Author: has written 5280 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

119 Responses

  1. Darleen
    Darleen April 27, 2008 at 7:02 pm |

    I’m going to be described as “the racist one” for pointing out that Jeff played on long-established racist stereotypes of black men.

    Hmmmm… and who looked at the game face of a certain basketball player on the cover of a magazine and immediately saw a “gorilla”?

    Amanda gets treated like Leon Trotsky and you think the schadenfreude by those who don’t buy into personal is political identity politic psychosis are racist.

    heh.

  2. Darleen
    Darleen April 27, 2008 at 7:22 pm |

    bad me, Jill,

    I was raised in a ::gasp:: traditional family where I wasn’t sensitized to looking at stop-motion animal models as stand-ins for oppressed humans of certain melanin-levels. I just thought I was watching something akin to Godzilla movies. So when I see a monster film I don’t immediately think “scary black men!”

    You, on the other hand, seem to have been raised in a more privileged environment.

  3. Charity
    Charity April 27, 2008 at 7:35 pm |

    Well I guess your prediction was right, Jill! And I’ll just say What the Fuck here, since given your description I can’t bring myself to click that link. I’m sure Jeff Goldstein gives two shits about rape when he isn’t using it as a scare-tactic tool to enforce racist stereotypes. Right. He seems like a living, breathing hate crime.

  4. Michael Hussey
    Michael Hussey April 27, 2008 at 7:41 pm |

    Don’t feed the troll.

    As for Goldstein, his this poor disgrace of a blogger worth commenting on. The guy is a creepy internet stalker with a popular blog. He gained popularity because Glenn Reynolds links to him. People like Ann Althouse and Goldstein wouldn’t have an audience without being on InstaLinker’s blogroll.

  5. ilyka
    ilyka April 27, 2008 at 7:42 pm |

    Well I guess your prediction was right, Jill!

    And bonus points for it having occurred in the very first comment. That’s it: I want Jill to be my psychic advisor from now on.

  6. BeaTricks
    BeaTricks April 27, 2008 at 7:43 pm |

    So when I see a monster film I don’t immediately think “scary black men!”

    That’s nice. But, it doesn’t change the fact that “black men = scary” is a pretty standard racist trope. I don’t get the whole shaming Jill thing for pointing it out, though.

  7. AJB
    AJB April 27, 2008 at 7:45 pm |

    Keep in mind that G-dlstein is the same guy who accuses people of anti-Semitism for not supporting Joe Lieberman. He bitches about “political correctness” but essentially practices it all time.

  8. geas_slave
    geas_slave April 27, 2008 at 7:45 pm |

    I guess racists are incapable of a decent analogy? Respecting someone as a human being =/= letting them rape you.

  9. Yuri K.
    Yuri K. April 27, 2008 at 7:46 pm |

    Only people who fight racism are the real racists. Everybody knows that.

  10. Racist Asshole
    Racist Asshole April 27, 2008 at 8:12 pm |

    Oh look! Jill got herself in trouble with WoC bloggers, and, as if by magic, there’s suddenly somebody worse to go to war with! Hooray! Who could have guessed that would happen?

  11. Holly
    Holly April 27, 2008 at 8:20 pm |

    Yes, and it’s because real anti-racists make racism go away by pretending it’s not there! Everyone knows that pointing out racism is the most racist thing that you can possibly do, because it acknowledges the existence of racism.

  12. Shannon Elizabeth comments on "white privilege" as it obtains in feminist circles

    [...] update: My response to being called a “racist asshole” by the gal who likely sees menacing Kongs in her Cocoa Pebbles here. In fact, have a second [...]

  13. evil fizz
    evil fizz April 27, 2008 at 8:41 pm |

    That post of Twisty’s is damn good. You know your satire has fallen flat when the material you’re mocking makes your reader go “Wow, well said.”

  14. laura
    laura April 27, 2008 at 8:49 pm |

    Everyone knows that pointing out racism is the most racist thing that you can possibly do, because it acknowledges the existence of racism.

    Also, because it points out race. Duh!

    (ps, you bring joy when there is sadness, as I stupidly read not only the post but all the commentary too)

  15. punkrockhockeymom
    punkrockhockeymom April 27, 2008 at 9:16 pm |

    Don’t forget–any and every white person that makes another white person uncomfortable by pointing out any systemic racism or racist behavior is clearly just looking for points for being the most politically correct. And that’s racist against black people AND white people. In fact, only white liberals even have a problem with all of this “so-called” racism in order to push their Liberal Agenda. If there is any racism left today, which is doubtful, it is solely because of a scattered few individuals who are probably mentally ill, but you can’t blame a whole society for that!

  16. Jeffersonian
    Jeffersonian April 27, 2008 at 9:20 pm |

    If you read Jeff’s post carefully, Jill, you’ll see your charge of rape glorification is bogus. Goldstein’s roman-a-clef is little more than a sexualized satire of what Tom Wolfe chronicled in “Radical Chic.”

  17. punkrockhockeymom
    punkrockhockeymom April 27, 2008 at 9:28 pm |

    “As if by magic…”

    …Oh! Yes! You are on to her. Jill used her special vagina-based magical powers to conjure up a timely and gobsmackingly unexpected racist and sexist post by Jeff Goldstein, of all people. He’s now looking at that post, which just–*poof!*–appeared on the internet out of nowhere, and he’s thinking, “How the hell did all of that racism and sexism get there??? It’s almost as if I were racist and sexist!!!”

    Jill, you are truly All-Powerful.

  18. ilyka
    ilyka April 27, 2008 at 9:29 pm |

    Goldstein’s roman-a-clef

    When I can think of something funny to write that is funnier than this, I will write it.

  19. Gopika
    Gopika April 27, 2008 at 9:33 pm |

    Okay, so no one here is going to agree with me, but I figured I’d go ahead and say it anyway…

    When I first heard the term privilege in a feminist context, I knew what it meant, it accurately described the situation of the person who was being sexist/racist/etc against me, but at the same time, I felt like the word itself would do more harm than good by guilt-tripping people for the wrong reason.

    IMO, using the word privilege puts emphasis on the conditions that another person comes from that make them different from the discriminated person, not the lack of understanding and insensitivity that the person has.

    It separates without adequately identifying. It definitely is useful for the people who are used to being discriminated against, but not the ones who are accidentally (or otherwise) doing the discriminating, because their privilege makes them blind to their *shock* privilege. Also, there are a myriad ways that a person can be privileged and become insensitive to the harm that is being caused by another person (race/nationality, sex, class, sexual orientation, etc.), and the interactions between those privileges can get really complicated.

    I think in general, we should be doing more to encourage a culture of understanding and empathy, and that automatically brings about an awareness of the subtle things that make us discriminated against by society, that those in privileged positions may not have.

    And also, there’s a possibility that new privileges can keep arising with a changing society, and to keep them in check, a culture of empathy is the only thing that will help, not further categorization and solidification of different types of privileges.

    So, in summary:

    using the word is useful to “us” in the short term, not long term
    not useful to “them” as it inspires misplaced guilt

    What do you guys think?

    Not like any of this is going to help with Jeff. I can’t imagine him actually turning into an empathetic human being just because we stopped using that word.

  20. laura
    laura April 27, 2008 at 9:37 pm |

    I find their insistence that its not rape as an indication that they are grey rape supporters.

    I know we’re making fun of them here, but that just depresses me.

    On a lighter note, I want I shirt that says “Vagina power” and “screaming bloody kotex”.

  21. belledame222
    belledame222 April 27, 2008 at 9:48 pm |

    Let’s see, what ELSE does this remind me of?

    -think think think-

    Oh well yes, among other things, this:

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/04/14/alex-karekin-tchekmeian-is-a-special-young-man/

  22. belledame222
    belledame222 April 27, 2008 at 9:50 pm |

    and can I just say, btw, how fucking depressing it is that both Alex AND Goldstein are ostensibly My People? bad enough I keep wanting to apologize for white feminists all the time…

  23. punkrockhockeymom
    punkrockhockeymom April 27, 2008 at 9:51 pm |

    See! “Vagina Power”–this is why they think Jill magicked up a racist to deal with as deflection. And blood magic is the most powerful kind. We can use screaming bloody kotex as spell materials.

    Too bad that sort of magic–Goldstein conjuring–has its limits. Can’t conjure up anything with cognitive abilities. Just like makin’ zombies. He’s just shambling along, looking for a brain…

    ilyka: You made me snort fizzy water out of my nose.

  24. belledame222
    belledame222 April 27, 2008 at 9:51 pm |

    On a lighter note, I want I shirt that says “Vagina power” and “screaming bloody kotex”.

    we should totally make ‘em.

    also, both killer names for a band.

  25. belledame222
    belledame222 April 27, 2008 at 9:54 pm |

    Goldstein’s roman-a-clef

    One can only assume this means the drunken emails he sent after the last toga/karaoke party he went to.

  26. denelian
    denelian April 27, 2008 at 9:55 pm |

    “screaming bloody O.B.“, please.

    and, btw, how is what he wrote (and dear GODS, i need steel wool to scrub out my brain, how could you DO that to me?!?!?!) in any way NOT rape? cohersive rape is STILL rape, asshat.

    and what did that have to do with privledge? HOW was that funny, amusing, witty, satirical?

    epic FAIL

  27. belledame222
    belledame222 April 27, 2008 at 10:02 pm |

    Amanda gets treated like Leon Trotsky

    More like Richard Nixon.

    whereas you, well…-you’re- a -genius.-

  28. laura
    laura April 27, 2008 at 10:06 pm |

    also, both killer names for a band

    That’s true. I imagine ‘screaming bloody kotex’ to be some kind of heavy metal/punk band, but it would be fucking hilarious if it were a more folksy Dar Williams-esque band…

    …. O the procrastination. my brain was just: “O! screamy bloody kotex -plushie-!” gah. damn teh feminists/what-have-you’s*. They won’t let me get my homework done….

    *is there a word for those who love women but have rejected the feminist label? is womanist correct? woman-positive? pro-woman? um, a non-label label, if you will…

  29. belledame222
    belledame222 April 27, 2008 at 10:11 pm |

    I’m just about ready to consolidate most of my “isms” into Anti-Assholeism, but yeah, labeling’s a bitch, I dunno.

    more seriously, “womanist” is pretty specific to a WoC movement.

    eh, fuck it, just call me Myrtle.

  30. belledame222
    belledame222 April 27, 2008 at 10:18 pm |

    And you’re right, Darleen, Jeff, etc., we missed the -funny- part. Satire? Vas is das “satire?”

    So, like, this is a documentary, right?

    http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/

  31. laura
    laura April 27, 2008 at 10:26 pm |

    O! I just remembered…. kryiarchy. anti-kryiarchy…-ism

    yes? Thats good, I think.

    Yeah, my exposure to women’s studies is roughly nil, and POC stuff even less so. Women’s studies, because I think my understanding of gender is different and have thus never felt the draw. PoC/WoC is because I’m so depressingly white. Most of what I know has been taken from blogs over the past few years. i.e. thank you for letting me know

    * not, she made it up, but thats where I saw it.

  32. ilyka
    ilyka April 27, 2008 at 10:32 pm |

    I heart that post too, Laura, but maybe think twice about sending Go1dstein through-traffic to [redacted]? I know none of us ever did anything to deserve Darleen, but [redacted] REALLY didn’t.

  33. Charity
    Charity April 27, 2008 at 10:39 pm |

    As for Goldstein, his this poor disgrace of a blogger worth commenting on. The guy is a creepy internet stalker with a popular blog. He gained popularity because Glenn Reynolds links to him. People like Ann Althouse and Goldstein wouldn’t have an audience without being on InstaLinker’s blogroll.

    That seems pretty clear. Okay, I did venture over, and now I’m thoroughly dismayed…not even by the words as much as the fact that (if I read one of his comments correctly) he has a kid :(

  34. laura
    laura April 27, 2008 at 10:40 pm |

    O shit. I didn’t think about that. Um, my computer has no love for the ‘edit’ button. Can mods edit posts? Plz help me Jill.

    Some -will- read the comments, and I’d like to keep them away from her site if possible.

  35. punkrockhockeymom
    punkrockhockeymom April 27, 2008 at 10:42 pm |

    Oh! Jill, I was thinking not that THIS post got here by magic, but that you magicked up his. As an imaginary racist. Because he’s not doing a good enough job on his own, without your fantastical interference.

  36. ilyka
    ilyka April 27, 2008 at 10:45 pm |

    That may be asking a bit much for the PW crowd.

    I got nothin’.

  37. laura
    laura April 27, 2008 at 10:47 pm |

    thank you!

  38. Lisa Harney
    Lisa Harney April 27, 2008 at 10:55 pm |

    Are you willing to freelance magick people up. Like, we contract you and you produce someone to spec?

  39. punkrockhockeymom
    punkrockhockeymom April 27, 2008 at 10:59 pm |

    Well, I don’t know if I want any if they are all as dumb as Goldstein. See my comment above re: zombies.

  40. J.
    J. April 27, 2008 at 11:10 pm |

    LOL. I love second-rate bloggers whose loyal minions think they write like Tom Wolfe.

  41. Sophist FCD
    Sophist FCD April 27, 2008 at 11:16 pm |

    Wow, could he have made it any more obvious that was typed left-handed?

  42. Whine on you crazy feministe! Stop Whitey! « docweaselblog

    [...] I didn’t think so. I’ll remember that the next time radical feminazies try some ju-jitsu by calling those who refuse to see racism where none exists racists. [...]

  43. docweasel
    docweasel April 27, 2008 at 11:36 pm |

    trackback Whine On, You Crazy Feministe!- Stop Whitey!”
    [...Pamela Bone, a well-known feminist, died today. She was born again, as many lefties were, after 9-11. Here’s what she had to say about assholes like this Feministe bint:

    LET it be recorded that in the last decade of the 20th century the brave and great movement of Western feminism ended, not with a bang but with a whimper… I don’t hold much hope on this International Women’s Day of seeing big protests in Australian cities against female genital mutilation; or against honour killings, stonings, child marriages, forced seclusion or any of the other persecutions to which women are still subjected. The fire of Western feminism has quietly died away, first as a victim of its success, lately as a victim of cultural relativism, of anti-Americanism and reluctance to be seen to be condemning the enemies of the enemy.

    Of course, cretins like the feministe asshat aren’t brave or intelligent enough to get past their “the white man is eeeeeeeevil!” mentality, so we’re forced to read crap like this:...]

  44. belledame222
    belledame222 April 27, 2008 at 11:36 pm |

    o crap, Jill, there’s another [redacted] whose link I left in the “It’s a Jungle In Here” thread, I think, close to the bottom, you might want to do the same there, just in case.

  45. Lisa Harney
    Lisa Harney April 27, 2008 at 11:36 pm |

    I’m hoping for a wider variety of merchandise than that, yes. :)

  46. Outcrazyophelia
    Outcrazyophelia April 28, 2008 at 12:03 am |

    My blood pressure doesn’t need this mess.

  47. Mitchforth
    Mitchforth April 28, 2008 at 12:19 am |

    Jill,

    The interpretation of the Vogue cover as evoking King Kong hinges on your presumption that King Kong is a metaphor for a black man.

    I don’t see any reason to presume that a gorilla is intended as a metaphor for black men, and I don’t think that was the specific intent of the makers of King Kong. Such an interpretation is inconsistent with the narrative.

    King Kong is about man’s conquest of the natural world, and about the emerging new man-made monstrosities. In this case, a giant gorilla is intended to be a giant gorilla, the apex monster on an island full of monsters, who comes to Manhattan and finds he’s out of his league. It’s not a race text. Whoever included King Kong in your history of racist imagery interprets the film in a way that I and a lot of other people would disagre with, and you are sharing in that fallacy of overinclusion.

    You are reading something into the Vogue cover that isn’t there.

  48. ilyka
    ilyka April 28, 2008 at 12:49 am |

    [pours Jill another glass]

    You shouldn’t rockstar all over your own thread; it makes the rest of us look bad. Especially because I still haven’t thought of anything funnier than “Goldstein’s roman a clef.”

  49. ilyka
    ilyka April 28, 2008 at 12:53 am |

    Also, does Docweaselblog’s author know that “bint” is an Arabic word, and that therefore by using it he is, by his own side’s unassailable logic, supporting teh terror?

    I’m putting too much thought into this, aren’t I?

  50. Mitchforth
    Mitchforth April 28, 2008 at 12:55 am |

    Ah, well if you don’t interpret King Kong as racist, then you’re probably right. Certainly your expertise is better than that of, say, film historians or critical race theorists.

    I’m not a huge fan of critical race theory, and I think many cases, those authors are assuming what they’re trying to prove. Which film historians think Kong symbolizes black men?

    Ebert mentions that the natives of Skull Island are portrayed in a way that is embarrassing by modern standards, but he does not read the monster as a race metaphor:

    http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020203/REVIEWS08/202030301/1023

    And if Kong is a black man, what are the dinosaurs and giant spiders? And what does the Empire State Building mean if Kong symbolizes blacks? What are the airplanes? The plot makes no sense if you impute that symbolism onto the monster.

  51. Karley
    Karley April 28, 2008 at 1:06 am |

    Yeah…way too much thought. I read that and was like; “that’s weird, what about all the feminist posts I read condemning FGM and other misogynistic Islamic practices?” But surely he’s the one most concerned about the welfare of the world’s women; especially when one of the post’s tags is “dykes”.

  52. Karley
    Karley April 28, 2008 at 1:07 am |

    (I was responding to ilyka there)

  53. Lisa Harney
    Lisa Harney April 28, 2008 at 1:19 am |

    About Weasel’s post, I want to say

    it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

    but it signifies something, which is why these conversations keep happening.

    It’s always amusing when someone comes along to tell you that the issues you find important are wrong, and you need to work on the issues they tell you to work on (whether or not you actually work on them).

    By “amusing” I really mean “stupid.”

  54. laura
    laura April 28, 2008 at 1:44 am |

    I’m putting too much thought into this, aren’t I?

    They’re mad because you’re (we’re?) thinking. Simply by analyzing something you are thinking, and therefore thinking too much. And, weirdly, that leads to charges of not thinking…

  55. Michael Hussey
    Michael Hussey April 28, 2008 at 2:12 am |

    Be sure to mention that Al Sharpton, as Ambassador and Representative of All Black People Everywhere, is teh suck.

    Glenn Reynolds plays the race card on Barack Obama by throwing out Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright.

    UPDATE: Reader Edward Friedman emails: “This cannot help Obama or Hillary. The more anti-police, anti-white rhetoric, the more the unwashed bitter people flock to McCain in November.” That’s probably right. As with Jeremiah Wright, it’s almost as if Sharpton is trying to hurt Obama.

    This reads like a post from a man that ceased being the most popular political blogger a long time ago. Reynolds shouldn’t talk about racism after his pro-genocide post against Muslims.

    Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide — unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians. That’s what happens when two societies can’t live together, and the weaker one won’t stop fighting — especially when the weaker one targets the civilians and children of the stronger. This is why I think it’s important to pursue a vigorous military strategy now. Because if we don’t, the military strategy we’ll have to follow in five or ten years will be light-years beyond “vigorous.”

    If that post isn’t racist than I don’t know what is.

  56. belledame222
    belledame222 April 28, 2008 at 2:17 am |

    And if Kong is a black man, what are the dinosaurs and giant spiders? And what does the Empire State Building mean if Kong symbolizes blacks? What are the airplanes? The plot makes no sense if you impute that symbolism onto the monster.

    Mitchforth, you want to know about what -many many- people have had to say about -all kinds of- symbolism in King Kong? (yes, the Empire State building: what -could- that -possible- represent? I’m stumped, I tell you) Just a wee suggestion.

  57. belledame222
    belledame222 April 28, 2008 at 2:24 am |

    …oh, lookie what we have here. One of, oh, 180,000 hits or so?

    via

    http://www.racialicious.com/2008/04/16/racism-fatigue/

    http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC06folder/KingKong.html

    It doesn’t require too great an exercise of the imagination to perceive the element of race in KING KONG. Racist conceptions of blacks often depict them as subhuman, ape or monkey-like. And consider the plot of the film: Kong is forcibly taken from his jungle home, brought in chains to the United States, where he is put on stage as a freak entertainment attraction. He breaks his chains and goes on a rampage in the metropolis, until finally he is felled by the forces of law and order.

    The causative factor in his capture and his demise is his fatal attraction to blonde Ann Darrow (Fay Wray). As Denham says in the last words of the film, “Oh, no, it wasn’t the airplanes. It was Beauty killed the Beast.” If we look at KING KONG in terms of a racial metaphor, “Beauty” turns out to be “the white woman.” This kind of theme is foreshadowed in the behavior of the “natives” on the island where Kong is captured. When he first sees her, the “Native Chief” offers six of his wives for Ann, and when this is refused, he kidnaps her. Thus the sequence of events leading to Kong’s capture is set in motion: the romantic lead,/hero of the film, Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) and Denham organize a rescue party.

    This type of plot device is a recurrent element in films of the jungle adventure genre. The white woman comes along on the safari not only to provide romantic interest. She is usually a focus of tension between the white males and the “natives,” furnishing an opportunity for some of the former to display their virile heroism against the savages. An alternate scenario involves the search for a legendary white woman reportedly living among an obscure, remote tribe, for example, TRADER HORN (MGM 1931). In both cases the “natives” view the white woman as a special kind of fetish with magical powers. In those instances where the white woman isn’t fetishized by the “natives,” the very opposite treatment of her provides an index of their barbarity—they lack a special standard of mercy for women characteristic of civilized peoples.

    Aside from the sexual aspect implicit in the question of race, there’s the more direct, and somewhat delirious, sexual imagery in the film. The ape often functions as a most appropriate anthropoid symbol of “lower,” “animal” instincts. In this case we have a giant ape (literally a huge, hairy monster) and his unrestrained, headlong pursuit of a “blonde,” that archetypical Hollywood sex-object, ending on top of the world’s foremost phallic symbol.(1) The sexual theme touches on the standard racist myth of the black male’s exaggerated sexual potency, and the complementary notion of his insatiable desire for white women.

    Rocket science, it is, I tell you.

  58. belledame222
    belledame222 April 28, 2008 at 2:38 am |

    by the way, did you know it was Hitler’s favorite movie, was King Kong?

    meanwhile, hey, gee: I used that handy tool called “google,” and while I’m -not- going to post the link here, try putting “stormfront” together with “ape” or “monkey” and see what you come up with, okay? Good times.

    p.s. and Mitchforth: don’t hurry back.

  59. belledame222
    belledame222 April 28, 2008 at 2:43 am |

    and by the way, I am sure that it was a total coincidence that -on- that same island as the giant ape and dinosaurs were -also- savage dark-skinned humans that looked and acted like murderous monsters (in the remake, no less).

  60. Nombrilisme Vide
    Nombrilisme Vide April 28, 2008 at 3:11 am |

    Jill, you left the (mostly redacted) blogger’s name in the quoted portion of your comment. Well, and the unquoted portion too. Just FWI…

  61. Merrat
    Merrat April 28, 2008 at 5:48 am |

    “Ah, well if you don’t interpret King Kong as racist, then you’re probably right. Certainly your expertise is better than that of, say, film historians or critical race theorists.”

    What an ironic statement.

    And certainly your expertise outranks the 100% RT ranking among professional reviewers rating the 1939 version of King Kong has. Where dozens upon dozens of published critics (Ebert, NYT, etc) unanimously say nothing about any hyper-abstracted racism link. Really, the only place I’ve heard the King Kong/racism metaphor connection has been malcontents seething fringe liberal blogs like this one where buildings are penises and minorities are monkeys. I have to applaud you Jill, most people would be wary about reflexively associating black males with apes and then exclaiming it for the world to see, but you seem unafraid to do this again and again.

  62. kiki
    kiki April 28, 2008 at 5:55 am |

    I’m not a huge fan of critical race theory…

    So you keep saying (and saying and saying) it’s better when you just keep it to under ten words.

  63. prairielily
    prairielily April 28, 2008 at 7:55 am |

    Yeah…way too much thought. I read that and was like; “that’s weird, what about all the feminist posts I read condemning FGM and other misogynistic Islamic practices?”

    Hey now… FGM is definitely not an Islamic practice. I know Islam has many problems, but I’d really prefer it if we didn’t blame things that aren’t even part of the religion and many in the Islamic world consider sick and wrong on it, because we have dipshits who write pro-genocide screeds against Muslims. I don’t want to give them more ammunition for their ignorant hate, especially because anyone who can justify the treatment of European settlers towards Aboriginals is obviously too lazy/willfully racist to actually check their facts.

  64. laurab
    laurab April 28, 2008 at 8:26 am |

    belledame222 says:
    April 27th, 2008 at 10:11 pm – Edit
    I’m just about ready to consolidate most of my “isms” into Anti-Assholeism, but yeah, labeling’s a bitch, I dunno.

    more seriously, “womanist” is pretty specific to a WoC movement.

    eh, fuck it, just call me Myrtle.

    This is pretty close to my mother’s political position: I Do Not Put Up With Bullshit.

  65. The Girl Detective
    The Girl Detective April 28, 2008 at 1:25 pm |

    So… if seeing racism in the Vogue cover makes Jill a racist, then what does it make black people who feel the same way? Self-haters?

    Also, if I see sexism in a beer ad that, say, features a robot girl pouring bear out of a spigot in her stomach, does that mean that I secretly view women as mindless beer dispensers?

    I guess we ALL learned something today!

  66. GallingGalla
    GallingGalla April 28, 2008 at 1:28 pm |

    Jill, can you please explain why you are “redacting” the blogger’s name / links? Given that “[redacted]” seems to be a WoC blogger, why do you feel it necessary to just assume that she needs a white feminist to protect her without asking her if she needs or wants such protection? There’s lots of shitholes everywhere, including on my little blog, I’m perfectly capable of handling them. I’ve never seen you do this with links or references to any other blog, whether WoC or white, so I’m really confused.

    Note, “redacting” and “[redacted]“, including the quotes, are part of my comment’s original, and are not redactions by Jill.

  67. ilyka
    ilyka April 28, 2008 at 1:36 pm |

    GallingGalla, that was my suggestion originally and my fault. I have apologized to the blogger in question for it, because it wasn’t my place to suggest such.

    I won’t speak for Jill, but one possible reason why you might not have seen a move like that happen before is that the PW blogger is kind of a special case, and one with some pretty creepy stalker tendencies. It’s like a volcano of shit that normally lies dormant, but when it erupts, boy howdy, does it stink.

  68. Bitter Scribe
    Bitter Scribe April 28, 2008 at 1:42 pm |

    I’m sorry, but I’m totally baffled on this one. Why is this guy picking on Shannon Elizabeth? Is he just obsessed with her, or did she say something about feminism or racial relations that pissed him off? Somebody help me out here.

  69. GallingGalla
    GallingGalla April 28, 2008 at 1:44 pm |

    ilyka, thanks for the info.

  70. ilyka
    ilyka April 28, 2008 at 1:46 pm |

    It’s like a thing with him, Bitter Scribe. Because don’t you know? That’s what real living breathing women are for: Goldstein’s roman a clef.

  71. belledame222
    belledame222 April 28, 2008 at 2:07 pm |

    I don’t even know why I clicked over there. He’s got a new post which pretty much boils down to

    “You missed the funny part.”

    psst, Jeff. If you “have to explain the joke?” It’s probably because -it wasn’t funny.-

  72. Bitter Scribe
    Bitter Scribe April 28, 2008 at 2:20 pm |

    Wow, this guy is a major-league creep, isn’t he? I can understand being obsessed with a hot actress (although that seems rather a waste of time for a presumably grown man), but putting rape fantasies in her mouth…that goes into serious sicko territory.

  73. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne April 28, 2008 at 3:39 pm |

    Whoever included King Kong in your history of racist imagery interprets the film in a way that I and a lot of other people would disagre with, and you are sharing in that fallacy of overinclusion.

    Mitch, I have two film degrees (a BA and an MFA) and I feel comfortable telling you to STFU until you know something about film criticism. Thank you.

    And certainly your expertise outranks the 100% RT ranking among professional reviewers rating the 1939 version of King Kong has.

    It came out in 1933, not 1939. It’s actually a pre-Code movie that had some severe edits done to it to make it conform to what the Breen office demanded when it went into re-release. Of course you know the history of the spider scene, correct?

    Gone With the Wind is considered one of the greatest American films of all time. It is also racist. Unfortunately, anyone who only wants to watch non-racist Hollywood films is going to have a very, very short list to pick from. All you can realistically do is acknowledge the stuff that makes you wince (oh, Preston Sturges, why must you let me down when everything else in your films is so funny?) Saying that King Kong incorporates racist imagery is a fact, not a condemnation.

  74. timb
    timb April 28, 2008 at 3:58 pm |

    “# J. says:
    April 27th, 2008 at 11:10 pm – Edit

    LOL. I love second-rate bloggers whose loyal minions think they write like Tom Wolfe.”

    “Second rate?” Hell, that was too much pressure for the poor dear. He’s been off practicing martial arts for months (and arguing with the martial arts crowds on their message boards and stalking their board authors). The only reason he came back is because his followers can’t enough Jeremiah Wright-race baiting.

    Ahh, the zookeeper does like to toss the red meat! I bet his 90% 50 year white male contingent is just hooting and hollering and throwing their dung?

    Second rate? Red-State is second rate. G-ldstein is one step away from a blogspot address.

  75. Mitchforth
    Mitchforth April 28, 2008 at 4:37 pm |

    The article on Kong that Belle posted above lays out the basis for that interpretation about as well as it could be stated. I think the interpretation is really labored and clearly the product of someone who goes in looking to support a presumption that there is rampant racism in popular culture.

    If King Kong were about a symbolic black man who grabs a white woman and then climbs a giant penis, it would be a pretty poor movie.

    The Ann Darrow character is not a white woman endangered by black sexuality. The monster (which does not symbolize a black man) is not sexualized at all. A sexual act between the two of them would be an obvious an obvious physiological impossibility, because King Kong is about 20 feet tall and probably weighs a couple of tons. Comparatively, the woman can sit on the palm of his hand.

    Her role is an ironic twist on the endangered female character who was a cliched element of period adventure stories, because, while she is ostensibly menaced by the monster, it is ultimately the woman who brings the monster to ruin.

    The Empire State Building and the airplanes, as I already pointed out, are symbolic of man’s conquest of the natural world, and these technological terrors are directly contrasted with the denizens of Skull Island. The film’s structure is neatly divided into the Skull Island half and the New York half, and it shows us Kong battling the mionsters native to each locale.

    On Skull Island, Kong rules over the most fearsome creatures nature has ever produced. He is enormous and triumphant. In New York, Kong is dwarfed by and ultimately torn to pieces by the creations of modern man. That’s the point of the movie. The structure and the narrative are designed to elicit that comparison from the audience.

    It’s also worth noting that the film was made during the interwar period, long enough after the first World War for people to have realized the terrifying efficiencies of the military technologies deployed in that conflict, and close enough to the second World War for people to be aware that it was going to happen and that it would be even worse.

    The Critical Race Theory premise that everything is viewed through the prism of identity simply misleads when applied to King Kong, and to many other things, because race isn’t the only problem, and it isn’t necessarily even the central problem of human or American history.

    Kong isn’t, as Jumpcut postulates, a black threat triumpantly conquered by white intellect; he is a monster who is rendered obsolete by man’s own monstrous creation. The airplane was a relatively new development in 1933. It was an immature technology during World War 1, but it was clear that it would play a more central role in the next conflict.

    “King Kong” presents a monster who is shown breaking a dinosaur with its bare hands and crushing a man in its jaws, and that monster is ultimately cut to pieces by weapons that would be deployed against soldiers in a war audiences already feared was brewing. There were bigger thingss to fear in the 1930s than runaway black sexuality.You cannot gloss over the airplanes, and to turn “King Kong” into a racist text, you have to.

  76. MikeEss
    MikeEss April 28, 2008 at 4:49 pm |

    Mitchforth, it’s fascinating how you can see all these hidden messages in King Kong referring to the horrors of modern warfare, etc.

    But the blatant racism (much of which also exists in Peter Jackson’s remake) completely eludes your keen intellect.

    Interesting…

  77. Mitchforth
    Mitchforth April 28, 2008 at 5:08 pm |

    It came out in 1933, not 1939. It’s actually a pre-Code movie that had some severe edits done to it to make it conform to what the Breen office demanded when it went into re-release. Of course you know the history of the spider scene, correct?

    Actually the spider scene was gone before the censors got to the film. Cooper cut it out of the print himself, because test audiences were too disturbed by it, and they either walked out or didn’t pay attention to the rest of the movie. All the other cuts were subsequentlyput back into the movie, but the spiders are still gone because it was not on most of the original prints, and there are no known copies.

  78. Charity
    Charity April 28, 2008 at 5:17 pm |

    Mitch discovered wikipedia, everybody!

  79. ilyka
    ilyka April 28, 2008 at 5:27 pm |

    “Second rate?” Hell, that was too much pressure for the poor dear. He’s been off practicing martial arts for months (and arguing with the martial arts crowds on their message boards and stalking their board authors).

    I demand to hear more. MOAR! Whatever. It can’t be considered any more of a derail than teaching Mitchforth basic film interpretation is, right?

  80. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne April 28, 2008 at 6:16 pm |

    If King Kong were about a symbolic black man who grabs a white woman and then climbs a giant penis, it would be a pretty poor movie.

    Oh dear God.

    Mitch, I really, really, really strongly suggest you take a basic film theory class before you start up again. You should pay particular attention to semiotics and extradiagetic interpretations versus intradiagetic ones.

    As Mike said, it’s fascinating that you see one extradiagetic interpretation but ignore another that has been written about for decades.

  81. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne April 28, 2008 at 6:23 pm |

    Oh, and while you research film theory, Mitch, you may want to also give a smidgen of thought to how the battle of nature vs. civilization has frequently been portrayed in American culture. You don’t even have to go to another website to see a few pictures.

    Is the theory we’re talking about the only possible interpretation of the film? Of course not. That’s what makes it a great film. But denying that the interpretation exists at all despite the decades of scholarly writing about it is making you look like an ignorant fool.

    Oh, and since we’re talking movies and appropriation, I can’t recommend Val Lewton’s I Walked With a Zombie highly enough. Its politics are amazing for a 1940s film (where else was the legacy of slavery so openly discussed in an American film?) and it’s a neat little mood piece as well.

  82. Merrat
    Merrat April 28, 2008 at 8:13 pm |

    “Mitch, I really, really, really strongly suggest you take a basic film theory class before you start up again. You should pay particular attention to semiotics and extradiagetic interpretations versus intradiagetic ones.”

    Which one of those leads to the “Empire State = White man’s penis” correlation?

  83. SEK
    SEK April 28, 2008 at 8:15 pm |

    MikeEss,

    The Jackson remake at least tries to tackle the racism of the original. (The linked conversation spilled over to Berube’s old haunt.)

    Mitchforth,

    I don’t even know where to start. I’ll begin in the dark heart of Africa, from which strong, hardy people were imported to the New World. To prevent this swarthy lot from fornicating with porcelain pure white women, slave-owners and handlers invented a myth about the primordial lust of all things tenebrous for the light. The myth took, and a culture of distrusting the powerful, animalistic bodies of chattel grew around it: “The beasts must be less than human, otherwise we would have no reason to enslave them.”

    Fast-forward seventy years. Do you really need me to connect the dots here? Seriously, this ain’t exactly one of those subtle explications of institutional racism at which conservatives scoff. You’re like the guy arguing that Willem Defoe’s character in Platoon isn’t a Christ figure:

    “Sure,” you say. “He might’ve died to save everyone else, and he might’ve accepted his fate, and he might’ve stretched out his arms like Christ crucified, but only a crazy liberal would see any sort of connection.”

    The sound you hear? It’s us.

    Laughing at you.

  84. Lynn Gazis-Sax
    Lynn Gazis-Sax April 28, 2008 at 8:28 pm |

    If King Kong were about a symbolic black man who grabs a white woman and then climbs a giant penis, it would be a pretty poor movie.

    Well, yeah, if it were only that, with no other possible layers of interpretation, obviously. And if Gone With the Wind were only a defense of the lost glories of slavery, it wouldn’t have such lasting appeal.

    But, at the same time, you know, Ingagi, produced just a couple of years before King Kong, had a huge audience. So it’s not as if racist exploitation was a death blow in the marketplace.

    The Ann Darrow character is not a white woman endangered by black sexuality. The monster (which does not symbolize a black man) is not sexualized at all.

    He obsessively pursues one particular attractive blonde – noticeably spurning the wrong blonde – and is said at the end to have been defeated by Beauty. The monster isn’t supposed to be in love? Plus, in a scene that censors took to the cutting room floor in the 1933 version, he tore some of the blonde’s clothing off; that seems a bit sexualized to me.

    There were bigger thingss to fear in the 1930s than runaway black sexuality.

    Um, Scottsboro Boys?

  85. Brian Macker
    Brian Macker April 28, 2008 at 8:56 pm |

    “critical race theorists”

    Ha, ha. You’re serious aren’t you? When did you start hating white men?

  86. Christine
    Christine April 28, 2008 at 9:01 pm |

    You, on the other hand, seem to have been raised in a more privileged environment.

    Oh, the IRONY.

  87. ilyka
    ilyka April 28, 2008 at 9:36 pm |

    Thanks, timb! You’re a doll!

    Ha, ha. You’re serious aren’t you? When did you start hating white men?

    Oh, honey, it isn’t white men. It’s you.

  88. punkrockhockeymom
    punkrockhockeymom April 28, 2008 at 9:36 pm |

    Mnemosyne:

    Also re I Walked With A Zombie: Zombies make everything better.

    I know that’s really off topic, but since we’ve already tackled Jill’s magical vagina powers and her ability to conjure racists without cognitive ability, it’s ALMOST on topic.

  89. Lisa Harney
    Lisa Harney April 28, 2008 at 10:05 pm |

    I think Mitch’s comment goes completely off the rails with this paragraph:

    The article on Kong that Belle posted above lays out the basis for that interpretation about as well as it could be stated. I think the interpretation is really labored and clearly the product of someone who goes in looking to support a presumption that there is rampant racism in popular culture.

    clearly the product of someone who goes in looking to support a presumption that there is rampant racism in popular culture.

    He doesn’t even understand the language we’re speaking. He thinks it’s imaginary.

  90. MikeEss
    MikeEss April 28, 2008 at 10:10 pm |

    Mitchforth knows in his heart that racism did not exist before those uppity libruls went looking for it. He’d get along great with Tony “Racism doesn’t exist anymore” Snow…

  91. punkrockhockeymom
    punkrockhockeymom April 28, 2008 at 10:55 pm |

    What I don’t get about that argument–that we’re looking for racism–is, well, for what purpose? A guy I know told me today that I have an ideological agenda. And I said, well, fine, what is it? That all people be treated with dignity and as wholly human? That’s my ideological agenda? Well, okay. Yes.

    So if we’re supposed to be making it up, what’s our supposed end-game? What’s my long-term goal in imagining racism and sexism?

    And just to tie it all in to the privilege conversations this weekend: you know, it’s not just the people applying a critique that have an ideology to push. All y’all zombie-racists (who were, apparently, all conjured up by Jill anyhow) are pushing an ideology too. If you think the status quo is just fine, and you’re uncomfortable acknowledging all of that “imaginary” cultural racism and sexism, well, then I suggest you might want to ask yourself just what that ideology is. You just don’t have to call it an “ideological agenda” because it’s been the dominant fucking paradigm for so long it’s treated as objective and normative.

  92. Tapetum
    Tapetum April 28, 2008 at 11:33 pm |

    Oh dear Lord – when did JG start in the martial arts? We already have enough problems with macho idiots. Unless, perchance he happens upon my dojo? Pretty please? With sugar on top? I’m the designated person for knocking testosterone poisoning out of idiots. Usually it’s merely a pain in the butt, but I could enjoy it under the right circumstances.

  93. Lynn Gazis-Sax
    Lynn Gazis-Sax April 29, 2008 at 2:43 am |

    Not only is it utterly paranoid to see any significant racism in popular culture, it’s utterly paranoid to see any significant racism in popular culture in the 1930s, when Jim Crow laws were in full effect. Evidently racism went poof at the end of the Civil War.

  94. timb
    timb April 29, 2008 at 10:56 am |

    Tapetum,

    He’s always been a wannabe warrior, you know without actually risking anything!

    The funny part about reading Goldstein is watching the exhausted rational side fight with the increasing bitter, anger-fueled, approval-seeking emotional side. So, whereas he feels like a girly man with his Flannery O’Connor and intentionalism nonsense, he tries to fight that by being “manly”. He’s too tough for you and likes getting drunk and ogling the chicks, dude. And, when the incessant pleading of the rational side told him it was wrong to hate his sycophantic commenters and still ask them for money and CD’s (and they always delivered), he felt increasingly weary of them. It was wrong to know they are a bunch of middle aged chumps and still love how they worship you, an English teacher/tough guy (watch the way his “replacement” Karl Bade, reverentially addresses him).

    So, he dropped them and ran off to train for MMA. But, not any MMA. No, befitting the uberman he sees himself as, he picked an obscure MMA (“catch and release” wrestling) and picked some heroes to defend and save and makes Christ-like appearances on Protein Wisdom, where his posts summon his disciples to hate the appropriate things (uppity Negroes trying to be President and women who talk). There he gets the adulation of 90 people, so he can run back to the MMA boards and take on the people who make a living doing what he wishes he did.

    That’s a brief history of the people who man the fringe of the Right Wing. As for meeting him at your dojo, there can’t be that many MMA dojos in Denver, specializing in the obscure and obsolete. Look him up. As for the rest of us, Jill should swing by PW every once in awhile, because they plan on posting a video of their champion in his first tournament. Jesus, it’s why I go back every once in awhile to poke around. I need to that little man get his rear end handed to him by some 25 year furniture mover. To see that crash of Serotonin level in real time would be a rare and joyful experience…

  95. Roy
    Roy April 29, 2008 at 1:50 pm |

    Still not sure how you got from “critical race theory” to “Jill hates white men,” but whatevs

    I was pretty sure I detected loathing and disgust when I met you, and now I understand why.

    I have to say, Mitchforth’s comments are giving me very uncomfortable flashbacks to my undergrad days. One of my majors was in Literature, and there were always people in class who didn’t really fully understand symbolism. The great thing about symbolism is that you can manipulate the symbol to mean different things at different points in the story. That King Kong involves racist symbolism doesn’t mean that it can’t also be making a statement about Man versus Nature. The entire point of using symbolism is that you can talk about something without having to name the thing. It lets you layer meaning. King Kong is about a big gorilla stuck in NYC. But, it’s also about a bunch of other things that lie beneath the surface.

  96. Astraea
    Astraea April 29, 2008 at 1:59 pm |

    Lynn Gazis-Sax: Oh, there wasn’t any racism in America when slavery was legal, either. That was just free market economics.

    /snark

  97. jess
    jess April 29, 2008 at 7:38 pm |

    jesus. okay, to mitchforth and all other “THERE IS NO RACISM IN KING KONG! STUPID LIBERALS!!!111″ commentors:

    i am going to assume that you are all older than me (i’m 22), have seen more of life than i have, and more educated, though that may be a stretch.

    i mean, at the very least, going through high school american/world history should have taught you what you need to know. how do you think the slave trade was justified? why do you think slaves were only counted as 3/5 of a person? we were considered subhuman. now, i’m pretty sure this isn’t playing too fast and loose with words here, but subhuman is pretty much “monkey.”

    i am sure you’ve seen caricatures from the late 19th and early 20th century where black people were depicted as basically monkeys. it’s not like the imagery of king kong was pulled out of thin air, nor has the racist undertones have been pulled out of thin air.

    but we don’t even have to get that cerebral with it, and “look for things that aren’t there”. don’t tell me that none of you have EVER heard a black person referred to as a monkey in all your years, anywhere, by anyone of any race. come on! remember that macaca incident a few years back? now why do you think allen thought it was appropriate to use that particular word?

  98. TR
    TR April 30, 2008 at 7:44 am |

    You better be careful. Goldstein might threaten to slap you across the face with his cock.

    Actually, he only threatens men with that one. And I’m not sure he really means it as a threat….

  99. ice weasel
    ice weasel April 30, 2008 at 8:36 am |

    Isn’t little jeffie widely acknowledged to be one of the stupidest bloggers out there?

    Which isn’t a counter argument to any of his drolling rants only to say, for a discussion to take place there has to be two intelligent and honest parties. jeffie ain’t either. He’s proven that a number of times.

    Just sayin.

  100. fi
    fi April 30, 2008 at 9:13 am |

    You missed and edit in 38.

  101. isaac
    isaac April 30, 2008 at 10:00 am |

    >>>Point out that you have a black dentist/golf partner/co-worker, and he is both qualified to do his job and articulate

    also, be sure to mention, “i dont care if you’re black, white, purple or yellow”

  102. Jamey
    Jamey April 30, 2008 at 10:11 am |

    Yuri (11):

    Only a racist would say that …

    Jeff Godlstein threatens to slap others with his cock? Yeah, like anybody would be caught dead within 2″ of him.

  103. Pope Ratzo
    Pope Ratzo April 30, 2008 at 10:28 am |

    If you look at the Lebron James/Giselle Whatshername cover, and you don’t see King Kong or Mighty Joe Young, you have really not been paying attention to the world.

    What does it say that I, a white male (or Sicilian, which my wife says makes me less so), identify with the ape? I swear I never hung around Gender Studies classes to find dates.

    Whatever. I’m on your side. I’m not so bright and I get lost in feminist theory pretty quick, but I’m smart enough to know Jeff Goldstein is a goof.

  104. HeavyJ
    HeavyJ April 30, 2008 at 10:55 am |

    The turtlefucker is still blogging?

    Seriously, the guy has a revenous sexual appetite for turtles. It’s really disturbing.

  105. appletree » Blog Archive » I’m so looking forward to seeing what the racist assholes will come up with between now and November

    [...] Straight from the ‘A’ and Feministe) (cross posted at Liberal Avenger) This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 14th, 2008 at 11:01 am [...]

  106. TBogg » It must be sweeps week again
    TBogg » It must be sweeps week again October 11, 2009 at 4:25 pm |

    [...] More here.  13 Comments Spotlight [...]

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.