46 Responses to “Why Identity Politics?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
But it’s not identity politics when defenders of patriarchy do it.
True enough.
What the fuck?
And to have Kathleen Parker on as well… “It’s telling that there’s only one blond.”
Again, what the fuck?
And defending his “side” (the all-boy Presidents and Girl-Haters Club, I guess)with John Wayne? Shouldn’t he have named Ronnie? At least Reagan was President as well as an actor.
And this guy gets big air time…again, just what the fuck?
How can I say this graciously and politely?
Chris Mathews is an ignorant, arogant a** who when he isn’t trashing Senator Clinton and whining about her and the former president’s love lifes, he’s verbally masturbating and slobbering all over Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, or Fred Thompson with some REALLY disgusting man-crushes.
Oh, how I loathe Kathleen Parker.
Matthews has this strange homoerotic attraction to the cult of masculinity. Of course, it’s not just him; Russert’s got his own eroticizing of the working man. And the talk lately about how the Republican candidates smell?! It’s just fucking bizarre.
I know Atrios beats up Beck for his ratings, and rightly so, but maybe someone could point out that Matthews ain’t exactly bringing ‘em in either. Of course, as long as Tucker is there, I guess Matthews is safe by comparison.
I bet Hillary Clinton smells better the Rudy Giuliani.
You know what really pisses me off even more than Matthews?
When Republican knobs talk about the “liberal” MSM and name Matthews as one of those liberals!!!
Grrargh.
I am NOT polishing those knobs.
Why identity politics? For the same reason our founders wrote it into the constitution.
Sorry, this is only vaguely on topic, it just annoys me that “mainstream” Democrats obsess so much over geographical demographics, but constantly cry “identity politics is divisive!” when it comes to just about every other cultural/group identity.
Except, as MaJeff points out, when the group they are talking about is white, male, and/or rich. As if using code words like “Nascar Dads”, “Soccer Moms”, and “Business Leaders” fools anyone but them.
“Business Leaders” in particular is an identity category we’re not supposed to talk about. After all, we might have to admit that Capital comprises a class for itself and engages in political conflict based on that class identity. So instead, they’re just framed as uninterested experts rather than political actors.
Can we smuggle someone into the room so that the next time Matthews and Team He-Man start gabbling on about John Wayne or the meaning of one blonde, that person can just stand up in the middle of everything and yell “WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT? PLEASE DISCUSS A PERTINENT ISSUE!”
Or just wing a well-aimed spitball or something?
Yeah, shit like that explains why we still need things like this blog in a big way. And a small way. It makes me feel better to hear more voices saying words to the effect of “What is this shit and why these morons.”
Who are these “some men”. Name them. Because otherwise it’s probably safe to assume that Matthews is the one saying these things.
I so hate this type of political discourse- it totally panders to people’s prejudices and adds nothing substantive to any debate.
What the fuck’s up with the “one blond” thing? Is this winger code for “real woman” instead of masculinized brunette feminazi?
I think the “one blonde” comment was an inept attempt to make us think about Sen. Clinton as a bullying, manipulative infighting bitch. Follow the twisted logic thusly:
Clinton has blonde hair.
She’s surrounded by women.
Blondes have more fun. Therefore, women with other hair colors are inferior.
Only one of Clinton’s entourage has blonde hair.
Therefore, Clinton is surrounding herself with inferiors so as not to have to compete with the help for Horny Bill’s attention.
AT half-past three a single bird
Unto a silent sky
Propounded but a single term
Of cautious melody.
At half-past four, experiment
Had subjugated test,
And lo! her silver principle
Supplanted all the rest.
At half-past seven, element
Nor implement was seen,
And place was where the presence was,
Circumference between.
Just kill it. Please.
THE DAY came slow, till five o’clock,
Then sprang before the hills
Like hindered rubies, or the light
A sudden musket spills.
The purple could not keep the east,
The sunrise shook from fold,
Like breadths of topaz, packed a night,
The lady just unrolled.
The happy winds their timbrels took;
The birds, in docile rows,
Arranged themselves around their prince
(The wind is prince of those).
The orchard sparkled like a jewel
How mighty ’t was, to stay
A guest in this stupendous place,
The parlor of the day!
again, the poor thing’s obsessed.
THE SUN just touched the morning;
The morning, happy thing,
Supposed that he had come to dwell,
And life would be all spring.
She felt herself supremer,
A raised, ethereal thing;
Henceforth for her what holiday!
Meanwhile, her wheeling king
Trailed slow along the orchards
His haughty, spangled hems,
Leaving a new necessity,
The want of diadems!
The morning fluttered, staggered,
Felt feebly for her crown,
Her unanointed forehead
Henceforth her only one.
The Last Supper was two thousand years ago. John Wayne’s been dead for twenty years. Get with the program, Tweety.
Maybe if Hillary dresses up in a flight suit, he’ll be a little more fair to her.
[…] June 25th, 2007 Matthews has his undergarments in a concerned twist over the possibility of a woman President with (gasp!) female advisors. When he is caught in the act, he pulls out a double edged excuse (MediaMatters via Pandagon): Asked by Time managing editor Richard Stengel, “What are you suggesting by asking does this diminish her as a commander in chief by being surrounded by women?,” Matthews replied: “No, the idea that it — well, let me just get historic. We’ve never had a woman commander in chief.” […]
No way! We all know that Bill prefers brunettes..
/snark
But Elisabeth, I know you’re a feminist, in the best possible sense of that word.
WTF??? That alone should hands dwn get him Worst Person in the World for 24 hrs.
It goes beyond his pubescent level development of wanting to show himself free of girl and gay cooties.
It’s beyond the everyday stupid validation idiocy he displays coming off a codpiece huffing high or when he’s fall-down stank-drunk from chewing and drooling over Fred Thompson’s kaleidoscopically man-smellingly slippers.
AAAH, Tweety’s idiocy plays even worse than the transcript reads. (And apologies if my comments are more incomprehensible than usual: I’ve been using a new text/HTML editor with strange selection and sticky keys and it keeps reversing my edits, apparently at whim. OR, Scalia got to it.
….He has said that “some men” say Clinton’s voice sounds like “fingernails on a blackboard,” and wondered if Clinton is “a convincing mom.” …..
I cannot remember someone’s VOICE or PARENTING ever come into play as discussion points in a presidential campaign before. Caryn’s multi “WTF???” was my reaction too, but decided to go to bed rather than splutter.
Oh I canNOT wait until ‘08… will be helping out at State Dem HQ again…
MAJeff: Offtopic, and possibly a stupid question, but are you connected to the God of Biscuits blog?
What the fuck’s up with the “one blond� thing? Is this winger code for “real woman� instead of masculinized brunette feminazi?
That’s Genteel Racistâ„¢ code for “Democrats pandering to the wops and spics and dagos and chinks and darkies instead of valuing us True Americans, who are all golden-haired gods of genetic superiority whose ancestors hailed from closest to Greenwich, the Meridian of Human Excellence.”
Aka “race treason,” and goes back to the good old days of people like Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge trying to limit not just Asian immigrants, but also too-swarthy and born-far-from-England Europeans with too many consonants in their names which ended in -i and -sky; while at the same time promoting military expansion of the US into Asia and Latin America in order to make ourselves a world power in the gilded Age of Empire….
Gee, doesn’t *that* sound familiar…
Oh, and also Traditionally (even if it doesn’t have anything to do with reality and real people’s physical variety) Jews are amongst the dark-haired, inferior sorts whom the Democrats “pander” to, in Conservative Fantasyland, along with the swarthier black-haired non-True American WASPS. I’m sure every Buchananite and Bircher got that message, as was imo undoubtedly intended - and thoroughly deniable, as most such code is, as is also intentional.
I’ve got a little more on identity politics, only this time it’s Elizabeth Edwards, who “strays” from her husband’s position on same-sex marriage, as though she couldn’t possibly disagree with him on something.
OK, I thought of the dumb blond stereotype, so I thought the ‘one blond’ comment meant that Clinton was surrounding herself with ’smarter’ women, at least, if she won’t surround herself with men.
There are so many stupid ways to take that comment, that it doesn’t even make sense!
OH, I can I say I love the poem-ification of trolls almost as much as the bunny videos?
“Identity politics” is just one of those awful-sounding terms some use as a shorthand insult to say “Ignore the point of my opponent, do not connect the dots, and note that my opponent is not one of us.”
That Chris Matthews stuff really is unbelievably insane, but I just wish they could have gotten to the meat of that story:
Only one other blonde? How many redheads? Are they “true” redheads? Let’s ask them in person before Bill O’Reilly does! And demand proof, damnit! What are they trying to hide? Is there knitting? Are their periods on the same schedule, so will there always be a “sane” one left in charge? Do they share underwear? Will they live in a dorm? Will there be a netcast for $19.95 a month? Will they shower three or five times a day? Do they wear pumps and fingerless gloves while they have sex? Do lesbians really have sex like they do in Penthouse? Would asking Mary Cheney be appropriate, or should I just mention how awful it was for John Kerry to out her?
Damn, I wish I could be a supposedly-left-wing pundit.
There are so many stupid ways to take that comment, that it doesn’t even make sense!
It seems like a purposely vague statement - even on this thread people have been able to read whatever they want into it. It’s the rosarch test of vapid meaningless fluff statements; whatever you read into it says more about you than about Parker. Clearly she wants you to find Hillary’s choice of women suspicious based on this completely meaningless quality, but why she thinks you should find it suspect is anyone’s guess.
My personal guess, most of these women are covering up some grey and a nice burnette with some highlights is an easily maintained, natural looking ‘do which gives off a more serious vibe than dyed blonde, especially when you’ve got troglodytes like Matthews and Parker willing to toss every stereotype they can your way on national tv. So, OMG! Beltway Insider Women Spend Time and Money Carefully Maintaining Appearance! Film at 11!
MAJeff: Offtopic, and possibly a stupid question, but are you connected to the God of Biscuits blog
no i’m not…just got a little too goofy yesterday
It’s from an Eddie Izzard routine.
“It’s telling that there’s only one blond.�
It is? Really? What exactly is it telling us, Kathi? How did you discover the reason that only one of Clinton’s advisors is blond? And what makes you think that you and you alone know the One and Only Reason for the one blonde?
While you’re collecting more supporting details, you might want to consider addressing why haircolor is “telling” for women but not “telling” for men.
And in 100 words or less, please explain how the fuck you passed high school composition if this is your idea of a “valid argument”!
I can’t even grade this piece of shit. Get out of my class. And off my TV.
With our without the codpiece?
You bet its telling that there’s only one blonde. It’s telling us that blondes are rarer than the various other shades that human hair comes in.
You bet its telling that there’s only one blonde. It’s telling us that blondes are rarer than the various other shades that human hair comes in.
If she went packing in that flightsuit, I know it’d clinch my vote.
“But we’ve got Patton and John Wayne on our side.”
Both long dead, Tweety.
Long dead.
*sniff*
Magis Jun 25th, 2007 at 10:25 am
“Maybe if Hillary dresses up in a flight suit, he’ll be a little more fair to her.
With our without the codpiece?”
HA! I’d say with, but that might interfere with her ability to play a “convincing mother” well enough to satisfy Tweety.
jon might well arsk: Are they “true� redheads? Let’s ask them in person before Bill O’Reilly does! And demand proof, damnit!
Most pressing question: Does Tweety’s carpet match his curtains?
(Unh-uh. I ain’t lookin’.)
matthews gets so excited over his man crushes he can’t even swallow.
he had issues about breasts as well! he’s a mysogonist homo-eroticist with a soapbox and the faux chops of being named a liberal…
the minute i see him while waiting for olbermann to start is enough for me to roll my eyes and wonder why he isn’t on fox.
Magis,
With codpiece, of course. The bigger the better. Hey, and if Hillary cuts her hair short, and puts on a hundred pounds or so, she might actually pass for Mathews in a flight suit, which would be really bitchin’.
But seriously, though, I liked Stickings take on it, which proves Tweety is even more clueless than previously thought. Mathews even calls Kathless Parker a feminist. (Uh, excuse me? On just what alternate Earth is Parker a feminist?)
What the fuck. Just what the fuckity fuck fuck fuck.
How is this on television? On a network supposedly devoted to news? How does that happen? Hair color?
I deeply wish someone on that show had possessed the balls to ask Matthews to name the “people” who are saying such bitchy things about Clinton (let alone what the hell they have to do with anything), and demand that Parker explain what’s so telling about the sinister presence of brunettes on Clinton’s staff.
And I love the assumption that hiring women is inherently some kind of radical political statement. Of course, a politician couldn’t possibly hire female staffers because they’re good at their jobs. They’re obviously there to fill a quota or make a statement.
For months now, I’ve been trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, to assume that the rabid hatred of Senator Clinton stems from her actual shortcomings as a politician, that there are legitimate reasons she gets endlessly shit on by the media, that the talking heads on Fox News who discuss a Hillary Presidency as analogous to the the coming of Cthulhu must know something we don’t (maybe they’ve got secret documents proving she’s way more left-wing than her voting record indicates, who knows?). But there’s nothing like that, is it? It’s pretty much mostly about her gender.
Hair color. What the fucking fuck.