Author: has written 5273 posts for this blog.

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

98 Responses

  1. Lance
    Lance April 23, 2009 at 5:31 pm |

    I love the Miss California story. It’s one of those very few special times where nearly everybody involved is highly unsympathetic. I feel kinda bad for the person who won the beauty pageant talent competition, as her victory has been completely overshadowed by this destined-to-be-quickly-forgotten-controversy.

  2. Chris
    Chris April 23, 2009 at 5:49 pm |

    I just find it funny that the conservative far right has really become more about ‘liberal views’ than any liberal has ever been. Every expression is now couched in complete relativism to the point of insisting that everyone be tolerant even of intolerance.

    When you hold views that blatantly contradict most of the things we consider important: autonomy and freedom, basic human worth and dignity, etc., there is no way to justify your outlook which by its nature deprives people of these things. And the only way to escape from having to justify your basic worldviews to others is to insist that all basic worldviews are inherently equal and beyond criticism.

    It is deeply ironic that conservative values find their expression in radical utilitarianism (to the point of taking up contradictory language in order to perpetuate one’s values) and a positively incoherent degree of cultural relativism.

  3. Bukkakelypse
    Bukkakelypse April 23, 2009 at 6:18 pm |

    “So Miss California said gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married because she was raised to believe in opposite marriage”

    Really? The first sentence of her response is “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other” and later says it ‘should’ be between a man and a woman – not it must be.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMvviFbkf0

    Miss America is supposed to be a symbol of our country. And maybe that’s what a clown like Perez would like Miss America to be – a demure, opinionless, and PC woman who folds on the principles of her religion so she can win a silly contest and not get called a bitch.

    I’m not a Christian and the government should have ZERO involvement in marriage, but ‘Brava!’ Carrie Prejean for putting your personal beliefs before a shiny plastic tiara.

  4. Gator90
    Gator90 April 23, 2009 at 6:33 pm |

    If you criticize a white person for saying “nigger,” you’re a racist!

  5. Rebecca
    Rebecca April 23, 2009 at 6:36 pm |

    Chris, it’s because they have no idea what liberal views actually are. Just as they claim that pro-choicers want to force abortions on all women because they want to force childbirth on all women – they can’t conceive of anyone having a mentality that differs from their own. This happens to be a reverse example of what they actually think of liberals. Because “intolerance” to them is simply not being allowed to say what you want, they don’t believe real examples of intolerance and assume it’s the same kind of complaining they do.

  6. Ivy
    Ivy April 23, 2009 at 7:16 pm |

    As someone who is getting illegally gay married in Texas next week, I would like to say that I do not mock her for her bigotry; rather, I mock her for her inability to construct an English sentence which makes sense.

  7. Rebecca
    Rebecca April 23, 2009 at 7:47 pm |

    I’m not a Christian and the government should have ZERO involvement in marriage, but ‘Brava!’ Carrie Prejean for putting your personal beliefs before a shiny plastic tiara.

    I’ll assume you’re arguing in good faith – her attitude is exactly that which we saw coming into play with former President Bush’s “conscience” rule. She wants to have her cake and eat it too – to express her personal beliefs and still get that tiara, which is manifestly clear if you’ve seen her follow-up. Her attitude is the same as that of the people who expected to benefit from the “conscience” rule – they wanted to put their faith above their jobs and still keep their jobs.

  8. joe_D
    joe_D April 23, 2009 at 7:56 pm |

    I think some people don’t really understand the concept of “intolerance.” Being intolerant of someone’s racist, sexist, heterosexist, etc etc opinions is not the same as being intolerant of someone because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, etc etc.

    Jill, I think tolerance is being able to hold you own views at arms length long enough to recognize that somebody at the other end of the political spectrum might very well not be an asshole.

  9. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz April 23, 2009 at 8:20 pm |

    Jill, I think tolerance is being able to hold you own views at arms length long enough to recognize that somebody at the other end of the political spectrum might very well not be an asshole.

    This assumes that gay marriage really is some kind of policy difference rather than a civil rights issue. I am so tired of the idea that denying the basic humanity of 10% of the population just puts you at a different end of the political spectrum. Disagreement on issues (to me) means things like how hawkish you are on foreign policy, your views on school vouchers, and the degree to which you genuflect at the altar of the free market. It does not mean that you think 10% of the population isn’t even worthy of basic freedoms and protections.

  10. Bukkakelypse
    Bukkakelypse April 23, 2009 at 8:27 pm |

    “I’ll assume you’re arguing in good faith – her attitude is exactly that which we saw coming into play with former President Bush’s “conscience” rule. She wants to have her cake and eat it too – to express her personal beliefs and still get that tiara, which is manifestly clear if you’ve seen her follow-up. Her attitude is the same as that of the people who expected to benefit from the “conscience” rule – they wanted to put their faith above their jobs and still keep their jobs.”

    Well she was basically presented with a lose-lose situation: stick to your faith or give the prosaic Miss Congeniality response and get first place. But the competition has every right to deny her the tiara, just as employers in a free society should be allowed to fire people for whatever reason they please. I was just admiring her for picking convictions over winning/social approval.

  11. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz April 23, 2009 at 9:00 pm |

    I was just admiring her for picking convictions over winning/social approval.

    Wait. She gets a cookie for being an honest bigot?

  12. Ens
    Ens April 23, 2009 at 9:25 pm |

    I just don’t admire her convictions. At all. So I don’t admire her for choosing them over anything. Including a shiny plastic tiara which, from her participation in this event, I gather she also values.

    In general I’m cool with the idea that standing up for what you believe in, even in the face of peer pressure, is important; but when she stands up for oppression then I’m going to stand up for what I believe in and say that she’s an ass.

  13. joe_D
    joe_D April 23, 2009 at 9:34 pm |

    This assumes that gay marriage really is some kind of policy difference rather than a civil rights issue.

    Civil rights is a policy issue, to be debated in the public sphere like any other. When you impute bad faith to those with whom you disagree, you poison the well for everyone.

    Disagreement on issues (to me) means things like how hawkish you are on foreign policy, your views on school vouchers, and the degree to which you genuflect at the altar of the free market.

    I’m glad to hear that you’re more tolerant of disagreements over those issues. On this blog, though, you’re labeled “asshole” if you support teaching children to wait for sex until marriage. I’m sure I can find other examples if I looked harder. “Asshole” is the second largest category here, right under “feminism”.

  14. Bukkakelypse
    Bukkakelypse April 23, 2009 at 9:36 pm |

    “evil_fizz says:
    April 23rd, 2009 at 9:00 pm – Edit

    Wait. She gets a cookie for being an honest bigot?”

    http://www.dictionary.com
    big⋅ot
    –noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

    And how does she strike you as truly fitting that definition? She was polite, a lot more respectful of the asking judge than he was of her, and she said it’s GOOD that it’s legal. One would think terms like “utterly intolerant” would only be reserved for the likes of Ku Kluxers or the government of North Korea.

    I’m not a fan of Muslims and Mormons marrying tons of wives or the Jewish practice of Kashrut (kosher slaughter), but I’d never deny them their right to do these things. So I guess I’m a bigot too.

    I like people who lay all their cards on the table when there’s something at stake. And yes, I do give her a cookie for being frank – especially on national television.

  15. Bukkakelypse
    Bukkakelypse April 23, 2009 at 9:45 pm |

    [QUOTE]Ens says:

    I just don’t admire her convictions. At all. So I don’t admire her for choosing them over anything. Including a shiny plastic tiara which, from her participation in this event, I gather she also values.[/QUOTE]

    Fair enough.

    [QUOTE]
    In general I’m cool with the idea that standing up for what you believe in, even in the face of peer pressure, is important; but when she stands up for oppression then I’m going to stand up for what I believe in and say that she’s an ass.[/QUOTE]

    And how is she “standing up for oppression”? She said she’s glad it’s legal. If I denounce adultery, but say I’m glad it’s legal, am I likewise ‘oppressing’ cheaters?

  16. Lauren
    Lauren April 23, 2009 at 9:51 pm |

    Isn’t there an internet law for whipping out dictionary.com in an argument?

  17. joe_D
    joe_D April 23, 2009 at 9:58 pm |

    Someday when I get really bored, I’m going to start keeping track of what gets more inane complaints: The “assholes” tag or the little girl with the gun.

    I’m not complaining about the tag. You blog about plenty of people who probably deserve the title. But what exactly did Carrie Prejean say or do to make her an asshole? Besides opposing same-sex marriage in a calm, respectful tone?

  18. joe_D
    joe_D April 23, 2009 at 10:03 pm |

    Also, Joe D, while you’re complaining about my unladylike use of the term “assholes,”

    Why would you turn my comment into a sexist one? Seriously, what could that possible add to the discussion?

  19. Bagelsan
    Bagelsan April 23, 2009 at 10:07 pm |

    I gotta say, this troll pretty much lost all feminist credibility in my mind the second I got to the name “Bukkakelypse.” But that’s probably just me being “intolerant” of bad porn… :p

  20. D. Bonett
    D. Bonett April 23, 2009 at 10:07 pm |

    Sorry, but marriage is not a civil right. It never was and it never will be, no matter how much you keep repeating that it is. As Miss California rightly pointed out (and if she was a little flustered, who can blame her, considering she must have known that the whole audience was going to be against her) people of opposite genders marry, and then in most cases they can procreate (have children so that the state can be perpetuated) and they are granted certain privileges to better enable them to raise the children that they have. Two men or two women can and do shack up, but how does it benefit anyone except themselves, and why should the state recognize it?

    Civil rights would include the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to equal pay for equal work and things of that nature. Those old enough to remember the civil rights movement will remember that blacks were attempting to get the right to vote, first and foremost, which gays actually have, and which they are currently attempting to take away from the majority population (as in the lawsuit against Proposition 8, voted in by a majority of Californians). Clearly Perez Hilton does not believe in the right to free speech, for anyone who disagrees with him, and neither do you here at Feministe.

    We are at sorry pass in America when someone can take an issue that they KNOW is controversial (in the states where there is the right to so-called ‘gay marriage, it has ALWAYS been imposed from above by judges or legislators who know they are going against the will of the people), ask a question about it and expect that the person being asked will be intimidated enough to give the answer they want whether they actually agree with them or not, and then tar and vilify them if they dare to disagree. Kudos to Miss California for refusing to succumb to this kind of bullying. She has become a role model for a lot of us, and we don’t care if she didn’t accompany her bravery withy perfect grammar. I’d rather speak poor English than have perfect grammar–but have lost my mind.

  21. Northeast Elizabeth
    Northeast Elizabeth April 23, 2009 at 10:13 pm |

    Thanks for this post. Miss California shows why elections matter. This video best demonstrates how lucky we are to have Obama in the White House.

  22. Lauren
    Lauren April 23, 2009 at 10:17 pm |

    But what exactly did Carrie Prejean say or do to make her an asshole? Besides opposing same-sex marriage in a calm, respectful tone?

    She took Bukkakelypse’s cookie and shoved it in our faces. No one cares whether the runner up for Miss America supports gay marriage or not — but for her to assert that it’s unfair she can’t publicly advocate for discrimination without public blowback? It’s bullshit.

  23. Lauren
    Lauren April 23, 2009 at 10:18 pm |

    All right, who let the assholes in?

  24. Emma
    Emma April 23, 2009 at 10:20 pm |

    So, when does Obama get called out as the bigot he is? Or “mind numbingly dumb”? He has the exact same position as Miss California, and he has a lot more power to deny gay rights than Miss California. It’s easy to bash women. It’s seemingly tougher for this blog to tell truth to power on the same issues.

  25. Bagelsan
    Bagelsan April 23, 2009 at 10:29 pm |

    Isn’t part of “standing up for what you believe in” actually *standing up for what you believe in* in the face of opposition? I disagree with this woman’s opinion like crazy, but shouldn’t my disagreement make her feel *extra* special? Hard to be a True Christian Martyr(TM) without some lions yanno. :p (Except in this case most rational people are rooting for the lions…)

  26. Bukkakelypse
    Bukkakelypse April 23, 2009 at 10:31 pm |

    Jill says:
    April 23rd, 2009 at 9:59 pm – Edit

    Also, Joe D, while you’re complaining about my unladylike use of the term “assholes,” can you yell at Bukkakelypse for his totally gross handle?

    lol Yea what gives, Joe

    And Bukkakelypse, thanks for taking a few minutes out of your busy schedule of browsing cheesy internet porn and reading of libertarian apocalyptic ramblings to share your thoughts on morality with us. I know Thursday nights are a busy time in mom’s basement, so your thoughts here are really appreciated.

    Thnx everyone!

    De nada señorita. And I don’t think porn has necessarily reached the CHEESY realm until you have the 70′s bow chicka bow wow music, and/or bloopers.

  27. Melissa
    Melissa April 23, 2009 at 10:31 pm |

    Re: the asshole tag- were Barack Obama or Joe Biden labeled that way when they made more eloquent but similarly themed comments about their disapproval of same sex marriage?

  28. drakyn
    drakyn April 23, 2009 at 10:43 pm |

    I do wish the folks screaming “CENSORSHIP!!!!” all the time actually took the time to read the constitution.
    Jill & the other feministe writers are not the government. When they call you an asshole or delete your comment they are not trampling on your (or Ms. Runner-Up’s) right to free speech.
    kthnxbai

  29. Nomad
    Nomad April 23, 2009 at 10:45 pm |

    Perez Hilton made an awfully quick transition from respectable pageant judge to vindictive media beast

  30. Bukkakelypse
    Bukkakelypse April 23, 2009 at 10:52 pm |

    Sorry, but marriage is not a civil right. It never was and it never will be, no matter how much you keep repeating that it is. As Miss California rightly pointed out (and if she was a little flustered, who can blame her, considering she must have known that the whole audience was going to be against her) people of opposite genders marry, and then in most cases they can procreate (have children so that the state can be perpetuated) and they are granted certain privileges to better enable them to raise the children that they have. Two men or two women can and do shack up, but how does it benefit anyone except themselves, and why should the state recognize it?

    The state shouldn’t recognize it, because the state simply shouldn’t be involved. Whether two men or two women getting married it’s moral is the provenance of philosophy and religion – whether it should be legal is none of government’s business.
    If you’re a Christian (as I suspect, call me out if I’m wrong), D. Bonett, then why would you want government, a worldly institution, involved in marriage… which scripturally is a Covenant between a woman, a man, and God?

    Civil rights would include the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to equal pay for equal work and things of that nature. Those old enough to remember the civil rights movement will remember that blacks were attempting to get the right to vote, first and foremost, which gays actually have, and which they are currently attempting to take away from the majority population (as in the lawsuit against Proposition 8, voted in by a majority of Californians). Clearly Perez Hilton does not believe in the right to free speech, for anyone who disagrees with him, and neither do you here at Feministe.

    He may be a douche, but calling someone a “dumb bitch” doesn’t mean you don’t believe in free speech.

  31. Roy
    Roy April 23, 2009 at 10:57 pm |

    Sorry, but marriage is not a civil right. It never was and it never will be, no matter how much you keep repeating that it is. As Miss California rightly pointed out (and if she was a little flustered, who can blame her, considering she must have known that the whole audience was going to be against her) people of opposite genders marry, and then in most cases they can procreate (have children so that the state can be perpetuated) and they are granted certain privileges to better enable them to raise the children that they have. Two men or two women can and do shack up, but how does it benefit anyone except themselves, and why should the state recognize it?

    1. Because many same-sex couples *do* care for children and create families. That they are not giving birth to children that carry both of their genes is completely irrelevent.
    2. Because there’s a long history in this country of treating marriage as a union based on love and commitment, not on “ability to give birth to children.”
    3. Because we don’t limit marriage to people who are capable of bearing children.
    4. Because the state has seen fit to grant certain rights and legal benefits to marriage, and we are a nation of equal protection under the law, and shouldn’t be arbitrarily denying or limiting the legal rights of our citizens.
    5. Because it’s obvious to anyone who isn’t trolling that the vast majority of marriages are focused on love and commitment, not sex organs or representation.

    Civil rights would include the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to equal pay for equal work and things of that nature.

    Like the right to visit a sick loved one in the hospital? To inherit property? To file joint taxes? In other words, to enjoy equal recognition of their union in the eyes of the law?

    Those old enough to remember the civil rights movement will remember that blacks were attempting to get the right to vote, first and foremost, which gays actually have, and which they are currently attempting to take away from the majority population (as in the lawsuit against Proposition 8, voted in by a majority of Californians).

    We, as a nation, should not be voting away the rights of other members of our society. That you think it’s right or appropriate that we should put it to a majority vote to decide whether same-sex couples deserve the same rights as straight couples is so fundamentally fucked up that I don’t know what to say. Our nation was founded on the principles that neither the majority nor the minority should be at the mercy of the other. There’s a reason we’re a representative democracy not a straight democracy. The minority should not be ruled by the tyranny of the majority, and the rights of the minority should never be at the whims of the majority.

    We are at sorry pass in America when someone can take an issue that they KNOW is controversial (in the states where there is the right to so-called ‘gay marriage, it has ALWAYS been imposed from above by judges or legislators who know they are going against the will of the people),

    There are times when it is a leader’s burden to push forward with unpopular legislation because it is the right thing to do. There have been many times in our nations past where the general public embraced some really nasty and backwards ideals, and it fell to the shoulders of our leaders to push forward with social change, even though it was against the will of the people. And it cost many of them their careers. But, history vindicates those who were right, just as it will vindicate those politicians who stand up for what is right, and support equality.

    ask a question about it and expect that the person being asked will be intimidated enough to give the answer they want whether they actually agree with them or not, and then tar and vilify them if they dare to disagree. Kudos to Miss California for refusing to succumb to this kind of bullying. She has become a role model for a lot of us, and we don’t care if she didn’t accompany her bravery withy perfect grammar. I’d rather speak poor English than have perfect grammar–but have lost my mind.

    Wait… I’m confused… I thought you said that gay marriage was opposed by most people? So, she’s brave for taking the position held by most people? Or are you saying that most people support gay marriage, and therefore she’s brave for holding a minority opinion?

    That’s very confusing.

    So, when does Obama get called out as the bigot he is? Or “mind numbingly dumb”? He has the exact same position as Miss California, and he has a lot more power to deny gay rights than Miss California.

    I wouldn’t say it’s exactly the same. I’m not saying that I’m thrilled by the things he’s said, but given his track record, and what he’s said on multiple occasions, I wouldn’t say that he’s got exactly the same stance that she seems to have, either.

  32. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz April 23, 2009 at 10:58 pm |

    Did we start a thread for the sole purpose of soliciting contenders for the next top troll competition? Now, in order, because I am a sucker:

    Civil rights is a policy issue, to be debated in the public sphere like any other.

    Well, obviously your framing of the issues is clearly correct. How foolish of me.

    On this blog, though, you’re labeled “asshole” if you support teaching children to wait for sex until marriage. I’m sure I can find other examples if I looked harder.

    No, you get called an asshole for being fundamentally dishonest about human sexuality in a way that endangers lives. Next?

    One would think terms like “utterly intolerant” would only be reserved for the likes of Ku Kluxers or the government of North Korea.

    So the definition of bigot is now limited to those who publicly advocate for genocide? Nice to see us working with the fluidity of language.

    Sorry, but marriage is not a civil right. It never was and it never will be, no matter how much you keep repeating that it is.

    D., meet Loving v. Virginia. Introduce Joe while you’re at it.

    So, when does Obama get called out as the bigot he is? Or “mind numbingly dumb”? He has the exact same position as Miss California, and he has a lot more power to deny gay rights than Miss California. It’s easy to bash women. It’s seemingly tougher for this blog to tell truth to power on the same issues.

    I seem to recall some pretty harsh criticism here for Obama (and his framing of the issue as a policy disagreement) when it was announced that Rick Warren was going to deliver the invocation.

  33. Kristen J.
    Kristen J. April 23, 2009 at 10:59 pm |

    Good grief, what the heck is going on around here…

    Sorry, but marriage is not a civil right.

    Um…anti-miscegenation? Good to know…I was under the impression that Loving v. Virginia was a landmark civil rights case. Good to know you think that my SO and I shouldn’t have received constitutional protection for our clearly unimportant interracial marriage.

    So, when does Obama get called out as the bigot he is?

    Right now. Obama is a bigot and (for Melissa) an asshole. Biden can share those labels with him. Feel better?

  34. Tapetum
    Tapetum April 23, 2009 at 11:08 pm |

    D. Bonnet – I’m sure the two babies in my Mom & Baby group who were there with their lesbian moms would beg to differ on the whole same-sex partnering = no children to protect issue.

  35. belledame222
    belledame222 April 23, 2009 at 11:18 pm |

    Oh Kristen, that’s totally different, because um mumble something blather about procreation which is totally compatible with “civil rights,” because uhhhhh D Bonehead says so, WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA, WHYYYYYY???!?!???

    Emma: When Miss California is in the position to overturn DOMA, which Obama has said he’s going to do? among many, many other things that Obama actually does which is why we voted for him, and not how well he wears a tiara? Then. Oh wait, actually people have. And none of it changes a damn thing about the point here. Next?

  36. belledame222
    belledame222 April 23, 2009 at 11:21 pm |

    Mostly I wish the folks screaming about “CENSORSHIPELEVEN!!!ONE!!!” would say something remotely interesting or at least honest with the free speech and civil rights they so passionately value.

    p.s. “Happy holidays.”

  37. Ens
    Ens April 24, 2009 at 12:04 am |

    She said she’s glad it’s legal. If I denounce adultery, but say I’m glad it’s legal, am I likewise ‘oppressing’ cheaters?

    I didn’t watch it, but the article says she said she only wanted opposite marriage. Rather than argue about whether the post is accurate or not, or make me watch the pageant, feel free to consider my comment contingent on this article being factually correct.

  38. octogalore
    octogalore April 24, 2009 at 12:14 am |

    I agree with the substance of the post. CP does have bigoted views. PH is an asshole.

    The larger issue, to me, is that every president I can remember has opposed gay marriage, and stated marriage is not a civil right.

    Obama’s position of “I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights,” similar to that of Carter, Clinton, and Bush, is not easily distinguishable from what Prejean said, although much more artful.

    But although we should applaud when a politician supports legal rights (which, to be fair, we don’t know about Prejean one way or the other), we should still understand that Prejean’s bigotry is the tip of a larger iceberg, where our key public figures maintain that there is only one appropriate marriage, onely one appropriate unit of child rearing. That’s what seems to be getting lost.

  39. Auguste
    Auguste April 24, 2009 at 12:17 am |

    All right, who let the assholes in?

    Maybe they misunderstood the reason for the category.

  40. Andy
    Andy April 24, 2009 at 12:38 am |

    “Maybe they misunderstood the reason for the category.”

    *snickers*

  41. Cactus Wren
    Cactus Wren April 24, 2009 at 2:10 am |

    Lauren@#17: dictionary.com is trumped by m-w.com, the Merriam-Webster site. Which in turn is trumped by oed.com, the Oxford English Dictionary, and at that point the thread turns into a dic-waving contest.

  42. CartoonCoyote
    CartoonCoyote April 24, 2009 at 2:20 am |

    Log Cabin Republicans: The Stockholm Syndrome poster children.

    I ask this out of honest ignorance: Are these really the kinds of questions asked of potential Misses America?

  43. Stephen Archer
    Stephen Archer April 24, 2009 at 5:08 am |

    Opinions are only opinions, and I do think that MR Hilton had no business expressing this opinion at a Pageantry. It did not belong there. The contestant in question was merely answering his question, and with grace I might add. It looks more like it is Perez Hilton that an issue about how beautiful she was, something that he could not achieve himself if he tried, and he does try disgracefully when he parades at gay pride events, in the nude! How sickening that would be to see!

  44. Kim
    Kim April 24, 2009 at 5:24 am |

    Good for Focus on the family. “What has happened to Miss Prejean over the past few days is nothing short of religious persecution. No, it is not violent persecution — but that does not minimize its existence or its danger. She is being pilloried in the public square for deigning to answer a question guided, as she told the “Today” show, not by “political correctness but by biblical correctness.”

    Doing so, most agree, cost her her dream of being Miss USA. If the U.S.A. embraces Mr. Hilton’s actions and logic as acceptable, it will cost our nation much more.”

    That is absolutely correct. It’s funny how Truth makes those who like subjectivity bristle.

  45. Ellid
    Ellid April 24, 2009 at 5:34 am |

    A few corrections:

    It’s the Miss USA competition, not Miss America.

    Mormons aren’t polygamists. *Fundamentalist Mormons*, who broke off from the main church over a century ago, are.

    As long as marriage is licensed by the state and brings tax advantages, inheritance rights, and automatic health proxy rights, it’s a civil right.

    Carrie Prejean is a student at a Dominionist college founded by that lovely and brilliant “theologian” Tim LaHaye. She’s turning a pageant loss into a “Christians are being discriminated against!!!!” flap because that’s what her particular brand of Christianity does. She’s also a fine example of muddy thinking, incoherent grading, and almost certainly the educational deficits of Christian homeschooling. I wouldn’t call her an asshole, but I’d call her a sad, deluded little girl who has a lot to learn about the world.

  46. SnowdropExplodes
    SnowdropExplodes April 24, 2009 at 5:41 am |

    Because I feel it could use reiterating (even though several people have already done well on explaining it so far), here’s how free speech works:

    1/. You have the right to say whatever you want, and really I’m glad that you do. As Voltaire said, I may loathe what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

    2/. However, the things you say, the way you say them, and the places you choose to say them, may very well affect my personal opinion of you. If I find the things you say distasteful, disgusting or downright evil, then it is likely that the personal opinion I form of you will be negative.

    3/. I then have the right to say whatever I want, including expressing in any way I want, the opinion that I have formed of you based on what you have said; and I have the right to say why I formed that opinion. I also have the right to explain why I think you’re wrong.

    The difference between point 3 and “intolerance” is that intolerance involves forcing others to believe or behave as you would wish them to – by force of law where the law is intolerant; by physical, economic or other force where there is no other form. Denying someone a beauty pageant victory is not using any kind of force to impose views; it is the judges using their own freedom of speech.

  47. Hugh
    Hugh April 24, 2009 at 5:50 am |

    Hi folks. Isn’t there an issue here of exactly what these beautry paegent(talent contests?) are trying to measure? If she were, say, a sprinter and had won her race, I’d think it would be pretty wrong to then knock her down to second for express anti-gay-marriage sentiments in interviews. And I’d say it wouldn’t be such a stretch to call that persecution, however much I might disagree with those sentiments?
    Presumably beauty pageants aren’t entirely analagous to athletics, and having the ‘right’ political(and/or civil rights) views is a part of the competition or they wouldn’t be asking in the first place, but it seems to me that there *is* something there that needs debating? But then, maybe I’m just not getting the beauty pageant thing – we don’t really have them over here.

  48. JivinJ
    JivinJ April 24, 2009 at 6:43 am |

    Jill,
    Not all people who oppose same-sex marriage are bad people. But they are people who hold bigoted views, which makes them assholes in that context.

    I guess our President, Vice-President, and Secretary of State are all bigots and assholes, then by your defintion?

  49. Lorelei
    Lorelei April 24, 2009 at 7:12 am |

    JivinJ,

    yeah, pretty much. i think so, anyway.

  50. emrez49
    emrez49 April 24, 2009 at 7:37 am |

    wow this comment thread went downhill fast. i get that not every comment thread has to be “productive” or “smart” one, but it seems this one has boiled itself down to name calling. i’m just not sure engaging trolls who come on here for the sole reason of pissing us off is worth our time & effort… plus, then, they get what they want.

  51. Emma
    Emma April 24, 2009 at 8:11 am |

    “Right now. Obama is a bigot and (for Melissa) an asshole. Biden can share those labels with him. Feel better?”

    I will when this blog makes a post about Obama’s bigotry and assholishness. Since you seemed to have entirely missed the point of my comment, I hope this explanation helps.

    And, still the attacks on women and excuses for men in power go on:

    “Emma: When Miss California is in the position to overturn DOMA, which Obama has said he’s going to do? among many, many other things that Obama actually does which is why we voted for him, and not how well he wears a tiara? Then. Oh wait, actually people have. And none of it changes a damn thing about the point here. Next?”

    Well, you let me know when Obama “overturns” DOMA and lifts the ban on gays in the military, mm’kay? Last I heard it was scheduled for consideration some time in 2010, maybe, if Obama can get past his assholish bigotry against gays getting married, maybe.

  52. Studying is boring procrastination is awesome « Feminocracy

    [...] Defining intolerance at Feministe. [...]

  53. Pauline
    Pauline April 24, 2009 at 8:40 am |

    “She wants to have her cake and eat it too – to express her personal beliefs and still get that tiara, ”

    Um…why can’t she express her personal beliefs and still get the tiara. He asked her for her opinion. She gave it. If anything I think she should be knocked down for the sloppy way she answered the question. She never actually answered the question regarding the states and I actually liked Perez Hilton’s 11th grade American Government type answer to the question.

  54. Julie
    Julie April 24, 2009 at 8:46 am |

    Carrie Prejean did NOT lose the title because of her beliefs. She lost because she scored lower in the swimsuit and evening gown portions, and as for the interview part of the competition, she just didn’t do well, independently of her convictions. Part of being a pageant queen is (supposedly) being good at public speaking, which includes being able to give a coherent, informed, intelligent-sounding answer on the fly. She didn’t do that. It has nothing to do with her actual answer to the question, it’s the way she answered it: with poor grammar and syntax, and statements that just weren’t accurate. All the people trying to turn her into a martyr for “traditional values” and free speech are missing the point.

    And yes, Perez Hilton was an asshole with his response. He’s always been a misogynist asshole and the feminist community has been calling him out for that for a long time.

  55. prairielily
    prairielily April 24, 2009 at 8:48 am |

    I can’t help cringing when people like Log Cabin Republican (and the array of trolls in the thread) use their arguments about liberals being intolerant for not tolerating their bigotry.

    It’s SUCH an expression of privilege. I guess if you’re fortunate enough to have never had the experience of actual oppression, you can cry intolerance and oppression over not being able to say bigoted things without criticism.

    It must be nice to never have experienced actual discrimination. I don’t think I’d want it, though. It seems to result in utter cluelessness and self-absorption.

  56. Auguste
    Auguste April 24, 2009 at 9:04 am |

    and at that point the thread turns into a dic-waving contest.

    Ha!

  57. DaisyDeadhead
    DaisyDeadhead April 24, 2009 at 9:37 am |

    What evil fizz said, underscored here:

    This assumes that gay marriage really is some kind of policy difference rather than a civil rights issue. I am so tired of the idea that denying the basic humanity of 10% of the population just puts you at a different end of the political spectrum. Disagreement on issues (to me) means things like how hawkish you are on foreign policy, your views on school vouchers, and the degree to which you genuflect at the altar of the free market. It does not mean that you think 10% of the population isn’t even worthy of basic freedoms and protections.

    Right. Politics, my ass. She clearly wouldn’t know “politics” if it ran over her in a jeep.

  58. DaisyDeadhead
    DaisyDeadhead April 24, 2009 at 9:45 am |

    FTR, they tried this one before, you know, during segregation. George Wallace, et. al.: “The liberals are intolerant of our southern ways.” True!

    In the 70s, we used to say “I’m bigoted against the bigots”–which drove them berserk with anger, so I would suggest the same thing here: “I’m intolerant against the intolerant”–which will similarly drive them around the bend.

    Admit we are intolerant, OF THEM. THEY are the unAmerican ones. Always remember, we hold out the true promise of America and what America has always claimed to be about. (That’s the berserk-making part, for them.) The conservatives, in this case, are being unAmerican and seeking to preserve a separate set of rights that a particular minority is being denied. That is separate and unequal treatment: apartheid.

    Hit that “unAmerican” hard. Because it’s true.

  59. Tom Foolery
    Tom Foolery April 24, 2009 at 9:47 am |

    As Voltaire said, I may loathe what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

    Fun fact, Voltaire never actually said this — it was written in a biography of him by Evelyn Beatrice Hall as something that summed up his beliefs on freedom of speech.

  60. Amanda Marcotte
    Amanda Marcotte April 24, 2009 at 9:58 am |

    Their logic only makes sense if you share the fundamentalist assumption that they are the only real human beings.

  61. Thomas
    Thomas April 24, 2009 at 10:49 am |

    What I am not understanding is why us supporters of gay marriage go after beauty queens and Republicans for not supporting gay marriage. Why do we care what they think? The people in power now are who we should be go after. Barack Obama does not support gay marriage. Joe Biden does not support gay marriage. Those are the guys with the power and influence.

    What is worse about President Obama is that he probably really supports gay marriage but for political purposes he says he is against it? Wow, profile in courage there, President Obama.

  62. james
    james April 24, 2009 at 2:29 pm |

    “There’s a difference between trying to take away someone’s civil rights (or never offering them at all), and voicing your disapproval of a person who is trying to take away a group’s civil rights…

    It’s not “religious persecution” to argue that those who want to deny basic civil rights based on sexual orientation are bigots.”

    Jill – I think you’re a very special and politically involved person, but because of that you’ve a totally warped opinion of the other 99% of humanity.

    You’re a political activist – so you are trying to impose your views on others, it’s what you do. The majority of other people, including myself and probably Miss California too, aren’t. I have plenty of opinions, but they’re of absolutely no influence whatsoever on anything. You know, I can’t even remember the name of the person I voted for at the last election, let alone their opinion on gay marriage, or if the candidates had different opinions.

    Just because someone voices an opinion doesn’t mean they’re trying to ‘deny civil rights’. Most people’s opinions have absolutely no effect on their actions, the real world, or anything. My opinion on gay marriage, for example, is just unimportant. It doesn’t matter whether it’s pro or con, I haven’t done anything about and aren’t going to – except maybe tell someone it, if they ask me. Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m guessing Miss California has been so busy looking pretty she’s done bugger all of consequence too. It’s hardly as if she’s out there manning the barricades.

    When you get outraged about someone’s opinion you really are getting terribly excited about nothing.

    And as for bigotry, I think you’re a bigot and Miss California isn’t. She’s not done anythig but voice an opinion and, like most people, she doesn’t seem that committed to it, hasn’t done anything about it, and if someone had come out with another view she’d have just shut up and let them. You’re the one who gets terribly wound up when people disagree with you. It’s a bit weird, most people don’t react like that.

    “So… as long as people use calm, respectful tones it’s totally cool? What if someone got on TV tomorrow and said he thinks that women should be disallowed from owning property? Or said that fathers should be able to basically sell their daughters into marriage?”

    What if? So long as they’re one of the 99% of people who don’t really do anything it’s just words.

  63. SnowdropExplodes
    SnowdropExplodes April 24, 2009 at 2:34 pm |

    “As Voltaire said, I may loathe what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

    Fun fact, Voltaire never actually said this — it was written in a biography of him by Evelyn Beatrice Hall as something that summed up his beliefs on freedom of speech.

    Well, since I didn’t put the remark in quotemarks, I can safely claim to have merely been summing up his beliefs in much the same way as Evelyn Beatrice Hall did!

    Anyway, it makes a really cool slogan :-P

  64. Holly
    Holly April 24, 2009 at 2:44 pm |

    You know, I can’t even remember the name of the person I voted for at the last election, let alone their opinion on gay marriage, or if the candidates had different opinions.

    Dude… if you vote for someone who wants to keep certain individuals deprived of full societal rights and/or privileges, regardless of your take on the morality of that issue, then you are DOING SOMETHING VERY CONCRETE to enact or maintain that deprivation. Voters in California who voted for Prop 8, regardless of whether they were confused about what it meant, ACTED to nullify a bunch of people’s marriages. So no, it isn’t bigoted for anyone to say that they think what you did is wrong and unconscionable when you voted.

    Plus, you aren’t even sure if you did that or not because you can’t remember. What are we to make of that, anyway?

    Speech in the public sphere, especially on national television, is also a form of action — a protected act under the 1st amendment, to boot. Miss California got up on a soapbox and took a stand, and she claims she’s proud of it. I think Perez Hilton is a misogynist immature dork, but I don’t think Miss California needs to be protected from any anger or disagreement of her opinion, OR protected from jeers over the fact that she can’t string a coherent thought together.

    I have plenty of opinions, but they’re of absolutely no influence whatsoever on anything.

    And this simply isn’t really true. I half-suspect you’re being disingenous. Your opinions influence other people around you all the time. Kids who may ask you questions, in whatever context. Friends and associates you converse with. Politicians you vote for or don’t vote for. You may not have a BLOG of your own (although you could) but you’re certainly enmeshed in the very dense web of influence and affecting-each-other that makes up our society. Nobody’s an island, and you just peninsula’d yourself in a major way by choosing to weigh in here with a comment.

  65. Pauline
    Pauline April 24, 2009 at 2:53 pm |

    “Right. Politics, my ass. She clearly wouldn’t know “politics” if it ran over her in a jeep.”

    Maybe. But she wasn’t asked a political question. But she was asked a civics question, and she didn’t do very well with it either.

  66. Angus Johnston
    Angus Johnston April 24, 2009 at 4:26 pm |

    James’ comment reminds me of one of Louis CK’s great recent lines: “I’m a white man! You can’t even hurt my FEELINGS.”

    If you’re on top of the pile, it can be hard to see why people would get worked up about someone saying that someone else belongs at the bottom of the pile. It’s just words, right? Words don’t hurt anything, right?

  67. annaham
    annaham April 24, 2009 at 5:45 pm |

    So long as they’re one of the 99% of people who don’t really do anything it’s just words.

    Are you going to break out “sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you” next? Because that would be fucking epic.

    Also: What about the 1%?

  68. Kristen J.
    Kristen J. April 24, 2009 at 5:58 pm |

    “Um…why can’t she express her personal beliefs and still get the tiara. He asked her for her opinion.”

    So what if her opinion was, “AA women shouldn’t be allowed to speak unless spoken to, because that’s how I was raised.” or “Jewish people are icky, they should be repeatedly dipped in lysol, because that’s how I was raised.”

    Give the bigot a tiara! They’re only “opinions” right.

  69. annaham
    annaham April 24, 2009 at 6:02 pm |

    Exactly, Kristen J.

  70. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz April 24, 2009 at 7:32 pm |

    My desire to respond to the trolls is overwhelming. Must…resist.

    Anyway, Thomas, with respect to this: What I am not understanding is why us supporters of gay marriage go after beauty queens and Republicans for not supporting gay marriage. Why do we care what they think?

    I think that there’s an obligation to call that kind of crap out whenever it occurs, regardless of whether the speaker should know better, is on our side, what have you. When people make public statements that contribute to the oppression of others, we damned well better care, even if we shouldn’t expect better of them.

    You can’t think in a vacuum. There’s no way to argue that beliefs (especially convictions that are firmly held) don’t inform people’s behavior. If it were just a thought, I could deal. But it’s not just about what they think, but how they act. And contributing to a discourse of oppression is part of acting, not thinking.

  71. Katlyn
    Katlyn April 24, 2009 at 9:40 pm |

    James,

    First of all, fuck you. You’re whole comment reads as condescending, and you’re acting like you know Jill personally just because you’ve read this blog.

    Also, this post was more about the bullshit idea of “religious persecution” against Miss California just because people have openly criticized her statement. It’s also about the bullshit idea that discrimination against her religious beliefs actually caused her to lose. They’re making her into a victim she isn’t, trying to say she’s being oppressed. While at the same time, FOTF has dedicated much time to advocating ‘traditional’ marriage while opposing gay rights. The only thing Miss California has suffered from is the harsh reality that openly stating your opinions can result in people criticizing them.

    Your whole tangent about how opinions mean nothing is really just not true. When a powerful organization, such as FOTF, presents their opinion, it’s very important because they have the ability to influence a lot of people. The words they speak, the politicians they endorse, the money they raise and donate to certain places makes a huge fucking difference. It matters. Also, when a person expresses their belief in inequality, they are working towards fighting civil rights. I really don’t understand your “99% of people just use words” bit. Because 99% of people use more than words, they also vote. Voting for a politician who fights against gay marriage means that you’re actively trying to deny rights for gay couples.

    Also, please do yourself a favor and look up the word bigot because you don’t seem to grasp the actual definition. Jill is using freedom of speech to express disagreement, not pulling out her hair and foaming at the mouth, trying to censor people.

    And:
    You know, I can’t even remember the name of the person I voted for at the last election, let alone their opinion on gay marriage, or if the candidates had different opinions.

    Um, why exactly did you vote then? I mean, really… you can’t remember who you voted for? That’s insanely stupid and sad, but part of me doesn’t even believe you. I think you’re just trying really hard to paint yourself as a person who doesn’t care that much about politics, so then you can criticize other people for caring more than you do.

  72. Pauline
    Pauline April 25, 2009 at 1:17 pm |

    “Give the bigot a tiara! They’re only “opinions” right.”

    Fine. then let’s weed out the points of view that aren’t going to be deemed “acceptable” out before we get to the nationally televised pageant shall we? Surely we can weed out all the anti-gay marriage, anti-”choice” Republican Christians ahead of time!? Then we can simulcast on MSNBC too!

  73. Femmostroppo Reader - April 26, 2009 — Hoyden About Town

    [...] Defining “intolerance” (Hint: It has nothing to do with depriving you of a tiara) [...]

  74. MomTFH
    MomTFH April 26, 2009 at 4:10 am |

    I have to say I am almost happy I endured the bigoted troll comments in order to get the great snappy answers.

    Auguste – yes, the category title seemed to draw assholes like bait.

    Cactus Wren – HA! On the dic waving. I am going to have to remember that one.

    Pauline, just because one gorgeous, blonde, white Republican Christian with opinions currently enforced by most state law didn’t win a tiara doesn’t make your group an oppressed minority. I don’t know which shows poorer sportsmanship: this whining or the whole teabagging “I only like tax and spend when my guy wins” thing.

  75. Kristen J.
    Kristen J. April 26, 2009 at 8:10 am |

    “anti-gay marriage, anti-”choice” Republican Christians ”

    Hey, I don’t make them hateful bigots…they choose to be hateful bigots. And yeah, if I could prevent all of the Klan, forced birthers, homophobes, etc from going on TV and spreading hatred…(through non-harmful means) I’d totally do that.

    Kristen J…your source for eliminating hate speech…

    (the BITCH!)

  76. Pauline
    Pauline April 26, 2009 at 11:45 am |

    “I’d totally do that.”

    LOL! I have no doubt. Let’s hear it for Ms. Liberal USA!!

  77. brooke
    brooke April 26, 2009 at 8:06 pm |

    and i guess this post is why i don’t fit in with some of my liberal bros and sisters… because i actually agree with FOTF (ack! big ol ack!) and the log cabin republicans – we disagree with someone but then we take that disagreement to a level that i believe is intolerance of other’s beliefs. if the left – specifically the pacifist / peace loving left – lashes out at those we disagree with, when then does the peace start? when does true tolerance of all views start? i hold we on the left to a higher standard than those on the right – i expect us not only to work against racisim, sexism, classism, ageism, heterosexism, etc.. but also to work towards loving, honoring and respecting those who we disagree with on the right. if we act in anger and intolerance – the same way i view the right as acting – what good does it do a world that desperately needs peace and tolerance?

  78. Stephen
    Stephen April 27, 2009 at 10:30 am |

    You’re a political activist – so you are trying to impose your views on others, it’s what you do. The majority of other people, including myself and probably Miss California too, aren’t.

    There is absolutely NO imposing of views involved: since when did expressing disagreement with a stated position on anything amount to “imposing views”? Answer: Never. Also, having a blog does not equal being a political activist. For the record, speaking your mind, arguing your side, engaging in debate is all-american activity—this is a HUGE part of what it means to be an American citizen. Being lazy and not engaging in the debate, treating others’ views as “just another random opinion” to be accepted or rejected at the whim of current feelings (without rational thought) and assuming that everyone else thinks the way you do … well, that’s just NOT American at all. It’s also not Right, Moral, Ethical, or any other good thing like that.

  79. Less Lee Moore
    Less Lee Moore April 28, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    I was going to comment on what a great post this was, how happy it made me, and how succinctly you phrased the whole “intolerance” issue and religious persecution, etc. but skimming through the comments put me in a really sour mood.

    Thanks trolls.

  80. belledame222
    belledame222 April 28, 2009 at 1:57 pm |

    Lily speaks for me:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nULKw8s061E

    “Just my opinion!!: ;) :0

  81. belledame222
    belledame222 April 28, 2009 at 2:08 pm |

    and, what Holly said. um, WOW.

    “I have no power to influence anyone! I can’t even remember who I voted for!”

    I have to admit I’ve never seen -that- one before. Does it…hurt? I mean…

  82. The continuing saga of Miss California… « I’m Not a Feminist, but…

    [...] feministing.com article references another fantastic article over at Feministe which states: It’s not “religious persecution” to say that someone is a bigot for having [...]

  83. Jon
    Jon April 30, 2009 at 2:58 pm |

    Why is it automatically “bigoted” to not agree with gay marriage? Because YOU say it is????

    Perez Hilton, the media, America in general all like to say that they’re tolerant, but when you disagree with what THEY THINK IS RIGHT OR WRONG, then watch out!

    There is no law stating it’s bigoted to be opposed to gay marriage. By labeling Miss Cali as a bigot, you’re stating your OPINION and you ARE being intolerant of her beliefs. That’s the FACT of the matter.

    I personally don’t care about gay marriage. It doesn’t affect me one way or the other. If someone put a gun to my head and said chose a side or die, I’d say go for it and let gay folks marry to their heart’s content. So you could say I don’t agree with Miss Cali’s views. But I SURE as shit support her right to have her own beliefs, and not be ignorant enough to call her “bigoted” because I don’t agree with them.

    You like to use semantics to describe what intolerance is, but you ignore those same semantics by calling her bigoted.

  84. belledame222
    belledame222 May 1, 2009 at 1:13 am |

    I personally don’t care about gay marriage. It doesn’t affect me one way or the other. I

    That’s really special for you Jon.

    Now let me type this nice and slow:

    BUT IT DOES FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO GET MARRIED AND CAN’T BECAUSE OF FUCKHEADS LIKE MISS CALIFORNIA.

    THAT is why it’s bigotry.

    I know it’s a really, really, really, really, really fucking difficult concept:

    It’s just an opinion TO YOU.

    Because -it doesn’t affect you-.

    So how’s about, you know, mind your own fucking business and go the fuck away?

  85. Miss California: America’s Next Top Bigot « Aargh, it’s drivin me nuts!

    [...] is – an utter failure modernity and feminism in every possible way. The blog at feministe.us said it best: It’s not “religious persecution” to say that someone is a bigot for having [...]

  86. Is it really “intolerant” to hate on a moron? — Down With Absolutes!

    [...] Jill at Feministe calls out both Miss California and Perez Hilton. But she refuses to buy into any of the labeling of “intolerance” regarding the criticism that came Miss California’s way. Jill cites a recent wing-nut memo sent out by Focus on the Family: Those who lean to the left ideologically like to paint those of us on the other side as the “intolerant” ones. But some of them are going to have a hard time whitewashing the intolerance they’ve shown to Carrie Prejean since she said during the weekend pageant that she believes marriage should be defined as solely the union of one man and one woman. [...]

  87. quotes of the day « you’re reading too much into it

    [...] Wren on Feministe: Lauren@#17: dictionary.com is trumped by m-w.com, the Merriam-Webster site. Which in turn is [...]

  88. Jon
    Jon May 4, 2009 at 12:15 pm |

    “BUT IT DOES FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO GET MARRIED AND CAN’T BECAUSE OF FUCKHEADS LIKE MISS CALIFORNIA.

    THAT is why it’s bigotry.”

    Heh. OK. So because people are trying for it, it’s automatically bigotry. I gotcha.

    I suppose common sense is just a wee bit above your little head darlin’. It’s OK. Not everyone can grasp the concept. I don’t hold it against you.

    Like I said, you folks all LOVE to use semantics and opinions and activism when it fits with YOUR views, but when it’s not something you agree with, common sense gets tossed right the fuck out the window in exchange for your own condescending, holier-than-thou agenda.

    But see, I don’t have a problem with it, because I support your right to have your own opinion. That’s what America is about. I may not have to agree with everyone on everything, but I fully support the fact that differing opinions are what make this country so great. I guess you ladies feel differently, since you’re so adamantly against anyone voicing different opinions and will in fact blast them as much as you can, while at the same time expecting people to support YOUR right to be against them.

    Hypocrisy is such a two edged sword, gals. Be careful when wielding it.

  89. belledame222
    belledame222 May 4, 2009 at 5:37 pm |

    Jon, when exactly did your wife/girlfriend run off with another woman? Is there a P.O. box? I want to send them a toaster. Especially if she had the good sense to do it before reproducing with a smug patronizing pillock with the IQ of plankton.

  90. Jon
    Jon May 7, 2009 at 12:07 pm |

    Wow, a self-declared feminist making relationship jokes instead of addressing the issue being debated – and they say a woman’s stubborn will is just a stereotype. Pfft!

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.