Reading Anne Applebaum’s standard issue “the pointy-headed, white, liberal, middle class, self-absorbed feminists don’t care about women in the Middle East” routine a few days ago juxtaposed with a recent Bitch magazine article about the resurgence of the Jewish American Princess stereotype got my mind moving, but ever so slowly because it only occurred to me today what’s largely going on here with this particular feminist scapegoating. You know how the right has transformed a lot of anti-semitic stereotypes onto the more diffuse category “liberals”, because it’s both bad news to be openly anti-semitic nowadays (though more openly anti-black or anti-Muslim is still okay, apparently) and because these stereotypes were just too juicy to give up completely? Now we don’t have as much talk about Hollywood Jews, but there’s still plenty of crap you’ll hear about the Hollywood liberal set. The War On Christmas nonsense is about transferring a traditional slur against Jews onto this vague group called “secularists”. And it occurred to me that the favorite right wing myth about how feminists are supposedly all overprivileged spoiled brats is an update to the Jewish American Princess stereotype. Replace Prada, Chanel, and Lexus with reproductive rights, equality in the workplace, and anti-rape activism, and you have the 21st century version of an old slur. You don’t hear the words “boutique cause” attached to feminism for just random reasons. The baffling amount of “Sex and the City” references in right wing screeds against feminism is no accident, either.
Of course, there’s two major things that are accomplished with this stereotype. The first is that it erases the diversity of feminism. The implication in all these right wing rants about how “the feminists” don’t care about Muslim women implies a) that Muslim feminists don’t exist and b) that if they did they’d so want Americans to throw bombs at their houses. The first is ridiculous and the second even more so.
The second major thing, of course, is to minimize the importance of things like equality in the workplace, reproductive rights, etc. But of course, reproductive rights and equal opportunity at work are not boutique issues only relevant to a handful of overprivileged white women at all. In fact, said overprivileged white women are the ones who’ll probably be the least affected by things like abortion bans, and are least affected by sexism in the workplace now. The easy acceptance of lady lawyers, writers, etc. on the right shows amply how sexism in the workplace is much more of a concern to women living paycheck to paycheck, and could really use the 25% difference between their average paycheck and a man’s average paycheck. Reproductive justice is an annoyance issue to women with privileges; ban abortion in Texas, and I’ll just fly to New York if I need one, for instance. I’d rather not, of course, but I’ll live if I have to. But for women who don’t have the means to do that, the lack of access can be a life or death issue, and not just in terms of what you need to get an illegal abortion, but also just in terms of getting by in your daily life. Rape and domestic violence suck no matter who you are, but they suck 15 times harder if you don’t have the resources you need to escape or heal or get justice. See this post by Shark-Fu about the Pretty Bird Woman House that serves the Standing Rock Indian Reservation for a very good example of how these issues become even more important for women who are certainly lacking in these boutique privileges.
It’s kind of interesting to see how these hoary old anti-semitic stereotypes are being revised and renewed. In the past, they existed to excuse oppression of Jews, of course, but now that’s less of a prominent right wing hobby horse. So instead, they’re being revised in a way that’s two steps removed from the real targets—the poor and people of color mainly—but still that’s the end goal and end target of this nastiness.
80 Responses to “Abortion by Chanel”
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>
So, when liberals a la John Edwards or Ralph Nader rail against “wall street fat cats” and “multi-national corporations” should that also be taken as coded anti-semitism since those stereotypes were also once directed against Jews?
??????
Examples please.
Every time I hear someone opine that abortion rights ought to be “left up to the states” (unless, of course, some rogue reality-based state doesn’t want to toe the line; then it ought to be banned at the federal level), I wonder how these same people would react if a state attempted to prohibit women from participating in something a little more quotidian. Like driving or appearing in public without a male escort.
After all, the logic there is the same as what they direct at gay marriage: “It’s not that you can’t go out, it’s just that you can’t go out without a man.” == “It’s not that you can’t get married, it’s just that you can’t get married to someone of the same gender.”
Well, thanks to Wiki Quote I found some gems from Ralph Nader. Gems such as:
“The corporate lobby in Washington is basically designed to stifle all legislative activity on behalf of consumers.”
“This administration is not sympathetic to corporations, it is indentured to corporations.”
I trust you are familiar of the stereotype of the sinister Jewish businessman? I guess “Corporations” is really code word for Jews.
AtomicFruitbat:
Well, considering that being Wall Street fat-cats and controlling multi-national corporations aren’t Jewish stereotypes, I think your premise is just a little bit flawed.
They’re not? I guess you’ve never read anti-semitic propaganda. The “Jewish plutocrat” is a very old anti-semitic stereotype. Jews have even been accused of “inventing” capitalism to control the world.
AtomicFruitbat:
FFS, get your stereotypes right. Jews control all the money, not all the companies.
What, another case where the implied reference in a phrase depends on on who is saying it and to whom? I am so shocked. Next, we’re going to hear that “neocon” is really coded antisemism.
If Evel Keneval had a jump like that he’d have cleared the canyon. The “fat cats” you refer to were almost universally Protestant and known to be so.
Who accused the Jews of inventing capitalism? The famous “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was a creation of the Tsarist secret police and used to justify the pogroms.
One the other hand, “Fat Cats” were the creation of the political cartoonists of the day and certainly were not without some justification.
As for Mr Nader (of whom I have little good to say) and his assertion that the corporate lobbyists are sometimes not wild about consumer protection laws, he is correct and you know he is. If you think the National Association of Manufacturers is trilled about new liability standards you’ve been eating too much squirrel food.
Actually, big corporations love to be regulated because the expense of regulation kneecaps competition from smaller competitors. But I digress.
Well, theres also a lot of truth to the fact that most feminists are probably young, white, upper-middle class, college educated, urban, and bi-costal. I don’t think pointing that out is anti-semitic, any more than railing against bankers or corporations makes one anti-semitic simply because that used to be stereotype used against Jews. I think believing that is more than a little silly.
I trust you are familiar of the stereotype of the sinister Jewish businessman?
The stereotype is that of the sinister Jewish banker, not businessman. Geez, at least know what stereotype you’re criticizing so you don’t end up looking like an idiot.
Actually, big corporations love to be regulated because the expense of regulation kneecaps competition from smaller competitors. But I digress.
Yes, that’s why when the government tried to show that Microsoft was a monopoly, Microsoft rolled over and accepted government regulation. And it’s also why Archer-Daniels-Midland was working with their competitors to set prices — because businesses looooove regulation.
You really have no idea how business works, do you?
“Actually, big corporations love to be regulated because the expense of regulation kneecaps competition from smaller competitors.”
Who is this fruitcake? In what Bizarro World would the above statement be true?
Certainly not in Bushco country, where mine owners were thrilled to have one of their own appointed to mine safety, so that regulations weren’t enforced, and miners died. Where the FDA regulations were loosened, and consumers died.
Ya know, reasoning with fruitbat seems to have no effect: fat cats” anti-semetic? No, that term came into use in the late 19th century to describe the (primarily) white protestant overstuffed Capitalists.
But why try to reason with a fruitbat, it does no good, he merely goes off on some other nutball tangent.
I recommend replying to him with recipes, as they do to trolls on other sites.
Doesn’t this sound yummy:
ITALIAN SAUSAGE SOUP
1 pound Italian sausage
1 clove garlic, minced
2 (14 ounce) cans beef broth
1 (14.5 ounce) can Italian-style stewed tomatoes
1 cup sliced carrots
1 (14.5 ounce) can great Northern beans, undrained
2 small zucchini, cubed
2 cups spinach - packed, rinsed and torn
1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper
1/4 teaspoon salt
DIRECTIONS
In a stockpot or Dutch oven, brown sausage with garlic. Stir in broth, tomatoes and carrots, and season with salt and pepper. Reduce heat, cover, and simmer 15 minutes.
Stir in beans with liquid and zucchini. Cover, and simmer another 15 minutes, or until zucchini is tender.
Remove from heat, and add spinach. Replace lid allowing the heat from the soup to cook the spinach leaves. Soup is ready to serve after 5 minutes.
Please, you guys are internet experts. You should know that a paragraph of more than three sentences is almost impossible to read, and in any case most people won’t read something formatted like this.
The three-sentence rule is generous, two is better. That of course is excluding long convoluted sentences. All of the 10 posters have been clear. I doubt you will get many more.
Frankly, I didn’t even bother to read. Maybe the subject was interesting and maybe not.
I didn’t want to threadjack but I’ll give you an example where regulation helps the big boys against smaller competitors.
New York City recently banned trans-fats from all their restaurants. Big fast food chains like McDonalds and Burger King can easily eat the transition cost and move to trans-fat free foods relatively painlessly. But the little mom-and-pop restaurants that liberals profess to love are going to have a very rough time and many will probably go out of business because they can’t eat the cost as well as the big players.
Another example–Phillip Morris wants the FDA to regulate nicotine, because again the cost of such regulation will shut out any smaller competitors from being able to start up and eat away at their market share.
BTW, I work in marketing so I’m more than aware of how business works, thanks.
Is Amanda’s post above claiming that conservatives use anti-semitic language against Hollywood, against feminists, or both?
The Hollywood argument is a stretch, but at least it was a valid stereotype 60 or 70 years ago.
The feminism angle makes no sense to me at all vis a vis anti-semitism. The last paragraph is a complete wtf are you talking about.
***
As for the Applebaum column: Seems like a valid point to me that feminists might want to consider allocating some of their energy from the burning issue of Augusta National and applying it to issues such as punishing rape victims with 200 lashes. It doesn’t seem particularly anti-semitic to point this out.
I bow to your expertise in stereotypes, but the anti-semitic slur is far broader than banker alone. Of the two most famous examples from our literature are Shylock and Fagin, only one of which was active in the lending arts.
chris, Amanda’s formulation confused me at first too.
Her sentence,
“You know how the right has transformed a lot of anti-semitic stereotypes onto the more diffuse category “liberals” “ …..
might be more easily parsed if “embedded” were substituted for ‘transformed’.
Seems like a valid point to me that feminists might want to consider allocating some of their energy from the burning issue of Augusta National and applying it to issues such as punishing rape victims with 200 lashes.
wow. ok, no way to even express the ridiculousness of that, but why don’t you spend some time today trying to find a prominent feminst blog that did not discuss the woman sentenced to 200 lashes.
On topic.
It’s not very surprising that old stereotypes would evolve and find new code words or even new targets. It’s easier to give old hate a new outlet than invent a new one.
It’s pretty disingenuous to claim that there are no similarities between how some people criticize big, shadowy, rich corporations and old-school anti-Semitic propaganda about supposed Jewish conspiracies controlling the world economies. There are definite parallels, and it’s silly to try to take apart the claim based on factual differences between the two, because this sort of rhetoric has very little to do with facts and logic. Even if the person railing against a shadowy financial conspiracy isn’t thinking of Jews at all, his rhetoric is given extra power by all the cultural weight that anti-semitism has already given that kind of rant. Denying the link between the two is like claiming that rhetoric used to justify some anti-crime measures has nothing to do with more old-fashioned anti-black propaganda–it’s just denying historical and social reality. And is this: Next, we’re going to hear that “neocon” is really coded antisemism. a joke? There certainly are people for whom criticism of neocons is mixed in with anti-semitism–it’s not hard to find commentators pointing to the Jewishness of several necons and talking about Zionist conspiracies.
Certainly, there is a lot that *should* be condemned about big, shadowy corporations and about neocons (just as there really aer some measures that should be taken to fight crime). But the way some of that criticism can replicate bigoted old tropes points to why it’s important for critics to keep their criticism rooted in facts instead of just stirring rhetoric (except, of course, when they actually are harboring some anti-semitism–which, believe it or not, people of all sorts of political stripes do). And, incidentally, that’s why people replicating tropes about Hollywood Jews and Jewish American Princesses to condemn liberals and feminists are stuck using that kind of rhetoric–they don’t have any actual, logical facts to rely on for their arguments.
And, sure, maybe this is why it can be so much easier for right-wingers to rally followers to win elections, because appealing to old, cultural prejudices *does* stir people up and make them want to vote a lot more easily than laying out facts does–but I’m still a lot happier not to participate in that.
I didn’t want to threadjack but I’ll give you an example where regulation helps the big boys against smaller competitors.
New York City recently banned trans-fats from all their restaurants.
You mean Republican mayor Michael Bloomberg took action that will help large corporations over small business? Say it isn’t so! I must take to my fainting couch at the revelation that Republicans are on the side of big business.
Another example–Phillip Morris wants the FDA to regulate nicotine, because again the cost of such regulation will shut out any smaller competitors from being able to start up and eat away at their market share.
Actually, Phillip Morris wants the FDA to regulate nicotine so the various states will stop suing them for healthcare costs for the people who became addicted to their product. If the FDA regulates, Phillip Morris can say, “Hey, the federal government sets these limits, not us — sue them!”
BTW, I work in marketing so I’m more than aware of how business works, thanks.
Given how naive you are about the distance between what companies say they’re doing and what they actually do, I’m not at all surprised you’re in marketing.
“Seems like a valid point to me that feminists might want to consider allocating some of their energy from the burning issue of Augusta National and applying it to issues such as punishing rape victims with 200 lashes.”
This is dumb-shittery of the epic kind: as someone pointed out, 1) it’s a rare feminist blog that hasn’t addressed this, and 2) how do you know they didn’t already allocate 99.9% of the energy budgeted for the one to the other?
Shorter: troll.
“Well, theres also a lot of truth to the fact that most feminists are probably young, white, upper-middle class, college educated, urban, and bi-costal. ”
What proof of this statement do you have? I realize you tried to hide the fact that this statement is pure, undiluted bullshit with the “probably” modifier, but FFS, the only way you could get idea that this was in anyway true is to know absolutely nothing about feminism, except what dingbats like Applebaum tell you are true.
“The feminism angle makes no sense to me at all vis a vis anti-semitism. The last paragraph is a complete wtf are you talking about.”
“Seems like a valid point to me that feminists might want to consider allocating some of their energy from the burning issue of Augusta National and applying it to issues such as punishing rape victims with 200 lashes.””
Its interesting how privilege, ignorance and utter stupidity seem to always go together, huh.
I bow to your expertise in stereotypes, but the anti-semitic slur is far broader than banker alone. Of the two most famous examples from our literature are Shylock and Fagin, only one of which was active in the lending arts.
Fagin was not exactly a businessman, unless you count running a troop of teenage pickpockets to be a legitimate business and not a criminal conspiracy.
And given that prosecutors in England are completely comfortable referring to a convicted loan shark as “Fagin-like”, I think I may need to re-read Oliver Twist, because it’s making me think that pickpocketing wasn’t the only kind of involuntary loan-making that Fagin was involved with.
Astraea and Eric,
Before throwing a hissy-fit, why don’t you read Applebaum’s column, which was what starting this discussion in the first place. Clearly you post before reading.
What proof of this statement do you have? I realize you tried to hide the fact that this statement is pure, undiluted bullshit with the “probably” modifier, but FFS, the only way you could get idea that this was in anyway true is to know absolutely nothing about feminism, except what dingbats like Applebaum tell you are true.
Well its pretty much conventional wisdom. Just like the conventional wisdom that pro-life evangelicals are southern, white, and lower middle class. But when thats pointed out I don’t hear anyone on here talking about what horrible, horrible stereotyping that is.
I think AtomicFruitbat makes a valid point — “wall street fat cats” and “multi-national corporations” — could plausibly be just one easy step over from the International Conspiracy of Jewish bankers. One of the standard old slurs against Jews was “multi-nationalism” = “disloyalty” = “Not Our Kind, Dear.” In the 20s and 30s that’s IMHO certainly how Edwards’ or Nader’s attacks would have been heard.
The thing is, I don’t think that’s how attacks on “fat cats” are heard *now*. And I’m not sure that Amanda’s original point is true, either: I think the J.A.P. stereotype covers more than Jews. IIRC the “Jewish American Princess Handbook” said that the perfect, quintessential JAP was Marlo Thomas in “That Girl” — *even though she’s not Jewish*.
It’s just as ridiculous coming from Applebaum, Chris.
National feminist organizations or women’s organizations don’t have the power and influence they used to largely due to conservative backlash.
Feminists who take on big issues are fought tooth and nail by conservative anti-feminists, and then criticized by the same for not being effective!
Astraea,
Applebaum is reporting a fact about the NOW website. If you’re going to go ape-shit on somebody, go ape-shit on NOW.
Here’s a shorter version that you might actually read this time.
Chris,
Since when does NOW represent all women? You, like Applebaum, operate under the faulty assumption that feminists, like the right wing, are all centrally controlled, and that we are always on message.
No, it doesn’t work that. Feminism has splintered into many groups, many of whom have their own pet causes.
But, I bet you can’t name one feminist blog that didn’t take notice of the Saudi Arabian story, and did what they could to spread the word.
“Since when does NOW represent all women?”
You overstate the point, but…
“NOW is the largest, most comprehensive feminist advocacy group in the United States. Our purpose is to take action to bring women into full participation in society — sharing equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities with men, while living free from discrimination.”
http://www.now.org/about.html
***
I think Applebaum has a pretty good point in that punishing rape victims or murdering a child for not wearing a veil should at least appear on the NOW site.
Really? Might want to get your hearing checked, then. Every time someone tries to imply that the South sucks for whatever reason, the thread rapidly fills up with examples of how the North, while more subtle in its assorted bigotries and oppressions (usually), is Not So Different.
Also, off the top of my head, I can’t recall any posts that talked about the Forced Birth movement in terms of the rank and file, rather than the rich and/or powerful and/or famous leaders - or as an abstract philosophy (if one with catastrophic real-world consequences) without reference to its followers at all.
Personally, if someone were to suggest that all anti-choice evangelicals were southern, white, and lower-middle-class, I would have to ask them where anti-choice Catholic hispanic immigrants fit into the picture. I doubt I’d be the only one, either. Where did you get this “conventional wisdom”, by the way?
http://www.now.org/news/readthis/index.html?cat=82
Chris, maybe read through this list. Applebaum apparently missed the global feminism section of the web site that I found in roughly 7 seconds.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that we in the rich countries should try to support small L liberal values and especially feminism in the third world, but I don’t know that trashing NOW is the first place to start trying to get that done. I don’t see how harrassing Augusta National and expending energy helping women in Saudi are mutually exclusive. And I can’t imagine you’re innocent enough to not understand the actual reasoning, to wit, that NOW can have some chance of influencing the fossils who run country clubs, but not those who run a powerful family oligarchy in the Middle East.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=12&year=2007&base_name=the_easiest_piece_of_research
Here is an example of Slate’s Emily Yoffe doing the close to the same thing.
Is it a virus ‘journalists’ are catching at the Christmas cocktail party.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but NOW stands for National Organization for Women. Not International. So its no wonder they focus on domestic politics–which they have more of a chance to influence–than the goings on in Saudi Arabia.
I have, however, as a reader of Pandagon, seen posts about topics such as women’s rights in the Islamic world and FGM. So to say feminists don’t care about such issues is wrong.
Where did you get this “conventional wisdom”, by the way?
Well, I assume feminists are usually members of the Democratic (or maybe Green) parties. Upper-middle class, coastal, and urban counties tend to be the bluest ones according to election maps.
Saying that the typical feminists fits that picture is not the same as saying all feminists fit this profile. But stereotypes are often founded, at least in part, on a core of truth.
Anyway, what is wrong with being white, upper middle class, and bi-costal exactly? It doesn’t make the arguments of feminism any more or less valid.
I love how people come in to scream at feminists about veils and punishments in Saudi Arabia; as if the fucking feminists haven’t been trying to get women more power on a global scale for the last fifty fucking years.
Here’s an idea. How about we go yell at politicians and policy-makers and men about repressive and inequal foreign laws ?
(Also, it’s a trick question: the same people who want you to scream bloody murder about veils are often happy to turn around and yell ZOMG IMPERIALIST CULTURE ATTACK.)
They should. However, this was not your original point.
Your original statement was this:
Feminists and feminism are not defined by NOW. Even if they are the largest single group, that doesn’t mean they represent even most of us, any more than Catholicism represents a majority of US Christians. Feminists all over the internet have been posting regularly and vociferously about the Saudi rape case, doing what little we can (Saudi Arabia, as an absolute monarchy backed by the US government, pretty much does what it wants). On the other hand, I have no idea what the “burning issue” of Augusta National might be. None of the feminist blogs I read have had anything to say about it.
More importantly, we’re defined by you and Applebaum still less than we are by NOW. Dismissing local concerns as petty because there’s something you think we should be more concerned about (even if our ability to actually do anything about a court case in an absolute monarchy is pretty close to nil) is a time-honored ploy. In fact, over the last few years, it’s become pretty common for right-wingers to ask why feminists don’t side with them in the war against Islamofascism, because Muslims (who are all a single, unified group, of course) are much more oppressive to women than the US. Hey, wait a second…the Saudi rape case…girl murdered for not wearing a hijab…could it be? Could it possibly be that these examples were carefully chosen for this very purpose? Nah, of course not…
fifteen seconds on the NOW site yields this clear evidence that NOW doesn’t give a crap about women in IslamoFsciStan. From the link:
“The National Organization for Women is proud to support H. Res. 32, denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, ‘honor’ killings, acid burning, dowry deaths, sexual slavery and other gender-based persecutions.”
Pfft. AF is clearly a threadjacking troll. Can we ignore now?
I don’t know that I buy Amanda’s premise here–a sort of free-floating resentment of anyone (Jewish or not) who has more than you do isn’t really hard to conjure up. S&TC characters live lives that are largely consequence-free, and certainly never seem to involved not having enough rent money or healthcare. Because it’s largely a fantasy, with even the breast-cancer storyline leading to a True Love at Last ending. So to someone whose life is very far from that, and who is also misogynistic and prudish, this fantasy vision could easily inspire resentment. And because we’re not talking about the most analytical thinkers in the world, blurring the line between fictional characters and actual women is not hard to do.
You don’t have to hate the liberal elites because they (may be) Jewish. It’s easy enough to hate anyone who you perceive is more successful than you, having more fun, getting more, and who has more education. You don’t want Jews or women to have more than you….but you don’t want your pointy-headed cousin who went to Harvard to have more than you either. You want to think that you are really the good one, and not think about whether you might not have done as much with your life as you should have. Plain old insecurity and envy.
Nothing, in themselves. However, when coming from right-wing commentators, those things are usually euphemisms for “Intellectual elitist city-slicker who doesn’t know how the Real World (aka Middle America aka Real America) works.” The “white” part is thrown in to imply that the spoiled, naive brats in question are actually hurting (or at best, ignoring) non-whites with their efforts, and that feminism has nothing to offer for non-whites. This has been very effective in turning groups away from feminism that would benefit from it.
You know that, and I know that. Unfortunately, that doesn’t take into account a mindset that rejects logic in favor of “common sense” (i.e. what seems obvious if you don’t learn or think to much about a topic) and weighs the speaker much more heavily than the content of the argument.
1) WhoTF is the NCoWO?
2) “most famous recent” just means “the one the MSM talked about the most in the recent past.” It does not mean “the campaign they put the most money and staff/volunteer hours into in the past few years.” Jesus Christ, that was in 2003. Surely the NCoWO (whoever they are) have done plenty since then.
3)There’s a reason why NOW stands for the National Organization of Women. (yes, I know this has been said - it was posted while I was writing this.) Applebaum may as well be complaining that the NRA doesn’t do enough to support gun rights in France. Any person with any working knowledge of American feminist groups knows that for global feminism within the states, one turns to groups like The Feminist Majority Foundation and Equality Now. Not NOW.
(And of course we won’t bother to mention the fact that The Feminist Majority Foundation and the NCWO repeatedly made clear that they cared about Augusta being male-only not just because it discriminates against golfers but because corporate business being conducted in literal boys clubs adversely affects the opportunities and pay of women from a wide range of careers and pay levels.)
**********
RE: the idea that it’s conventional wisdom that “most feminists are probably young, white, upper-middle class, college educated, urban, and bi-costal.”
There’s a reason why Newsweek’s CW section started out as only a joke and is still mostly a joke - because CW isn’t the same as facts and statistics or even polls.
Plus, saying:
Does not mean the same thing as:
Which, again, does not mean the same thing as:
And none of these mean the same as assuming:
The last (the actual quote from AtomicFruitbat) is just plain wrong, the first three are conventional wisdom, and the first is factually correct - potentially misleading depending on the context, but useful to know. The same applies to similarly phrases statements about the characteristics of American feminists.
Aside from all that, I’m finding the unspoken assumption that all these feminists are female quite amusing considering that I most often associate Equality Now with Joss Whedon and the fundraisers put together by fans of Firefly.
Go apeshit on NOW because they focus on particular issues relevant to women, but not in the way that an antifeminist wants? Not likely. I’ll save going apeshit on people who decide feminists don’t spend time on issues by doing a quick look on a couple websites.
Oh, and let’s see, what does NOW have on it’s website? How to look fabulous without lipstick? The War on Pink?
Why, no! I see… links to action items to protect reproductive rights… news about child care for immigrant women… pressuring retailers to provide emergency contraception… and yes, nonsexist car insurance. Big issues and the details that make women’s every day lives easier. What an outrage!
Amanda - Eileen Flynn (Statesman woo-woo reporter) is bashin’ you in the daily today:
The thing is, I don’t think that’s how attacks on “fat cats” are heard *now*. And I’m not sure that Amanda’s original point is true, either: I think the J.A.P. stereotype covers more than Jews. IIRC the “Jewish American Princess Handbook” said that the perfect, quintessential JAP was Marlo Thomas in “That Girl” — *even though she’s not Jewish*.
That’s the point, though–rhetoric against “fat cats” or against women perceived as self-absorbed or spoiled gets to have extra, noxious influence because they resonate in a culture soaked in prejudices about conspiring Jewish financiers and JAPs. People don’t have to be consciously or explicitly thinking about Jewishness for such complaints to get the extra resonance; it happens pretty much automatically, because that’s the nature of ingrained prejudices. A lot of people are simply left feeling that the object being criticized really *must* be bad, if it has those characteristics linked to anti-semitic stereotypes.
It’s like launching criticism against a man when he spends a lot of money on his haircut–the cultural prejudice says that’s supposed to be something only women and gay men care about. And so even if no one actually believes the man in question is a woman or is gay, it still works as an insult, because the assumption is that men shouldn’t do or be something linked to stereotypes about women and gays.
(The first paragraph in my comment just above is supposed to be in blockquotes. Sigh.)
Atomic Fruitcake: “Well, theres also a lot of truth to the fact that most feminists are probably young, white, upper-middle class, college educated, urban, and bi-costal.”
Young: Hmmm my youngest son and wife just had their first child.
White: Ya got me there.
Upper-middle class: If I were upper middle class I wouldn’t have been living in this HUD apartment for longer than my youngest son has LIVED.
College Educated: Does an AA count?
Urban: No.
Bi-Costal: Sorry, only live on one coast… sorta… it’s a costal STATE.
Anytime you lump a class of people together, you create a stereotype that doesn’t necessarily describe the group.
I think there is some degree of truth to what Amanda proposes here. The conspiracy mongering directed against “secular progressives” by O’Reilly and Co. certainly seems eerily similar to conspiracies laid at the feet of Jews in earlier decades (hell, centuries). The “Hollywood liberals” claim is also eerily similar, the tansitional form in this case being Bill Donahue’s rant about how Hollywood is “controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity.”
In the interests of intellectual honesty, I’d say that what others here have said is true: railing against “wall street fat cats” does tap into long-standing Jewish stereotypes. But I’d say that while the public effect of the rhetoric in similar, the empirical merit of the two claims isn’t even close. Financial and economic interests do have profound and disproportionate influence on our political dynamics, but the railing against “secular progressives” and the like attempting to undermine Christian culture is baseless conspiracism directed against what it reality is a tiny minority with comparatively little influence. I’d say that the latter is more similar overall to old-school Jewish conspiracy theories.
chris,
Seems like a valid point to me that feminists might want to consider allocating some of their energy…to issues such as punishing rape victims with 200 lashes. It doesn’t seem particularly anti-semitic to point this out.
The point seems valid to you because you’re uninformed.
I think Applebaum has a pretty good point in that punishing rape victims or murdering a child for not wearing a veil should at least appear on the NOW site.
Why? Why should those particular international stories appear on the site of a domestic feminist advocacy group whose stated purpose is to take action to bring women into full participation in [US] society?
Other than, of course, to satisfy Ms. Applebaum’s baseless innuendo that the concerns of US feminists (as represented by NOW)–”non-sexist car insurance” and “network neutrality–are not valid until, and unless, NOW concerns itself with whatever international feminist issues Ms. Applebaum deems appropriate.
Anytime you lump a class of people together, you create a stereotype that doesn’t necessarily describe the group.
Thats what I said at the end of my post. I said stereotypes are often based on a core of truth, I didn’t say they were the whole truth and the truth in every individual circumstance.
And I pointed out why that stereotype was not just inaccurate (as others have explained more ably than I) but insulting, and yet you persist in defending it. Interesting.
Good motherfucking God, you people get distracted easily. Remind me to try three-card monte with you.
loved the post, it made me make my “a ha! that makes perfect sense” face. and there is a huge connect in peoples minds between the “liberal elite” and jews, anecdote, the best friends ultra conservative mother in hearing a story about my boyfriends wealthy jewish parents, for no discernable reason as the story was fully apolitical sneers “i bet theyre liberals.”
my response was “well, yes, but i dont kno what that has to do with anything.”
also, in relation to feminism, werent a fair share of the prominent second wave women jewish? gloria steinem, betty friedan, gloria allred, andrea dworkin. it would again make sense that the smears against jews would be transfered to feminists as a whole.
looking over a list of famous jews i’m also seeing emma goldman, karl marx, abbie hoffman, bela abzug. it seems like a lot of prominant radicals and leftists are jewish.
not to mention nearly every congressperson i hear the right bitch about who isn’t a kennedy or a clinton seems to be on this list.
so yes amanda, you nailed it. this isn’t coincidental, it is fully intentional anti-semitism smeared against anyone who doesnt toe the neocon party line.
Not really, Atomic. If your villains of choice were actually trying to oppress people instead of help them, then I’d see your point. But I’m actually smarter than the cheap shot method of politics, and I suspect you could be if you tried real hard, too.
I didn’t want to threadjack
See, if you’ll tell that lie, you’re basically untrustworthy.
For what it’s worth, I don’t actually think the Hollywood liberals/JAP-y feminists/War on Christmas stuff is necessarily coded racism; in a lot of cases, it’s more an attempt to renew hoary old stereotypes for a new agenda.
The “Hollywood Liberals Want To Destroy Christmas and/or Civilization with their Decadent Sexy Media” spiel has been going on for decades among conservative Catholic authors of the sort who wax teary-eyed in private over St. Queen Isabella and St. General Franco - people like Pat Buchanan. I didn’t, personally, realize that it was a rehash of old anti-Semitic dialogue until a couple years ago - when Corrente and some other blogs posted excerpts from and links to, Henry Ford’s screeds on the subject. Mirabile dictu - swap out “Jews” for “Liberals” and hey presto, Town Hall insta-rant!
I can’t remember where I’ve seen it, but I do believe that Jews were also known as liberals - as in, using the word liberal was code for “Jew”. I think it relates to propaganda of Hitler Germany, though I could be mistaken.
I don’t think Amanda’s far off on her thoughts, though. If you take everything the Right Wing says and replace “Jew” with “liberal” or “secular”, not only does it make sense, it sounds really, really familiar. Same if you replace “Jew” with homosexual. Elitist would not be that too far off either.
The question, I think, is do they think that there’s a Jewish conspiracy, or are they just retargeting the hate? I remember reading some wacko that P.Z. Meyers linked to (for the life me, can’t remember when, and can’t remember what the site is either - for the better, I think), that not only was he a creationist, but his theory was that the concept of “science” is primarily a Jewish construct, out of Kabbalahism. In essence, all of science and scientific theory is Jewish, and no Good Christian ™ should believe in that dangerous and sneaky Jewish stuff. So by using science or believing in science, then you are believing in Judaism, or at least, partaking in some sort of Jewish ritual.
And in that kind of worldview, anyone who doesn’t follow the “strict” teachings of the bible is either Jewish or conspires with them. Even more liberal denominations of Christianity are not Christian - they’re in league with the Jews. So I wonder if it is Antisemitism writ large (on anything that they disagree with), or if some very clever fascists are diversifying the language to attract all types of authoritarians, using the well-worn centuries-old language of hate against Jews to attract people who aren’t antisemitic.
And if I’m not mistaken, I think that there’s a stereotype of Jews being elitist intellectuals (again, can’t remember where I saw that) - which might go toward explaining why there’s also a nasty anti-intellectual streak in some people.
Although, at times, it really does seem as if it doesn’t matter what word they use for the group that they’re attacking - it’s the same sentiment.
Regarding NOW’s alleged lack of concern over the plight of Muslim women:
NOW Supports Legislation that Denounces ‘Honor’ Killings
and Violence Against Women, a statement issued in October of 2007. While not addressing the specific incidents, they do fall under the resolution they are supporting.
It was on their Global Feminism page.
And no, of course they don’t represent or guide American feminism. But to imply that they don’t say anything about global feminism is incorrect.
Hey, who invited the rightwing trolls?
But let’s play with them a little bit. Wheeee!
Which part of the ZOG conspiracy theory has a core of truth in it Fruitbat? Let’s have it now, stop being so coy.
It’s too bad about Applebaum. She really has some chops as a writer and reporter; her book “Gulag” won a National Book Award, and deserved it.
I really think this whole ridiculous “feminists don’t care about oppression of Muslim women” trope is a way to bash feminists, as representatives of the Left, for not supporting the war in Iraq. (Some of them may, of course, but I think it’s safe to say the majority don’t.) This is intellectual dishonesty on the order of, say, running to the nearest black politician to demand a denunciation every time a black celebrity says something stupid. (See Will Smith and Barack Obama, although Smith claims to have been misquoted.)
My guess is the latter. Jewish conspiracism has been disgraced and discredited in most of the West, retaining its existence only in fringe whackjob orgs like Stormfront. On the other hand, the stereotypes that it coevolved with are still effective P.R. tools for scapegoating minorities. So just permute the language: “Jews control Hollywood”, “Atheists control Hollywood.”; “Jewish conspiracy”, “homosexual agenda”; etc., etc.
I think Pam covered that here a while back, if I’m not mistaken. And speaking of PZ, there was a guy named Michael Korn who railed against him for being Jewish and promoting evolution as part of an anti-Christian Jewish conspiracy. So we’re not the only ones who are making the connection, from what I gather.
Part of what I’m thinking here is that the right-wingers are using these stereotypes in what Amanda calls a “dog-whistle” fashion. They don’t explicitly invoke anti-Semitism, but they mine support from the bargain basement of their base because they know they can rely on them to make the subtle connection.
Belief in Jewish conspiracism lives well outside the whackjob fringe. And I think that’s the sharpest point of Amanda’s essay here. That anti-semitism, along with a host of other nasties, are all playing a cute rhetorical game with just enough blood in the water to call out the sharks, but not enough to alert most of the rest of us.
given that prosecutors in England are completely comfortable referring to a convicted loan shark as “Fagin-like”, I think I may need to re-read Oliver Twist, because it’s making me think that pickpocketing wasn’t the only kind of involuntary loan-making that Fagin was involved with.
Or…could it just be possible that some people just feel completely comfortable with associating one negative stereotype (the villainous, corrupting Jew represented by Fagin) with another negative stereotype (villainous lending practices often ascribed to Jews). After all, that’s what happens all the time, often even unconsciously, when we’re dealing with culturally ingrained, bigoted stereotypes. There’s a reason why activists try to get people to examine assumptions and stereotypes, and it’s not because they think it’s so fun to try to make life hard for people who don’t like reflecting on their beliefs.
“Well its pretty much conventional wisdom.”
Thank you for admitting you are talking out your uninformed ass.
‘’the favorite right wing myth about how feminists are supposedly all overprivileged spoiled brats'’
Interesting. Feminists’ favorite myth are ‘’the wage gap'’, and ‘’men are all over-privileged, spoiled brats.'’
You do know some feminists are right-wingers, do you not?
So what TR and possible sock puppet Fruitbat - or is it vice versa? seem to be getting at is this: don’t associate “negative stereotypes” with those who perpetrate villainous lending practices because villainous lending practices were once unfairly attributed to Jews.
That sounds like a libertarian think tank mindfuck if ever I heard one.
As Tom Tomorrow once asked of David Brooks - are they stupid, or evil?
I’ll leave it to someone else to handle the “wage gap” crack. However, I’d like to point out that on this very blog, we’ve been shown examples of men acting like over-privileged, spoiled brats…dangerous, violent sociopaths…and dearly-held friends and lovers.
Step away from the strawfeminist and put out the torch.
We know that some right-wingers call themselves feminists. Upon closer examination of what they advocate, it rarely turns out to be true.
You really think Fagin was known for loan-sharking? His crime was training kids to be his pickpockets, and he was known for being an evil Jew. It *is* suspect for people to start labeling shady lenders as “Fagin-like”–to compare them to someone known for being an evil Jew–just like it’s suspect for politicians to talk about the violence and scheming of young bucks and welfare queens, even if they never mention race. It doesn’t mean shady lending, violence, or welfare-fraud shouldn’t be condemned, but there are all kinds of ways to condemn immoral and unethical practices without invoking bigoted rhetoric.
Perhaps more measured criticism doesn’t feel as satisfying right in the gut as letting out heated rhetoric, but the gut is where bigotry thrives, and if you let the stuff pour out unexamined, it’s very likely you’re going to be repeating and reinforcing bigotry–no matter where on the political spectrum you identify.
Well said - although I am unaware of ANY right-winger who is an actual feminist.
But the entity dnx-x1 issues from some feminist-hating fathers-rights rats nest, so there is nothing so wack-job that that entity is incapable of claiming it.
No doubt the confusion there is between Shylock and Fagin.
But since precious few people are conversant enough with literature to even know the difference between Shylock and Fagin - and even know they’re both Jews - I wouldn’t let any random references to Fagin worry your libertarian head.
But everybody knows what “welfare queen” is about, thanks to the pioneering efforts of Republicans.
‘’we’ve been shown examples of men acting like over-privileged, spoiled brats…dangerous, violent sociopaths…and dearly-held friends and lovers.'’
Yes, and I’ve been shown these, too. As well as examples of women acting like over-privileged, spoiled brats…dangerous, violent sociopaths, etc. You didn’t really address my statement, but at least, you weren’t nasty. Admirable.
As for right-wingers being ‘’fake feminists'’, please clarify; how are they not real feminists? Provide examples, and I will also provide you with some examples on how most self-proclaimed feminists phony, too.
‘’I am unaware of ANY right-winger who is an actual feminist.'’
I know a few. They refer to themselves as ‘’conservative feminists.'’
In case you ladies are wondering, I’m a centrist, and syncretic.
P.S. When typing a comment, it says ‘’URI'’, instead of ‘’URL.'’
Just as you CAN’T name any right-wing feminists, you also don’t seem to understand that “centrist” does not equal raging obsessively anti-feminist extremist, as made plain by your site.
Name a right-wing feminist or STFU.
Wow, interesting troll tactic. Lame, silly, and almost the platonic ideal in disingenuous, but an interesting try. “How can people who are systematically opposed to female equality be excluded from getting to be called ‘feminists’? Waaaaaaaah!”
But since precious few people are conversant enough with literature to even know the difference between Shylock and Fagin - and even know they’re both Jews - I wouldn’t let any random references to Fagin worry your libertarian head.
Where the fuck are you getting “libertarian” from? I’m not one at all, and consider it an insult to be called one.
I also don’t understand why you’d assume I’m affiliated with Atomic Fruitbat. Certainly, I understand not wanting to read every comment on a blog carefully, but if I decide to try to call out people, I go back to make sure what they really said. If I’m reading Atomic Fruitbat’s first comments correctly, it looks like ze’s trying to make the post’s complaint seem ridiculous by claiming it would be the same as linking rhetoric against “fat cats” and multinational corporations to anti-semitic rhetoric, which ze finds ridiculous. People then responding by trying to point out there was no way to link anti-fat-cat/anti-multinational-corporation rhetoric to anti-semitic rhetoric. I, on the other hand, agreed with the post that anti-liberal/anti-feminist rhetoric can parallel anti-semitic rhetoric *and* argued that anti-fat-cat/anti-multinational-corporation rhetoric (and anti-neocon rhetoric) can parallel anti-semitic rhetoric. Believe it or not, I can disagree with Atomic Fruitbat even while disagreeing with people who disagreed with hir.
Also, you’ll notice that nowhere did I say that fat cats, multinational corporations, and neocons should not be criticized–in fact, I said they should be condemned. I simply pointed out that the way some people choose to condemn those things replicates and reinforces anti-semitic tropes, and that there are other, better ways to go about that criticism. (It’s not so different from the way I’ll protest the way some feminists, in moments of anger, will call actively anti-feminist women bitches or cunts. I’m all for condemning anti-feminists, just not with certain kinds of rhetoric.)
Finally, you should be aware that your smug little “most people are ignorant about what the slur really means, so no one should worry about the use of that slur” is what people say to defend any slur that didn’t happen to ping them personally as offensive. In actual fact, ignorance does not tend to be good protection against bigotry. It just helps bigotry be more insidious, as well as helps fuel the perception that the people who are sensitive to the bigotry because they know it intimately from historical and continuing oppression are “just overreacting.” (Honestly, you think that would be comforting to someone worried about anti-semitism? To say, “Well, look, they probably just confused the crimes of one loathsome Jew with the crimes of another loathsome Jew [which is understandable, right, since they’re both just loathsome Jews], and they just decided to repeat that to characterize real-life loathsome behavior, and who really thinks about the Jews enough to notice that kind of thing?” Why in the world do you feel the need to justify the use of “Fagin-like” in reference to loan-sharking?)
Wow… Lil’ Nancy is losing her temper, isn’t she?
Anyway, I’m an extremist anti-gender feminist, not an anti-equity feminist, but since it seems mainstream feminism is now gender feminism, I guess you could say I am against feminism. As for some of the posts on my blog (Feminist Gamers Get Owned, Cry), I just made it for the lulz. The other anti-feminist post I have is The Sweet Pink Rules of Feminism. I posted it because I thought it was really funny, and not too far from the truth. In fact, a few equity feminists have agreed with me that this is the sad state mainstream feminism is in. (The Feministing.com post isn’t anti-feminist, but anti-feministing.com.)
You want me to name right-wing feminists? Fair enough. Well, I name everyone at the Independent Women’s Forum, since according to a few feminist websites, they are Right-Wingers, yet want equality of the sexes. What is your definition of equality? Because quite a many Leftist feminists are against equality. See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article2419363.ece
So…STFU…I guess? Lol.
It isn’t necessary to justify it because hardly anybody uses it.
And if they did, they are not necessarily referring to the character’s Jewishness. There is no comparison between literary references to evil characters who happen to be Jewish and the term “welfare queen.”
Well after all, the x1 series of dnx units are not know for their ability to correctly identify human emotions.
Independent Women’s Forum is not feminist. No matter how much they call themselves “i feminists”
But I suppose if you tell a dnx-x1 that you ARE a feminist, it will simply take your word for it, no matter how much you actually hate real feminists or really, women in general.
Clearly the rules of human discourse are much trickier than AI experts anticipated.
I’ve never heard that term used, in any context. But it’s possible to think the character is bad, but not bad based because Jewish. Dickens wasn’t trying to be anti-Semitic when he wrote the character, and regretted that some people thought he was.
There’s no comparison between Fagin-like and “welfare queen.”
I thought the definition of feminism was: ‘’political, economical, and social equality of the sexes.'’
That’s what they want, and I’ve had a looked at some of their articles. I found no reason to believe they were lying. OK, maybe they’re not feminists, but are they more or less feminist than people like Valarie Solanas, Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan, Ti-Grace, etc.?
dnx, perhaps you should spend a day or two (or maybe a year or two) reading through the Feminism 101 blog.
Get yourself a good grounding in actual feminist philosophy, and the fact the wingnut “feminists” are not actually feminists will be self-evident.
Then we will be able to move past your lack of understanding and get on with a more interesting discussion…
We’ve made progress with dx! He/she said “OK, maybe they’re (IWF) not feminists,”
But you know what that means now, logically, don’t you dx? It means you STILL have not given us examples of right-wing feminists.
So once again, it’s time to put up or STFU.