Skip to main content

View Diary: Midday open thread (153 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you (11+ / 0-)

    My first thought when I read it and scrolled down to see if it hit anyone else that way. I was going to post about it anyway, but I'm glad to see others reacted like I did.

    "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

    by high uintas on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 12:55:24 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Doesn't matter--Kardashian is worse than (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, lunachickie

      a 'ho. She's a gold-diggin' slut. Females like her ilk embarrass the rest of us.

      Some people make u want to change species! --ulookarmless, quoted w/his permission: RIP good man.

      by orlbucfan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 01:07:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  She is what she is. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        txvoodoo, PSzymeczek, shanikka

        I don't know if you can call her a gold digger as she had more money in her potential warchest then Chris did.

        Besides, what's to say he wasn't into cuckoldry?

        Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

        by Chris Reeves on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 01:39:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He's Counterclaimed for Annulment (0+ / 0-)

          On the grounds of fraud in the inducement, so that's a good indication of Chris' disapproval of his wife's behavior IMO (in other words, he didn't sign up for polyamory and does not appear to have acquiesced to being cuckolded.)

          But next thing you know, folks will be saying that we have no right to believe he's right to be disapproving about his wife's behavior in this situation because that, too, would be "judging her because of her sexuality".


      •  I have only heard her name (9+ / 0-)

        seen a pic or two. I know nothing of her, nor do I care. But, calling women 'hos or sluts is a step too far for me.

        She may be a truly awful person, but why use her sex life to define her? I had hoped we had grown beyond shaming a woman with her sexuality by now.

        "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

        by high uintas on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 02:25:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  her "sex life" defines her (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          because she uses her sex life to define herself.  What is there about her "public persona" that is of any interest to anyone apart from the obvious fact that she can't keep her pants on?

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 05:01:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry (4+ / 0-)

      Call it cultural/racial difference, but on this person, I stand by my choice of label.

      A label which, by the way, I have applied equally to men who behave in similar fashion.

      •  The problem is (13+ / 0-)

        It isn't applied fairly toward men.  In fact, this status almost never applies to men.

        So, while we want to say that it's fitting because of the actions and we judge all equally, society doesn't.

        Society places a much higher bounty on women for their sex lives then we do men.  Maybe we don't, but society as a whole does.

        So, when on the front page of Kos we spend time dressing down a woman by using terms like "ho", it tends to demean what I feel this site stands for.

        Nothing Kim Kardashian has done at any point was illegal.   While I don't care for her as a person, I can't point to anything that she has done that I consider societally harmful.

        I understand how you feel.  It's fine.  We may never agree.  I just really disagree with this kind of use of terms in regards to women.

        Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

        by Chris Reeves on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 02:46:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As I Said (6+ / 0-)

          Different communities/different cultures. In mine, it IS applied to men. Not "rarely." All the time.  

          So we can agree to disagree.  

          BTW this has nothing to do with the "front page of Kos" or an editorial policy against taking shots at folks whose behavior is out of control, even sexual control. Nor did I dress Ms. Kardashian down as it relates to sex. I took a well-deserved (IMO) shot at her because of the fact that she tried to play the courts claiming an emergency when in fact her only emergency was that she got knocked up while creepin on her husband and doesn't want to be married to her husband when that baby comes.  It's all good if you don't think people like that should be "dressed down."  We can agree to disagree about that too, but certainly dressing downs about people's sexual proclivities happens ALL the time on Daily Kos. As you certainly know - unless you happened not to be here for everything from the Anthony Weiner shlong twitter scandal to any discussion about Larry Craig not to mention the eternal discussions about Newt Gingrich's and Rush Limbaugh's skankiness as it relates to their previous wives.

          •  We can agree to disagree (5+ / 0-)

            Like I said, it's just the way I view this forum.  I disagree that you did, in fact, address her in terms of sex (thus the term 'ho') which has never been used in reference to any male in my memory of nearly 9 years here.. not Rush, not Newt, not anyone..  we addressed them as hypocrites and scumbags, but we always pointed to their hypocrisy as the sin, not their sexual being.

            It's just why I dislike seeing any woman ever responded to as 'ho'.   It demeans based on sexual identity only.

            We can agree to disagree, it's just my personal take of the word, and I thank you for being willing to address this in your comments

            Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

            by Chris Reeves on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 03:40:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  So if it is okay in my culture to use the word (3+ / 0-)

            'ho, then it should be okay for me to use the word however I like when addressing an audience that may be from a different cultural background? I didn't know that. I was raised that when we meet people from a different cultural background, we should do our best not to give insult.

            How about those cultures that use the words:

            Aunt Jemima

            Those are racial slurs that I was taught not to use, even though my father didn't always follow those rules. I saw that the use of those words hurt feelings, at best, and degraded people, at worst. I'm sure the people using the words often thought they were warranted just like you can justify the use of 'ho in the paragraph above. It took a long time for white culture in the US to realize they weren't appropriate. Some white people still haven't learned that lesson.

            Is it possible that a term like 'ho is meant to degrade Kim Kardashian? To make her appear less than womanly, perhaps? Or only as a good as a slut? Your culture may use the term for both men and women alike, it doesn't make it any less sexist. American culture overall has a long way to come before we stop using sexist slurs like that one and these:


            I hope you change your mind about the use of the word altogether. Culture only changes when individuals make the attempt. Please help make this better and don't refer to either men or women as 'hos. And let's not call them any of these other words either. The sex lives of individuals are their business until they try to monitor the sex lives of others - then we have the freedom to call them hypocrites but that's about as far as it goes.

            •  A Fundamental Difference (3+ / 0-)

              Which I hope you will hear out in good faith. I'm going to try to summarize it but really I am probably going to have to articulate it in a full diary.  

              Here's how I feel: your analogy is inapt. There is no valid purpose other than hatred of the humanity of the people named for the use of any of the racial or ethnic names you outlined in your first list.  All of them were coined as phrases to attack immutable identity on racial and ethnic grounds of those affirmatively believed to be inferior to the speaker.

              Pussy, bitch and cunt, IMO fall into a grey area. Certainly, used in anger as a label for identity (i.e. calling someone a bitch, a pussy, or a cunt) they are equally inexcuseable--because the words used as identity labels have never meant to be anything other than hateful and demeaning on gendered grounds. However, each of these words have also been used in contexts which are neutral, such as pillowtalk between sexual partners (in the case of pussy and cunt, when they are used as euphamisms for the vagina--and they are used by men and women alike) or in urban hip hop culture (i.e. use of the word "bitches" in urban hip hop culture as an endearment between friends, same as "niggaz"--which is critical to note is NEVER spelled "nigger"; that's not an accident.)

              In contrast, words that put a value judgment on perceived or real behavior (over which people have control, as opposed to their immutable identity) such as hootchie, whore, floozie, skeezer, and broad, may, or may not, be hateful. They are judgmental, yes, but they are not inherently in and of themselves capable of no meaning other than to collectively oppress women solely because of their gender. They are all words used to describe someone (1/2 of them, a woman OR man) who sells sex for money, or is an venal and unscrupulous person, or someone who debases themselves for impure motives, usually related to money. Those definitions are cultural value judgments about behavior, not judgments about the person's permanent, immutable identity.

              They are definitely judgmental words, I concede that. And judgmental as it relates to sexual choices, I concede that too.

              But moral judgment is not inherently bad and, as long as people's moral judgments are not backed up by laws attempting to write a single moral code into law that everyone has to live with, none of them are going to kill anyone whether because (a) the person being judged doesn't share the same moral code and therefore doesn't care what the other person thinks or (b) even if they do care what the other person thinks, if how they are perceived means all that much to them the behavior itself is easily changed.

              I think on the Left too often we have folks whose libertarian leanings demand that everyone set their culture's moral beliefs about things like sex at the door just because of larger political objectives. And who demand orthodoxy when it comes to a liberal approach to individuals observing and judging other people's behavior.  Unfortunately, IMO, that is one of the key reasons that folks refuse to call themselves liberal in America even though most agree with much of liberal policy in other contexts.  Not everyone is a libertarian. Nor do they want to be, especially since too often that type of 'I should be able to do what I want when I want and nobody has a right to judge" thinking is antithetical to the communal nature of most of the world's cultures, in which people do believe that it is Ok to make judgments about the behavior the group feels is not in the best collective interests of the group.

              And it is my opinion that much of the new hue and cry over the use of words like 'ho is related to a desire to have women escape moral judgment not just over things they don't deserve to be judged about, like rape (for which women should face NO moral judgment) but also over voluntary sexual choices just because men usually get away with murder when it comes to sexuality in our patriarchal society.  They want to be seen and treated equally when it comes to their voluntary sexuality.
              Obviously, I am all for that, to the extent possible biologically possible (since, like it or not, only women get pregnant and thus biology has dealt us a different hand than men even if we can't get pregnant without their participation.)

              What I am not for, however, is pretending that everyone should agree not on equality, but on the idea that nobody has a right to make moral judgments about anyone just because right now too many only judge women. In other words, having lost the larger battle, i.e. that society has no right to punish women for their sexual behavior if it doesn't hold men to the same standards, instead we've shifted to a fight about rhetoric. We are thus reduced to the argument that people don't have a right to individually judge folks who flout the governing morality when it comes to sex at all just because they are women.  

              Well, that's where we part ways, for a couple of reasons.  First, , the majority women asking that the culture be more sex positive when it comes to women's sexuality don't ask for that free from any moral judgment. Yet many on Daily Kos take just that position. Second I think you can get agreement just about anywhere (outside of the ridiculous right wing) that laws attempting to restrict sexual behavior for reasons other than public health are not only useless, they go too far, but you will never get agreement across cultures that sex is just something that people do that has no meaning or importance other than rubbing bits together for pleasure, such that morality should play no role at all in one's evaluating another person's sexual behavior.  Sex has never been so, and it won't be within our lifetimes.  That is evidenced quite handily by the way the Left attacks both men and women on the Right when they do things that are morally repugnant sexually to many people. (In the "tit for tat" diary written in response to this, someone insisted that this was because of hypocrisy, but the truth is that such criticisms are not solely because of hypocrisy--for example, folks here routinely attack politicians on the right about having been married more than once, whether or not they have ever said a word about marriage.) Third, women's agency as it relates to sexuality is not seen the same way across cultures. Thus, for example, you have white women rallying around calling themselves sluts at the same time as they complain if someone else calls them a slut because white women's sexuality has been treated very differently than the sexuality of other women. While women of all cultures have been subjected to rape and brutality, only white women have been enslaved by the patriarchy by strict controls on their voluntary expression of their sexuality.  Thus, I can understand why many react badly to it and want to be "free".  

              What I have a harder time with is the lack of understanding that this particular issue plays out differently for women of other cultures, particularly those where sexuality was not allowed to be anything but involuntary since we were not allowed to choose to limit our sexual partners (or even afterward, in many states) but were instead considered to be available to anyone any time with anyone who wanted it.  

              In other words, as it relates to sex, there are different experiences and different resulting cultures as it relates to oppression that are at work in discussions of this type. And thus, it is not productive to assume that only one view of this (the white feminist view) subject is the "best" way. As I feel was being done.

              While I know that many on the Left today feel everyone should have their own morality and be free to do whatever they want to do without anyone having a disapproving opinion, that idea is not part of the social compact in most cultures. (It isn't even in our majority white culture, where under law governments have the right under our constitution to regulate to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the community.) Given this, it strikes me that a lot of the hue and cry over whether or not I called Kim Kardashian a 'ho is reflective of a profound cultural difference about morality, where women from a majoritarian culture are once again too insistent that their view of what is or is not feminist or progressive should rule the day.  I am not willing to just go along with that, as I have in other contexts.  I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think it's productive.

              This is about as clear as I can make this in a comment and I apologize for length.

              •  Doh (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I hate when I am overinclusive.  I have written one sentence above that is, so need to correct it:

                "While women of all cultures in America have been subjected to rape and brutality, only white women have been enslaved by the patriarchy by strict controls on their voluntary expression of their sexuality."

                •  The above response is a great one (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  foldingBicycle, bsmechanic

                  and I hope you do publish it as a diary. This is obviously a conversation that needs to be had.

                  You've given me a lot to think about. I especially appreciate the explanation of nigger vs niggaz. I wonder if you see a correlation between their usage and that of the new feminist use of slut? Isn't the taking ownership of the word slut similar to the process of the ownership of the word niggaz? The shift is still occurring and it is hard to say how it will actually turn out but I don't see them as isolated events.

                  I'll be honest - I didn't see the current feminist trend as being a white feminist trend. I would be interested in reading more about that as well. As a white woman, I do write about feminist issues and I don't usually consider that I'm writing from a white perspective. I do always consider that I write from a middle-class coming from a lower-class background. Part of my move towards equality includes an economic equality - a living family wage. I see a huge part of the problem with mobility to be tied to the fact that lower income families must have two working parents in order to get ahead where upper income families have the luxury to make a choice in the matter. When both work, they have the luxury to hire nannies, great pre-school, excellent schools, etc. When one stays home (as I do), they can replace those nannies, pre-school, and private school experiences with an available parent. Our society is stacked against families that don't have that initial choice. But I am digressing from our original discussion!

                  Where I would disagree with you the most is this single statement:

                  only white women have been enslaved by the patriarchy by strict controls on their voluntary expression of their sexuality.
                  I would love to hear more on how women of color have not been enslaved by the patriarchy in their expressions of sexuality. I don't see it myself. Maybe I've been wearing blinders my entire life, but I still see many a culture, even here in the US, that ties womanhood to the trifecta - virgin, mother, whore. You have to fit in that model. IMO, there are no other definitions of womanhood for the patriarchy - no matter the color of the men in charge.

                  BTW - you've gained a follower. I'll be reading a little more often. And I would love to hear your own feedback when I write more about The Invisible War and Military Sexual Trauma.

                  •  Thank You (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bsmechanic, angelajean

                    If I get time I will try and write this up more thoroughly (one of the key reasons I've been doing open threads instead of writing full pieces is, alas, the significant time conflicts I have.)  I want to be clear, though, that what I'm talking about is the voluntary expression of sexuality, since that is where I think the conflict about viewpoints between women of different cultures lie, reflecting the different experiences of how sexuality has been used to oppress in different cultures in America. But as an example to think about: when was the last time you ever heard anyone worrying about the virginity status of Black women? Or even worried about whether Black women are exalted as mothers (outside of the Black community; within it moms are second only to Jesus Christ for most), except to argue about why too many of us are mothers "when we shouldn't be?" The narratives relating to exalting virginity or shoveling women into the role of "mother" as the end all and be all of feminine existence have operated in this culture as they relate Black women --yet both are central parts of trifecta you rightfully identify has operates against white women and their agency.

                •  ever call a man a 'ho'? (0+ / 0-)

                  See anybody else doing that, in a way that is derogatory?
                  No - and that's proof it's something being used against women of all races.
                  BTW - Kardashian is mixed race.

                  •  See You're Not Listening (0+ / 0-)

                    Because I indeed have seen people call men 'hos, and I have called men 'hos, myself.  In my community it's common, if the behavior fits. So why on earth would you even ask the question as if I didn't already write what the reality is several times? It's not my fault if YOU don't ever see it happening, but to assume that because you don't see it, it must not be true is the height of privilege.

                    Ms. Kardashian's race is irrelevant to what I called her, BTW.

              •  wow! i just have to tell you- (0+ / 0-)
                However, each of these words have also been used in contexts which are neutral, such as pillowtalk....
                at work, over the years, in different jobs i've jokingly asked people to stop swearing by saying "hey- that's pillow talk!"

                if everyone in the room is comfortable w/ swearing i keep my mouth shut. but if someone is there and i know they can't stand it but are too shy or fearful to say something, i pipe up w/ my pillowtalk comment. it's always worked, and i don't think it hurts anyone's feelings.

                i think this is the first time i've seen anyone else say it like i do. i already liked you from the comments you've been making in the slut shaming diary- now i think you're perfect!

                are you going to be at netroots nation? i'd love to meet you.

                "...i also also want a legally binding apology." -George Rockwell

                by thankgodforairamerica on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 07:16:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  No, it's not a "cultural difference" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            It's sexism.

            That's all it is.

            In my culture, for instance, we have a special term for people with African ancestry.  I don't use that term.  Even though it's part of my culture.

            Because it's racism.

            That's all it is.

            Racism happens on dKos all the time, too.  But that doesn't make it okay.  

            It doesn't make sexism okay either, shanikka.  

            "Injustice wears ever the same harsh face wherever it shows itself." - Ralph Ellison

            by KateCrashes on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 09:01:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Wrote a Lengthy Comment (0+ / 0-)

              In response to someone else about these words, why, no, words like 'ho are NOT the same as words like nigger and what I believe is the real foundation of the (IMO) unnecessary conflict from me calling Ms. Kardashian a 'ho (a term I stand by, given her behavior.)  Please read it, so you can see where I'm coming from even if you still don't agree afterward.

      •  I reserve my hiding for... (4+ / 0-)

        really blatant/horrific stuff, but I was severely tempted to hit it here.

        Culture/racial? Please. You're on a progressive website that strives to Do Better. You're doing a prominent thread. You should both Do Better and KNOW better.

        I'm ashamed of this entry.

        And just for the record, I don't give a shit about Kim, or her kin, or any of those people. I just think what you wrote was reprehensible.

      •  Sorry for the scold but... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Women don't refer to other women as 'ho (can't figure out the plural). Reminds me of the argument for bantering about the offensive term "fag". And what is Kim Kardashian nonsense doing on Daily Kos???

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site