Intrepid Girl Reporter

Wednesday, 10/29: stop reading Jezebel if you have such a problem
October 29, 2008, 9:08 pm
Filed under: blogz

I still read Jezebel because of the non-political stuff. It has news I can use. If you will.

That having been said, here are my major issues with the blog:

  1. Thinks it is much funnier than it is.
  2. The “Good/Bad/Ugly” feature is far better done by GoFugYourself. Also, half the shit they pass off as “good” would NOT meet the criteria of GFY, and for good reason: it is fugly. (Note to Oregon: I owe you forever for this blog.)
  3. BLATANTLY HYPOCRITICAL and, often, mean-spirited as well. Case in point: this story about young McCain supporters. Given the number of pro-sexual freedom stories that run on this blog, it’s astounding to see that they would mention a stereotype that counters this attitude so blatantly, and in such a nasty, back-handed way. Obviously, women dumb enough to be conservative don’t deserve the respect that their more enlightened liberal counterparts demand. Right? I have so many problems with this I almost don’t know where to start. And what I found even more disturbing was the following comment, left in response to the article:

Young Republican women scare me. Because I’m already tired of fighting, and it looks like it’s never going to end.

It is, in fact, too bad that we don’t all adhere to the right ideology. If only there were some way we could purge dissent…OH WAIT already been tried. Scratch that.

To be fair, there are almost 200 comments on that post alone, a number of which express much the same idea I do (i.e. people are allowed to disagree, that was not appropriate). I do acknowledge that their editors, as harpy* as they can be, are willing to allow a bit of debate. I just don’t want to hear anymore about how they can’t deal with people who are intolerant.

*I wish there were an equivalent male word. I’m trying to think of male mythological figures…DAMNIT PATRIARCHICAL MYTHOLOGY TELLERS.


6 Comments so far
Leave a comment

The bit about the bus into Boston is unnecessary and mean-spirited but I do think the NYT article was deserving of snark. Just snark that was more on topic.

Those women didn’t have anything particularly smart to say. “I identify with her because she has a career and a family” is not a very enlightened political viewpoint. How about “her well thought-out arguments about x, y, and z political issues have convinced me that she’s the perfect candidate” or “her experience is really impressive, particularly the way she handled events a, b, and c”?

How many women do you know who have careers and families? I hope these Wellesley students can name more than just Sarah Palin. (It even says in the article that the mother of one of these students is a professor, and thus she has obviously succeeded at having both these things.)

If having a career and a family is their only requirement for a woman politician, isn’t that in itself sexism?

Comment by Rachel

Of course. Given the brevity of the piece and the fact that, like most pieces re: supporters on both sides, it appears to have a specific “angle,” I don’t think it’s out of the question that they might have left out a bit of context; that having been said, the piece is fluffy and it’s also very possible that the material present is what the writers had to work with, in which case the supporters sound rather dumb. Nonetheless, the snipe about the “fuck truck” assumes that the women must be hypocrites because they must subscribe to the nuttier sexual mores espoused by the more extreme members of the Republican party. For all we know, they could be supporting McCain because they’re realists when it comes to foreign policy. And there’s no saying that simply because that bus exists, the girls in question have ridden it.

What I have a problem with is less the presence of snark in this particular article and more Jezebel’s general take-no-prisoners attitude regarding supporters of ideologies that differ from their own. They have run more than a few pieces asserting that smart women don’t always have to agree politically (I liked this one in particular:, but they tend to be a good deal cattier when dealing with conservative women – which I wouldn’t have a problem with if the same tone were applied to gaffes from all women.

I’m not saying that I agree with the supporters cited in the article, that I support Sarah Palin (I very much do not), etc., and I realize that it’s their website and they can write what they wish (and I’ll still keep reading it). But for a blog that frequently rails against what it terms “intolerance,” I’d like to see more tolerance levied towards women with whom they disagree. To observe stupid women is one thing; to assume women are stupid because they disagree on moral or philosophical terms is entirely another, and it weakens their overall rhetorical stance if they’re not willing to rigorously examine the viewpoints of their opponents without resorting to childish insults.

Comment by IGR

And by “realist” I mean in the academic sense, not in the pragmatic sense.

Comment by IGR

I commented on that piece just a few minutes ago, but I read it this morning, and I remember thinking “damn, that is some hypocritical bullshit right there.”

Comment by grayshifter


Comment by Marie

I was looking for something Greek.

Comment by IGR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: