I Have Arrived

There are certain milestones in a feminist blogger’s career–the first time someone “discovers” your real name and blasts it all over the internet; the first time someone comments and says “your fat” or “your gay”; the first time someone tells you that you just need to find a man, but of course, no man will have you, because you are bossy and ugly–that tell you you’re on the right track.

Yesterday, I feel like I hit a number of those milestones all at once.

First, Dan Turnbow over at Post Politics lumped me in with Southern Beale and The Tennessee Guerrilla Women:

If Kimmy would promise to have the state troopers arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever set foot in Tennessee so she could turn them over to the Hague for war crimes. Then B,Sobeale,guerilla women and the rest of the lady libs would be panting like a teenage girl watching Zac Efron over Kimmy.

It’s practically perfect.  There’s this thing, which purpotes to be a sentence, that starts with “If” that involves some fantasy he assumes I have of having Bush and Cheney arrested.  That’s funny enough.  But let’s look at the sentence starting “then” which is un-parsable, I think.  How does it work?  Are the lady libs panting over Kim McMillan the way that teenage girls pant over Zac Efron?  Are we panting like teenages girls pant when they watch Zac Efron have sex with Kim McMillan.    Are we panting like teenage girls when we watch Zac Efron having sex with Kim McMillan.  “Zac Efron over Kimmy” is a euphamism for sex, right?

Anyway, I have discovered that, when they start lumping you in with Egalia, you know you’ve irritated some folks.

Woo hoo!

And then…

And then…

I think I got concern-trolled by Pith!  Note that again, I’m being lumped in with Southern Beale (which causes me to about die of flattery), because Woods is concerned that we’re not supporting McMillan, when, apparently, it is obvious that we should because, though we may not have noticed, she is a woman and we are women!!!!! And then bb tries to warn me that I cannot possibly be a successful political blogger if I don’t know everything there is to know about state-wide politics the second I am called to task by Jeff Woods.

This makes me laugh so hard.

I mean, looking at my numbers, and judging by my most popular posts, I am actually a very shitty hermaphrodite porn blogger who is disappointing her core audience by only posting about hermaphrodite porn once.  If I wanted numbers and influence, I would chuck all this and devote my time solely to watching and blogging about very poor quality hermaphrodite porn.

Oh well, I’m missing my calling, apparently.

18 thoughts on “I Have Arrived

  1. Woods is concerned that we’re not supporting McMillan, when, apparently, it is obvious that we should because, though we may not have noticed, she is a woman and we are women!!!!!

    By that logic, you would have supported Sarah Palin. ;-)

  2. But a woman! And a Democrat! Democratic women rejoice, even if you know nothing about her candidacy!

    (I don’t recall who wrote the comment, but someone said, “Well, if you don’t know anything about Kim McMillian, that’s just your fault.” I pay attention to politics and even I have to pull reference books off the shelf to find stuff out about her. But I guess that I should be off the hook because I’m a dude and as such I am not expected to pay attention to such things, so it’s OK if I don’t know anything about her, but for you, it’s inexcusable. That said, I don’t know all that much about Jim Kyle or Andy Berke or Ward Cammack either. Shame on me.)

  3. I think the more salient point in the conversation is that no one except politicians who are trying to raise money and the journalists who cover those efforts are paying much attention right now. You have to be a real wonk (or on the payroll) to get excited about an election that’s 18 months off.

  4. Let me say, I am terribly flattered to be lumped in with you and “the rest of the lady libs.” What an honor, I hope no one else is offended!

    I am equally flattered that Dan Turnbow assumes I am young enough to know (or care) who Zac Efron is.

    I’m basically a Green Hills housewife who has just scraped dog vomit off the rug. My concerns are a little more “bread and butter” than whether a candidate’s genitalia matches my own. If all women cared about was voting for another woman, the 2008 election would have been between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

    Dan Turnbow and even Jeff Woods do women a disservice by assuming that’s all women care about. Of course we want to see greater diversity in the government ranks, who doesn’t, but don’t automatically assume a woman candidate will get the women’s vote, okay? You’re assuming we think that a woman candidate will care about women’s issues, but we women know better than that. We’ve just been through a presidential election in which Sarah Palin was thrown at us as the token vajayjay. Cripes, I’m old enough to remember Anita Bryant and Phyllis Schafly. So thank for caring, Jeff, and no offense intended, but I don’t need you or anyone else telling me who I *should* support for governor.

    And for what it’s worth, it might very well be Kim McMillan. I don’t know yet. I’m not supporting ANYONE for governor right now. For crying out loud we just finished a freaking presidential election, can we not have a moment’s breather between campaigns? Please? The governor’s race is too far away for me to worry about right now.

  5. The problem is that our election cycle is so long that if a candidate doesn’t raise awareness now (and is consequently nowhere in name recognition polling and consequently can’t raise money), s/he won’t have a chance to do so closer to the election. I actually interpreted that original post at Pith as Woods saying, “gee, I think McMillan is an interesting candidate; I wonder whether I can drum up some support for her among the lefter women political bloggers and get her name out there.” Which shows that he doesn’t know much about how to get the blogosphere ball rolling all that well. But I’m having trouble thinking that he’s stupid enough actually to think that feminism means B or Beale supporting candidates just ’cause they’re women, which is what I’d have to believe otherwise.

  6. I think he presumes that feminist women reflexively believe that more women in office is a good thing (usually true) but then goes a step farther to assume that being a woman outweighs any other attribute or policy position that influences feminists when they vote (usually not true).

    Isn’t it on McMillan to reach out to new media if she wants their support? If she’s making the bbq and pancake supper circuit, it would be fairly easy for her scheduler to book a media meet with Democratic bloggers. (And by the way, congratulations to Jennifer Buck Wallace, who I hear is going to be doing new media strategy for TNDP…)

  7. nm, that’s what I want to think too. But, I do think there’s a problem insofar as he doesn’t seem to know why it is hard to be sure he’s saying this and not just making a crude claim about women supporting women. He chose to not mention any of McMillan’s Democratic credibility or leadership skills and achievements, only to connect her gender with others of the same. He wrote in a more accusatory than solicitous or curious and inviting tone. While I can see that there is some degree of people talking past each other, I believe that if I were one he named, I wouldn’t have been able to be so generous with him as I am from a distance. And I think that he’s rather defensive instead of responsive to the “liberal ladies” expressing their expectations that he be a little less crude.

  8. If I may, as someone who does follow every little political beat just because I like to, and, at this point, does support Kim McMillan for governor, offer a point.

    While it’s unfortunate Woods has labeled a handful of bloggers and simple-mindedly assumes you should support her because she’s a woman, it pisses me off because he’s demeaned her as “the female candidate” because she is a woman, rather than the hard working public servant she’s been over the last two decades. With the likes of folks like Naifeh, Ramsey, Mumpower, Gary Odom, John Ford, the Waltz folks, she’s been a pretty reputatble leader, not because she’s a woman, but because she’s worked hard, been fair, and stayed comparatively ethical.

    You certainly shouldn’t support her simply because she’s a woman, but I’d hope some folks, women or men, would call folks out for demeaning her by categorizing her as “the female candidate” rather than “a candidate who is a female.”

    There is a part of Woods’ post that is unfair to Kim McMillan, too. I guess I just hope that point doesn’t get too lost in the comments directed at female bloggers, which was unfortunate as well.

  9. I agree. The whole situation is fucked. And if Woods had said something like “I wonder why more women aren’t supporting McMillan, when she seems to be the best candidate on women’s issues,” I would have said, “Hmm, yeah, that is weird. I wonder why she’s not gaining any traction. Is it because folks are burnt out?”

    I mean, that’s my guess as to the answer to that question. The next election seems like a million years away and, I’ll admit, after all this nonsense, I hear “Tennessee Democrat” and I have to struggle to pay attention because my brain shuts off for its own protection.

    But yeah you’re absolutely right. McMillan isn’t running as the female candidate and she shouldn’t be treated as if that’s her defining feature..

  10. I commented about this over at Sean’s place, but I’ll just say here that you arrived a long time ago, B. You’re just now figuring this out?

  11. Okay, I just actually went over there and read what Woods was hawking.

    WHISKEY

    TANGO

    FOXTROT

    Good God. It’s as if he thinks white hetero males are the only voters who vote issues; apparently everyone else just votes identity. I love how he concludes with “I don’t get today’s chick.” Jesus.

    More like he doesn’t get yesteryear’s broad, or last century’s dame.

  12. I’ll admit, this is the one part where I wonder if I just have blinders on or something. Because we have a lot of female politicians, and a lot of Republican female politicians. So, while I have no problem believing that there are folks in this state who, when faced with McMillan’s name on the ballot, can’t bring themselves to vote for her because she’s a woman (I believe she might have a tough row to how against individual bigots.), it would never in a million years have occurred to me that folks would think of her as The Woman Candidate and wonder if The Woman Candidate can win because she’s a woman.

    I mean, we have women politicians. Haven’t we cleared the hurdle of “shock that a woman would dare even try for the job”?

    That’s what bugs the shit out of me.

    Oh, autoegocrat, that’s very sweet of you. But you know, there’s “becoming well known across the state” and there’s “people use your name in an insulting fashion as if everyone just knows what a screaming nutjob you are.”

    I knew I was well-known. I had no idea I had reached the point where people want to speak dismissively of me.

    That’s kind of cool.

  13. Can’t remember where, but recently, I did read Tennessee is 49th when it comes to electing female politicians.

  14. And for every Sherry Jones, there’s a Marsha Blackburn and a Mae Beavers and a Beth Harwell.

  15. Good grief, who knows anything about gubernatorial candidates at this point? It’s early, we’re sussing them out. Tell me something I need to know about them; that’s helpful! Tell me I should be supporting this person or that because we share some characteristic? Not so much.

Comments are closed.