Stay classy...

Melissa says that progressive advertisers have stopped renewing their ads with Shakesville, since the site started defending Palin from sexist attacks.

Seems rampant these days, much like hysteria.

What do I mean? Well, take a look at WKJM^2 and their transformation: peddling smears to "win" . The Dems seem happy with peddling smears on Palin in order to "win". If Melissa is correct about the advertisers, then defending sexism is no longer a progressive value. Take a look at this Corrente post which basically says that the ends justify the means (the recall is really, really bad for the political process when its purely partisan).

What the trend seems to suggest is that Karl Rove and dirty Republicans (I don't think all of them are bad, mind you) won. It is now completely acceptable for our political process to become nothing more than a hate fest. That since we can bend the rules to suit our power grab, then its OK. But we are justified because we know with certainty we are absolutely right.

Obama's legacy for me will be the complete and universal acceptance that cheating and lying about other people is completely fine so long as you believe you will pursue the "right" policies. Seriously, are Obama supporters begging me to vote for McCain to stop this crap?

Bravo!

one of several good reasons why pb2.0 should sell t-shirts instead of taking advertising dollars.

If I were to imagine myself a full-on committed feminist of the female gender, I would be tempted to ask myself what constitutes the greater threat to feminist aspirations and goals - sexist denigration of Sarah Palin, or John McCain in the president's chair with Palin a heartbeat away?

Fair enough to point out that I'm not a female-type feminist and that my chromosomes alone make me highly suspect never mind my hormone-driven lustful tendencies, and also fair enough to insist that all evil is evil and all oppression must be opposed. Turns out I agree with that. What I'm raising is the question of balance, of proportion.

If, say, Melissa McEwan were to make an assessment of the relative danger and - for argument's sake - decide that Sarah Palin around or in the White House is, say, ten times more dangerous than Sarah Palin being the object of sexist attack, then wouldn't she want to balance her "Sarah Palin Sexism Watch" with ten times the number of column inches discussing why voting for McCain/Palin would be a complete betrayal of all things of value to women's interests?

I would think so. (I put the Relative Danger Value at 10,000,000,000,000 to 1 but but then I am a testosterone-driven thinker; what do I know?)

And supposing she did so; would it be likely that her progressive advertisers would be unhappy with her to the degree that they are now? I doubt it; I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Sexist treatment of women including Sarah Palin = bad. Election of McCain/Palin = complete total utter collapse-of-democracy end-of-the-world disaster. Not asking, not expecting, not wanting actually, for anyone to have to choose betweeen the two; by all means, condemn them both. But isn't it a smart move to treat them in proportion to the immediacy of their danger, and the magnitude?

I am asking. If I'm wrong, please explain.

...to see another pronouncement here about those nasty, nasty misogynists, here at Corrente, where the glossary defines "Conservative" as something along the lines of "wingnuts sucking corporate tit", and where postings appear about dry pussies.

But then I'm way too literal-minded and incapable of understanding hip irony.

or is it anything 'to be hip'?

Probably a chicken-and-the-egg thing, but Salon seems determined to attach itself to the terminally cool, youngster demo with naughty cleverness whenever it can. This year, that was supporting Obama, analysis be damned.

Whatever. On the misogyny question, to win or to be kewl, the results are about the same.

Much like the argument one hears when discussing better gas mileage on cars, for instance: But the real problem is industrial pollution!

It is possible to care about both, and, as others have aptly pointed out, Melissa McEwan does just that. By asking her not to worry so much about depictions of Palin, you're failing to acknowledge the very purpose of her website. The "balance" is in the fact that she defends Palin as vociferously as she did Clinton or Obama.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0...
-- Obama: 'Lipstick on a pig'

you might accomplish your goal more efficiently by directing your comments to her. At her site. Tell her the numerical raion you find acceptable, OK?

Or at least familiarize yourself with her writings before you decide her ratio doesn't fit your standards.

Damn, we're not going to be deployed as your messengers from The Mighty Corrente Building over to her pub. Just sayin'.

re: your comment:

...women are far more toxic and damaging to other women than men could ever be.

And now I think I need to stop reading your comments bcz I might become less than civil.

However, your concern has been noted and will be duly considered.

for everybody outside their club.

The Boyz Klub beat up on Hillary for two solid years.

The Boyz Klub is now beating up on Sarah Palin.

Sigh.

The Boyz need the Klub turned on them, for a change.

It's like the Village has a treehouse, and they've got a big sign: NO Gurlz allowed.

And they're so proud they've protected their turf against the girls, and the blacks, and the Asians, and the Hispanics, that they don't realize how constricted they've made their future.

To paraphrase Atrios, Teh Stoopid, It Burnz.

of being threatened with being prayed for, or having someone say "bless your heart," and then explain sixteen thousand ways you're too incompetent to breathe, in a saccharine voice using a vocabulary that, transcribed, couldn't be called anything but complementary, have you?

You say:

re: your comment:

…women are far more toxic and damaging to other women than men could ever be.

And now I think I need to stop reading your comments bcz I might become less than civil.

However, your concern has been noted and will be duly considered.

And I tell you for true, from the time they start hanging out in cliques in the girls' bathroom in third grade, the catfighting skills get refined to a level that is truly awe-inspiring.

Not being one of them, I resort to simpler tactics.

More forthright language.

A tone of voice that can, all by itself, peel the paint off lockers.

That doesn't work, I become annoyed.

And annoyed is something, I promise you, you don't want me to be.

dang election was something you were trying to win on ebay, for catsakes.

"Snark victoriously!" or some damn thing ...

Take a guess.

Just sayin', or something like that.

"A strategic approach that has been ineffectual.... Continuing to repeat it at increasing decible levels is to my mind not likely to transform the effectiveness; if anything, it will move from being ignored to being annoying."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

And I think the 100,000,000,000:1 ratio is already in place, MSNBC, the A, B and C-listers provide the 100,000,000,000, including as much sexist swill as possible, and Corrente and Shakes supply the 1, in the form of about 100:1, or maybe as low as 10:1.

Problem solved, everyone goes away happy!

So, on now to Palin's "fuckability", that was the topic before the thread was hijacked to avoid the unpleasantness of actually addressing the atrocity, yes?

You almost have to feel sorry for whoever wrote that Salon article. They wanted to say "fuckable" in just the worst way possible, but couldn't get it past the PC police. DAMN those PC police!

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites