Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #goodbyetoallthat more → 
The F-Words: Faux Outrage Over Slutty Feminists Is F-cking Hurting America
New York, 3:22 AM
Fri Dec 11
66 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
| posts about #goodbyetoallthat more → |
The F-Words: Faux Outrage Over Slutty Feminists Is F-cking Hurting America |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
05/18/09
Bloggers are taking over. And they should - traditional doesn't spell-check or fact-check any longer. It needs to invent stories to remain relevant. It needs to dig at scabs and dig up dead horses to flog.
Electronic media moves so much faster, evolves, ascends, or dies so much faster, that traditional media nurses a hangover when it tries to keep up. The saddest part is the death of the correspondent: most traditional media is a feed , syndication, or wire-sourced, and has been for some time. The "liberal media" that Reagan first spoke of was really just the Times, the Globe, and the Chronicle, with a whole lot of lazy local editors and TV producers syndicating their stories, or blatantly ripping them off. The deep investigations and face-to-face interviews are waning. The Johnny-on-the-spot reporter is now a flack in a hotel basement, phoning it in. These used to be the crowning achievements of old media, and they've been getting them wrong for far too long now, starting with Operation Desert Shield.
Dinosaurs will die.
05/18/09
Seriously, I didn't even realize I was a feminist until I started reading Tracie's blog and then Jezebel (disclosure: I am young). I always cared about women's issues, but I really thought that my lifestyle was incompatible with the feminist movement, and that I shouldn't bother to get more involved.
My upbringing was stridently feminist, but very second wave identified, and it really disillusioned me with the movement as I saw it. This site, and the writing of all of the editors here, ESPECIALLY Moe and Tracie, changed that for me and I'm sure other women too.
Feminism NEEDS to be more inclusive if it is going to survive. It really does. It makes me so happy to be able to identify as a feminist, and Jez helped me along that path.
Sorry if this is an overshare but I get so angry at these articles which claim Jezebel is somehow anti-feminist, or hurting women.
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
"An online war has broken out in the women's movement sparked by the Jezebels, young bloggers who flaunt their hard drinking and unashamed promiscuity and who are infuriating traditional feminists."
Online war = possibly excusable journalistic hyperbole, but an OTT cliche nonetheless.
the Jezebels, young bloggers = no such thing, as Anna was keen to point out. The site encompasses many older women (and men). And don't get me started on the difference between a blogger and a poster.
'who flaunt their hard drinking and unashamed promiscuity' - as Anna pointed out, this is based on a couple of isolated incidents. And in fact, if you read the most popular threads, the weekend socials, you'll see a large part of the readership apparently spends Saturday night drinking wine and watching bad movies.
All these errors are repeated in the piece - not to mention Anna's description of her exchange with the journalist that was ignored, or how they misquoted Jess from The F Word.
Woodward and Bernstein they are not.
05/18/09
"...the Observer writes a fairly cogent and well-balanced summary of the issue"
What "issue"? Please explain, because if I felt there was an actual, VALID issue presented in the story, I would have addressed it. "Cogent"? What in the piece was cogent, do you think? I'm asking sincerely. Here's what I see. The headline: "Sex, Drink & Fashion". That sounds more like a scriptreader's logline for the pilot episode of SATC than an accurate description of this site or its readers. (As for the subhed, another person, above, explicated it quite nicely.) The rest of the piece: A rehash of old news via the creation of a controversy, which is then aided and abetted by the writers shoe-horning provocative quotes, both old and new throughout - one of those quotes was not even attributable to a real, living person. And then, the coup de grace: a bulleted LIST of feminism's defining moments and most famous figures. A mischaracterization? I think not. But we'll just have to agree to disagree.
As for your other thoughts denigrating the site and its writers, all I can say is that it makes perfect sense why you migrated over to Gawker's sandbox. After all, they're so much more sensitive over there to the issues you seem to be concerned with.
05/19/09
The issue is whether or not your site and its readers reflect the new wave of feminists- something which I would think you would find flattering, given your obvious mass appeal. I disagree with Hirschman's claim that your site is damaging women, or feminism- I think the term is embarassing. Let me explain. You seem outraged that the Observer quotes more 'traditional feminist' voices, and that they have opinions on what does and does not constitute a feminist. But that's the thing- there SHOULD be standards, and real intellectual debate, on what is and is not feminist. You here at Jezebel seem very sure what is NOT your brand of feminist- ranging from enjoyably easy targets like Michelle Bachman to clitorendectomy to vague things like "judgement!"- but what the fuck IS your 'feminism'? This is why you're being accused of intellectual laziness. It's good fun to condemn idiots like Bachman and abhorrent acts like clitorendectomy, because you can get almost everyone to agree Those Things Are Bad. It's easy. It's lazy. You rail against 'traditional' feminists setting down 'rules' for what is and isn't feminist, but they're actually applying some thought to the issue. Jezebel's approach, as near as I can tell after, what, a couple of years of reading? is that everyone's a feminist as long as they devote some, like, thought, to, like, women's issues! Like, feminism without any of the, like, conflict, or, like, responsibility or intellectual rigor! I've got to tell you, this everyone-is-in-the-tent approach is pretty useless. If everyone's a 'feminist' unconditionally, it doesn't mean anything. And no, it's not some exclusive club, but it's also not just some meaningless label-if you call yourself a 'feminist', you should be able to back it up. The comment below mine, wherein Pocahaunted says she didn't even realize she was a feminist until she started reading TRACIE'S BLOG, sends actual chills down my spine. That's why it's embarassing- it's embarassing to call oneself a feminist when it's been co-opted as some sort of empowerment-lite label by Jeze-feminists who don't appreciate the history or the thought behind the movement, and who don't examine their own actions. Self-proclaimed feminists don't have to be perfect- Jesus, you can't live like that- but they should be able to defend and define and yes, take some action based on their ideals. Your all-in-the-tent approach is why you have four pages of comments about hangnails and kitties and OMG my boyfriendOMG bish plz OMG Jezzie power after every single post- because these are people who are feminists-lite. You no doubt resent that your site has come to be defined by a) that Moe and Tracie scandal b) increasingly inane comments and c)attacks by appalled 'traditional' feminists, but I'm afraid that's representative of your overly-inclusive approach.
But you're right, Anna. This is your sandbox, you make the rules. I shouldn't have come back here, and I'll stay away. You're right- I do spend my time at Gawker, because they aren't particularly pretentious over there- they know exactly what they are, which is a snarky gossip website. They're not sensitive to anything, particularly, which is rather the point. It just pissed me off to see you slam the Observer piece as some piece of faux-journalism and rail against the 'traditional' feminists- without whom, of course, we would probably not even being having this debate- as if they has no right to question what is and isn't feminist. If there are no standards, the word means nothing. But, as you said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
05/19/09
05/19/09
Also, what the fuck is wrong with you that everyone needs to be Gloria Steinem to be a feminist? Feminism is a movement designed to achieve equality on a number of simultaneous planes, including sexual and political. If someone reading Tracie's personal site is able to realize that she need not buy into traditional values about sex because, yes, feminism has helped offer her that choice, and she comes here and reads about women in developing countries and political feminism and wage inequality and incorporates those topics into her discourse and the ways in which she orients her life and political behavior, I am hard pressed to call that a bad thing or claim that I am anything but happy that she can call herself a feminist because she has learned that feminism isn't only things that don't apply to her.
Not every liberal can explain and defend why the progressive movement stands for or believes certain things, God knows not every Obama or Hillary (or McCain/Palin) voter could accurate dissect every aspect of their policy positions, and not everyone who calls themselves a feminist has to have taken years of coursework in women's studies to be able to call themselves a feminist. The purpose of sites like this (and sites like Feministe and Feministing -- that I'm amused but not surprised you don't mention reading) is to allow people to learn about those reasons and issues and writers and topics.
It gives me chills that you would seek to reduce the tent of feminism and bar the doors to only those women who meet your intellectual standards. I also think it's a fucked up thing for you to be an asshole to a 19-year-old girl who tentatively raised her hand and dared to admit that she's newly feminist-identified, rather than reach out yours and offer to help her learn. So, yes, I think women that think about and believe in the equality of women are feminists. I don't know where or what your movement supposedly is, but I'm guessing you, Debra Dickerson and Linda Hirshman have a lot of chardonnay to sip between the three of you while railing against the rest of us (including, by the way, Elie Smeal and Kathy Spillar, who said as much to me at the inauguration) who think that it's an amazing thing that so many women profess to be feminists and believe in equality.
05/18/09
a) providing an accessible and highly engaging portal for young women to learn about women's issues.
b) providing a feminist critique of the pop culture that we are all bombarded with every day.
c) aggregating stories from traditional and new media that affect women's lives and may otherwise get lost in the vastness of the WWW.
By failing to acknowledge these contributions, Guardian does a disservice to its readers.
05/18/09
05/18/09
Even when I was in my teens, my influences were always things that I, myself, identified with in the first place. I'm not a bloody empty vessel, waiting to get my head turned!
05/18/09
Wait... that sounds awfully familiar... almost like it was the reasoning men used to justify denying us the right to vote and own property...
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
"There can be only one!"
So...did you have to behead somebody?
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
Also, this is some sloppy bullshit: If Hirshman's piece sounds absurd, it's because it IS absurd.
You're a good writer, Anna. That is shockingly below you, rhetorically.
She never said it was the fault of the victim in a sexual assault. She said that women have SOME control over those situations. In other words, while it is true that there is an instance where rape isn't a crime committed by the rapist, it is SOMETIMES the case that if the victim had behaved differently, the rap would not have taken place. To deny that -- to pretend that women have no agency in some situations is really detrimental, not only to the woemn who suffer from real and tragic trauma as well as to women in general: we don't have to be victims. And the first part of not being a victim is acknowledging how your actions affect your outcomes.
Are the secual habits and practices described by some of your writers dangerous? Yes. Should they be? No, but that ISN'T the point. My reading of Hirschman was never that she had a moral objection to any of this stuff, it was that she had a MATERIAL objection: there are certain practices and acts which are more dangerous than others and to completely gloss over that -- regardless of who is criminally libel in a situation -- is just. fucking. stupid.
I'll tell you something else. It might behoove people to actually listen to someone like hirschman, who is nothing if not smarter than most of us. You might learn something. But you should at least try to understand her.
05/18/09
05/18/09
Oooooooooh, this should be fun.
Excuse me while I get my pink camo laptop and open up Word so I can copy this all down. I'm sure it'll be fresh and NEW.
05/18/09
05/18/09
"Stop it. Just stop it.
May 14, 2009
Right. I have a message for you, brought to you by several asshats on the internet.
Stop policing women's sexual choices. No. No exceptions, no ifs, buts or maybes. Just stop it.
No. My decision to have sex does not constitute 'risky behaviour'. Dancing on train tracks constitutes risky behaviour.
Rape is not caused by my decision to have sex. It is caused by the decision of a rapist to rape me.
Rape is not caused by my skirt, my t-shirt, my halter-top, my lycra jumpsuit, my boots, my grandfather's hand-me-down cardigan, or my goddamn see-through bra with the plastic goldfish inside. It is caused by the decision of a rapist to rape me.
Rape is not caused by my presence at a party, on a street, at a nightclub, in my car, in my home, in a park, or in a hotel room full of football players. It is caused by the decision of a rapist, or multiple rapists, to rape me.
Rape is not caused by any of my previous decisions to have sex. It is caused by the decision of a rapist to rape me."
[iamnotacake.wordpress.com]
You should read the rest too.
05/18/09
Rhetoricians are not automatically wise. That the editors of this site are willing to share such stories as being raped is to be commended. Whatever you may think of their actions, the fact is those actions were theirs to take, and were taken because they thought they made the most sense for them at the time. Just as we all do, every day. I might wonder at them, but I certainly would never subject these decisions to my own moral certitude, since it wasn't me who was raped.
But then I'm just a man.
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
I say her lack of any self-awareness leaves her blind to the underlying hypocrisy of her arguments and her abrasiveness and lack of empathy for others causes her to phrase her points in such a way as to offend and provoke rather than promote discussion.
When she retires from the bloated hyperbole and deigns to have a discussion as if it were a dialogue among intellectual equals, then I will consider her points and try to explain my own with civility.
In the mean time I will not apologize for my own defensive reaction to a piece that was designed to offend.
Also, she's not smarter than us. She just acts like she thinks she is and you believe her.
05/18/09
I'll tell you something. I was willing to listen to Hirshman when she pointed out some of the weak points in 'choice' feminism. I could even entertain the idea that we can't reasonably 'choose' to stay at home (rather than work) in a world in which our choices are so constricted. But suggesting that a woman who chose not to report her rape that the age of 17--knowing what the so-called justice system is like--is not only responsible for the rapes of others but incapable of writing about sexual assault elsewhere is beyond ridiculous. The piece on XX was little more than an incoherent screed against anyone who fails to live up to her incredibly constricted brand of feminism. Far from encouraging debate, she wants to end it.
05/18/09
@Megan: Gin goes with everything. Just remember to put the squirrel testicle on a pink glittery swizzle stick...it brings out the nutty flavour best...
05/18/09
Did you read the same piece I did? Seriously? Because I did not see her say any such thing.
This is the part that I don't get. She wrote a few paragraphs, which certainly didn't seem screechy to me at all. Granted, I'm from Brooklyn, so my standards may be a bit off the norm, but seriously.
05/18/09
@rah29:
Sorry, I didn't need to be that harsh. You actually gave me the realest response so far, and I appreciate that.
05/18/09
On the other hand, Hirshman's approach to the topic of rape has incensed so many because she's not really looking at social good at all. When Hirshman talks about how individual women are engaging in a 'lifestyle' that makes it more likely for them to be raped, she's not looking at wider society, but instead contributing directly to a wider culture that blames individual women for the actions of rapists. It's totally inconsistent for her to get on a feminist horse and say that all women should work, or all women should report their rapes, and yet to be so blind to that victim-shaming, anti-woman narrative she's channelling and perpetuating. Women choose not to report their rapes precisely because of that culture--the lack of reporting is a symptom, not a cause. For her to take aim at that symptom, to my mind, is more than just short-sighted; it directly perpetuates and contributes to precisely the kind of anti-woman, profoundly anti-feminist discourse it claims to oppose. What's worse, it's not Tucker Max saying it, it's a respected feminist voice. The fact that she is meant to be an 'authority' on these issues, adding even more weight to her voice in these narratives, is the most abhorrent thing of all.
05/18/09
05/18/09
Let me just send my kudos to the staff at Jezebel, who, despite blatant mis-representation in the media, continue to provide content that interests me, and my own brand of feminism. And to all the commenters who welcome me, and my often differing opinions, kudos, as well.
Yeah, I'm kissing ass. And now I need a drink and some sex. You bet your sweet patoot I'll be finely dressed, too.
05/18/09
I think the same thing is going on here. These other feminists have trouble seeing Jezzies as members of the same cerebral group they are, even though we are all fighting for the same end. It's like a cognitive dissonance thingie, like they can't reconcile your actions with your intellectuality.
05/18/09
05/18/09
On the other hand, I think 'lifestyle' provides a convenient excuse to look down on us, like age and any other hose of issues.
05/18/09
'A source at Jezebel, who asked to remain anonymous, forwarded us e-mails Hirshman sent to Jezebel back in January 2009 asking to write for the site. Though Jezebel editors expressed interest in working with Hirshman, at the time, her pitch to the site did not work out. Our source pointed out that it's interesting Hirshman wanted to write for Jezebel several months after the "Thinking and Drinking" incident that left her with such a negative impression of the site. Hirshman did not respond to many of the other questions we e-mailed her, but we did receive a statement from her saying that her piece was "an intellectual argument" that "has to do with my broader stance toward the new 'feminism' of Jezebel" and "has nothing to do with being rejected or not."'
05/18/09
Hrm I've got slutshaming and "they're bad feminists." That doesn't seem particularly broad. Did I miss anything?
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
A) I am an Observer reader, their news and sport staff are fantastic. Granted I do refuse to read their Women's magazine because it is all abou shopping and boys.
2) Since finding Jezebel around september and becoming a commenter, it has become a place where I can go to read about all things from news to realitytv without ever feeling patronised or belittled for wanting the range. Jezebel is a place where (sometimes young) women can go to discuss important issues from their own perspectives and not be judges for their opinions without being called a feminist or ridiculed for a lack of feminism (which I have found happens on other sites).
05/18/09