April 5, 2006 at 9:26 am

    does that mean Cindy Sheehan can’t legitimately speak against America’s “illegal war” if she’s not personally willing to put her money where her mouth is and at least renounce her American citizenship,

    No, Cindy Sheehan has credibility because she sent her son to war. She has committed a child sacrifice, therefore she is the matron saint of the Anti-war group, and speaks only the truth.

    /snaps out of lefty mindset.

  115. Dreamweasel
    April 5, 2006 at 9:55 am

    Well, I’d definitely co-sign a statement to the effect that Those Who Have Firsthand Experience With Combat Have a Fuck of a Lot More Authority to Yap About It Than Those Who Don’t. And yeah, it does get a little frustrating when the most vigorous chest-thumpers and war hawks are the ones who have never served and never will. If their (adult) children were on the front lines, at least we would know that they have a personal stake in the soldiers’ fate. It might even inform the substance of their arguments.

    Otherwise, well… it all comes off like a bunch of grandstanding. How easy it must be to be pro-war when you’re entirely unaffected by the consequences.

    Ragnar, you’re not seriously suggesting that war protesters by definition hate America, are you? That’s not only trollish, it’s dead fucking WRONG.

  116. April 5, 2006 at 9:57 am

    BTW, on “PAINTING THE WALL”:

    Iraq is not like an unpainted wall in your living room. If Iraq is a wall, it is a huge wall. Further, we’re not arguing over whether someone’s going to paint it. It’s in the process of being painted. There’s a crew of tireless people working hard to paint the wall. Most are very proud of the work they’re doing. There’s no shortage of painters. In fact, the painting supervisors are actually in the process of sending extra painters home.

    The painters’ work is made much more difficult by a group of people on top of the building dropping bricks on the painting crew as the try to do their job. Out of a crew of 50 painters, several have been injured, and one has actually died.

    In addition to the brick-throwers on top, there’s a group of protesters on the ground chanting things like “all for one and one for all, we don’t need no painted wall” and “one-two-three-four, a painted wall is such a bore” etc. They claim to love the painters, but they think the painters are naive and foolish, and that the painters’ project is a huge waste of time and money, and they want to make sure everyone knows it.

    In addition to these three groups, there’s a fourth group of people. They’re busy buying paint, planning the painting and generally supporting the painters economically and logistically, but they’re not actually doing the painting. There’s a slight chance that a stray brick might hit one of them (approximately the same chance as one will hit a protester), but they’re in much less jeopardy than the painters themselves. If this group stopped doing what it’s doing to buy paint & otherwise support the painters, the painting would grind to a halt.

    According to the “chickenhawk moratorium,” the members of the fourth group (the paint buyers & helpers) aren’t allowed to explain to the protesters or anyone else why they want to support the painters and their project, since they aren’t actually physically doing the painting and enduring the somewhat more significant chance of getting hit by a falling brick.

    Maybe that makes sense to you, but I just don’t see it. That position just seems silly to me.

  117. Rabbo
    April 5, 2006 at 9:59 am

    No Toumas, Cindy Sheehan’s son chose to go to war. She didn’t send him there. He want on his own.

  118. April 5, 2006 at 10:05 am

    Little late, but just wanted to comment:

    For the record, I hate cats.

    The immediate reaction is to say, “But that’s not true! Feminists are totally hot!” Which is certainly true in a lot of cases. And putting up pictures of conventionally attractive feminists is helpful only because it directly refutes the “feminists are ugly” insult.

    Actually, my immediate reaction was “What’s wrong with cats?” :D

    Secondly, if you are against war and you DON’T GO TO WAR that’s not hypocrisy.

    And if saying “the living room needs paint” but not doing anything about painting the living room if not hypocrisy is the very least entitlement of enoroumous proportions.

  119. April 5, 2006 at 10:05 am

    Ragnar, you’re not seriously suggesting that war protesters by definition hate America, are you? That’s not only trollish, it’s dead fucking WRONG.

    I’m not (but good job setting up a strawman that you could expeditiously dispatch with scary and imposing ALL CAPS formatting. Impressive.)

    I am, however, suggesting that a large number of them do hate what America stands for, and many believe that the America of 2006 is worse than the Nazi Germany of 1940.

    I’m also suggesting that if I were a citizen of Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s, I’d like to think that I’d have the courage to renounce my citizenship and make my home elsewhere.

  120. Tuomas
    April 5, 2006 at 10:08 am

    Antigone:

    Secondly, if you are against war and you DON’T GO TO WAR that’s not hypocrisy.

    Sheesh. As if someone claimed it was.

  121. Dreamweasel
    April 5, 2006 at 10:10 am

    Your exact words, Ragnar, were that Cindy Sheehan should “renounce her American citizenship, if not join al-Qaeda” if she wanted to “put her money where her mouth is”. How else to interpret that? If that’s a strawman, it’s one that you brought to the table.

    “I am, however, suggesting that a large number of them do hate what America stands for, and many believe that the America of 2006 is worse than the Nazi Germany of 1940.”

    Who’s attacking strawmen now?

  122. Tuomas
    April 5, 2006 at 10:21 am

    Dreamweasel:

    How else to interpret that?

    How about in context? Ragnar considers the chickenhawk meme silly, and is drawing a comparison to what the opposite usage would look like.

  123. Dreamweasel
    April 5, 2006 at 10:25 am

    I did read it in context, Tuomas. His “opposite” presumes equivalency between “opposing the war” and “opposing America”. Or at least a level of equivalency between “fighting the war” and “urging other people to fight the war.”

  124. evil_fizz
    April 5, 2006 at 10:30 am

    I am, however, suggesting that a large number of them do hate what America stands for, and many believe that the America of 2006 is worse than the Nazi Germany of 1940.

    Ah, the flamewar has reached its critical mass: comparisons to Nazis have been invoked!

  125. April 5, 2006 at 10:40 am

    Dreamweasel sez: Your exact words, Ragnar, were that Cindy Sheehan should “renounce her American citizenship, if not join al-Qaeda” if she wanted to “put her money where her mouth is”. How else to interpret that? If that’s a strawman, it’s one that you brought to the table.

    If that’s what you heard, I either misspoke, or you misheard me or misremembered what I said. Easy enough to do. It’s not like our words are retained in a computer or memory or something, readily accessible by means of a worldwide computer network. If there were such a thing, it might have stored my actual words for your review:

    BTW, on this silly “chickenhawk” meme, if I can’t discuss the case for war without personally being in the military, does that mean Cindy Sheehan can’t legitimately speak against America’s “illegal war” if she’s not personally willing to put her money where her mouth is and at least renounce her American citizenship, if not join al Qaeda?

    I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean.

    My invocation of Nazi Germany isn’t something I made up. This idea comes from the protesters themselves. When protesters say things like “America is worse then Nazi Germany” and “Bush is worse than Hitler,” they earn the right to be quoted to that effect.

  126. Stacy
    April 5, 2006 at 10:48 am

    Ragnar:

    If empathy and altruism are poor reasoning for you in terms of why an attractive person would take issue with the notion of credibility stemming from attractiveness, you can look at it from a self-serving viewpoint also. You could say that it is self-serving in the sense of avoiding some severe cognitive dissonance when one finds, at the end of the day, that all of their accomplishments are actually attributed to their attractiveness rather than their talents and skills. Another angle would be that since no one stays at their peak of attractiveness forever, and wrinkles and sagging body parts are not included in the traditional view of “beauty”, one could argue that it can be seen as self-serving due to a concern that all credibility will fade as attractiveness does. No one wants to lose all their credibility on their 50th birthday.

    To clarify: I’m not saying that this is anyone’s views here or anything, just wanted to point out that you could argue it from a self-centered angle also, I know that there are people that don’t believe altruism exists.

    DanL:

    Your response speaks for itself, if you didn’t care, you wouldn’t go all psycho unhinged on me. Oh wait… lemme guess… that’s a joke too?

    (Okay, I’ll stop playing with the trolls now, I promise!)

    Ginmar:

    Whoa. Read #39 and #47, then #54 again. I was talking to you, not about you. I thought the context was clearer because of my two previous posts, and I apologize if that was unclear, but the hostility is unnecessary. Knave was confused about the term “chickenhawk”, and seemed to interpret it as a gender-based slam. I explained the definition to him, (I’ll assume Knave is a guy at this point, sorry if that is incorrect) and he still tried to misinterpret it as intertwined with gender, which indicated to me that perhaps the misinterpretation was intentional. The point was, yes, I feel he saw that it was hypocritical, but was playing on that to see if anyone would take it up so that he could play the “gotcha” game I see people playing quite often in the feminists blog community.

  127. Dreamweasel
    April 5, 2006 at 10:50 am

    So you ackowledge that your analogy is bullshit? I think there’s a pretty direct causal relationship making the case for war and participating in its execution. (If you don’t go, then someone will have to.) Whereas your “renounce American citizenship, if not join al-Qaeda” analogy is not the logical outcome of war protests – it’s pure wingnut bullshit.

    But thanks for explaining that whole “worldwide computer network” thing to me. Gee, wasn’t ARPANET ahead of its time?

  128. April 5, 2006 at 11:16 am

    Stacy, tahnks for the clarification.

    Oh, and ragnell? Cindy Sheehan did not ‘send’ her son to war. He chose to go and she wants to know what the final reason for his death was. First it was WMDs. Oops, turned out to be lie. Then it was Saddam bombed the WTC. Oops, wrong again. Then it was humanitarian reasons, as Iraqis die in greater numbers now than they did during Saddam’s reign.

    I guess you ignored my point about how chickenhawks only support the troops when they’re their own. Bitch about Cindy Sheehan all you want, but it’s sure as hell not GWB remembering the dead.

    He justs uses them.

  129. April 5, 2006 at 12:02 pm

    Stacy Says:
    Ragnar:

    If empathy and altruism are poor reasoning for you in terms of why an attractive person would take issue with the notion of credibility stemming from attractiveness, you can look at it from a self-serving viewpoint also.

    I never said that it was. (reading comprehension really is a valuable skill, folks, and it really can be learned through practice.)

    As I explained above, it’s one thing to say “I really feel bad for all the ugly people.” It’s a different thing to say “I really feel bad for all US ugly people.” Anyone can make the former statement, but if a pretty person makes the latter statement, it comes off as silly. That’s all I’m saying.

    Other than your mischaracterization of my position, I think you make some very valid points.

    And no, true altruism doesn’t exist, according to my definition. In order to be a true altruist, a person would have to aid a person he hates based purely on moral principle (kinda like being a Christian without the love.) Helping a person you love carries an inherent internal reward, so it doesn’t count as altruism. Help for the hated may happen once in a while, but it’s certainly not common. Even then, one could argue that it’s still not altruism if adhering to the moral principle itself gives you a warm fuzzy inside. In all of these cases, you’re acting in your own best interest. Your interest just happens to coincide with that of another person.

  130. April 5, 2006 at 12:14 pm

    Well, I’d definitely co-sign a statement to the effect that Those Who Have Firsthand Experience With Combat Have a Fuck of a Lot More Authority to Yap About It Than Those Who Don’t.

    Unless, of course, they’re in FAVOR of the war in Iraq, in which case they are fascist traitors and should be forever silenced.

  131. Dreamweasel
    April 5, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    Your words, Mr. Jennings: not mine.

  132. April 5, 2006 at 12:19 pm

    Ah, but I’m channeling you.

  133. April 5, 2006 at 12:22 pm

    Regardless, let’s get back on topic: Jill is hot, and claims she’s not, and even if she admits she’s hot, she’s still screwed as a pundit because hotties and uglies and just plain wimmin in general get dissed because of their appearance regardless of whether they could break mirrors or be on the cover of Glam.

    Jill, all is not lost. Please PLEASE for the love of God(dess) — don’t do the switcheroo.

  134. Dreamweasel
    April 5, 2006 at 12:23 pm

    > Ah, but I’m channeling you.

    Source, please.

  135. April 5, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    ginmar Says:

    Oh, and ragnell? Cindy Sheehan … wants to know what the final reason for his death was.

    Possible, but I think she mostly just likes being a celebrity rock star. If she really wanted to know why her son died, she’d spend time reading up on the history and politics of the Middle East and the larger geopolitical situation the West faces today, instead of going around telling people that we should abandon Israel and that America is not worth dying for. I’ve heard her speak on a number of occasions, and it’s abundantly clear to me that she has essentially zero comprehension of either subject.

    First it was WMDs. Oops, turned out to be lie.

    No, ginmar, it turned out to be wrong. A lie requires that you know that a statement is false and yet you say it anyway. If members of the U.S. intelligence apparatus community knew that Saddam had no WMDs, they were the only people in the world (outside of Iraq) to have that information. The Western intelligence communities were uniformly convinced that Saddam had WMDs.

    I suggest we need a new version of Godwin’s Law: as an online discussion progresses, the likelihood that someone will assert that the Bush Administration lied about WMDs approaches 100%.

    Then it was Saddam bombed the WTC. Oops, wrong again.

    Was somebody claiming that? Guess I must have missed that particular White House press conference. I do remember discussions about Saddam sponsoring terrorism, which he certainly did. Don’t remember the WTC claim.

  136. April 5, 2006 at 12:31 pm

    Ragnar, don’t you realize you’re just not funny?

    Woops, sorry Pliny, forgot that was your line. My bad.

  137. April 5, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    Ragnar, don’t you realize you’re just not funny?

    Just because I fail to conform to “conventional standards of humor”?

  138. ZiPpo
    April 5, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    Shouldn’t we be blaming Karl Rove for sponsoring a NASCAR with the Skull and Bones on the hood? Not that it conforms to “conventional standards of humor,” or anything.

  139. NIamh
    April 5, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    Oh my god, I just read this thread and it is pissing me off so much! At least it’s a fucking perfect example of what Jill was saying in the first place; that sexist assholes choose to pay attention to women’s looks rather than evaluating their opinions. It’s fucking hilarious that that guy doesn’t get, no matter how often or how carefully it is explained to him, that even if someone evaluates your looks favourably, the fact that he is evaluating your looks rather than your actual WORDS at all means what you’re actually saying gets ignored, and he just keeps coming back with “But you’re hot!”. I do agree with the troll in one way– it is definitely true that pretty women are taken more seriously than other women; but the part he misses is that ALL women are taken less seriously because they’re getting evaluated as objects before they get listened to. The objectification game doesn’t help ANY women get their voices heard.
    Oh, and re those studies on the financial returns on attractiveness: it’s true. Men are MUCH more rewarded and even much more disproportionately punished for relative physical attractiveness than women are (and you can look at the rewards for height to see that male beauty is certainly NOT just a function of how wealthy they are to begin with: actually IMO female beauty is much more purchasable.)
    My theory on this is that negative sterotypes about attractive women cancel out positive reactions to some extent; also men really, really don’t want to think that another man’s physical attractiveness affects how they react to him, (and most women probably also wouldn’t want to think they’d be that shallow in a professional context), so they aren’t aware of the extent to which male appearance biases them and therefore can’t correct for the bias. In other words men who have a positive reaction to a good looking man will attribute their reaction to something else (competence or authority or good bloke to go for a pint with or whatever), but if they have a positive reaction to a good looking woman they’ll be totally aware what that’s about.
    Incidentally I’m separating “objectification” from “snap judgements based on appearance” here; I don’t think the highly paid good looking men in this study are being objectified. In fact from observing this phenomenon of good looking guys taking up leadership roles in groups of guys, I think it’s almost the opposite of objectification happening to them; the other guys kind of become hyper-identified with the leader and his opinions are given disporportionate weight. Subjectification? Abjectification? Whatever. No one’s going to read this comment anyway, given there are 150 before it; I’m just procrastinating revision now.

  140. April 5, 2006 at 6:02 pm

    NIamh Says:…it is pissing me off so much!…

    …that sexist assholes choose to pay attention…

    …do agree with the troll in one way…

    In countering an argument, some people employ fundamental logic. Others use contravening facts. You chose to go with name-calling. I’m not sure anyone reading your post will be blown away by your digestion of my multiple arguments down to three words, but who knows?

    Look, there’s not really a rule that you have to fit the stereotype of the irrational, hysterical woman. You could blow that stereotype right out the window and respond with reason and logic. I am, in all sincerity, a big believer in women, and I know in my heart that you’re capable of doing this. All of you are.

    As to the point you’re trying to make about the economic rewards of hotness, your argument doesn’t make sense, at least the way you present it. Are you arguing that, although men reap the benefits for hotness and pay the price for unhotness to a greater degree than women, women are nonetheless more affected by looksism than men are?

    You say the dynamic is different for women than for men, in that the best looking man in a group is most likely to be the leader of the group. This doesn’t support your argument unless the best looking woman in a group is not the most likely leader. I’ll wager the research would show that she is. For your argument to hold, her looks would would have to render her less likely to take leadership.

  141. Veritas Regina
    April 5, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    Nlamh wrote:
    …that sexist assholes choose to pay attention to women’s looks rather than evaluating their opinions…
    A valid observation. You want to see irrational discrimination? Watch how a roomful of “feminists” react when a Southern woman walks in the room with a baby on her hip. She, and her opionions, are instantly discounted.
    It is hard to take Jill, Piny, and the other “feministes” seriously in this marathon of angst.

  142. niamh
    April 5, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    trollguy: I wasn’t actually trying to engage with you or counter your argument. I don’t see anything there to engage. I was just expressing my reaction to the thread.

    As for this…
    Are you arguing that, although men reap the benefits for hotness and pay the price for unhotness to a greater degree than women, women are nonetheless more affected by looksism than men are?

    No… I was just riffing off the findings from the study. What I am “arguing” is exactly what I wrote, that there is a distinction between beauty-based discrimination and objectification. Women are objectified more than men are. Objectification is much more of a problem than beauty-based discrimination, and objectification is the problem that was being discussed by the non-trolls in this thread, not beauty based discrimination, which, yes, Jill undoubtedly is a net beneficiary from, but that really isn’t the fricking issue.

  143. April 5, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    The objectification game doesn’t help ANY women get their voices heard.

    This position is, BTW, completely unsupportable. Tons of women have gained a position on the podium largely, if not solely, because of their looks. Hot people garner attention.

    To cite one example, no one would give half a hoot what Pamela Anderson has to say about animal rights if she was just some lawyer in British Colombia. She wouldn’t be famous if she hadn’t been willing to let herself be “objectified” by the likes of Hugh Hefner.

    Jill herself has asserted that the hotter female bloggers get more traffic. Would Michelle Malkin have the same position in the rankings as a filipino dude? Probably not. Her looks almost certainly do help her make her voice heard.

    So, contrary to your assertion, the “objectification game” most certainly does help many women get their voices heard. It’s not the only way, but it works often enough.

  144. April 5, 2006 at 7:45 pm

    Objectification is much more of a problem than beauty-based discrimination, and objectification is the problem that was being discussed by the non-trolls in this thread, not beauty based discrimination, which, yes, Jill undoubtedly is a net beneficiary from, but that really isn’t the fricking issue.

    What is a “troll,” then?

    Is a troll someone who disagrees with your opinion?

    From Wikipedia:

    In forums where most users are similar to each other, outsiders may be perceived as trolls simply because they do not fit into the social norms of that group.

    Is it that I have a different opinion than you? You think that if you dismiss me as a “troll,” my arguments, however valid, can be disregarded? I think you do, and I think you’re not alone.

    Ya know, I honestly used to wonder why left-wingers have such a hard time winning elections. After observing left-wing thought processes for a while, it’s not a mystery anymore. Many simply can’t deal with people different than themselves and opinions different than their own. Winning elections would require them to actually understand the others’ points of view and substantively address them. That’s too uncomfortable for too many of them. They’d rather spend time in a echo chamber with people who think just like they do. Today’s Republican strategists really aren’t geniuses. In truth, they mostly win by default.

    But don’t despair, my friends. This November, the left-wingers will finally have their day. They will win many elections. The Dems will very likely take control of the House of Representatives, if not the Senate. A candidate supported by Markos Zuniga will finally win an election. I predict that this unqualified and resounding success will result in the ascendancy of the Dean/MoveOn faction to absolute control of the Democrat Party. There will be dancing in the streets. I will be dancing, too. It will be a good day.

  145. April 5, 2006 at 7:53 pm

    I like the chickenhawk argument. That’s because, as are many, if not most, ad hominem attacks, it’s a surrender. The chickenhawk caller might just as well come right out and say, “I cannot argue effectively with your points, therefore, I am going to try to insult you as a diversion.”

  146. April 5, 2006 at 7:56 pm

    Ragnar, you’re about as qualified to talk about Cindy sheehan’s motivations as I am to talk about white glove etiquette and the virtues of anger management. Oh, yeah, and you don’t think the WMDS were a lie? Oops, sorry about that, you’re wrong.

    And whoever said that the troops wanting to go to war being lying fascists, I don’t know about the fascist part but I do know this: we were lied to, and lied to and lied to. If people accept those lies in the face of proof, what does that make them?

  147. April 5, 2006 at 7:58 pm

    Ahoy, the Dread Pundit Bluto!

    You may be too late, mate. I think they’re all dead from uncontrolled head explosions.

    Or perhaps they’re just hiding belowdecks, whispering back and forth to one another “shhhh…. let’s stay low & be quiet. Maybe they’ll go away.”

  148. April 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    Ragnar, you’re about as qualified to talk about Cindy sheehan’s motivations as I am to talk about white glove etiquette and the virtues of anger management.

    See, I’m gonna have to disagree with you on that one. You clearly have anger management skills. Similarly, I’m qualified, as a human being, to evaluate another person’s motivations based on what I can readily ascertain from her actions. I’m also just a little bit crazy, so I can identify other crazy people from a mile away.

    Oh, yeah, and you don’t think the WMDS were a lie? Oops, sorry about that, you’re wrong.

    Well, that settles it, then.

    If people accept those lies in the face of proof, what does that make them?

    I think it makes them unconvinced. It certainly doesn’t make them “lying fascists”, if that’s what you’re inferring.

  149. April 5, 2006 at 8:07 pm

    Ragnar, you’re about as qualified to talk about Cindy sheehan’s motivations as I am to talk about white glove etiquette and the virtues of anger management

    But you are an expert on intelligence matters, the motivators of rape, the justice system, and due to your extensive combat experience, all matters military.

    OK, mom.

  150. April 5, 2006 at 8:10 pm

    Now I love hosting the crazy conservative clusterfuck as much as the next girl, but I think we’ve strayed from the topic and dumbed down the conversation enough to call it a day. Comments closed.

Comments are closed.