Tagline: Little Light
Wondering why Queer Dewd? Wondering what happend to Bitch | Lab? Read Why Queer Dewd and Shame Affirmative.
Skip all this. Take me straight to the comment form »
South End Press Needs Damage Control…
If I were South End Press, publishers of The State of Native America, I would be yanking books from shelves as I write these words. The University of Colorado’s report on the investigation of Ward Churchill’s alleged scholarly misconduct has……
Leave a comment, a trackback from your own blog, or subscribe to an RSS feed for this entry.
"For what it’s worth, I don’t like Bitch Lab, I don’t read her, I don’t think she’s very bright, and I think the main thing she piggybacked on recently was a comment thread to a post she didn’t author. Nice appropriation, that. ... Don’t like Bitch Lab? Join the club, and don’t read her. Read the women she rips off instead. They’re better." - Ilyka Damen
"Most outlandish creative class critic of the year. Or maybe the decade." Â Richard Florida
Listed on Top 10 Sources
"Speaking as a progressive radical Leftist feminist  supporting Black man, I say: BRA FREAKIN' VO! Ms. Bitch."  Anthony Kennerson
"Your blog warms my pervy queer heart. \m/" Â The Prophet Lilith
"This blog's lay out rocks. Extremely well written. Can't just drop in for a quickie here. You'll fill many evenings of catching up.... I must say, all well done!" Â DH Spicy
Note: This blog is a natural product. Slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and are not to be considered flaws or defects.
I get what you’re saying wrt the “slut”/”bimbo” business, I think; but I have to agree with Pollitt on the general issue of, gee, never make fun of *any* woman? Ever?
anyway I think this is a fair assessment of Paris H:
>Paris H, an adult, has done a lot of harm to women. She has used her considerable powers–born of fabulous wealth and exhibitionism  for bad, not good. she has made the world just that little bit more callous and shallow and materialistic, she has made it just that much less cool to work at anything or care about anything but money and fame, no matter how you get it.
Obviously she’s hardly alone in this, Paris; I wouldn’t lay any real share of blame at her vapid little feet, particularly. On the whole I agree with Sarah R’s cultural assessment. What I don’t share–and I suspect/hope this is Pollitt’s main sticking point as well–is the notion that in order to be good feminists/leftists/whatever, we must be Nice. fuck that shit. Hilton is vapid. Dubya is vapid. The times, they are a-vapid.
I don’t Sarah that well but I’m going to guess that a Third Waver isn’t like some of the women on the same thread that started talking about “women’s ways of knowing” and how, since we don’t ave a history of aggression between women like men do, then we can probably find some other way to communicate respectfully with one another that doesn’t use the “Master’s Tools” and “malestream” thinking.
I read that and it’s football bat time for me.
I think the big problem I have with it is this:
In the first place, what’s the point of ridiculing. In that same thread, inresponse to the people who said humor and ridicule were malestream, hurtful, and all that, Marge Piercey jumped in to say that it was a way of getting your point across without moralizing and lecturing.
Well, you’re still moralizing, it’s just cast in humor and it’s thus a rhetorical way to make the pill easier to swallow. So if being moralistic is bad, then you have overcome it. YOu’ve just hidden it and made it more difficult to see it and criticize it.
But more importantly, it isn’t going to change anything about Paris Hilton. Who’s the target of ridicule? Who’s being educated?
Other young women who see her on TV regularly. The message is: don’t dress like her or you’ll be ridiculed. Don’t do the things we disapprove of b/c you’ll be ridiculed.
I don’t know. If someone wants to be like Paris H, then I’m pretty sure they’re not going to listen.
I’m pretty sure they’re going to say, “What a bunch of jealous old biddies” and go on their merry way.
I can’t think of a time someone’s been open to ridicule and that someone is a person I admire that has made me say, “Oh yeah. That’s it. That’s the ticket. I can’t even believe I admired that person.”
I usually think the person saying it is an asshole.
When men ridicule feminists as a bunch of fill in the blank with whatever nasty stereotype, I don’t typically see them as anything but seriously misinformed.
If there’s some kernel of truth, I already am aware of it and I’ll laugh too. Doesn’t make me change much, though.
My view on the practice of ridicule of the powerful among peasants is not that it every managed to bring about social change, but that it managed to create solidarity.
Us v them.
I dn’t know. I kind of liked Carol Hanisch’s formulation as to why they chose to not ridicule beauty pageant contestants and, instead, targeted the hotspots of male power.
I wouldn’t raise “no ridicule, ever” to a general principle. I just wouldn’t pretend that it was a particular effective tool for challenging power.
So, does that extend to any and all satire? Not sure I’d agree that satire’s never effective. I do agree that satire is moralizing, very much so.
as far as mocking Hilton: who said it was meant to be an effective tool for challenging power, of itself? Personally, it makes me feel better, because I am a Meen person with lots of free-floating hsotility; and, as you say, I doubt she really gives a flying fuck what rabble like me think of her. what Sarah seems to be saying is that mocking celebrity wankers (if they’re female I guess) actively causes *harm.* I don’t think I buy that either. just passing the time, you know.
I get the discomfort about mocking women for their appearance; but this isn’t that.
(i mean, apart from the blonde thing, I suppose. ehh).
>humor and ridicule were malestream, hurtful
oh sweet Jesus Hannah Clitlick, give me strength.
see, it’s THAT kind of bullshit that changes yer basic casual “haha, Paris Hilton/Britney, whatta maroon” to something Meaningful, if only out of sheer contrariness to such fuckwittery. IN my opinion.
I think satire and humor and meanspirtedness toward people in power is great. I like the research I’ve read that’s shown how we have a long tradition of such ridicule — hell, some of our nursery rhymes began as political ridicule of powerful people. What was it “Georgie Porgie, pudding pie. Kissed the girls and made them cry”?
But I think what they’re great for is building solidarity among us. They’re insider’s jokes. Like typing the “internets” and the “interwebs” on a blog. it’s a huge insider’s joke about Bush. Thus, it turns into a symbol and gets ricirculated. when someone uses it, they singal their politics.
Like KKKlinton and algore were the tools of the right during the 1990s.
If you’re ridiculing Paris Hilton for the reasons Katha described, that’s not really about feminism. It’s cultural critique in general and it’s not ultimately aimed at Paris, but she becomes a representative of larger social forces that are really being targeted.
I’m just trying to figure out: what would be feminist ridicule of Paris Hilton? Maybe that’s why I’m confused, because I’m assuming that it would have to be about her clothes or something.
And frankly, as someone who _has_ been treated like a dim bulb in spite of making quite obvious I had a brain, I really resented katha’s suggestion that I dye my hair or that, somehow, actually being smart necessarily overcomes the steroetypes or that it doesn’t harm you. Recirculating them via ridicule contributes to that. I’m not saing let’s dump blonde jokes or anything, but…. Well, just thinking out loud.
The emphasis on this topic seems somehow American. Consensual grass-roots politics is not a very common Australian trope.
The emphasis on this topic seems somehow American. Consensus -oriented grass-roots politics is not a very common Australian trope.
@ bitchlab
“I’m just trying to figure out: what would be feminist ridicule of Paris Hilton? Maybe that’s why I’m confused, because I’m assuming that it would have to be about her clothes or something.”
It seems to me feminist ridicule should indeed avoid dissing PH for her dressing sense. Where it could be usefully directed is at her getting her fortune and attendant fame from the exploitation of (largely female) labour in her family’s hotels.
“WHAT’S A soup kitchen?”
– Hotel heiress Paris Hilton, on Fox reality show “The Simple Life
“I KNOW I’m pretty, but it means I have to work even harder.”
–Multi-millionaire hotel heiress Paris Hilton
From the 2004 strike in San Francisco :
“Like bosses in other industries, hotel managers are crying poverty. In fact, the “Big Three” hotel corporations (Hilton, Starwood and Marriott) reported profits of $1 billion in 2003–and expect even more in 2004.
Profits are up by $400 million in the last three years–showing that despite recession and layoffs, hotel executives are doing just fine. “They don’t have to worry about taking care of their families,” said Jennifer, who was at the rally with her 10-year-old daughter. “The hotels are making a lot of money, but the workers are the nuts and bolts of the industry.”"
( http://socialistworker.org/200.....tels.shtml )
I’ve just watched the Pink video, it’s not bad, although rather basic, but as a starting point for discussion of women’s image it can do the job. It’s even more thought provoking to see it on Pink’s homepage, with a rather large image of her showing off her boobs and blonde hair.
“How would feminists ridicule Paris Hilton?”
I don’t think there’s an effective answer to that. The feminist worldview, by definition, recognizes that there is something inherently wrong with the way women are categorized and treated in our society. It’s a serious and important claim with a lot of academic root, and unfortunately, someone like Paris Hilton (or, for that matter, her legions of admirers) aren’t behaving THAT way out of any academic motivations. If anything, it’s anti-academic.
Likewise, I don’t think Paris Hilton is herself the problem. Rather, I think the problem lies in the social constructs that support women like her, and the way that she has received attention for seemingly embodying the idealized realization of those constructs. Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are harmful to young women, yes, but only indirectly. What needs to be destroyed are not the individuals, but rather the paradigms in which they exist. If you destroy that, the rest will follow. Unfortunately, I think the only way to do that is for young women, en masse, to place themselves in roles that DON’T necessarily fit that construct. More women SHOULD take up boxing, take up woodwork, stop wearing makeup, be sexually assertive without being malestream suggestive, and start refusing to accept traditional beauty norms as healthy. It’s not that I think there’s anything inherently wrong with traditional (i.e. girly) femininity, but I think it’s very limiting to a lot of women as well as men, and it’s heteronormative. And it’s not the only way for women to live. Nor should it be.
We as a culture allow Paris Hilton to exist. Making fun of her feels good, sure, and it’s a great starting point for fomenting class resentment. But destroying her or removing her from power isn’t enough. We need to make her culturally superfluous. And unfortunately, that’s going to be quite an uphill battle.
I am currently reading the book Flapper by Joshua Zeitz, about the iconic women of the 1920s.
One of the chapters (#11) focuses on the attitudes towards flappers held by the older feminists:
It all sounds so familiar; the young generation is too apolitical and would rather just have fun than call themselves feminists. Meanwhile, the flappers responded that they were taking advantage of their freedoms and enjoying their individuality…
It sounded so much like the “slut culture” debates we’re seeing now among feminists, it was astonishing…
Q: How would feminists ridicule Paris Hilton?
A: That’s not funny.
@ Freeman - amen brother!
I’d add, however, that Paris Hilton, the consumer item, is already culturally superfluous - we just don’t realize it.
Paris Hilton, the human being? maybe not so much.
I think that, when Pink ridicules Paris Hilton et al, she is doing something very different from what Katha Pollitt is doing when she criticizes those same young women. The very fact that she is their age makes a huge difference in the “effectiveness” of the argument. Pink is positing herself as an alternative role model for teens, Pollitt is making a larger social point, which I think aligns more with what Freeman is saying than with most other feminist readings of it.
(I must come right out and admit that I am almost always hostile to Second Wavers’ critiques of young women because I am reminded of Riot Grrl and bi-chic and all the other things I thought were cool, or at least cool intellectually, that they criticized. Which is why, Lis Riba, I fucking LOVED your notes on the flappers. Anyway, I’ve just been burned too many times by them and, even if their critiques are sound, I find myself thinking, “Mind your own beeswax.” Let me be clear: they should be able to critique whomever, granted the critique itself is legit and it IS their business of course. I’m just owning up to my prejudices here.)
All that said, I don’t think Paris Hilton is a good role model or anything, but is she that anti-feminist? I don’t really know. I know she’s both
rich and shallow, but I didn’t realize she was so terrible. I’m much more concerned about women who are actors or models or talk show hosts or musicians being feminist or along those lines than I am about some rich kid whose basic purpose in being placed in reality shows and such is to point out how utterly ridiculous and out of touch she is.
While I agree with Pollitt that we should criticize whomever the fuck we want, as opposed to preserving women’s fragility, I also agree with Sarah that we should be conscious of what’s at play socially, culturally, economically that makes Hilton a star and not some smarty-pants.
Finally, did Britney really have “agency”? I mean, everyone has agency in my book, but wasn’t she one of those stage-parented girls who was on Star Search and Mickey mouse Club and everything? Of course she’s now acting like a total fool! Child stars are a particularly screwed-up subset of the population.
You know? Someone needs to give me some kind of overview of the evilness that she is. I’ve never seen her on television. I’ve seen a couple of photos, heard about the sex tapes, and heard the baic outlines of The Simple Life.
But I don’t understand, to be honest, what she’s done that makes everyone dislike her.
so maybe someone czan engage in a lengthy diatribe aimed at her.
also, when i ridicule someone, it’s because they’ve done something to really piss me off or do something i think is abhorrent.
so i think part of it is that i have to feel a lot of anger and I don’t understand what there is to be angry about her in particular.
Which “she” are you talking about? Britney or Paris?
[Not that I'm offering lessons re:either, just wanting to clarify the question.]
South End Press Needs Damage Control…
If I were South End Press, publishers of The State of Native America, I would be yanking books from shelves as I write these words. The University of Colorado’s report on the investigation of Ward Churchill’s alleged scholarly misconduct has……
Bringing my penny’s worth of thoughts in this…
Not that either Paris or Britney actually would give a rat’s ass what Katha Pollitt or any other prominent feminist thinks about them, I do think that they represent mostly different sides of the ridicule spectrum.
PH is strictly, as ilestre pointed out, a vanity pin-up girl/runway model who got her privilege the old fashioned way — through inheiriting it through her parents; and most of the smack directed towards her is mostly based on her seemingly not working hard enough to earn her privilege, and her self-assured and open flaunting of herself as a party-going, slut-playing camera hog.
Britney, on the other hand, at least had the common decency (in some people’s views) to work her way upwards from middle-class progeny through her singing talents (albeit, through the exploitation of a marketing/promotion machine such as Disney using the “teen ingenue” turned “virgin slut” progression that seems to be the formula for young female recording artists these days), and although she gets her share of the arrows through the tabloids, she does tend to get some sympathy for being merely a tool of the pop-industrial complex. (Her recent revelations of her basic conservative viewpoints on “family values” issues, in spite of her image of “playing the slut” from most of her major hit singles, is also a factor in a lot of the resentment from some feminists.)
For me, though, the disgust that most feminists have towards Paris and Britney is not so based on what they have personally done, but on what they represent: namely, women with power who don’t utilize that power to fit particular feminist goals. If Paris had spent less time partying and preening for the tabloids and papparazi, and actually used her acquired riches for more serious endeavors, then I’d guess that Pollitt wouldn’t be so down on her. (Actually, if PH had started spouting feminist rhetoric about being “used” as a “sex object” and wanting to embrace feminist goals, I’d think that Katha would change her position really quick and Paris Hilton would become the second coming of Gloria Steinem.)
I’m a bit underwhelmed, though, by artists like Pink pretending to attack Paris and Britney as without substance; it sounds to me like so much more posturing to exploit preexisting prejudices against their wealth and lifestyle to sell their own records. And I should remind you that Pink isn’t that poor herself; she is as much a child of privilege (albeit not nearly as much as PH) who happens to embrace a lot of feminist principles personally.
Ultimately, it’s Britney’s and Paris’s right to live their lives as they see fit; as long as they don’t physically harm anyone else. Their personal vapidity and cluelessness harms no one but themselves, and I don’t feel the need to analyze them as they are that important in the long run.
The system that produces them, though, is more than open for criticism and change..but for far more important reasons than the superficiality of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
Anthony
bitchlab said:
My view on the practice of ridicule of the powerful among peasants is not that it every managed to bring about social change, but that it managed to create solidarity.
Us v them
———————————————
“When the great lord passes by, the wise peasant bows deeply and silently farts.”
This proverb is widely cited but I got it from a book called “Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts” by James C. Scott. What you say here is a big part of what that book deals with.
Well, yes. But not only that. I think “the emperor has no clothes” is bracing because…it’s true. Puncturing the artificially inflated is what good satire is all about. Do pay attention to the man behind the curtain; that’s the only way to get home. and it doesn’t even necessarily have to involve annihilating the actual man behind the curtain. just the artificially inflated, grandiose, smoke and mirrors image that wants to razzle-dazzle with shock and awe and gets in the way of real communication. it may turn out that the real man is…kind of okay, in his relative smallness and imperfection, once you cut through all the bullshit; and that may be as much of a surprise to him as it is to everyone else.
And while 99.6666% of the time the target of the satire is not gonna respond to it with any sort of “oh! damn, you’re right! i AM being a pretentious asshole!…thank you for pointing that out, honestly; it’s sort of a relief; I never really liked keeping up that image either, it was a real drain” (in other words, *not* like the real Wizard of Oz)… i submit that the best satirists, the ones with a heart (Lenny Bruce) always allow for that possibility. because Bruce at least was modelling that possibility by satirizing himself as well.
For the rest:
I think Jennifer has an interesting point. My Irish best friend has made similar observations, as has an Argentine friend who was visiting recently. Isn’t it funny that, for a culture that supposedly values “independence” as much as we do, there’s so much unconscious emphasis on CONFORM CONFORM? right *and* left. personal *and* political. It’s everywhere. What’s up with that?
Yeh, I don’t get the emphasis on either Paris or Britney as being especially feminist or non-feminist. If anything I see Britney the pop icon as more problematic in that regard, in that her whole thing had been about exploiting the ancient virgin/whore business. Biggest part of her schtick was performing humpty-humpty onstage (or, in the words of Susie Bright, “humping like a little bitch”) and singin’ lewd shit, and then going offstage and pronouncing her commitment to staying a virgin till marriage. Winkie, winkie, except a fair chunk of the populace was apparently *meant* to take it seriously, more or less. The cheerleader archetype. The “I am sexy but I don’t actually have any agency” archetype. Then of course was the “joke” marriage for fifteen minutes, and thank fuck for *that* upholding of Traditional Family Values; whatever would us perverts do without their wholesome example?
and now, it is true that some interesting and kind of creepy class shit comes to the fore, now that she’s physically “let herself go,” but bigtime. Her own small rebellion, I suppose; and, while I do like to laugh at her trips to the shopping mall whilst decked out in a shapeless shift, curlers, and Ugg boots (seriously), in a way I kind of respect her more for it than I did the fuckdoll look. Hey, let it all hang out, what the hell, you know? And yeh, some creepy shit: now it’s okay to cal her “white trash” and eight kazillion other things, now she’s literally showing her roots. (Like, as if, *before*, she was “classy.” O-K). Then again, she *really did* marry an utter hairball without any discernable redeeming qualities; perhaps the fact that she went from vapid fuckdoll icon to (literally) barefoot and pregnant is what’s getting so many feminists’ panties in a knot. I can see it, I guess. In a way I’d be less bothered by Paris in that regard; so, she made a homemade porn video, and the sky didn’t fall. In itself: kind of, yay, I think. but again: overall context…
so, yeh…I do see it as overall cultural critique, yes, (as opposed to just feminist-or-not, per se); and as such, completely legit. The main think about Brit-Brit-, K-Fed, Anna Nicole Smith, and Paris (and oh, so many others who are or were on the “A-list”) is that, yep, they all appear to be thoroughly reactionary, thoroughly unconscious, utterly shallow, materialistic in the most crass, unthinking, repellant way, and/or really, really, really fucking stupid. In other words: perfect symbols of the political times.
And frankly, who’s to say there’s really that much difference between Paris and Britney? Sure, they came from very different class background, economically; but in a way…they both kind of exemplify the American Dream of “anyone can make it.” I mean, how many generations ago was it that the Hiltons “came from nothing?” I don’t know that particular story, but I am guessing somewhere along the line there was a “rags to riches” story, just like Britney’s. The American Dream, nu? It’s the perfect illusion. It’s the perfect eembodiment of what we supposedly stand for. Hey, if *that* poor schlub can make it, *anyone* can make it. In fact, it’s *better* to be an anti-intellectual, money-grubbing, shallow, unconscious schlub, no matter how much money you have (but if you *don’t* have money, we’ll make fun of you, because that means you Didn’t Have The Right Stuff); this is how we prove that we are, indeed, All Created Equal. Money and bling are the great equalizers. Except when they aren’t. But we don’t talk about that. And if you do, you’re one of the “cultural elite;” how dare you be such a snob, with all your big words and fancy theories!
“I do see it as overall cultural critique, yes, (as opposed to just feminist-or-not, per se); and as such, completely legit.”
Nail. Head.
“The system that produces them, though, is more than open for criticism and change.”
That too.
heh. Lis, both women, actually. I’ve listened only to my “other daughters” talk about her, and not necessarily in bad terms. they grew up with her, love her, and really believe that you can dress anyway you want and still be a virgin. which, to them, as young women of color, matters to them for a variety of reasons, but i hear, mostly, the desire for autonomy. it’s a kind of defiance.
Jean, of course, solidified for me what my problem is:
Anthony and I are both leftists — in a serious way — not just left of the center aisle (wherever that is these days) but we tend to go for a marxist analysis, though not likely a marxist politics of the sort that normally available in the US (since we both lean anarchist/libertarian)
But what that means for us I think is that, seeing it the way Katha sees it is kinda weird. These women aren’t the enemy, so save it for the real enemy. Have fun, but to see it as a tool for feminist social change?
It comes out when Katha starts talking about ‘making the world just a little bit more’ crass (paraphrase).
I don’t think that it matters one whit to anything. Paris Hilton and Britny can be the models of perfect lefty stardom. Britney can be bono, Hilton can be Soros. Wouldn’t change a flipping thing nor would it change everything if people were less crass or working for good causes. I don’t see it. Good capitalism. Bad capitalism. It’s all capitalism.
i’m typesetting a book for a woman I adore. Big feminist. Cracks me up.
But the whole thing is how to get more work out of people with a carrot and participatory management styles and workgroups and what a bunch of hooey. Love the woman I’m working with, but hate the ideas. Also know that we caught up in the system, so whatever. I’m not going to sit here and convince her in my views.
—
and boy, EL, do I have a lot of sympathy for what you’re saying. no time now.
–
and Belle. Absolutely. I love my comedienne friend Dennis Perrin — used to write for SNL. That guy will have me rolling on the floor making really mean jokes about people sometimes and all I can think is, “Dewd! That’s was rude. You’re a rude mofo, but funny. Damn that was rude. Gimme some more.” I enjoy the humor, I just don’t see why anyone gets worked up over it WRT these two women.
Bush? Sure.
But a socialite and a singer. I honestly don’t get what it matters whether we criticize them or not.
But the whole thing is how to get more work out of people with a carrot and participatory management styles and workgroups and what a bunch of hooey. Love the woman I’m working with, but hate the ideas. Also know that we caught up in the system, so whatever. I’m not going to sit here and convince her in my views.
Well what exactly is the problem with participatory management style, workgroups etc? Are you against people working together in groups? Is that some anarchist/libertarian/Marxist philosophy?
If you aren’t against people working in groups, then what’s wrong with participatory management? You do realize that the alternative isn’t typically an anarchist utopia, it’s hierarchical, top-down, obedience-is-a-virtue management, right? But maybe you’ve just had much more pleasant experiences in your life working in groups than I have.
As for the way Hilton and Spears dress/act and the women who admire them - they do it, or buy into it, because men like it, and men still have the money and call the shots. So Hilton/Spears made the choice for the easy money. It’s a choice that many young, attractive women are given - have always been given. To say that what Hilton/Spears do is OK makes it that much harder for young women who don’t want to trade on male desire to choose not to.
Of course Hilton/Spears are symptoms not the cause. But ain’t nothing wrong with disliking the symptoms.
@nancy,
:)
well, don’t have time for a dissertation, though my view comes from a couple of years of research, including a year inside a subsidiary of AT&T, where I had unique access to management and their discussions and how they implemented such practices.
In theory, they’re fine. I’m a big workplace democracy advocate. In practice, it’s all about extracting ever more labor out of employees. ‘Else management wouldn’t be willing to give up so-called power. Companies are in business to make money, not make their employees feel good. They will onlly do that feel good thing if it helps them make money. It’s just the name of the game, which is why I’m not going to argue with my client. Indeed, the reason we got on the topic was that we were discussing the merits of me designing a web site for a breast enlargement practice. I don’t know about you, but I gots to eat and so does everyone else in this house. I am not in any position to turn down cash and, thus, I will work for the companyand not feel a lick of shame over it. Those who have issues are free to pay me a living wage to keep me out of the poor house. Until then, they might as well piss at a hurricane. :) (Seeing as how I live in florida, that might actually be doable. :)
In the end, most of it is, yes, a bandaid on gangrene. given your response, we clearly differ about the value of analyses outside the sphere of influence of capitalism, in which case a debate of this issue is, in my experience, not particularly worthwhile. Not that I don’t think you’re cool — I am, after all, living with a libertarian conservative and we get along fine! LOL
@ Belle and Jennifer
I’m not really sure what Jenn meant.
Jenn?
There is, I think, an interesting explanation of how it is that we’re a hyper-individualistic society, yet end up being rather conformist.
Worship of the individual is our civil religion.
Which kind of moves me to a question you had or seemed to indicate re: Bosk’s analysis of the professions. I realized after I wrote that, that I should have explained that ‘ritual’ doesn’t mean something bad — like it does in everyday conversation. In the US, we *hate* the idea of ritual as something we do kind of mindlessly or it’s even considered something that is a little bit … sinister.
But in this way of looking at it, the whole of social life is made up of these rituals — for good and ill. We’re just like any aboriginal society we’d study. While an aboriginal society, in our eyes, has obvious gods or totems it worships and the rituals are glaringly obvious to us as outsiders, the task studying your own is to see them as an outsider — somehow, get outside of it and all the things you take for granted and ask, “What are these people worshipping?”
Bosk never goes into this directly, it’s just the underlying theory that informs his approach to examining social life. (It’s not the only one: there are others, like the difference between behaviorism and freudian theory and cognitive psych. In sociology and anthropology, there are different theoretical frameworks for understanding social behavior.)
In this case, the argument is that the whole of US social life is dedicated to the worship of the individual which has replaced ‘god’. But, on this view, we never really worshipped a god, what god or totems or pantheons of gods have always been are just another name for society.
funny that, eh?
@ ilestre
““I KNOW I’m pretty, but it means I have to work even harder.â€Â
–Multi-millionaire hotel heiress Paris Hilton”
But this is true. I’ve been subject to this most of my life. I had to work harder and be very vocal about being smart, just as Katha said. What I resented, from her, is the suggestion that I should hide it.
I have no idea what PH meant by it, and what the point of the ridicule is, but one of the problems with ridicule is that it can make the people who are on your side think you are talking about them.
Because that’s what people do with celbrities, consider how they relate to thme in some way.
Again, I don’t reject ridicule, but you do have to be careful with it. Katha pissed me off because she sounded like just another feminist who comes of as sounding like she doesn’t like pretty women — that she resents them. Having been the target of that kind of idiocy, I wasn’t amused.
Dye my hair? Cover up my body? So you will take me seriously? Men and women like that can suck the 2 inch long hair growing out of the mole on my witchy lefty tit.
What I like in the PH quote is the “even”. Because you see poor old Paris already had to work hard, as everybody born in the lap of luxury will tell you, having to get up every afternoon to receive thousands of dollar for going to some charity do is just a drag…
And because she is (allegedly) pretty , she has to work EVEN harder ! Poor old Paris !
Nothing to do here with taking good looking gals seriously, in my opinion. I wouldn’t agree with that tack, nor with dissing PH for her filming habits or whatever, in fact I’d defend her.
Hello, I didn’t realize my off-the-cuff comments on the women’s studies list were being analyzed so closely! They were provoked by what seems to me the excessively “play nicely” style of sisterhood that crops up on that list and some other feminist lists I’ve been on- in which it is almost impossible to say anything critical of any woman and feminism tends to mean wrapping every topic in so many qualifications that one never gets to the point because one forgets what one is even talking about. As I said, when my daughter slams into women who defer to men and play dumb I take the other role, the role of well, you have to think about the pressures on them and how they were raised and how young they are bla bla. I do feel sorry for Britney S, As I said in my original posts, because basically she was created by her parents and never had a chance to develop an independent self. Paris H just seems absurd to me, for the reasons I said. I certainly don’t expect them or indeed anyone else of any age to care what I think — so far the world has managed to resist my thoughts rather well! I write mostly to express myself and communicate with others.
Would I feel differently about Britney and Paris if they were producing work I loved instead of the crass, synthetic crap they do produce? Sure! Then they would be making music or TV (or whatever it is paris does these days besides get a million dollars to show up at a charity benefit) that didn’t make me think the end of the world can’t come soon enough.
Hello!
>They were provoked by what seems to me the excessively “play nicely†style of sisterhood that crops up on that list and some other feminist lists I’ve been on- in which it is almost impossible to say anything critical of any woman and feminism tends to mean wrapping every topic in so many qualifications that one never gets to the point because one forgets what one is even talking about.
yeh, that’s what i figured.
that shit drives me batty. “We are trying our earnest little durndest to overcome *all* our patriarchally-induced conditioning, here, dammit! This is why we must process everything until it is the consistency of Velveeta. Bu: play nice! Because being trained to be a Nice Girl has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here–this is *political,* and Serious. you were just being…catty. We don’t act catty; we don’t even like that word. We don’t make fun of wimmin, on general principle. Except when we do. anyway–play Nice!”
Hi Katha,
to be fair to you, you know me — from Doug’s list, the Marxist Feminism List, and Femecon. In fact, I remember helping you track down informaiton about the phrase, “The personal is political.” In fact, we corresponded last week and you asked about my son.
I just have to keep my identity anonymous for business and legal reasons. I sometimes talk about my clients and I don’t need them to read that or about my politics. :) More on that offblog if you’re interested.
I was tempted to say that, since you are a leading public figure for feminists, that of course your actions and words do mean a lot — to us.
My point about ridicule — which as I said, I would never raise to the level of principle (as in NO ridicule ever) — is that most people do not interpret it as aimed only at the person in question, but also at ordinary people.
So, if feminists ridicule beauty contests, as they did in the first years of the women’s liberation movement, women in general got a message about what that faction of feminism stands for.
Ridicule of public figures is tool, to my mind, for building solidarity among the oppressed.
Would we feel the same way about ridiculing L’il Kim?
Some years back, Marta Russell ridiculed Salma Hayek for the way she flaunted her body with the clothes she wore, suggesting that Hayek was an empty-brained actress. Marta also felt that Hayek directly participated in diminishing the importance of or real impacts of her disability (ablims) because she was so vain, she didn’t shoot the film, Frida, in a way that would reveal her as anything less than sexy. She performed a sexy dance and there was no evidence of a limp. They never showed the leg atrophied and never really focused on that aspect of her life.
I was pretty sure that it wasn’t as simple as that.
@ Belle
The person who said no one should ridicule women isn’t that kind of feminist. She doesn’t use the term “malestream” thinking. She doesn’t think we have to play nicey-nicey.
Sarah’s a third wave feminist who objects to what Carol Hanisch called the “anti-woman” faction among 2nd wavers. Hanisch argued that ridiculing beauty pageant contestants was counterproductive.
Sarah’s reason for objecting to ridiculing famous women are different from the objections of those women who think it’s some kind of recirculation of the way men behave — male identified, malestream, etc.. Rather, Sarah seems to be more in line with Hanisch’s concerns that ridiculing of famous women or women in the spotlight is sending the wrong message as to who/what the enemy is.
I’ll write her and see if she wants to speak to the issue.
oh, I got that wrt sarah–when you used the term “malestream” I was assuming that *someone* in there had been using such a term. that’s what I was deriding.
Since you FORCED me (kidding) to go read WitchyWoo, here is the context. My bad for not being clear about who was saying what:
Post1
—————
This issue–confrontational-style debating tactics vs pacifist,
community-affirming verbal conflict resolution–is a tough one for me. I
find it hard to give up the rhetorical tools (humor, ridicule, etc.) that
I’ve learned from the “malestream.” But I can’t help thinking that these are
“the master’s tools” and there may be a better way.
This is not just a feminist issue. Quakers and other pacifists advocate
verbal techniques that allow conflicts to be addressed without polarizing or
escalating a dispute.
Among some groups, this is crucial because verbal conflict can escalate to
physical. Maybe women can handle verbal confrontation in different,
non-traditional ways because we don’t have a history of organized,
inter-group violence.
ML,
Name Redacted
Post2
—-
Oh dear, i don’t want to be a Quaker or anything similar! I value
debate, humor, sarcasm, cleverness, and satire. It baffles me that
you would find these “master’s tools,’ when you consider how much
humor has been the weapon of the oppressed. Jewish humor, Afro-Am
humor. Quaker humor? As for ’sisterhood,’ you think real sisters
don’t argue, ridicule, etc?
i don’t see what is so terrible about conflict anyway. You can
learn a lot from arguments sharply posed. IMO women are too afraid
of conflict, everything has to be nicy-nice or there’s a huge explosion.
KP
Post 3
————
From Halogem:
Ridiculing is not the same as “calling bad names.” It is a way to enlist readers in seeing the damage that certain behaviors can cause. Simply lecturing turns people off. Humor and ridicule are ways of getting the point across without getting rid of the potential audience. It is far more effective than moralistic statements.
MP
————–
Hi, anonymous blogmistress whom I spoke with last week. I’m glad you’re out here. I’m not a big one for making fun of ordinary women, actually. Or for using mean humor to cut talented women down to size. Or sexist humor! ( I have trouble with drag for that reason, which shows how old-fashioned I am.) At the same time, human beings can be so ridiculous! If we couldn’t laugh at each other we would go insane.
Anyway, I think it is quite humorous that women’s studies professors feel the need to defend these performers, who probably think women’s studies mean spending a lot of time looking at yourself in the mirror.
I think Jennifer has an interesting point. My Irish best friend has made similar observations, as has an Argentine friend who was visiting recently. Isn’t it funny that, for a culture that supposedly values “independence†as much as we do, there’s so much unconscious emphasis on CONFORM CONFORM? right *and* left. personal *and* political. It’s everywhere. What’s up with that?
Is this a pracied version of something I said? I don’t remember the exact context of my saying it.
I’ve written more on my site, though, if anyone is interested. Please feel free to also comment there.
I think that in the West, ritual is less common that a kind of epistemological presumptuousness. This presumptousness about “individual natures” is a way of circumventing the need for ritual. In other words, the need to actually engage with a person to find out who they are and where they are it. This presumptousness has much in common with rhetoric, as distinguished from conversation, as a verbal tactic. I’m not saying that one is better than the other, as each has their place. However, in the West, without people necessarily realising it, there is a tendency to replace real engagement with others with a kind of short-hand epistemological presumptousness — so there is no need to engage with another person if they are already assumed to be known on the basis of such aspects as skin colour, age, accent, and so on. Demographic features, as well as immediate and superficial features which could be read to indicate a person’s disposition — and often are read in this way, I would argue ‘incorrectly’. Thus, there is a tendency to reduce a person to their surface effects, bypassing the need to ritually engage with them.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA. *That* was “witchy-woo?” The same one who just went off at me like a damp squib that I was a “fraud” and “not a feminist” and all about pleasing the Mens? fabulous!!
What a rhetorical tool she is.
FYI, I blogged the bit about flappers and feminists if anybody wants to read about it in more detail…
blah. i go to school with sarah. that’s all i have to say
oh. i didn’t mean blah as a bad thing!