So, Mark says:
I dunno, after peeping this and BFP, I see stones flying. That is the only image I can come up with.
To which I just wan to say, publically and up big where everyone can see it:
Yeah, maybe so.
I mean, yes, of course. We may very well feel entirely justified in our interpretation of events and we may very well be wrong. We might think we’re being all smart and insightful and making sense of things in the understanding of a broader context and we could be wrong. Maybe we just are judgmental bitches or hypocrites ourselves or just plain wrong.
But my response to that is so fucking what? How are you supposed to come to know and understand things if you don’t try to wrap your brain around them? Plus, that’s how this whole thing works. I say something. You read it. You decide if you agree or disagree. You try to convince me I’m wrong or at least that I should consider something else or you don’t. Whatever.
I don’t know exactly why this bugs me so much, but it does. So, let me just repeat.
I could be wrong.
I don’t think I am, but I’m not so foolish as to think that the possibility’s not there. And I hope everyone here gets that.
Filed under: Blogging & Bloggers, Stories About Me
I don’t what BFP means, but if I read Mark correctly, I tend to agree.
At the risk of sounding like an overly diplomatic grandmother, I think there is some truth to be had in all your perspectives.
B., I won’t hazard second-guessing your analyses of the larger issues at work in the story to which this minor dustup refers. There is, however, an inherent risk in trying to fit the situational behaviors of individuals into some narrative of larger social issues. One can easily veer (or appear to veer) into the judgmental, and maybe that’s what Mark was reading in your post.
We all are prone to doing it all the time, to be sure, and we are more likely to do it when the incident in question calls to mind a subject that touches close to our heart in some way. As a recovering marital sexual miscreant, I have some empathy for those who wind up letting the driving electrical impulses of their thought processes and decision-making come from outside the brain. So I would be the last one to get into the ’stone-throwing’.
But I don’t think stone-throwing is what you were intending to do, B.; at least I didn’t read it that way. I just sort of focused on the larger issues you discussed and sort of ignored the episode that triggered the discussion. Call it focusing on the positive if you will, but then I am kind of like an overly diplomatic grandmother sometimes. Did I say that already?
I didn’t read it as slut shaming. I read it as a critique of the limited cultural “scripts” for women who, as sexual beings usually of lesser economic and political power than their lovers, want to get over in the world using their assets (desirability, cultural belief in the magic pixie transformation of the male soul) through the vehicle of powerful men. We, in turn, interpret their actions by use of these scripts, thereby recharging them with power.
If analysis is stone-throwing, then bring me a damn basket of rocks.
Aw, CS, I’ve never had an overly diplomatic grandmother and I’m kind of delighted that, if life is going to deal me one, it’s you.
Let me state for the record, if it’s not obvious, I don’t think Hunter did anything wrong in having sex with Edwards. I know that’s not a popular stance, but I believe any cheating or not cheating rests solely with the the spouse. I think the thing Hunter did “wrong,” as in the mistake she made, was to believe that it was her job to change Edwards.
That’s what I was curious about critiquing, why women buy into this bullshit that it’s our job to support and improve men and that the way to do that is with the magic emanating from our cooters.
But maybe it’s not always clear when we’re moving from “let’s dog on this person” to “let’s use this one person’s situation as a jumping off point for talking about larger issues.”
So, that’s that.
Or what Bridgett said.
OK.
It’s more like CS said, and not a critique of the analysis. It was just that the tone of the post, along with previous ones on Hunter, and BFP’s, linked for support, set my antennae alight.
It wasn’t “slut shaming” so much . . . or was it, I’m too sleep deprived to know . . .
The more important thing is, if CS is going to be the official TCP overly diplomatic grandma, can we talk him into making us chocolate chip cookies, and, if so, how soon?
Granted, chocolate chip cookies won’t soothe a sleepless baby, but they will help with almost everything else.
Someone please tell me what BFP is…
BFP is brownfemipower who is now going by La Chola.
Thank you. I read her article. Withholding comment.
I for one have never understood why at this late date in history women can’t be free as sexual creatures to be as promiscuous as men, or to be chaste if they prefer.
Some of the “best,” most intelligent women I’ve know have had many sexual partners. Why can’t Reile, however you spell her name, just be a sexual creature who was attracted to John Edwards? Maybe she just liked the risk of an affair. Maybe she just liked his cheese-eating grin, or his power.
And for those decrying the limited choices for women, it is getting better. Myself and many other professors will tell you that women are far outperforming men in the classroom. Moreover, the percentage of female students has passed that of males at most U.S. colleges. Project that forward a few decades and who knows who will be running our country.
We need to abandon the girls are sluts and boys are just sowing their oats silliness for all time. And why can’t a girl just enjoy her bad girlness just like boys do their masculineness? I find it sexy, although I’m disgusted with affiars and feel for Elizabeth.
And maybe this chick was just a slut:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=street+corner+girl+led+zepelin&hl=en&emb=0#hl=en&emb=0&q=street%20corner%20girl%20led%20zeppelin