I Hear The Ghost of Conucopia Stirring
Two recent quotes from Five Feet of Authentic Zirconium Ring Copywriting:
“Let me remind you: you can always move to a Muslim country if you don’t like it here in Canada.” Kathy Shaidle, 2008
“Why I Hate My Country: A Continuing Series…” Kathy Shaidle, 2008
On another note, I think we can all breathe a little easier about the future of this country we don’t hate – this may be the last generation of racist hatemongers we have to deal with. Our sisters from the moronosphere seem to be experiencing some serious sexual issues with their partners – Five Feet is fantasizing about a lifetime’s worth of free blow jobs for P.J. O’Rourke, posting Vegas strippers and Nazi porn, and Right Girl, of course, is flashing her lingerie and humping Mark Steyn’s leg like a dachshund in heat. I haven’t noticed that any of the progressive bloggers spend a lot of time publicizing their spouses’ sexual inadequacies…is this a new thing on the right?
When your entire existence is based on repressed sexuality, it’s hard to actually let loose with someone. Especially if you married for money.
Hm, targeting women’s sexuality as a rhetorical weapon. It’s okay when lefties do it?
I expect better from you.
“Hm, targeting women’s sexuality as a rhetorical weapon.”
Except that’s not what he’s doing, SUZANNE. Re-read the post: it *targets* behaviour that would be a little weird whether it came from women or men, and particularly “conservatives”, given their overweening self-righteousness about “family values” and all that BS. Unless “conservative” “family values” include grotesque public slobbering over people other than one’s partner.
Frankly, it sounds like a pretty slippery slope to me… who knows what kind of bizarre behaviour will be acceptable next!?? Slobbering over horses???
SUZANNE – are you serious?
Suzanne is dead serious. She doesn’t have a sense of humour.
What JJ said.
JJ’s definitely right, SUZANNE, try reading and, more importantly, comprehending before commenting.
And trust me when I say that no one expects better from you. After all, your side of the blogosphere is oh-so busy trying to involve themselves in everyone else’s private lives.
“Hm, targeting women’s sexuality as a rhetorical weapon. It’s okay when lefties do it? I expect better from you.”
Umm, SUZANNE? After your appalling, offensive and ignorant expressions of contempt for “feminists” (which marked the end of my participation in your blog as a reader or commenter), a category of human you clearly have no understanding of whatsoever, may I respectfully suggest you avoid clumsy attempts to appropriate their rhetoric – especially (as JJ, Lulu, Sassy and Dave all note) when you’ve missed the point completely?
Do you actually, seriously view Shaidle’s promise of a lifetime of free blowjobs to a neocon pundit as an expression of her “sexuality”?
I Hear The Ghost of Conucopia Stirring.
Why did you ever give that up? It was the only thing that was saving me from despair, which I nearly succumbed to. Thank God for Sadly, No.
What is it with SUZANNE and her buzz-harshing? She can’t be that miserable.
“Why did you ever give that up?”
I thought it was getting boring. Same dim folks saying the same dim shit, week after week.
I can see that. And in the time since, it got even dimmer and shittier.
“Why did you ever give that up?”
I thought it was getting boring.
I must respectfully disagree, balb.
Conucopia boring? No way — Conucopia was a work of comedic art and an essential service to the progressive blogosphere.
I miss it
Hmm. I honestly thought people were losing interest. Well, let me put it to the Peoples Content Committee.
Re-read the post: it *targets* behaviour that would be a little weird whether it came from women or men,
Um, no. He targeted women bloggers. If he had included male bloggers, maybe you’d have a case.
Our sisters from the moronosphere seem to be experiencing some serious sexual issues with their partners
That’s not a statement targeting women’s sexuality?
behaviour that would be a little weird whether it came from women or men, and particularly “conservatives”, given their overweening self-righteousness about “family values”
You as feminists shouldn’t care whether they are “bearers of family values” or not.
Those were women whose sexual practices were questioned (and therefore their legitimacy).
We know. It’s okay when you do it. Conservative women can never win. If we follow strict rules of sexual morality we’re repressed. If we don’t, and we’re “having trouble with our spouses”. You can’t say that about feminists. You can say that about so-con women though. We know the double standard exists.
The problem, SUZANNE, is that in your hermetically sealed ideological cocoon, you have forgotten to think, read, and talk like a adult – assuming, of course, you once knew how.
Now, you may simply be playing the kind of juvenile rhetorical game that has rendered your blog, and so many others, unreadable. But on the off chance that you really are serious – and I am a bit incredulous, since you never struck me as being stupid – If you can say with a straight face that you read that post as an attack on women’s sexuality, then you really should seek counselling.
“That’s not a statement targeting women’s sexuality?”
No. It’s a statement mocking two bloggers whose racism and hatemongering I find particularly offensive.
‘You as feminists shouldn’t care whether they are “bearers of family values” or not.”
You’ve already shown that you don’t have the first clue what “feminism” means, outside the one dimensional cartoon ideologues of you ilk use. Please have the courtesy, at least on this site, to refrain from insulting my wife and a number of people I greatly respect with your contemptible ignorance.
‘Conservative women can never win. If we follow strict rules of sexual morality we’re repressed.”
What utter bullshit.
SUZANNE. LISTEN CLOSELY. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT KATY SHAIDLE WAS EXPRESSING HER SEXUALITY BY OFFERING A LIFETIME SUPPLY OF BLOWJOBS TO PJ OROURKE??????
VRROOOM! For a second time, the point of the post goes flying over SUZANNE’s head.
“Um, no. He targeted women bloggers. If he had included male bloggers, maybe you’d have a case.”
The fact that they’re female is a side-issue to the behaviour being pointed out. It’s the same as pointing and laughing at the multitudes of conservative men that are completely & totally obsessed with sex, and saying: “Someone isn’t getting any.” It has more to do with them being weird than it does with them being men.
“You as feminists shouldn’t care whether they are “bearers of family values” or not.”
I don’t. But I do care about hypocrisy, and agree that it should be ridiculed with gusto wherever it’s found.
“We know. It’s okay when you do it. Conservative women can never win.”
Ah, so persecuted. What’s next? Someone trying to control your bodies?
Ah, so persecuted. What’s next? Someone trying to control your bodies?
Oh my … no, no, no, JJ. After all, Conservatives and Righties are so very opposed to nanny-statism and government interference.
Hypocrisy thy name is SUZANNE.
What constantly amazes me about fundamentalist right-wing neo-con bloggers is their inability to recognize how their very own M.O. is crude, bullying, vicious, spurious and hateful.
It’s only when examples are provided, or that responses are tit-for-tat that they act like an innocent injured bystander.
La Shaidle wants to blow PJ? B-b-b-but…I thought she liked him…!
I thought the irony of Suzanne’s commentary re: using women’s sexuality as rhetoric was in the fact of what her ‘raison d’etre’ is, day in-day out. Or does abortion somehow not get connected to irresponsible ‘done for recreation’ female promiscuity this time around?
Asking what is prompting ‘family values’ women to publically express sexually explicit “I’d hit that, despite my avowed sacred man/woman marriage” is valid in light of ‘conservative’ attitudes that virulently castigate and shame women for self-interested sexual expression.
But, perhaps it’s alright for ‘good girl’ conservative women to make such normally lewd and degenerately *socially-liberal* declarations about someone not their husband – when the intent is to laud the musting masculinity of the ‘conservative’ leader-male ideal. Because the results are still all about the ego-boo of the ‘leader’ menz.
Balbulican, I really think you are on to something here – all humour aside for a moment. One would think a conservative would have a certain kind of reserve or at the very least display a sense of prudence of thought and/or deed. I know I have been struggling to reconcile my own views of conservativism with my alleged sisters and am often at a loss to understand exactly what makes them conservative…boobie blogging for money, bj’s for writers, overall exhibitistic… but where exactly is the committment to conservative principles? Oh, and nothing screams ‘petulant child’ more than an alleged committment to ‘family values’ without every bothering to make a committment to create, have or raise a family.
All kidding aside, friends, foes, and undecideds, I think what’s actually happening here is yet another iteration of a cycle I’ve described before.
Both Kathy and Wendy have unfortunately (unfortunate for their sakes) decided to play the shock-blog game. They are defined, more and more, by their blogs. It’s a place they succeed, where they’re esteemed, where they matter to a community. Without getting too Freudian here, both have let slip a fair amount of depressing disclosure about some pretty sad stuff – parent issues, health issues, addiction issues, self image issues, unemployment, yada yada yada. This success matters to them – a lot. And to sustain it, they are discovering that their readership requires just a little bit more titillation each week. Hate is an addiction like any other. So we’ve been seeing ever more overt, outrageous racism, and lately this very odd prurient streak – Shaildle’s retroporn-lite, Wendy’s “Tits for the Troops” fundraiser.
I personally don’t think this has anything to do with “conservatism” at all – it has to do with a couple of folks who have found a niche where they’re finally getting the attention and approval they need. It’s a bit embarrassing to watch, but on the slow days, it makes for fun posting.
“It’s a place they succeed, where they’re esteemed, where they matter to a community.”
They do? They are? They do?
I’m shocked. I’m stunned. I’m nauseous .
balbulican, that was insightful and compassionate. I started blogging in response to a CERTAIN blogger’s hateful propaganda about feminists and the right to choose.
Sometimes I wish that I could simply let HER be, with her posturing and her fabrications and her fanatic drivel that she generates like a shield, to protect herself against the cruelty of the world, and to divert her attention away from her harsh and challenging domestic situation.
Unfortunately, media-savvy jerks like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have pumped up the level and lowered the quality of discourse, with regards to issues that play out in the political arena.
Holding fundamentalist dumbfuckery and neocon rightwingnuttery up to the ridicule it deserves remains one of our most effective weapons.
http://girlontheright.com/2008/06/10/a-hard-post-to-write/
For the sake of comedy…you guys should contribute.
Whooee! Aww… poor little right girl lost her job and is beggin’ fer handouts… from her high speed internet connection. If it’s really life and death, like she sez, she oughta be smart enough to pawn the ‘puter and quit payin’ for broadband.
Here’s my contribution: Start sellin’ merch off Cafe Press, PLRG. A catchy slogan sells t-shirts and bumper stickers. “I’d rather be hate-blogging” might sell well to her fan base.
I hear-tell there’s this thing called a social safety net. People who find themselves out of work and out of money can get help if they ain’t too proud or too ignorant to ask. Askin’ total strangers for PayPal handouts requires some swallowing of pride, I’m sure. At least it don’t involve approaching strangers on sidewalks or squeegeein’ cars at red lights.
If yer an evil reptilian kitten-eater, the newspapers are full of free kittens this time o’ year. Bum up a spud or two and make yerself a kittycat stew. (h/t Woody G.)
JB
Two posts prior to Right Girl’s pandhandle is a little piece of bile triumphantly pointing out that all the money spent on AIDS prevention was wasted cuz it now seems AIDS mostly kills fags, not decent heteros like Right Girl.
Dear Ask-The-Bunker: is it naughty of me to think ill of folks like that?
JB – that’s a good point about the Social Safety Net. I’m too lazy to search her blog, but I’d bet a woman named “Girl on the Right” probably doesn’t think too highly of the welfare state. And I would even bet that she is a proponent of voluntary charity as opposed to taxation-to-support-hookers-and-newfies-EI-Benefits. Hope that her voluntary charity thing works out.
Ah the beauty of Karma….