Hey, remember Jan Butler, the writer with the tenuous grip on logic and history? You know, the one who wrote that incredibly asinine letter to the RWR? Not only did she reply at Kate Rothwell’s blog, but she wrote a reply on her own blog, too.
I initially composed a point-by-point rebuttal on her blog, only to find it doesn’t allow comments by people without Blogger profiles. I’m posting my reply to her entry here instead:
But I find it both funny and very UNfunny that many of the people who are slinging the most vituperous arrows at ME are the same people who *claim* to stand for Free Speech in this Country, By Golly. You can’t censor us! How dare you! The culture demands diversity!
Oh, yeah?
You know, free speech? First Amendment? The one that enables them to make a book or a website or a movie or a joke as smutty as they like, and I don’t dare tell them they can’t?
Yeah, THAT First Amendment. But what has happened to MY First Amendment protection?
First of all: If your reply to the claim that “you can’t censor us” is to point to the First Amendment, which indeed guarantees the freedom of speech (among other things), may I say that there’s something seriously wrong with your logic? It sounds like you’re saying the First Amendment protects your right to censor our opinions, and really, it doesn’t. It’s sloppy reasoning, sloppy writing or both on your part.
Second of all, if you could point to posts that cried for you to be censored, or even that the RWR should never have published your letter, I’d greatly appreciate to you linking to them. I’ve read quite a few of those posts, and while the “wow, this woman needs to get a clue and learn some history” responses loomed large on the landscape, I read precious few that seriously argued that you had no right to your (asinine and poorly-reasoned) opinion.
In short, there weren’t any serious calls for you to be censored. What you got instead, dear lady, were a whole slew of people disagreeing with your point of view—vigorously, and yeah, oftentimes rudely. But vigorous disagreement does not constitute censorship. You disagreed with an aspect of our culture, you wrote a letter, a whole hell of a lot of people disagreed right back, and all of a sudden, you’re being denied your right to free speech? I call bullshit. What you’re witnessing, in fact, is other people exercising their First Amendment rights.
When you take a crucifix and dip it in urine, I’m supposed to bite my tongue and consider that art. It’s NOT. It’s smut, and a sacrilege. But I don’t dare SAY so, or I’m interfering with your freedom of expression, I’m a fascist, I’m a right-winger nutjob…
That first two sentences are so flagrantly untrue, I’m somewhat flabbergasted. Critics disagree all the time on what constitutes art and what doesn’t. You’re certainly free to express your take. I’d like to point out that what you did in that letter to the RWR, however, wasn’t just expressing that opinion: you actively called for the RWA to enact and enforce certain standards—standards that would’ve been de facto censorship within the organization. And THAT’s why we’re calling you a conservative asshat. Mind you, we (or at least, I and all the other bloggers I read who responded to you) didn’t say you didn’t have a right to that opinion. We just thought it was an excessively fuckwitted opinion—a poorly-argued one that would be a very bad idea to pay attention to.
…which brings me to my point. Which is, that First Amendment provisions apparently only cover those who are espousing a point of view which is NOT to the right of center. Those of us who have even the whisper of conservativism about us? We’re nutjobs.
Funny, I don’t find it there, either. But you certainly wouldn’t know it by the reception I’ve gotten to my remarks. I’ve been called hateful and bigoted. I’ve been made fun of for being a Christian, for having conservative interests listed under my blog profiles, and even for supporting the President…as if those very beliefs and practices are not only distasteful, but somehow mark me as somewhat less than human.
Again, if you could point to the piece of legislation that prevents you from having or expressing an opinion, either positive or negative, about an artwork, I’d greatly appreciate it. Hell, if you can find that sort of opinion expressed in the blogs that disagreed with you, I’d appreciate it if you’d point that out, too.
The First Amendment protects your right to free speech—that is, unless it’s deemed obscene, or unless it constitutes a nuisance, such as yelling on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 3 a.m., or unless it’s speech that’s a form of conduct, such as fraud or incitations to violence. It also protects the speech of everyone who disagrees with you. Is this so hard to grasp? And yeah, that means that if we want to call you a nutjob, we can—oh, that wacky First Amendment. If you really do seek redress, and if what we say provides you with sufficient fodder for a libel suit, then by all means, you can attempt to sue.
And frankly, your beliefs and practices ARE distasteful to me. That’s why I disagree as violently as I do—contempt and outrage are pretty powerful fuels. I don’t, however, think of you as less than human for holding such different core beliefs. Now, if I wrote to the RWR asking that books featuring monogamous heterosexual Christians falling in love not be labeled “romance” because Christianity is such a blight on reason and secularism, and look, look, so many pedophiles identify as Christian, this must mean there’s something wrong with Christianity itself—now, if I did that, you’d have a much better case for that assertion.
And some of you went to a lot of trouble to find something to pick on me for, which means that…just maybe…there really weren’t a lot of holes in my letter to begin with.
Actually, lots of people pointed out lots of different holes in your letter—none of which you bothered to address. Feel free to refresh your memory by reading my reaction to your letter, or Kate’s, or any of a slew of other responses.
But I’d just like to know what part of the First Amendment allows you to do that to me. Because it doesn’t. And you know it doesn’t. And you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for doing it.
The part of the First Amendment that allowed us to poke fun at you for your fuckwittery is this one right here: “Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
The First Amendment, alas, does not have any provisos regarding courtesy in speech or the manner in which debates should be conducted.
You know, kids, freedom of speech has to apply to everybody, or it’s not free. If I am considered “repressive” and “hateful” for being shocked at things that ought to shock anyone with a scintilla of decency…then you need to be called “repressive” and “hateful” for hating my doing so. Protection of the law works both ways, or it’s no law at all.
The unfortunate fact—one borne out by these attacks—is that we no longer have a concept of “rights” that protect anyone but those who stand on the left side of the creek. Those of us—and there are a whole lot more of us out here—who stand on the right side…well, a whole lot of you apparently just wish we’d go the hell away. Die, preferably.
Your continued insistence at conflating a disagreement carried over the internet with actual legislation would be funny if it weren’t so tiresome and, well, so completely missing the point. But then you conflated pedophilia with consensual adult homosexual relations, so that’s not much of a surprise there.
And speaking as somebody who’s a pretty dedicated pacifist: no, I don’t wish harm on people who disagree with me, much less hope that they’d die. I do wish they’d change their mind, or if they can’t do that, then at least stop meddling in private affairs that aren’t theirs to meddle with. However, your projection of that violent desire onto a whole bunch of strangers is interesting—and telling.
Tangentially: Why is it that as soon as somebody disagrees with a certain type of extremist, they start squawking about their free speech rights being trampled on? All this malarkey about free speech is a smokescreen, and an exceptionally poor one, at that, because nobody’s free speech rights have been restricted so far. If you’d address the points we made about how what you propose is de facto censorship, or provide proof for your assertions about the history of romance novels, or, hell, explain how NAMBLA and adult homos engaging in consensual sex are connected, that’d at least give us a chance to get to the heart of the disagreements, instead of crying about having one’s free speech repressed. Debating the finer points of the morality of homogaiety would actually give me something to really dig into and provide me with an opportunity to sound like a pedantic asshole in new and interesting ways on this site, instead of my usual pedantic assholery.
December, there you go with that pesky logic again. Stoppit, won’t you? You’re making my brain hurt.
The American Constitution guarantees citizens the right to freedom of speech, but does not guarantee that everyone will agree with your opinion. Just ask the Dixie Chicks.
Selah…alot of anger there. I believe the subject of this blog is the rebuttal of asinine comments posted in public places, not your personal political opinions.
Controversial and dumb comments are not limited to Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, politicians, gays, actors, athletes, or the otherwise famous. “Speaking assholes” can be googled for any and all of the above groups. You may want to consider counseling for all that pent up anger.
dl is so very right.
Attacking the person by saying they’re angry or some other accusation that has nothing to do with what the person actually posted is a favored ruse of those right folk.
Addressing the statements made (usually known as facts) is verboten to right folks who, as a rule, are absolutely terrifed of those horrid fact thingies.
Just sayin’.
Selah, you were brilliant in your assessment of what Hollywood does and doesn’t do and can and can’t do. Very factual, and that’s just like holy water to ‘em or the light of the sun. 😉
Money talks. More than all these arguments, what will affect the future market is what we’re buying now. End of story.
dl, if you read down a little ways, Katie brought up the Hollywood angle in her comment, which was in response to my question posted on Janny’s blog wondering who is picking on the conservative right, as Jan claims in her blog post. So actually, Selah was perfectly on-topic, if you follow the convoluted path of blog comments. And if this whole debate is about anything, it seems like personal political views are the topic du jour.
Just sayin’s all.
And actually, I didn’t think Katie OR Selah came across as mouth-frothing angry bitches. Could be because I’m basically a pretty chilled-out person at heart. Could be because I’ve had a lovely hard cider drink tonight. (Woodchuck hard cider is my new favoritest thing ever.) Or maybe, just maybe, it’s because they both presented their viewpoints in a reasoned way that is topical and mostly angst-free? (As much as anyone can be angst-free when hot-button issues are being discussed.)
I enjoy the debate, even though this honestly is more of a clusterfuck on Janny. Still, when someone is able to articulate their opinion, it’s awesome. It’s much easier to say, “Ur stoopid HEETHEN & goin to he!! for ur sinz” than it is to explain why you believe what you believe. (Although I’ll admit the misspelled posts are sometimes much more entertaining.)
And for anyone who might be interested, still no comments showing up on Jan’s blog. Maybe she’s not home to approve them or something?
She writes inspirational romance?
Heck why didn’t somebody say so before? Now her whole diatribe makes perfect sense.
the New Testament does condemn homosexuality as a sin
The New Testament is open to interpretation because words have to be understood in their context, e.g. whether they’re being used metaphorically, which definition of a particular word is being used etc. There are plenty of Christians who have read the New Testament and who do not believe that the New Testament condemns homosexuality as a sin. The main arguments are that:
among Bible translators there is a widespread view that in the New Testament, the two Greek words that have been translated as homosexual may mean ‘loose living’ or ‘prostitute’. The Revised English Bible is a mainstream published Bible, ratified by representatives of all the Christian denominations in the United Kingdom, written under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in this the word homosexual has been omitted from St Paul’s letters altogether. The story of Sodom is not about sexuality; this leaves only the references to sexuality in the codes of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The meaning of these codes may have been clear at the time they were written. But to us they are a confused mix of values relating to morality, religious practices, nationalist characteristics of Israel, and primitive ideas about purity and health. One such concept was of the pure forms of a man and a woman. This led to the prohibition of shaving in men, to avoid looking like a woman; also of cross-dressing, and of same-sex relationships. Other requirements of purity included the types of animals and fish that could be eaten, which excluded shellfish; and purity of dress, which excluded any garments made with more than one type of yarn. Under the moral code there are strong and repeated injunctions against usury; so much so that Christian moneylenders were unusual for many centuries.
(From the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement
They’ve also got an extremely detailed analysis of all the Bible verses which are generally held to prohibit homosexuality, if anyone wants to read about this at greater length.
My point isn’t that they’re right, because I’m not an expert in all the subjects necessary for understanding the nuances of the languages in which the Bible was originally written, I’m just pointing out that not all Christians agree on this issue, and those who believe that homosexuality is not sinful are not just wilfully ignoring the Bible. They’re interpreting it differently, and those interpretations have been reached on the basis of rigorous analysis.
Selah March wrote:
You want to know why people think conservatives are assholes? Because you let assholes speak for you.
Can’t argue with that.
I read Ms. Butler’s blog entry again, so it’s my own fault my eye is twitching. She warns that ‘disease spreads, too.’ That was a wowzer for me. I guess those who don’t agree with her stand are infected, iho, and will be rapidly spreading our tolerance, acceptance or enjoyment of slippery slopes.
Whee.
This is NOT about First Amendment Rights. It’s about Ms. Butler implying she speaks for RWA, its members, and thereby the genre itself and its readers. And further stating, pretty damn clearly, that those who don’t agree with her are shrill, whiny children who want to block her constitutional rights. And turn the Romance genre into a gay and lesbian love fest.
So far no one’s slapped duct tape over her mouth and locked her in a closet.
So far the big wheel of Romance is rolling right along on ALL its spokes.
I’ve been keeping up on the comments, and you know what I think is cool?
I don’t think that ALL those genres listed as immoral by Jan Butler would appeal to all of us… Most of them would not be my cup of tea, on a personal level.
And yet here we are, defending people’s right to publish and read them.
The first amendment is working. Just not on Jan Butler’s web site. (And incidentally, to rant about the first amendment and then ban comments on your blog/site makes you look really, really two-faced and whiny and juvenile. Just sayin’.)
Go, us. It’s a pleasure to read comments from people with a clue. Especially comments from people with a clue AND a sense of humor.
“You may want to consider counseling for all that pent up anger.”
Oh, my anger isn’t in the least pent up. I’m mad as hell right out in the open. So is a goodly percentage of the mass populace from what I can gather as I watch the polls. I guess the proof will be in November’s pudding, won’t it?
But I take your point regarding assholes on both sides of the equation, I forgive you for missing the point of the conversation, and I thank you kindly for what I’m sure was your well-intentioned concern.
Brava.
I posted a long response to Jan on her blog (the one where she was railing about her First Amendment rights being infringed). I thought it was well-thought out and well-reasoned. I began by pointing out that the First Amendment actually only applied to infringement of free speech BY THE GOVERNMENT and that private entities are free to infringe upon free speech, as long as there is no state action involved. I then went on to point out that I could see no instance where anyone was calling for censorship, but rather where people were simply engaging in the same behavior as her—finding a comment in a debate objectionable and responding. Yes, some of the responses were snappish and downright attacking, but she went there first with her inflammatory language in the original letter to the editor, again in her comments on people’s blogs, and again in her blog on msmentor. But I digress.
My point is this. She has every right to believe/write/feel/post what she did. And I have every right to 100% disagree with it. I will defend her right to spew hatred (her letter and subsequent posts seem as though she cribbed from any number of right-wing extremists), but I 100% disagree with it and now know at least one author I will NEVER buy.
Sad to say, it’s been about 18 hours since I left that post and it’s still not on there. And if you look at her history of posts on that blog, she has very few comments. I just find it incredibly ironic that this great defender of Free Speech is engaging in the very practice about which she rails—censroship. But hey, it’s her prerogative. The First Amendment doesn’t protect my right to post freely on her blog. It simply protects my right from infringement of speech by the state or a state actor.
At least Kate Rothwell allows all comments to be posted, including the ones she disagrees with.
Okay, she steamed me with her latest comment on Kate’s post. Don’t talk about my standing, my experience or my friendships when you don’t know me.
This woman’s full of perceptions, and it’s my constitutional right to hold the opinion that her perceptions are crap.
I’ve got to go away and get to work. Best to write this one quick before the market drops out as according to Butler the only area of Romance that’s growing is Inspirationals.
C’mon, Nora. You know the hotel gave you the gold-plated toilet paper and RWA does everything you tell them to. Isn’t that why last year’s GH/Rita Awards Ceremony went so smoothly last year? … oh… wait. Never mind.
This was only my 3rd RWA Conference, and I think it’ll be my last for a while. Mostly due to financial constraints, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say the atmosphere had a lot to do with my decision as well. I write erotic romances for epublishers and it’s taken 9 books for me to have a more mainstream (yet still plenty spicy) paranormal romance come out in print. But does RWA consider me published? Nope. And yeah, I’m woman enough to come out and say that irks me. Don’t like my books? Don’t buy ‘em. But don’t tell me I’m not a ‘real author’ because of that.
And by the way, all three years combined? I’ve only experienced snobbery from exactly ONE so-called Big Name Author. And that was snobbery reported secondhand, and like all rumor, must be taken with a grain of salt. One thing RWA does have going for it—they do seem to treat everyone equally at their conventions. I’ve volunteered at the registration desk, and never saw any Big Names cut in line or try to pull rank. I’ve never seen and Big Names throwing hissy fits at the hotel desk because their room wasn’t plush enough. (This year, however, a bunch of people probably saw ME throwing a hissy fit at the front desk because my key never did work properly and they wouldn’t bring us toilet paper, gold-plated or otherwise. Yep, I’m a diva, what can I say?) And at the AGM, everyone has one vote. Or they would, if enough people would show up to make a consensus, but I digress.
There’s a very simple reason why Nora’s and Janny’s experiences and conversations differ so much. Human nature. We tend to hang around with people who share our interests. Doesn’t mean we consciously exclude people—“Oh, she’s a Republican, for God’s sake don’t let her sit here!”—but would you really spend loads of time with someone who drove you batshit crazy and disagreed with you on almost everything?
Please note I’m not saying you have to be friends with only those who parrot your own views. My best friend since we were 5 and I disagree on several very big issues. Abortion. Politics. Whether it’s immoral to have a gas-guzzling vehicle. But we agree on many other things, she’s got a killer sense of humor, I love her like a sister and she’s the godmother of my sons. I can give no higher compliment than that. We can rationally discuss the other stuff and admit that we both have valid points, and agree to disagree without frothing at the mouth. And then we move on.
Maybe it’s a concept that Janny should try?
At nationals I sat next to a woman in a workshop who spent the whole time telling me essentially what Jan Butler has on her blog – hell – maybe it was her…
The thing that I don’t get is why people would start soap-boxing on something face-to-face without knowing the other person. Maybe I look Christian (I’m not), maybe I looked conservative (I’m not) – I don’t know. I heard about it for 10 minutes straight, unable to get a word in edgewise until the very end when I calmly said…
“I think that there is room in RWA for all different types of romance, inspriational to erotic. Just don’t read the books that offend you. I’ll continue reading and writing what I want and you should do the same. I don’t want to be part of an organization that favours one sub-genre over another.”
She suddenly realized she was in the wrong workshop and left – funny that.
Cheers, Deb
Oh, you silly lib’ruls! Of course conservative Christians are a persecuted minority in this country. After all, the courts keep insisting they can’t erect crosses or Ten Commandment monuments on public property, which means their freedom of religion is being restricted. Then there are the rulings against teaching Intelligent Design in Dover, PA. And look at the uproar over poor Mel Gibson’s Anti-Semitic remarks. (C’mon, the poor guy was drunk and we all know the evil drink makes you say things you otherwise wouldn’t—er, I mean, say things you don’t actually believe.) I mean, nobody would call Gibson on that stuff if he weren’t a Christian, right?
Yep, the poor sods are awash in persecution.
Also, do you think I can have my scintilla of decency made into a coat without upsetting PETA? Wouldn’t want to antagonize the left-wing nutjobs. They do, after all, control everything.
Jacqueline, sorry but it’ll take you a lot of scintillas to make a coat. I mean, they’re kinda small. Bigger ‘n mice but definitely smaller than rabbits.
I suggest you have your scintilla of decency done up as a vest for your chihuahua and have it dyed to match your outfit. I hear that’s what Paris does with all of her scintillas. Mmm so deliciously soft to carry on your arm.
You’re right, Kate: I’ll need a lot of scintillas to make a coat. Perhaps I can have Nora’s, since she doesn’t want it? And I’m sure a few other kind souls will toss me theirs if ask nicely.
Barring that, since I don’t have a chihuahua, I’ll have it done up for my black cat.
Anyone remember, back in March, when evangelical conservatives held that conference to discuss, “The War on Christians?”
Of course, many dismissed it because it’s hard to fathom how a group that makes up 85 percent of America can be oppressed.
Nonetheless, (some) conservative Christians somehow delude themselves into believing that free speech means having no opposition to your agenda and no dissent against your ideas.
It’s a puzzling position, no?
I began by pointing out that the First Amendment actually only applied to infringement of free speech BY THE GOVERNMENT and that private entities are free to infringe upon free speech, as long as there is no state action involved.
I’m pretty certain that not *all* private entities can infringe on the exercise of free speech, as some of them have been found to essentially be state actors, which include but are not limited to governments. Public universities are state actors, as are some businesses. Private and public individuals and entities that *function* like state actors can be found to *be* state actors for the purposes of the First Amendment (as well as the 5th and 14th), if I’m not mistaken.
Actually, the problem is that the First Amendment doesn’t say that people cannot disagree. It says that anyone can say anything unless it’s deemed obscene, or unless it constitutes a nuisance, such as yelling on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 3 a.m., or unless it’s speech that’s a form of conduct, such as fraud or incitations to violence.
Even in the case of so-called obscenity, which does not count as speech under the First Amendment, there is some protection, in so far as content neutral standards still apply (i.e. you cannot be discriminated against simply because someone deems your conduct offensive). The designation of obscenity is one that must be legally determined on a case by case basis (by a jury under the Miller Test), not arbitrarily made and imposed.
It might be worth noting that the First Amendment is the most unqualified constitutional amendment, and it was not judicially qualified until 1918, after several individuals were jailed for protesting the First World War. Over the years, various tests have been used to determine what qualifies as protected speech (i.e. to define the limits of the First Amendment), but the parameters are still quite broad among public entities (i.e. state actors). And as conservative as the Supreme Court has become, I have it on good authority that Scalia, for example, is extremely protective of First Amendment rights.
However, not all speech is protected and some conduct is deemed to be speech under the First Amendment (if it is symbolic conduct and meets certain requirements). Core protected speech is political speech—it always gets the highest level of protection. However, in one case involving the burning of a draft card (O’Brien), the conduct was not considered free speech, because the law against burning the draft card was not ruled to be one infringing on free speech rights (it was viewed as purely administrative). Laws that *incidentally* curtail free speech rights are not necessarily unconstitutional. Similarly, not all speech is given the same level of protection under the First Amendment, although contrary to popular opinion, there is really no legal category of “hate speech,” and even the so-called “incitement to violence” test has an imminence requirement that makes it relatively limited. On the other hand, when free speech rights clash with other constitutionally protected rights, those must be weighed to determine what gets greater protection under the law. For example, commercial speech (i.e. advertising), while still protected, does not receive the level of protection that pure political speech does.
I would happily donate my scintilla, but apparently I don’t have one. I was duped, it seems, and my scintilla is, alas, faux.
How mortifying!
As to the gold-plated tp? Let me tell you, it’s not what it’s—hahah—cracked up to be.
JulieT said: Incidentally, to rant about the first amendment and then ban comments on your blog/site makes you look really, really two-faced and whiny and juvenile.
Seriously. The Irony Meter’s pegged so far to the right that springs are popping out.
No matter what Janny says, I have a scintilla and I aim to use it ‘til it can’t scintillate no mo’. So there.
‘Elp! ‘Elp! I’m Bein’ Repressed!
Certain elements of my family have embraced country music. I, myself, am not a big fan of the genre, although there are a few records here and there that I enjoy and some that I just find hilarious (and I mean that in the intentionally funny sense – “Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off,†for example, or “Celebrity.â€)
At any rate, their interest in the country scene means that occasionally I come into contact with songs that not only make the R&B guy inside me die a slow, lingering, and agonizing death, but outright tick me off. One of these is a song by Gretchen Wilson called “Politically Uncorrect.â€
First of all, the title itself pisses me off way more than it should. The grammatical mistake is completely intentional, designed to emphasize the singer’s pride in her backwoods standing and her disdain for all ‘at book larnin’ goin’ on in ‘em uppity Yankee schools. Anyway, the song is all about how the narrator is in the unpopular and downtrodden minority because she believes in the Bible and family values and supports the troops in action and so on.
Now, I’m going to put aside for the moment the frightening implications that it’s somehow more “American†to be functionally illiterate trailer trash than to be educated enough to know that “uncorrect†isn’t a bloody word in the first place. And I won’t add my voice to the throngs, Selah notable among them, wondering just who is oppressing the right wing folks when all three branches of government are Republican controlled at the moment.
But I will address the underlying theme of the song – victimization. The left wing side of the aisle demands to know how the right wing can possibly claim that they are being victimized by a leftist controlled media establishment while they have the White House and the Congress and obviously hold a majority, given the recent polling numbers on issues like gay marriage.
Liberals aren’t going to like this very much, and I can’t say as I blame them for the hate mail I am sure to accumulate by saying so, but the real cause of movements like this “Politically Uncorrect†song or Ann Coulter diatribes or Rush Limbaugh rants that receive plaudits and support is that it’s a backlash against the culture of victimization that has gained so much ground in America over the last thirty years or so.
Why shouldn’t the white, middle-class, Christian, family values types claim that they are a victimized minority? Everyone else does!
Criminals are victims of capitalist society that kept them in poverty and forced them into lives of crime. Women are victimized by book covers that show cleavage and dehumanize them. Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Mormons, and worshippers of Ra the Sun God are victimized by religious bigotry. Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, and other racial groups are victimized by centuries of WASP control of American institutions. Gays are victimized, bigamists are victimized, everyone is victimized by someone, and the fact of the oppression is holding each and every group back.
Now, I am not claiming that any or all of these groups are exaggerating or making fraudulent claims of any kind. Bigotry, whether based on religion, ethnicity, color, sexual preference, shoe size, or even intellect, is an ugly reality that cannot be denied.
However, the culture of the victim, in which no one is accountable for their own lives and their own successes or failures, no one can be blamed for unacceptable behavior because it can all be traced back to some grievance suffered, has created a climate in which every American can look for a scapegoat somewhere.
“Liberals aren’t going to like this very much, and I can’t say as I blame them for the hate mail I am sure to accumulate by saying so, but the real cause of movements like this “Politically Uncorrect†song or Ann Coulter diatribes or Rush Limbaugh rants that receive plaudits and support is that it’s a backlash against the culture of victimization that has gained so much ground in America over the last thirty years or so.”
I don’t disagree with your fundamental point. But the “culture of the victim” has been around much longer than the rise of liberalism. I’ve read tracts from the early twentieth century that bemoan the fates of poor, disenfranchised white men trampled by the increasing demands for civil liberties by uppity women and black folks. And didn’t some Southern planters swear it was the evil Northern industrialists who forced them to use slavery as the only means to make an honest living?
The backlash we’re seeing may well be caused by a disgust with the culture of victimization, but only in part. A great deal, in my view, stems from pure mean-spirited hatred for that which is different.
I’ve seen that Gretchen Wilson video you mention, btw. You know what stood out most to me? The hordes of extras she used to populate it—people who were supposed to represent normal, everyday, working-class folks.
And not a person of color among them.
To me? That says everything I need to know about what she and her audience consider “politically uncorrect.”
Oh, fine. Just be RIGHT over there with all your correct rightness, why don’tcha?
Seriously, though, you bring up a valid point. After all, nobody thinks they’re a villain, do they?
Just be careful with those scintilas, ladies. You have to make sure they’re free-range scintilas, and not raised on scintila factory-farms in overcrowded conditions.
I understand you can get free-range scintilas at the Zappa Ranch in Montana: fed on organic dental floss, and without those nasty parental advisory labels.
This has been one of the most informative and simultaneously entertaining discussions I’ve run across this week. It’s a testament to the concept of lively civil discourse.
the real cause of movements like this “Politically Uncorrect†song or Ann Coulter diatribes or Rush Limbaugh rants that receive plaudits and support is that it’s a backlash against the culture of victimization that has gained so much ground in America over the last thirty years or so.
I don’t think it’s a *backlash* against the culture of victimization; I think it’s an indulgence in the culture of victimization and a backlash against the civil rights and women’s movements. And unfortunately, certain elements of those movements also indulged in the victimization paradigm, even though the wisdom and truth of such a dynamic was—and is—still hotly debated, because some of the analyses of historical marginalization of certain groups have inadvertantly essentialized the victim identity as synonymous with social marginaization or disadvantage.
IMO, certain elements of the political and social Right have co-opted this discourse and have done so in a way that disguises (at least to a whole lot of people) its ideological underpinnings. That’s one of the reasons I find the term “politically incorrect” so offensive (even when it’s used innocuously in reference to Romance); that little soundbyte, IMO, has somehow normalized the belittling of important social campaigns for greater inclusion and equality across racial, class, gender, sexual identity, and every other line of circumstantial difference. And still people, even those on the Left, use it with increasing frequency such that it is beginning to seem divorced from the social goals of the civil rights movements and historically entrenched patterns of discrimination.
And frankly, I think it’s this process of densensitization (whitewashing, if you will) that helps create the illusion of an ideology-free “no spin zone,” to use one popular example. It’s not simply that political and cultural dissent are becoming more readily associated with a lack of patriotism, or the dismissal of educated moderates as brainwashed by “lefty” academics (because it couldn’t possibly be that more education simply makes one more analytically adept), or even the dismantling of the so-called “welfare state” that really disturbs me. It’s the fact that people of all political persuasions are, IMO, mistaking *fundamentally ideological* positions for universal moral and ethical principles (i.e. “a new class of working poor is being created by, among other things, skyrocketing gas prices, raisisng taxes on the middle class, and hacking away at numerous social benefits programs” is translated into “we need to stop our co-dependent support of the culture of victimization”). THAT’s what scares me.
I can’t ever be Robin when I (if I ever) grow up… but I wonder if I could have her babies.
(because I found it apropos: spam foiler, language92)
Robin,
I concur with most of your points, and perhaps your description of an “indulgence” in the victimization culture is much more apt. Well said.
some of the analyses of historical marginalization of certain groups have inadvertantly essentialized the victim identity as synonymous with social marginaization or disadvantage.
I swear the above made me slightly horny. Too bad the right folks probably won’t understand it.
Robin is so smart.
Do y’all notice how the few black folks on the far right are essentially . . . insane? (well, one could argue that Anne Coulter is too, but that’s another point).
If I want to channel self-hatred, sometimes I go and visit poor, sad LaShawn Barber’s blog for kicks (I wonder if she cuts and self-multilates herself in the anguish she wasn’t born white?)
Seriously most sane black folks won’t touch rightwing philosophy with a long pole, no matter how conservative minded, because generally, they’re frickin’ racist.
Bottom-line.
I wonder, Monica, what you think of the GOP’s latest attempts to suck up to black voters through the leaders of black churches who are getting infusions of cash through the Faith Based Initiative? Seems like there’s a very real move afoot on the part of conservatives to break through the traditional barriers and court the black vote via religious avenues.
Thanks Amy! 🙂 I didn’t think I was frothing when I posted that. 😉 I think it’s funny I’m debating this issue when I’m neither a christian nor a Republican.
Okay, I’ll try to address some of this without being too verbose. 🙂
I realized the Mel Gibson reference was flawed. Yes, of course, because of Passion there would have been an uproar about him saying “fuck the christians” LOL! What I was trying to get at was would liberals really have been seeking blood if an actor said christians were responsible for all the wars?? And I’m sorry, but conservatives are used to being bashed in this society by hollywood. I doubt there would be much of a flap at all if, say, Susan Sarandon made that comment. Hell, she probably has already. ;-P
I think what Gibson said was offensive as hell, but, good god, can’t someone be forgiven if they sincerly regret doing something. Being drunk is not an excuse, but neither is it irrelevant. Cast the first stone if you haven’t made an offensive comment at some point in your life. Please, if you are so perfect that you have never been wrong please crucify the man. I have said & did stupid things when I was drunk :red: so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I’m sorry, but the list of political grievances has nothing to do with the point I’m making. Do I really need to research how many times Democrat politicians have screwed over the country? I’m too damn lazy right now to do it. :gulp: What I have a problem with is the sweeping portrayals of conservatives as assholes. Most Republicans are not rich. The vast majority are not the Sean Hannity or Pat Robertsons of the world, but average decent people and that’s who is being vilified by hollywood. You don’t think it has an effect (okay, is it effect or affect, I always get that wrong) when overwhelmingly repubs/conservatives are portrayed as the Frank Burns of the world never the Hawkeyes.
By the way, Ann Coulter makes me laugh. While I don’t agree with her on some things, I do on others & I like someone who can piss so many people off. Go Ann! 😆
I watched “Air Force One” once and once was enough. I really hate dick flicks. Was he really a Republican???? :bug: I’m more use to the evil Republicans politicians in “The American President,” “Dave,” “The Contender,” and “The Candidate.” Of course, you can find exceptions, but can you really type with a straight face that conservatives are not vilified by hollywood. When I’m less lazy I’ll post some of the more obvious examples.
Jacqueline, I’m pretty sure PETA is basically a left leaning organization. I don’t support either party so I really am coming at this as an impartial observer. Anybody else love John Knowles’ “Separate Peace?” One of my favorite lines in that is (paraphrasing here) “sarcasm is the defense of the weak.”
IMO, it’s not generally working the way they expect it too.
We recently had a visiting pastor at my church. He was excited about some faith-based initiative grants his church had applied for that would benefit his community.
But it was interesting how his sermon emphasized the gulf between the white Christion right and the black Christian church.
He said Sunday morning was the most segregated time in America. He was very clear about how some social issues (such as gay marriage) are manipulated by the Christian right to forward their political agendas.
There were four other black pastors there and everybody got up and applauded his statements.
I live in Kansas, one of the reddest states in the union. I’ve never known any black church that has had anything but distain toward the far right.
But if a fool throws money at you, why not spend it?
The way our present administration wastes money amuses me. They seem far worse than the previous admin as far as flagrant spending—except they prefer to spend it on corporations and the wealthy than on the needy.
If the churches can use some of those funds—which are essentially campaign funds for them to whore the Republican vote—while not being manipulated or bought and help the poor and needy . . . more power to them!
Okay, I admit, when I first read Robin’s post I pretty much thought:
Fire bad; tree pretty.
But then I went down, poured a glass a wine and came back and read it again. And I think I mostly agree.
Still, under it all, my sense is that Ms. Butler’s statements and her stand are primarily based on her own idealogy and her absolute belief that she is right, and those who don’t agree are wrong, misguided or lefty wackos.
The fact that her response to strong disagreement is to cry constitutional foul is just silly, really. Just as making further statements that either aren’t true (Where are my unwritten perks, damn it) or that she can’t possibly back up with facts—inspirationals are the only area of Romance not stagnant in sales (huh?)—are, imo, a kind of odd misdirection off the point.
She also contridicts herself by intimating that her stand is held by a (somewhat silent and fearful of being stamped with the B label) majority of RWA, and yet goes on to complain that the type of books she enjoys reading and writing are all but impossible to sell to publishers (who are in the business of selling books) because they’re more interested in weird love (my shorthand for her definition). Which, logically to me, would put her in the minority.
So I guess I’ve read her comments today and thought:
Fire bad; tree pretty.
But even after a glass of wine, I can’t agree with a single word she says.
This is just so fascinatin’, y’all. I love all the lofty talk of ideals and generalizations, the shouldas and couldas and wouldas.
I’m a CPA, however, so things need to slap me in the face before I really, truly ‘get it’. Someone very, VERY close to me came out the night I got home from RWA. Yes, as I sat here, holding my little RITA, thinking I was the shit, this person told me they are gay. I set RITA aside and we talked for several hours. It’s something I never saw coming, but now that it’s here, I have to face the ugly spectre of what this person’s life will be like from now on. Discrimination, hate, perhaps violence.
Isn’t it interesting how putting a face – a face we love – on something so abstract suddenly brings everything into focus? I’d ordinarily jump into the fray here and bellow my two cents. Instead, I just feel this yawning sadness. Because this isn’t about Jan Butler’s right to free speech, or the rights of everyone who disagrees with her to argue in a public forum.
No – to me, this is about intolerance, on a gut level, and the certain knowledge that this person I love to distraction will have to suffer the injustices of people who are convinced they know The Way and The Light.
On a lighter note, my daughter sent me an open letter to Dr. Laura Schlesinger that was posted on the Internet by a professor. I thought it was so damned funny – and spot on – I blogged it. Here’s a link:
http://www.stephaniefeagan.com/blog/?p=71
~No – to me, this is about intolerance, on a gut level, and the certain knowledge that this person I love to distraction will have to suffer the injustices of people who are convinced they know The Way and The Light.~
That’s cutting to the core with precision. Not only with the gut, but with the heart.
<< Seriously most sane black folks won’t touch rightwing philosophy with a long pole, no matter how conservative minded, because generally, they’re frickin’ racist. Bottom-line. <<
Okay, let me understand this, if a black voter is a Republican they are mentally ill? They are supporting a racist government? Did I get that right? Is anyone going to take this one? Anybody want to address what an ignorant & offensive statement this is? I think we can all agree to disagree without all the hate. I think any reasonable person can see that both ideologies have their good and bad points and that neither side is evil incarnate. Republicans are not racist and Democrats don’t hate America and there are some damn good people on both sides of the issue.
<< Seriously most sane black folks won’t touch rightwing philosophy with a long pole, no matter how conservative minded, because generally, they’re frickin’ racist. Bottom-line. <<
Okay, let me understand this, if a black voter is a Republican they are mentally ill?
Okay, ease back. Right wing and Republican are not synonomous. Monica said `right-wing’. I have several friends who are Republican (I know, what can I do?) and who are moderate, middle of the road in idealogy and philosophy.
When I hear or read `right wing’ in this context, particularly given the subject of this discussion, I think far right, more extremist, not your average Joe who happens to be registered as a Republican.