I‘m back from the depths of flu-dom and ready to take on the world, or at least some of its most terrible and ridiculous aspects. I’m not quite at full strength yet, so posting may be a bit light for a few more days. But the flu is definitely on the way out. Thanks for your patience and support!
So does anyone want to discuss that picture up there at the top of the post? Everyone else is. Is Kellyanne Conway being weird and disrespectful to the oval office visitors, a delegation from historically black colleges and universities? Or is everybody being mean to her because OMG she was just trying to take a picture with her phone?
I’m going to go with “weird and disrespectful” but what do I know.
Hey all. What half asleep me was trying to say last night was that the photo gives me the same sort of feeling as when I go into a white neighborhood and I’m clearly not welcome.
Alan, unlike a lot of other American traditions, hoodoo wasn’t influenced by Catholicism, so no saints, but you do see some native American influence in the herb selection, honoring white eagle, etc. When the drugstores got into hoodoo in the 20s and 30s you start seeing references to grimoires, black pullet is the first one that comes to mind, so you start to get the use of grimoires in a low magic sort of way.
Oh wanted to add that there are exceptions to the no Catholic thing in heavily Catholic areas, nola comes to mind.
Ok, time for my morning coffee.
First, thank you for the link. I wasn’t aware she was trying to take a picture herself in that particular image. I was missing context here.
Second, I’m going to seriously side-eye your tone here. You’re coming off as hella condescending, and I don’t fucking appreciate it.
Third, I know how photoshoots work, thank you.
I have photography experience.
As such, I am also aware that this pose would have taken a few minutes at most, even if a photographer took hundreds of shots to make sure they got the best ones (Modern digital cameras don’t take that long to take shots, and many cameras can be programmed take multiple exposures with one shutter click! :D). And she would have been free to move around in between poses.
At most a photoshoot like this would have taken maybe an hour, and that’s kinda stretching it. It’s not like they’re modeling tons of outfits and such, they’re just taking pictures of Trump hanging out with some token black people. I doubt that it would be a long-ass shoot.
And, even if it was a long-ass shoot, it’s not even like Kellyanne would have had to sit in THAT ONE SPOT for the entire shoot. She would very likely not be in all the shots, or would be in different poses where she could be standing, leaning over the desk, or whatever.
I am also aware that she might have had to SIT IN A CERTAIN WAY (gods forbid) for a little while to take some shots where she doesn’t look like she’s lounging. Despite that, sitting on a couch in a “demure” position isn’t that fucking straining.
If I can manage it with my bad legs and my bad back, I’m sure she could manage it for five minutes to get some pictures taken.
@numerobis
I’m… not sure how translating it to Latin helps me understand it better 😛
Yeah, I got that they were saying ‘no, you’. My question was ‘no, you what?’ The “definite claims”, the “cherry picking”? What part of @John’s post were they claiming as hypocritical?
@Rach
If there is an accepted protocol for disagreement, then it’s not an echo chamber by definition. Also, did you not read the thread? The one you’re currently commenting in. Cos there’s plenty of disagreement about whether or not Conway was being rude and whether that even matters. And little of that disagreement was especially nice. Yo, my 1st post in this thread began like:
As ever, what the fuck are you talking about?
“Marching into a comments section and being rude to people unnecessarily while making a point (that some people agreed with) is a troll. Okay. This is a common internet comments section and I’m just trying to find an excuse to be outraged and nail myself to a cross.”
FTFY.
If it was four years ago (wouldn’t that be nice), and a photog had gotten a picture of Michelle Obama sitting like this, and the right-wingers had freaked out about it, I’d certainly be defending her. So I don’t see how I can get upset about KC.
“I’m not a troll, you’re a troll!”
Fuck off, Rach. Nobody is buying the martyr shtick.
Okay, so I can see your point. I think part of the reason why people are “upset” (I’m just mildly bitterly amused by the pose itself, considering it’s a drop in the bucket of shit that is the Trump administration) is because she is who she is. She’s a bigot in a bigoted administration, so maybe I am just looking for reasons to jab at her out of spite.
The biggest difference here (and this is a HUGE difference) is that Michelle Obama isn’t a bigoted person, has done nothing to forward bigoted agendas, and is really a genuinely nice person who seems to stand on a platform of Basic Human Decency (The other difference is that she’s Obama’s wife and wasn’t a member of his cabinet.), and as such if there was such a complaint about her like this, it could be brushed off as really fucking ridiculous.
I know that sounds weird, but my point is that I’m not jabbing at her SPECIFICALLY because she’s a woman, but because she’s a really shitty person with a history of racism, and that picture really isn’t doing her any favors.
I have a deal for you, Rach. I’ll be nice to you (in this thread anyway) if you can just sincerely answer a couple of questions for me.
1. What is the definition of a real feminist and what is the definition of a faux feminist and who decided these definitions?
2. What feminists and/or feminist works have influenced you most and why?
Wait, are we talking about the Cult?
https://youtu.be/ZHNiYIvt7ag
This website isn’t about feminism? This website is about making fun of MRA, MGTOW, PUA, and whatever else the manosphere vomits forth. It has a feminist bent and there’s lots of feminist here but it’s not a site to read articles about women’s numbers in colleges or the prevalence of street harassment. There’s no promotion of women’s liberation, it’s a comedy site, dude.
Also
Yaaay! Poppy fans!
@Rach
You’re not even trying, are ya ?
@Axe
Prolly page 1 where I didn’t question David’s feminism even though I said Conway should sit however she wants. I mean that’s the only obvious “contradiction” that I can spot.
I’ll give Rach one thing though : nice job derailing the thread and making sure we don’t get to talk about what I still think was the important thing there, that blatant and, yes, hypocritical, PR move from the “least racist man in the world”. I guess it was so much more important to decide who’s a real feminist.
I feel like I have a pretty good trolldar and I don’t think Rach is a troll. I think they got tone policed and reacted to that. They don’t have to act sweet when calling out David for what they felt was a misstep.
Can we keep in mind the no piling on part of the comments policy? This smacks of snark, not trolling, to me. And we usually enjoy some snark around here. 🙂 I’m definitely not getting a “Hello, fellow feminists” vibe like I did with Mrs. Chad Skyboomrooster, for example.
Yeah, it’s an awkward moment for sure. It went viral because the image resonates with both sides, even though there was no intent behind it. Conway wasn’t deliberately trying to be disrespectful. She had been asked to take a picture of the group from that angle, and got caught in a weird pose.
I don’t blame anyone for seeing it as visual shorthand for everything that’s wrong with the Trump administration (the shit-eating grins, the violation of norms of business comportment, the obvious use of black university presidents as props, the Trump staffer on the couch seemingly ignoring the Serious Adults in favor of the phone). For every person who sees it that way, there’s another person who sees it as a representation of everything that’s right with the Trump administration. Is it white and gold, or blue and black?
I think Mammotheers can all agree, though: fuck Trump.
@kupo
I hear you, but my trolldar says otherwise. Going straight to “ZOMG ECHO CHAMBER CULT” in response to any form of pushback is a dead giveaway, in my view. Being unable to provide any specifics about their criticisms is another.
No one said they had to be nice all the time, nor did we say they had to be sweet when calling out David for something he did wrong.
I can’t speak for everyone, but what I reacted to was them immediately going “David’s not a REAL feminist!” for criticizing Conway, and calling us all a “cult” for people daring to ask them to maybe not do that. There’s ways to call out David for missteps (and express that you’re rightfully not happy with them), but immediately jumping to vague statements like “He’s not really a feminist” and implying that he’s illegitimate for a misstep isn’t really fair to David, especially when he did walk back some of his comments.
That being said, I agree with you that this blog has really been way more devoted to all the Trump-dealings than with, yanno, actual misogyny. I understand it’s important, and yeah, I live here and have to deal with him too, but it’s one of the reasons I don’t comment here nearly as much as I used to. There’s only so much I can say about the lowest-hanging tangerine on the tree before I just get…tired.
And I see this fucker everywhere.
Kupo,
My issue is with content, not tone. I always give the side eye to people who are self-appointed arbiters of who real and faux feminists are. Whether it’s sincere or it’s lulz trolling, it’s not a topic that ever leads anywhere good. I’m happy to have a conversation about whether or not men should get to call themselves feminists and I’m happy to debate whether or not a specific action or opinion is feminist but I’m not okay with someone declaring who is a real and who is faux feminist.
Plus the whole echo chamber accusation when we’ve been debating the issue and disagreeing on various points and when most of the opening comments were critical of the press this is getting or just didn’t see it as a big deal feels off to me too.
It seemed to me they were here to antagonize from the get go.
Is it just me, or did Milo Yap-yap-olis disappear from the public eye very swiftly? He tried to start shit with George Takei, but I haven’t heard a peep from him since.
I’m actually glad this pic was posted. The pic bothers me, but I’ve had trouble articulating *why* it bothered me.
That being said, is anyone actually freaking out about it? I mean, this doesn’t even earn a place on the list of things that irritate Clever.
@kupo
I don’t think they’re a troll. They were just subtweeting a grievance. Fair enough. They’re obviously trolling now tho…
Was I piling on? In my defense, I literally don’t care about whether David is or isn’t a feminist. My responses have mostly been tryna figure out what the fuck they’re on about to begin with. It’s just vague accusations of… something or other, and a critique I admit not to understand. BTW, if anyone does get what they’re supposed to have meant by ‘women’s liberation’ and ‘liberal feminist individualism’, I’d still like to know
Point is, I’m on a different track than most people seem to be. Still, I can see how that’s adding unnecessarily, so I’ll back outta this one. Or try anyway, no promises if they get… interesting
@Axe
Women’s liberation (or just women’s lib) is another term for feminism. You hear a lot of baby boomers use it, but feminism is the more common term now. Rach was pointing out that this post doesn’t forward the women’s liberation agenda in any way. I agree with that. I don’t remember the context of ‘liberal feminist individualism’ so I’m not sure what they meant there.
The White House was severely damaged when the British burned it during the War of 1812, then pretty much completely gutted/rebuilt between 1948 and 1952 (since it was more or less falling apart from lack of maintenance), so I doubt there would be any sacrifices in the chimneys.
Truman’s Reconstruction (link goes to White House Museum)
White House Burning in 1814 (link goes to history.com)
@kupo
That’s what I thought too, but they seemed to make some kinda delineation between it and feminism, so I was curious. Smacked somewhat of a ‘feminism was better before the 3rd wave’ thing. You’re probably right, nevermind 🙂
They positioned it as counter to ‘women’s class consciousness’ (which I’ve never even heard of before). So… *ponders* they’re basically saying we’re insufficiently woke in some regard?
@Axe
Honestly neither have I, although it’s a valid application of the concept of class consciousness in general.
Yesss… But the thing is that neither you nor David would have, be expected to have, or really be capable of having ‘women’s class consciousness’, on account of you’re not women. That would be something that you’d find in, e.g., a radfem discussion group where men were not allowed. Class conciousness overall is framed in contrast to individualism (and the overlap of terms can lead to some quite strange thinking about the nature individual conciousness. Much of which actually has considerable validity. But that’s another matter), as illustrated by the classic dichotomy of the atomized worker negotiating freely with all parties presented by capitalism vs. the union negotiating for all.
Overall, it appears that Rach feels that David and/or the commentariat are insufficiently radfem, and also not far enough left. To the extent those are separate positions.
Trump and his group are a 24/7 “Eff you, America” administration.
Case in point: Kellyanne Conway sits on a sofa in the Oval Office in a room full of African Americans in a way that’s usually done only at home.
When she’s criticized, she’s wounded. The criticism is “vicious” and “venomous.”
It’s reality TV, meant to entertain us, outrage us, and distract us from the many, many awful things that Trump says, does, and threatens to do every day.
They underestimate us. We can point and laugh at the tacky veneer and resist the bone-chilling substance at the same time.