Frankly I'm tired of the moral crusades

[JAbuchan08]

I've just experienced a rather intense reaction to my admitedly amateurish suggestion that an administration official be prescribed sex for health reasons - I got this reaction because she is a woman. I'm sure anyone who's read Boondocks remembers Aaron McGruder suggesting something similar, and subsequently the author's recieving heat for it. Funny, the idea that Ward Connerly might need a date didn't raise any ire against MacGruder, but to suggest a woman might benefit from a relationship (physical or not) is practically treason.
I've been called a d*ck and and assh*le. Terms that I have never heard applied to a woman, but to use the word bitch to describe an individual is derogatory to women. Is the word "d*ck" any less singularly applicable to men? And yet I've never heard the word described as derogatory to men.
I've seen the sexual harassment training videos too - and you know what? I care. I don't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable, but I'm not going to hold my tongue, or take down my comic strip about the catapiller (sp?) making-love to the french-fry either.
My first introduction to the subject had me a little worried. I like making off-color jokes every once in a while. I even like coming on to women on occasion. I reconciled myself to the fact that I would have to tone the jokes down. I didn't figure hitting on women would be a problem because I was so bad at it that stopping would not be hard. Even so I was worried - how would I know what I couldn't say if I could never be sure if what I was saying would be offensive.
The worst was the subject of "leering." As a guy I've checked women out but making them uncomfortable in the process is usually not the idea. But suppose you are in an office and you glance at a woman's behind just as she turns around and catches you in the act. That my friend is creating a hostile work environment. Suppose you just glanced at her, or were staring off into space in her direction, that is a hostile atmosphere as well - if she precieves it as such.
The long and short of it is, while sexual harassment is very real - as is sexism - the definition of what constitutes sexual harassment is not based upon the action, but upon the preception of the victim.
Sexism is similar - a lot can hinge on perception.
Going back to what I said at the beginning about a specific administration official I find it hard to believe I can't make that judgement. Certainly I don't have the inside track on this person, but just why is it that we can speculate about George Bush's sanity and talk all day long about how it is "penile frustration" (for lack of a better word) that drives so many Republicans? Why is it quite OK to say that Clinton was oversexed because he was a man engaged in affairs, but its not OK to suggest that a single older conservative woman might be undersexed? Do people believe in the idea of undersexed any more? I do.
I'm not saying if you're unhappy get a man. What I AM saying is that sex is good for you try it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I didn't alert on your thread but did wince when I saw it

not because I felt anything you said was specifically sexist but because I had seen similar threads devolve into specifically sexist rants in the past.

First, you say she needs to get laid..then the next person comes along and says something..then by the time it gets to post number 50, someone comes along and says she needs to be hogtied and buttfucked which is basically suggesting she needs to be raped...I've seen it enough times to know what it devolves to.

So while moral crusading may not be a good thing, neither are threads on a progressive BBS suggesting that people ultimately need to be raped for their transgressions...even our enemies.

[theHandpuppet]

34. Yep...

I missed the thread in question but totally agree with you about how easily some threads can devolve into sexist rants. It's especially unsettling to see that happen on a supposedly progressive board, and only serves as a reminder that perhaps we "haven't come such a long way, baby" as we might have wished or thought.

[BOHICA06]

2. An aside ....

"Is the word "d*ck" any less singularly applicable to men? And yet I've never heard the word described as derogatory to men."

Among men it is derogatory - but the proper terminology, i.e. "Penis" , is a complete insult. Also a "dick with ears" is a fine slander.

[Tyler Durden]

3. Love the name.

Brings back Navy Memories....

[xchrom]

62. bad boy!

[tandot]

4. I responded to that post (and didn't alert)

wondering if there would be any volunteers for it.

I have to admit it: I probably lack the appropriate sensitivity toward these issues.

I greatly dislike Condi and most pics of her show her really tensed up and downright mean looking. So, simple minded as I am I just got carried away. I didn't think she needed to get laid because of her complete failure at work. She just looks downright unhappy and I am tempted to assume it is because of her lack of a loving relationship.

Of course, now I might get pounded for suggesting that one needs a partner (either woman or man) to be happy. Not necessarily. If you are happy without, great.

I apologize for my insensitivity.

Tanja (Female)

[bearfartinthewoods]

40. do you assume the sane about every

tensed up and downright mean looking man you see? if so, why weren't you tempted to post about them?

soul serching time....

ON EDIT...none of us was born aware. some lessons come harder then others.

ON SECOND EDIT....i just reread your thread title. you might consider that objections may be founded in a desire for women to be respected in the name of social justice. your desire to quantify it as some moral crusade is an attempt to deflect the critisism.

[blondeatlast]

41. She knows she's due for a fall, that's why she's tense. Bush will

see that she takes the heat for 9/11.

They are already tentatively offering her up.

[noiretextatique]

5. clinton is a sex addict...that's public knowledge

because of his public affairs. do you have any information about ms. rice's sex life that we don't have?

[Ysabel]

6. we've only just begun...

okay - you've seen some sexual harassment training videos...

my suggestion - now take some classes on feminism and gender issues...

don't stop there...

make feminism a big part of your life...

- a kiss for luck and we're on our way - hey...!

...(with many fragrant and flowery apologies to the carpenters)...

edit - typo...

[rucky]

7. When's Bohemian Grove?

totally unrelated, of course.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

38. a Coast2Coast fan?

where's the pics...i want video...

theProdigal

[truth2power]

8. Well...okay

I'm female and I've done my share of ranting about the ways women are devalued in our society. On the other hand, I am comfortable in my own skin, as a woman, and I can't imagine letting any man put me down because of my gender.

That said, I am also getting sick of the moral crusades. As a woman I have every right to say that. YMMV, of course.

As far as Condi goes -- look at her. I have never seen a picture where she didn't have a sour, angry look on her face. My opinion is that she is not a happy woman. She reminds me of a Harpy, one of those half woman/half bird creatures.

I think she is a liar, a hypocrite and a whore. There. Lets parse that last word before someone here goes into cardiac arrest. whore n. A prostitute. Hmm...okay. prostitute n. One who sells his abilities or name to an unworthy cause. Yep...works for me. She's a whore.

Further, good sex is one of the finer things in life, IMO. And when I look at Condi, the first thing that comes to mind is she needs a good lay. (No, I am not advocating that she or anyone should be raped, which is another issue entirely.)

I think "bitchy" is an accurate word to describe her. That is, malicious, spiteful or ill-tempered. A night of good sex would definitely round off the rough edges. Just my $.02 :evilgrin:

[noiretextatique]

9. you know....what does her sex life have to do with anything?

i usually pass on these threads, but this time i find myself very annoyed by the repeated suggestion that all rice needs is a good fuck. what is the point? really?
i don't consider myself a moralizer, but i really am tired of the belief that THIS PARTICULAR woman's sex life is fair game because she frowns or looks unhappy. i don't see anyone suggesting that cheney or any of the other dour & evil bastards in that horrid cabal just need a good fuck...because they're so unhappy and bitchy.
as to whether or not there is value in a good fuck...i would agree that there is...for me, but i can't speculate as to what ms. rice needs. for all i know...she may not like sex, or she may be hurt from a previous relationship, or...who the fuck knows.

but...*seriously* i doubt the concern for ms. rice's sex life on display at DU today is about concern for her humanity or her happiness. it's just a very old and tired canard about single, successful women...whether uttered by a man or a woman.

[truth2power]

11. Well, it goes for Cheney too, I suppose...

But where would we find someone to do the deed? }(

[noiretextatique]

15. i can't imagine

honestly, i can't :D but...men like cheney and bush and the others can get whatever they want...including sex, if they so desire.

[redwitch]

27. You are correct.

And bless you for stating it so clearly!

[klyon]

37. sounds like

a personal opinion based on life experiences

sex is good, I agree

KL

[Groosalugg]

51. I think the same way..

[blondeatlast]

71. What about Asscroft? nt

[Ripley]

10. You seem defensive.

I find it telling when someone says they are offended by what another person says and the first person responds with "I'm sick of the PC crap."

I have never once seen or heard a man make the statement that another man (whether it is Smirk, Cheney, Dan Rather or Pat Robertson or O-Reilly or whomever) "needed to be laid" in order to "change their personality or job performance or political position." Yet all the time here I see posts by supposedly progressive men saying Ann Coulter or Mrs. Cheney or Laura Bush and now Condi Rice need to get some dick. That is flat out sexist and if you can't see it, then you aren't paying attention.

[noiretextatique]

12. you don't understand, ripley

this poster is concerned about rice's humanity and her health, not her job performance :eyes: that's why he thinks his prescription of sex as the cure (for her health and humanity) is different than the cure for her personality (well, maybe the prescription would help this too), but certainly not for her job performance (cause THAT would be sexist) :eyes:

[mouse7]

13. Male threads about puritanical sex view get called FEM sexism, too

There were a couple of ranters that were saying that my "Rove needed to get laid thread" was an attack on women simply because the subject was similar... involved sex.

I think this is more a matter of some particular individuals here claiming the right to be judges on all things related to sexism in our society and around the world. I think that says more about them personally then it does about the issue as a whole in the US.

[noiretextatique]

16. i think it had more to do with

the fact that you posted your thread shortly after the other one got locked. a rather obvious ploy.

[mouse7]

20. PLOY! Why was it a ploy?

This isn't freeperland. I'm a Kerry supporter. Why do you therefore make a jump to using the indicting term "ploy."

There is nothing in my behavior that indicates you have any reason whatsoever to make some wild leap that I'm trying to pull something in some underhanded "ploy." That's your filters creating "ploys" where none exist.

Some of us get tired of all the neo-con puritanism and want to release a little frustration about it in joke form. That's the entire "ploy" in a nutshell.

How evil of us our "ploys" are. How sexist of us. You must immediately execute us.

[noiretextatique]

21. oh for god's sake...you posted it right after the other was deleted

what was the purpose of that? to make some point about how gender would make a difference in how the "all s/he needs is a good fuck" canard is perceived, correct? i call that a PLOY.

[mouse7]

24. I posted it right after stating I was doing it to be clear it WASN'T sexis

The women on the Condi thread said the discussion of a women's sex life was sexist, so I removed INTENTIONALLY removed the "woman's sex life" from the discussion so we could joke about neo-cons screwed up view of sex, and you come out of the blue with this crap that "any discussion of any sex life is about women's sexism" bullshit.

No... discussions about men not getting laid IS NOT about anything to do with women's sex anything. That's your messed up view of the universe that's creating that goofed up internal message inside your head. It is not caused by the text written.

[noiretextatique]

26. a PLOY, as I said

:wtf: is up with this quote: "and you come out of the blue with this crap that "any discussion of any sex life is about women's sexism" bullshit." :wtf: are YOU TALKING ABOUT? and you referring to ME, or are you using YOU to describe A GROUP OF PEOPLE? it must the the PLURAL YOU because I never said anything remotely like what you claim. :wtf: i think this is a CLUE for YOU.

[mouse7]

31. Describe how Rove's sex life becomes sexism against women

I want details.

I'm clueless, huh? Then here's your big chance. Educate me.

[noiretextatique]

32. i didn't post in that thread

nor did i alert on it, but i suggest you ask the moderators why they locked the thread. as i recall, the locking post said sexism is not tolerated on DU...against either gender.

[mouse7]

36. Describe whatever you think you have right to call me clueless about

If you aren't calling me clueless about the connection of a male thread with women's sexism, then what exactly is left for you to call me clueless about? I'm the one that supposed to be plotting "ploys" to promote anti-female values.

Describe how a Rove thread attacks women's rights.

[noiretextatique]

42. i called you clueless

because you ascribed something to me that i did not say. i assumed you meant WOMEN when you used the plural you, and as i told you: i didn't post in your thread, so that YOU could not apply to me.

the first clue: not all women think alike.

the second clue: i don't think the rove thread attacked women's rights...i think it was an attempted to revisited the other LOCKED thread.

the third clue: per the moderators note, they weren't moved by the gender change, and considered your post sexist...towards MEN.

[mouse7]

48. Well, you were very wrong.

It was an attempt to take the sexism out of the discussion. I made that clear in the text of the message, and it wasn't reintroduced until one of the flamers from the "Condi" thread illegally brought the flame war to the thread.

You may begin apologizing for your incorrect assestion now.

[noiretextatique]

50. ask the moderators for an apology

apparently they didn't get your memo.

[mouse7]

54. You insulted me. Not the mods.

Calling someone clueless is an insult. You were wrong in your charge. You owe me an apology because you are responsible for the inaccuracy of your own rhetoric.

I'm waiting.

[noiretextatique]

57. i don't "owe" you SHIT

here is one of your little gems directed at me in this exchange:

"No... discussions about men not getting laid IS NOT about anything to do with women's sex anything. That's your messed up view of the universe that's creating that goofed up internal message inside your head. It is not caused by the text written."

it's a nice TIRADE, unfortunately, it doesn't REMOTELY related to ANYTHING i ACTUALLY WROTE.

again...i assume you are either talking about someone else entirely, or grouping me in with this PLURAL "YOU" YOU seem so fond of using.

apology?!?! please...you get no apology for me. and may i suggest you read before you respond :eyes:

[mouse7]

60. Ahh... so the whole "ploy" thing just evaporated into the ether

noiretblu (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-25-04 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #20

21. oh for god's sake...you posted it right after the other was deleted

Edited on Thu Mar-25-04 03:02 PM by noiretblu
what was the purpose of that? to make some point about how gender would make a difference in how the "all s/he needs is a good fuck" canard is perceived, correct? i call that a PLOY.


Gee... that looks like EXACTLY what you wrote. Funny.

[noiretextatique]

63. i know you know what "ploy" means

repeating my post only confirms my original assertion.

[mouse7]

77. You know "ploy" is a negative term. Stop this silliness in denying it.

My Encarta dictonary says ploy is "a tactic intended to frustrate or deceive." there was nothing remotely deceptive in what I did and I refuse to accept your demand there was. I said I was trying for satire on neo-con putitanism, and when women commented aboutr confuse issues of sexism, immediately changed the focus to a male to eliminate that.

[noiretextatique]

17. i think it had more to do with

the fact that you posted your thread shortly after the other one got locked. a rather obvious ploy.

[ieoeja]

14. Really?

Because it is a rather common prescription among men.

[mouse7]

18. Wrong. Had a Rove thread earlier, there's Falwell sex threads, too

Generally, it's the fundy preachers that are the subjects of the male "needs to get laid" threads.

Unfortunately, there are individuals that can't seperate the neo-cons and their attempts to repress sexuality, being hypersensitive to claiming sexism in others behavior, etc.

[noiretextatique]

19. falwell and other rw moralists are fair game

since they seem to be obsessed with the sex lives of everyone else.

[mouse7]

22. Then why was my "Rove" thread turned into flame war and locked?

It was immediately called sexist becasue it was similar to an earlier thread. I tried to show balance and show the discussion WAS satire of puritaical sex views by changing the discussion to a male, and I still had people ranting it was sexist against women and screaming "sexist" at me.

[noiretextatique]

23. i don't know that rove is a moralist, or rice for that matter

falwell, robertson and those of that ilk are another story, imho.

[Skittles]

25. why are you so hung up on the sex lives of others

please get over it

[mouse7]

28. It 's a freakin' joke.

Please learn what a freakin' joke is.

Why are you so obsessed with defending the messed up sex lives of neo-con puritans?

Better yet, tell the neo-cons to GET OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS. When the neo-cons get out of our bedrooms, we'll quit ragging about their screwed up view on sexuality.

Remember, it's the neo-con crap that created the situation that set up the Janet Jackson mess, not some jokes a few progressives tried to tell.

[Skittles]

29. excuse me

if I'd rather not see us descend into neo-con scumland.

[noiretextatique]

30. is rice in your bedroom?

i didn't think so...

[mouse7]

33. Is the Bush administration supporting Gay Marriage Amendment?

Is Condi Rice refusing to support the advancement of WOMEN'S rights in Iraq and Afghanistan?

That's two quickies that show the Bush administration in people's bedrooms.

[noiretextatique]

35. those are terrible policies

what do they have to do with whether or not rice, or rove, for that matter is getting laid? i assume bush is getting some on a regular basis, but it doesn't seem to affect his "humanity" in a positive way.

[mouse7]

45. They are policies that reflect aspects of neo-con puritanism

They are policies based on the idea that neo-cons have a right to enter our bedrooms with their messed up attitudes toward morality and sexuality.

Curing neo-con attitudes on sexuality would cure a lot of social conflicts instantly. Imagine how much nicer this country would be if, for example, things that have to do with homosexuality didn't suddenly make neo-cons react as if like they are about to be forced to have gay sex.

There's a proven link between some sexual problems and aggression. If neo-cons felt comfortable enough about their sexuality, maybe they wouldn't have ever been a need to "Shock and Awe" anyone as a substitute.

See how this works?

[noiretextatique]

49. what does any of this have to do with whether or not

rove and rice are getting laid? i don't believe you can "cure" puritanism any more than you can "cure" sexual preference. i'm all for "live and let live," so the sex lives of neocons do not interest me. if they want to hate sex...let them. i just want them out of power so they don't make policy decisions that affect other people's sex lives.

[mouse7]

52. Then you're wrong. It's learned behavior.

The percentage of homosexuals in the population has never changed. It's genetic.

The way society treats and discusses sexuality is a learned behavior. Humanity has social views of sexuality running from that of the Taliban to that in the Netherlands with everything in between represented somewhere. Sexuality is treated differntly over time as well, running from that of Greece and Rome to the Medieval Roman Catholic Church. You're position holds no water whatsoever. There would be no way a social view on sexuality could change from that in the US in the late 60-early 70's to that of today in such a short period of time.

As it's learned behavior, puritanical views can be chancged, and it's a good thing for socity that they do progress. Thank God they do progress.

Therefore, satire about the messed-up sexulaity of puritanical neo-cons is not only fair game, it's a good thing that promotes foreward progress in our society. Those who protest against it are barriers to progressivism.

[noiretextatique]

55. for once, i agree with you...

i just think you and the poster of this thread need to work on your satire skills. what you just wrote is vastly different from "so and so needs a good fuck."
i do think we're headed for another peak in the sexual revolution because sexuality is not something that can be repressed. and i agree that it is a very progressive ideal to fight the rw's attempts to repress and punish sexuality in general.

[mouse7]

59. Then say that!

If someone says that they were trying to tell jokes, and you think their jokes suck, just say "These jokes suck. Try again."

There was no reason to jump to conclusions of this whole "sexist ploy" mess.

[noiretextatique]

67. the ploy was to start another thread after the other one got deleted

THAT, my friend was the "ploy." i don't think it was sexism that motivated that...i think you were trying to make a point. and...i think you and your friend need to figure out that your "jokes" aren't funny on your own. perhaps now you have another clue?!!?!?!?!?

[seabeyond]

39. GET OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS

i am all for it

and respectfully, keep it in your bedroom or better yet, quit bringing your bedroom to a stage in the middle of a football game.

then we can all get on with life and be happy, none of this battlin going on.

just a thought to resolve

[blondeatlast]

43. EXACTLY!!! I could not possibly agree more. nt

[noiretextatique]

44. she showed a tit...she didn't have sex

it's not like it was a live sex show...just a breast.

[mouse7]

56. "We're healthy sexually as long as nobody talks about sex?"

Yeah, that's a healthy attutude towards the subject of sexuality.

[RedEarth]

46. Pass the popcorn please...........

:-)

[rumguy]

47. nothing like a flame war on a cold spring day - nt

[Groosalugg]

53. What I don't understand is...

that I knew it was a joke, I saw it as a joke, I felt it as a joke. Now, how can someone get offended? I know you're not sexist. I knew you only meant to joke. I was down with your post (I'm a 21 year old male, go figure). I didn't see any problem with your post...just for the fact that it was a joke.

Some people need to lighten up around here...

[bloom]

58. FYI

what is a "joke" to a 21 year old male is not necessarily a "joke" to everybody.

I've been getting the sense lately - that this is a board for the college-age male mentality that is not interested in others opinions.

[blondeatlast]

68. Wrong--it's for us all.

I don't take DU protocol lessons from newbies.

[noiretextatique]

69. bloom...i think you're right

i think you just summed it up nicely.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. The same could be said about America at large Bloom...

I don't think anyone is out to make men feel defensive about their manliness but "Boys will be boys" has become an explanatory priciple for far too much in the way of downright poor behavior.

[blondeatlast]

65. Some jokes are appropriate, some are not.

This one wasn't.

I've been on this board for almost 2 years. I've learned the protocol, sometimes the hard way. Don't presume to tell me how to behave ("lighten up") in the forums.

Welcome to DU.

[slinkerwink]

66. I'm sorry, but it was deeply offensive!

[mouse7]

72. You claim offended by sexism against women in a male thread

You were offended by something that never appeared in my thread.

[slinkerwink]

75. your posting the copycat thread trivialized the seriousness of the first

thread and our reactions to it.

[mouse7]

78. No, your hypersensitivity trivializes the seriousness of real sexism

You overreact so often on this issue that people are starting to stop taking seriously the situtations when it really is problematic.

[Groosalugg]

79. Amen to that...

there was NO sexism against women in your thread.

In fact...I didn't even see ANY sexism! I saw you were poking fun at us males, that's all.

Get a sense of humor the rest of you. That's what's wrong with the country today. No one has a sense of humor. It's sad really...

[blondeatlast]

61. Republican victim talking points memo #247.

The post was vile, DU Admins agreed.

I like making off-color jokes every once in a while. I even like coming on to women on occasion.

Focus on political humor. DON'T "COME ON" TO US, try to get to know us.

It'll get you farther.

You're wrong on this one, my friend.

[slinkerwink]

64. I'm sorry, but your post was BLATANTLY sexist and OFFENSIVE!

Even Skinner said it was sexist in ATA.

[mouse7]

70. I say it BLATENTLT WASN'T

You have you opinion. I have mine. Your have no right to claim your opinion is superior.

When the opinion is about a male thread you certainly have no ground to claim that I was being BLATENTLY sexist against women as you claimed in the thread. That's sheer fiction.

[slinkerwink]

74. your posting the "copycat" thread trivialized the seriousness of the

first thread.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

76. You weren't being sexist with your thread, you were being dismissive

and covert.

[blondeatlast]

80. Nailed it again, NSMA. nt

[Moderator]

81. Locking

Continuation of a flamewar.