Comics, journalists & preachers

Happily, big-time movie director John Rogers still finds time to do a bit of blogging, including yesterday's post clearing up the confusion on the Imus affair.

Rogers' main point has to do with the way comedy "steals power":

I think this is the key to understanding why the Rutgers incident suddenly brought the whole Imus parade to a halt. The guy's been a frikkin' cretin for years, and this was really not that different objectively -- you really have to listen to the whole thing, by the way, to get that this was a good solid chunk of time dumping on these young women, not just the magnificently constructed "nappy-headed hos" sound bite. McGuirk in particular is just hateful ... Anyway, why this comment and why now?

For all these years, Imus stayed, barely, on the right side of the power equation. Always gone after public figures, or his bosses ...

... but then he screwed up. He didn't steal power, he used it. Used it to say just shitty things about people who, in our minds, just didn't deserve it. He broke the power equation. And when he did, we balked, even if we don't quite understand why this one got under our skin. The wiring goes both ways. It's actually heartening, because it confirms one of the admirable things about American society at large:

America loves a rebel.

America loves a bad boy.

But America hates a fucking bully.

The gist of what he's saying echoes something I was taught both in seminary and in the newspaper biz, the shared motto of preachers and journalists: "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." That's what good preachers, and good journalists, do. It makes sense that comics, who sometimes preach and sometimes report the news, would follow this motto as well.

Imus "broke the power equation," Rogers says. He afflicted the afflicted, which made him a bully instead of a comic. That's not funny.

This happens a lot, not just with comics, but with journalists and preachers too. They get the motto backwards, they break the power equation. The journalists cozy up to the powerful, the preachers become bullying scolds. Both start to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. It's nothing new, Jesus described the same thing thousands of years ago, "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them."

The tricky thing -- whether you're a journalist, preacher or comic -- is that "the comfortable" and "the afflicted" are not immutable categories. Anyone, at some point, might be in either category. White House spokesman Tony Snow, for example, has had a lucrative career as a dishonest and thoroughly unprincipled apologist for power. That made him fair game for exposure, for jokes and jeremiads. But Snow now has cancer in his liver and the prognosis is not good. And jokes at the expense of a cancer victim just aren't funny. Kicking a man when he is down is the work of a bully.

This is, again, what I think Orwell was getting at in that essay on Charles Dickens I've taken to quoting a bit too often:

Where [Dickens] is Christian is in his quasi-instinctive siding with the oppressed against the oppressors. As a matter of course he is on the side of the underdog, always and everywhere. To carry this to its logical conclusion one has got to change sides when the underdog becomes an upperdog, and in fact Dickens does tend to do so.

Which underscores Rogers' point, that context matters. The transgressive humor of the underdog is funny. The transgressive "humor" of the upperdog is merely bullying. And that's not funny. (It's not even really transgressive, since the upperdogs make and enforce the rules.)

The dynamic at work here is, of course, justice. Comedy doesn't so much "steal" power as reclaim it. Undermining injustice is funny. Enforcing it is not. This is as true for preachers and journalists as it is for comics.

Comments

[cjmr's husband]

See also anything containing the phrases "Rush Limbaugh" and "just a joke!".

[Jay Lake]

Thank you for that.

[John]

Actually, I'd prefer if some journalists reported facts rather than acting as advocates for the underdog. There is nothing wrong and plenty right with advocating for the underdog, but let's have a clear distinction between chips-fall-where-they-may reporting and advocacy reporting.

[quinn]

Thank you for this! I've been thinking the same thing about unequal power but couldn't really articulate it.

[sanhose]

Let me say also, thank you, for stating clearly (well, stating John Roger's point clearly) and pointing out the difference between making jokes at white people's expense and white people making jokes at brown people's expense. The power gradient is obvious to all parties to the practice, but it isn't symmetrical (or maybe reciprocal), and for exactly the reasons you describe.

[ako]

There was a rather tedious TV news report that came out after the whole Imus thing, listing all the rap and hip-hip songs that contained the word "nappy" and getting a bunch of black high school kids to admit they've used the word in order to drag up the whole tedious, "Why are black people allowed to say that, but not white people?" whine. It was particularly sad, because they could have done something with the cultural prevalance of men calling women "hos" in hip-hip and rap, and the difference between using an offensive term to describe yourself (where you're the one choosing to do that, you get to control how it's used, and you have the whole song/comment/conversation/article to highlight what you're doing with the words, what parts you embrace, and what parts you reject) and using an offensive term to describe "your" woman. Or even looked at the context of how the musicians were using "nappy" and what they were doing with the word, as compared to what Imus said.

But no, they had to go back to explaining, once again, that someone "isn't allowed" to use an offensive term for a group they're not part of (because individuals judging someone on their words and using public speech and economic pressure to deny that person financial support or express dissaproval is totally the same thing as censorship, y'all), and using context-free word count to act like race-based insults worked on the same "magic words" basis as swearing.

Is there any connection between fear of swearing, the "magic words" approach to Christianity esposed by some fundies, and the whole idea that offensive language is as simple as the good words or the bad words? Because they all seem to have the same idea that context and meaning are secondary to the physical act of speaking (or writing, or typing) a word. I'm wondering where the fear of words comes from? Because there's a lot of invoking of the dread "political correctness" on the right, particularly focused on the whole, "They make us use this word instead of that one!" idea, and remarkably little sign of anyone cramming these language preference down anyone else's throats. And most of the concerns about prejudiced language I've seen on the left tend to take context into account (like a gay-rights activists I saw on TV, pointing out the different implications to "I'm queer," "You're queer" and "You queer.") So it doesn't seem to be coming from that and. So any ideas about the origins of the fear of words?

[mcc]

1. Wouldn't the opposite of underdog be alphadog? Or is that too cutesy?

2. For the record, excuse my ignorance but who's John Rogers? Your link now goes to an article named "Asia's French accent", and IMDB turns up 30ish people named "John Rogers", the first one of which returned was the screenwriter for... "Catwoman" and "The Core".

[Axiomatic]

1. Nah, since the opposite of under is not alpha, it's over. So you have underdogs become omegadogs.

[Mabus]

So, basically, if Don Imus announces tomorrow that he has terminal brain cancer or is beaten within an inch of his life by angry female athletes, does that mean CBS has to rehire him or just give him a more generous severance package?

[Jesurgislac]

I read some response by Snoop Dog to Imus: SD claims that the difference is when he uses "ho" he is talking about actual hos, not good hard-working college girls, and anyway he is entitled to use whatever words he likes because he is a rap artist and it is art.

To which I say: BS. The distinction I'd make is that Snoop is a performance artist who isn't interviewing major politicians and making comments about current events: you don't like his style, you don't buy the CDs or tune into the station. I don't. He's a sexist bastard.

[Robin Lionheart]

This explains why Dennis Miller, once rather funny, has become so terribly unfunny.

[the opoponax]

i think the "Snoop Dogg can do it!" argument is a total strawman.

in this particular case, Snoop Dogg can't do it, either. now, you could make the example of Missy Elliot -- maybe she can do it. but even then, it depends on context and tone. Missy Elliot doing exactly what Don Imus did, calling out other women and insulting them for being "nappy headed hos" (hoes?) would be equally wrong. it's only if she means it in a positive light (see the children's book "Happy to be Nappy", for instance).

[cjmr's husband]

I've always wondered what farming tools have to do with this discussion.

[DCNataro]

I never listened to Imus. Friends of mine did. They have told me
that, in recent years, he has said very unpleasant things about Bush and Cheyney on a regular basis. I am also aware that he supported Kerry in 2004. It may actually be that a little bit of "afflicting the comfortable" was behind his firing. This possibility may become more obvious if even more odious right-wing talking heads continue to keep their jobs.

I think they will.

[the opoponax]

it doesn't matter who Imus supported in the last election, and trashing Bush and Cheney is practically a requirement for comedians and the like at this point.

either way, What He Said Was Inappropriate.

being a garden variety kinda-sorta-maybe liberal-ish doesn't absolve people of things like this.

that said, my boss thinks CBS used the incident as an excuse to get out of his contract for other reasons (probably money -- these guys who hang around forever command bigger salaries as their novelty wears off and their listenership shrinks away).

[Marc]

The John Rogers in question is the very same as that one listed in the IMDB. If you look further down his blog, he owns up to scripting Catwoman. Apparently the screenplay was somewhat better received than the final product.

He also writes the new 'Blue Beetle' comic book.

[the opoponax]

the screenplay was incredibly well received -- i've seen it cited in doctoral dissertations!

[bulbul]

But America hates a fucking bully.

So what about Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly?

[85% Duane]

So what about Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly?

I think they probably hate bullies too.

[85% Duane]

This explains why Dennis Miller, once rather funny, has become so terribly unfunny.

I never found him amusing. He had that HBO special where he'd do a long rant and because he was too vain to wear his eyeglasses, he'd invariably stumble through it or otherwise make it look entirely teleprompted.

I think Dennis Miller's niche was to appear more culturally hip and sophisticated than everyone else. And now we know better, don't we?

[bulbul]

Alas, I must disagree with you, dear Duane. Dennis Miller has been my favorite stand-up act since I first heard one of his rants. True, he always was trying to appear, as you say, sophisticated, but unlike in his recent appearances, he was also funny back then. His rants are much funnier and much more intelligent than, say, George Carlin's "I'm getting ON the plain" bullshit. And even his show (1-800-LACTOSE) was clear evidence of his talent, too. Anyone remember when he had Norm MacDonald on? Priceless.
Then again, a lot of his success he owes to his writers.

[LL]

What a coinkydink (kind of), the WSJ today has a story about how difficult Imus will be to replace. It also gives the listenership (in millions) for the top radio personalities: Limbaugh, 13.5; Hannity, 12.5; Savage, 8.3; Schlessinger, 8; Ingraham, 5; Beck, Boortz and Mike Gallagher (who?), 3.8; William Bennett, Jerry Doyle, Dave Ramsey, Ed Schultz, Doug Stephan (again, I have no idea who any of these people are, except for Bennett), 3. Nearly 14 million listeners is kind of impressive (or depressing, depending on how you feel about Limbaugh; I think he's a money-grubbing hack), but that is out of an adult population of over 200 million people in the US. So he's influencing the 14 million people who have nothing better to do than listen to the rantings of a 3-times divorced drug addict, but probably not a lot of other people. I've never understood what's so entertaining about white guys (and women too, I guess) who rag on everyone else, I've never thought that was particularly enlightening. Most DJs are singularly unfunny, I find myself wishing they would just shut the hell up and play a song, which is why I don't listen to the radio anymore. Get an iPod and a radio transmitter to play it through your car speakers. It'll be the best $300 you ever spent and your daily commute will be a lot more pleasant.

The article never did mention Imus's listenership (I assume it was in the millions) but it did mention Tom Joyner's syndicated show, which gets 8 million listeners a week in 120 markets. Maybe instead of courting another obnoxious asshole like Imus, CBS Radio should get another Tom Joyner.

[85% Duane]

Anyone remember when he had Norm MacDonald on? Priceless.

Would that be the same Norm MacDonald who was cut from SNL because - according to Lorne Michaels - he wasn't funny?

[Jon H]

Jesurg. writes: "To which I say: BS. The distinction I'd make is that Snoop is a performance artist who isn't interviewing major politicians and making comments about current events: you don't like his style, you don't buy the CDs or tune into the station. I don't. He's a sexist bastard."

Oh I don't know. I think he's right on the first part of what he said. I think we can all agree that there are women in this world who are ho's, or approximate ho-like behavior. Men, too - for example, the useless money-grubbing hangers-on in a rapper's 'entourage'. And it doesn't strain credibility to think that successful rappers get a certain number of female hangers-on of negotiable affection.

I don't think anyone would have complained had Imus called Anna Nicole Smith a bottle-blond, silicone-enhanced ho, given that she married a thousand year old billionaire and inherited a fortune. He certainly could have gotten away with referring to Divine Brown as a ho, given that she was the hooker Hugh Grant was caught with. He could have gotten away with calling Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and Britney Spears ho's. At a stretch, he probably could also have gotten away with calling Naomi Cambell a ho; she rich, she's famous, she's been convicted of (iirc) assault, and there have been rumors at least, of at least one date-for-pay with some rich Russian, but that could be apocryphal.

But he called a women's basketball team ho's, when there was really no cause for that whatsoever. They were just doing their thing, and doing it well. I think that's what caused the problem.

Honestly, though, I think the main reason he called them ho's is because they're from Jersey, and the other team wasn't.

[ako]

I think we can all agree that there are women in this world who are ho's, or approximate ho-like behavior.

It's not really about that, though. It's men deciding which women should be labeled hos in a society where it's widely accepted that men are allowed to decide which women are hos.

In fact the whole 'if they were really hos it would be okay' argument is disturbingly reminiscint of the white people who claim "I don't hate black people, I hate niggers," and reserve for themselves the right to define which black people are niggers and which aren't. It's still pulling social rank to define those people by a nasty insult. Declaring that on your sufferance, some of them get to be considered proper people, provided they conform to your idea of how 'decent' women/black people/etc should act isn't exactly showing basic human respect.

And how come your examples of male hos were all non-sexual? Why, for instance, is Britney Spears on your list of hos, and not Kevin Federline? How come for men it's buying friendship, loyalty, company, or (metaphorical) ass-kissing, while for women it's All About Sex?

[Mnemosyne]

that said, my boss thinks CBS used the incident as an excuse to get out of his contract for other reasons (probably money -- these guys who hang around forever command bigger salaries as their novelty wears off and their listenership shrinks away).

My husband is convinced of the same thing. Considering how long Imus has been prominent in radio, I don't think it's a crazy theory.

[Jon H]

"Why, for instance, is Britney Spears on your list of hos, and not Kevin Federline? How come for men it's buying friendship, loyalty, company, or (metaphorical) ass-kissing, while for women it's All About Sex?"

Because that portion of my comment was talking about people *Imus* would be likely to call a ho. I agree that Federline is a ho, but I don't think that would be the first word Imus would think of.

[Jon H]

" It's men deciding which women should be labeled hos in a society where it's widely accepted that men are allowed to decide which women are hos."

Also, there are plenty of women who would be called ho's by other women, as well as by men.

[the opoponax]

yes, but it's men who ultimately get to make those distinctions. in that situation, the women are just parroting a party line they've heard from men. the context might be a little different, but again, let's remember something that should be a primary axiom of feminism: Men are not universally evil; Women are not universally good. in other words, just because "women do it, too" doesn't mean it's OK.

[Bugmaster]

let's remember something that should be a primary axiom of feminism: Men are not universally evil; Women are not universally good.

Well, I would've put it as something like, "humans of all genders are equally evil". The way you put it, it sounds like most men are evil, most women are good, though there are exceptions; such a position will probably not win too many moderates over to your cause. But then again, as the prime agent of The Patriarchy, it is my duty to hide the inconvenient truth about male malevolence, so you probably shouldn't listen to me. Mwa ha ha ha !

Bugmaster: The way you put it, it sounds like most men are evil, most women are good, though there are exceptions; such a position will probably not win too many moderates over to your cause.

It's one of the things no man quite believes: how much women will run men down when men aren't there. When women spend so much time building up male egos when men are there, it must be tough to make yourself believe that most of that admiration is, in fact, completely faked.

[Jesurgislac]

Oops, forgot to log in.

Seriously, though - whether a woman identifies as a feminist or not, in the absence of men, women will run down men. In fact, feminists tend to be less likely to say that men are all scum...

[Francis]

Seriously, though - whether a woman identifies as a feminist or not, in the absence of men, women will run down men. In fact, feminists tend to be less likely to say that men are all scum...

One of the reasons I like that most of my female friends are feminists (despite my having major differences with feminism in places*) is that they appear to be significantly more honest and open than average.

* In fact, my major difference with feminism boils down to one root issue - that it apparently can't decide whether it's an egalitarian movement (which I support) or The Women's Lobby (which I see as a regrettable necessity (like most special interest groups) but don't want to lend much support to except on a rare case by case basis) and that it appears to be trying to have its cake and eat it on this issue.

[Jesurgislac]

Francis: In fact, my major difference with feminism boils down to one root issue - that it apparently can't decide whether it's an egalitarian movement (which I support) or The Women's Lobby (which I see as a regrettable necessity (like most special interest groups) but don't want to lend much support to except on a rare case by case basis) and that it appears to be trying to have its cake and eat it on this issue.

This is a fairly typical response from men, I've noticed in the past - all for equality of the genders in theory, but in practice, where equality will self-evidently benefit women rather than men, they promptly drop their support: egalitarianism is all very well, but not when it disprivileges you....

[Jesurgislac]

(And of course, men are far from being the only privileged group who object to having their privileges removed in practice while happy to be egalitarian in theory: it is a fairly standard human response to loss of privilege.)

[the opoponax]

that it apparently can't decide whether it's an egalitarian movement (which I support) or The Women's Lobby (which I see as a regrettable necessity (like most special interest groups)

Oh, Francis. Why you gotta go be all like that?

1. "Feminism" is not one cohesive group, like the ACLU or Black Panthers, with a president and a mission statement and a list of priorities. there are a great many people, working for a great many things, all with different ideas and goals.

2. There is no real polarity between "equality" and "special interest". there are multiple approaches to feminism and what it means, sure. but anyone who thinks that it's just about "equality" is kidding themselves, not least because it's not really feasible for men and women (or anyone, really) to be "equal". only the stupidest feminists who know nothing about what it actually means to be a feminist thinks that feminism is about equality between women and men, in strict terms. equal status, maybe. but even using the word "equal" is really problematic, because we're not trying to reduce everyone to numbers on a paper or something.

3. The "special interest" thing is kind of bogus as well, because the point isn't to get special priveleges for being women, but to STOP BEING OPPRESSED BY MEN. we are digging ourselves out of a hole, not building ourselves a tower.

[Jesurgislac]

the opo: not least because it's not really feasible for men and women (or anyone, really) to be "equal"

Actually, we don't know that. We won't know that, for sure, until we finally finish overthrowing the patriarchy - at which point ;-) people will likely have lost interest in asking the question.

What we can say is that newborn human infants are handled differently, spoken to differently, and fed differently, depending what gender they are. This different treatment is obsessive, marked, and begins right after birth.

If you take two lab rats who are genetically identical and bred to have similiar behaviors and reactions, and treat them from infancy as differently as a human parent will treat a boy baby and a girl baby, the two rats will grow up so different an inexperienced observer will easily be able to tell them apart.

We have no idea if men and women can be equal. All we know for sure is that until we change as a culture, we don't know.

[the opoponax]

oh, i'm totally with you on that.

you said exactly what i feel, but far better than i ever have been able to articulate it, before.

[hapax]

opo: "we are digging ourselves out of a hole, not building ourselves a tower."

Is that yours? I love that line. I am so totally stealing that line.

[the opoponax]

yup, it's one o' mine...

*blush*

[Jesurgislac]

the opo: you said exactly what i feel, but far better than i ever have been able to articulate it, before.

Um, well, I have said it before... ;-)

Hapax: Is that yours? I love that line. I am so totally stealing that line.

Me too! *steals*

[Francis]

This is a fairly typical response from men, I've noticed in the past - all for equality of the genders in theory, but in practice, where equality will self-evidently benefit women rather than men, they promptly drop their support: egalitarianism is all very well, but not when it disprivileges you....

And the award for the straw-man argument goes to Jesurgislac. As does a textbook example of being the Women's Lobby. There are many things I support (higher and more progressive taxes and certain (although by no means all) forms of positive discrimination) that actively penalise me personally.

1. "Feminism" is not one cohesive group, like the ACLU or Black Panthers, with a president and a mission statement and a list of priorities. there are a great many people, working for a great many things, all with different ideas and goals.

I know that. Then I get told by people that Feminism Is [foo]. And also that I should actively support feminism because it works for everyone. And that when I don't declare myself a feminist, I'm actively working against [women|equality|fairness] despite no account being paid to this confusion.

2. There is no real polarity between "equality" and "special interest". there are multiple approaches to feminism and what it means, sure. but anyone who thinks that it's just about "equality" is kidding themselves, not least because it's not really feasible for men and women (or anyone, really) to be "equal". only the stupidest feminists who know nothing about what it actually means to be a feminist thinks that feminism is about equality between women and men, in strict terms. equal status, maybe. but even using the word "equal" is really problematic, because we're not trying to reduce everyone to numbers on a paper or something.

Here I'd agree with you - but I wish I could say it was only the stupidest in my experience. (Most naive and fundamentalist, I will concede - and also most battered).

3. The "special interest" thing is kind of bogus as well, because the point isn't to get special priveleges for being women, but to STOP BEING OPPRESSED BY MEN.

Ah, so you're one of the type that restricts feminism to a men/women battle. Fairy 'nuff. Which means I am in exactly the place I want to be with respect to your variety - pitching in to help when I consider the specific target a good one (provision of EHC being a recent practical example), wondering whether I need to oppose when ideas go too far (removal of presumption of innocence for rape cases being one I've heard - you can remove the presumption of innocence for anything over my dead body) but normally not bothering as it comes from the lunatic fringe and generally thinking that you are allies of mine simply because you are on the side that is weaker (and that the difference between you and masculists is as much historical accident as anything - I know of few large scale groups that don't have significant numbers claiming that they are being oppressed).

What we can say is that newborn human infants are handled differently, spoken to differently, and fed differently, depending what gender they are. This different treatment is obsessive, marked, and begins right after birth.

What we can also say is that there are definite physiologcal differences with attendent psychological differences between the genders that can lead to disaster when you try (with the best will in the world) to raise someone as the wrong gender. (Fortunately my experience of this is only second hand). And therefore it follows that trying to raise individuals of both genders equally (in so far as such a thing as possible) is itself dangerous and bad for large subsets of the population.

We have no idea if men and women can be equal. All we know for sure is that until we change as a culture, we don't know.

It depends what you mean by equal. The answer to most definitions is "No. There are innate physiological and psychological differences which can only be eliminated by methods akin to Harrison Bergeron and I really hope that's not what you are aiming for." That is not to say that the situation can't be drastically improved - and has been and I hope it will continue to be so.

opo: "we are digging ourselves out of a hole, not building ourselves a tower."

Is that yours? I love that line. I am so totally stealing that line.

I'm afraid that my problem with it is that my immediate reaction to "digging ourselves out of a hole" is the advice given to someone at the bottom of a hole. It's a pity as it's a nice metaphor.

[Jesurgislac]

Francis: And also that I should actively support feminism because it works for everyone. And that when I don't declare myself a feminist, I'm actively working against [women|equality|fairness] despite no account being paid to this confusion.

No confusion. Living under a patriarchy damages men as well as women. That's how feminism works for everyone. Just as abolishing slavery in the US was ultimately good for white people, too, since it's damaging to be a slave owner - but this didn't change the fact that being for abolition was actively working towards equality and fairness for black people, both slave and free.

wondering whether I need to oppose when ideas go too far (removal of presumption of innocence for rape cases being one I've heard - you can remove the presumption of innocence for anything over my dead body)

Removal of presumption that when a man says a woman consented and a woman says she didn't, the man is telling the truth and the woman is lying, then...

What we can also say is that there are definite physiologcal differences with attendent psychological differences between the genders

Actually, we can't. The physiological differences are trivial (well, certainly before puberty), and the physical differences are mostly on a sliding scale with a couple of obvious exceptions (men can't ovulate or get pregnant): but the psychological differences due to how girl and boy babies are treated are enormous.

that can lead to disaster when you try (with the best will in the world) to raise someone as the wrong gender.

Only because we currently raise children in different ways depending on perceived gender. No one knows what would happen if we raised children the same regardless of gender.

Repeat: We really don't know what the "innate psychological differences" are between women and men. Anyone who claims to know is ignorant of the basic meaning of "innate".

(And, btw, Francis: save claiming "straw man" for when straw men are in use, not when I point out that you have just straightforwardly argued that you're all for egalitarianism until it means losing male privilege...)

[Bugmaster]

Um, you can't raise children the same, regardless of gender. They're biologically different. Approximately half of your children is able to bear more children, while the other half is not. This means that this other half will never be able to share some pretty major experiences with the first half. This means that, yes, they will be different psychologically as well as biologically, no matter how hard you try... well, with enough genetic engineering, I suppose anything is possible. *shrug*

Anyways, the problem I see with ultra-radical anything-ism, including feminism, is that they assume that a). they can never be wrong, and b). if you oppose them on some issue, then you obviously are an evil oppressor out to subjugate them, die die die. There is no room for shades of gray: either you're with them on every issue, or you're the archenemy. This is true of any radical group, Christian fundamentalists and feminists and Mac evangelists included.

[cjmr's husband]

Approximately half of your children is able to bear more children, while the other half is not.

For the first few years, this really doesn't come into account.

Or you would think, until your daughter starts putting her toy cars in the high chair to feed them....

/been there, done that.

[the opoponax]

"you can't raise children the same, regardless of gender. They're biologically different. Approximately half of your children is able to bear more children, while the other half is not. This means that this other half will never be able to share some pretty major experiences with the first half."

since when are children able to have children?

what i mean is, since the children won't be reproducing and having the different experiences about their reproductive functions while you are raising them, that has nothing to do with adults' differential treatment. there are a HELL of a lot more differences between raising a girl and a boy in our culture than just how you deal with puberty.

[Jesurgislac]

Bugmaster: Approximately half of your children is able to bear more children, while the other half is not. This means that this other half will never be able to share some pretty major experiences with the first half.

Do you know many children under the age of 10 who have themselves borne children?

That's about the most ridiculous argument for "you can't raise children the same" - I won't say I haven't heard it before, often from people who honestly appear to have no notion what they seem to be saying...

But the idea that the reason for handling boy babies more roughly than girl babies, or feeding girls and boys differently, or speaking to them differently, is because when they grow up "half of your children is able to bear more children, while the other half is not. This means that this other half will never be able to share some pretty major experiences with the first half. This means that, yes, they will be different psychologically as well as biologically, no matter how hard you try" - good god, Bugmaster, try to think before you utter silliness!

Anyways, the problem I see with ultra-radical anything-ism, including feminism, is that they assume that a). they can never be wrong, and b). if you oppose them on some issue, then you obviously are an evil oppressor out to subjugate them, die die die. There is no room for shades of gray: either you're with them on every issue, or you're the archenemy.

Ah well, Bugmaster, this statement makes you a member of a radical group, by your own definition... ;-)

[Jesurgislac]

cjmr's husband, by the time your daughter was old enough to put toys in the high chair and try to feed them, she'd already received a lifetime's worth of conditioning that told her you're a girl, it's what you do...

[the opoponax]

this is an issue that freaks me out.

a good friend of mine and his wife have a 4 year old boy and a girl who's almost 2. they are CONSTANTLY posting in their blog about how sweet it is that their daughter is so girly and dainty. they seem to derive great pleasure from the fact that she is "naturally" like this. when i look at photos and visit their home and she's already got a room full of girl toys, even down to the play kitchen and the toy cleaning supplies (who do you think bought them?), they dress her in pink and ruffles 24/7, high chair done up in glittery pink floral stickers, describe her as their "little princess", etc. etc.

well DUH. how is this "natural", again?

note: i don't necessarily fault them for raising their daughter this way if they so choose (she's free to rebel come high school; god knows i was a prissy little girl myself). i just think it's weird and mildly annoying that they are so blind to the fact that she's not naturally "blossoming" into a girlie girl, they're raising her to be one.

[hapax]

We-e-lll... I dunno about all of that. Two year olds have a lot more definite tastes and preferences of their own than you'd think.

We made every effort to raise our son and daughter the same (same types of toys, chores, clothes, nicknames, expectations). Of course I can't speak to what unconscious cues we sent, nor to the rest of the family or daycare or society as a whole.

My son is a gentle, loving, pacifistic, nurturing boy, interested in cooking, sewing, gardening, reading. He is also passionate about explosions, martial arts, monster movies, and machinery; cares more about problem solving than relationships, prefers spatial problems to word puzzles, more visually oriented than verbal, emotionally self-contained.

My daughter is an aggressive, confident, competitive girl, interested in astrophysics, politics, and swords. She is also devoted to stuffed animals, squees at cute shoes and pretty dresses, is acutely body conscious, horrified by conflict, squicked out by violence and dirt, intensely verbal, and an emotional nova.

Individual human beings are individual human beings. Nobody can be expected to represent a "class". But stereotypes aren't pulled out of a vacuum -- or the wishful fantasies of oppressors -- either.