Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's one of those "only in Texas" stories. Gov. Rick Perry has named a woman named Shanda Perkins to the state's Board of Pardons and Paroles. She has absolutely no experience in criminal justice, of course, but she is a loyal footsoldier in the War on Orgasms:
As far as I can tell, Mrs. Perkins' sole experience in the criminal justice realm stems from a personal morality crusade against the sale of sex toys in Johnson County that led to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturning Texas' law on the subject.
Need I point out that Perkins is the daughter of a Pentecostal minister? And just wait till you see a picture of this harpie:
Yikes. Get that woman a vibrator fast, preferably a diesel-powered one.
Politics
Comments
Re Rick Perry
Governor Perry is a contemptible excuse for a human being who has kowtowed and pandered to the right wing born again crazies in the Texas Rethuglican party. This is in addition to being a gay bashing closeted gay man. However, there are rumors that he will be challenged in the 2010 Rethuglican primary by current Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who although being quite conservative, doesn't buy into to much of the born again agenda.
Posted by: SLC | February 24, 2009 9:27 AM
I would have thought a comment like that a long way beneath you Ed. She's totally lacking in the necessary experience, and a loonie to boot - we don't need to start throwing about slurs on her appearance or gender.
Posted by: Dunc | February 24, 2009 9:54 AM
I'm going to echo Dunc, Ed. That wasn't necessary.
Posted by: stevogvsu | February 24, 2009 10:12 AM
Dunc:
I think that may have just been Ed's way of saying she must be a closeted dildophobedildophile--but, it's only a guess.
Posted by: democommie | February 24, 2009 10:13 AM
Wow, a nine-page web article about another small town where another gaggle of ugly, pig-ignorant church ladies, talentless and frustrated and angry at the beautiful girls, gang up on a scapegoat because they can't compete with her (and for what? Aren't these bitches married?). No thanks, I don't even need to read it. Been there, done that. Please, brainy women of America, wake up and quit wasting your energy in church!
Posted by: Kristine | February 24, 2009 10:16 AM
*facepalm*
"Perkins," huh? Any relation to Tony Perkins, also of the War on Orgasms Division, I wonder?
Posted by: schism | February 24, 2009 10:20 AM
Posted by: Taz | February 24, 2009 11:22 AM
One can only wonder at the questions Ms. Perkins is likely to ask of a prospective parolee...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 24, 2009 11:30 AM
Kristine:
"Please, brainy women of America, wake up and quit wasting your energy in church!"
Quite a few have done so.
Posted by: democommie | February 24, 2009 11:40 AM
This was a bit jarring, but after seeing the picture and observing her demeanor, the attitude it belies makes me agree with Ed.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 24, 2009 11:43 AM
About the picture: Yes, it's beneath civilized discussion to bring appearances into the fray, and no, she can't help looking like that (much - - there are things that can be done with just a different hairstyle, etc.) but... When I first saw the picture I thought it was Maggie Wheeler (Janice from "Friends" - she was Chandler's toxic girlfriend, whose signature line (delivered in the thickest Bronyx accent imaginable) was "OH - - - MY - - - GOD!!!!!").
Oh, and Ed, it's spelled "HARPY"
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | February 24, 2009 11:48 AM
There are plenty of equally (or even more) accurate but non-gendered insults that could have been employed other than "harpy", and there's absolutely no reason to bring her appearance into the matter. "She's an ugly bitch" (which the only obvious way I can see to read Ed's remark) is both blatantly sexist and completely irrelevant.
Would we be discussing appearance and even hairstyle (of all things!) if the loon in question were male? Given the undeniable fact that a very large percentage of male politicians are fat, balding, ugly bastards, yet this is very rarely remarked upon on this blog, I submit that the answer is "No".
I mean, no offence Ed, but you're not exactly a great looker yourself. Fortunately, very few of your readers judge you on that photo in the sidebar. If you were female, that would probably not be the case - this blog would be infested with snide remarks about your appearance and how your political opinions are obviously the result of not getting laid enough.
Posted by: Dunc | February 24, 2009 12:19 PM
I don't understand it. If these are the same people who want to stop pre-marital sex, then they should make it mandatory for every person to have a sex toy.
Posted by: catgirl | February 24, 2009 12:29 PM
"I mean, no offence Ed, but you're not exactly a great looker yourself."
Um, he's certainly not ugly.
Posted by: little acorns | February 24, 2009 12:43 PM
(Heavy sigh) Y'all, I live in Texas. We're not all cretins. I'm just glad to have found scienceblogs to keep me relatively sane.
Posted by: Judy | February 24, 2009 12:43 PM
Dunc & steveogvsu - it appears you decided to judge Ed's use of words prior to considering the evidence Ed presents, i.e., the link in Ed's post titled "personal morality crusade" referring to a Dallas Observer article.
Answers.com defines harpy (as oppossed to Ed's 'harpie) as a predatory person and a shrewish woman. After reading about Perkins vendetta against Mrs. Webb, I can't imagine a more appropriate word than harpy to describe Perkins' actions. The article makes it quite clear that appearances, including Perkin's, played a major role in this issue.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 24, 2009 1:01 PM
It IS remarkable how so many southern church ladies manage to go to church looking like streetwalkers.
Posted by: TomTallis | February 24, 2009 1:03 PM
If you want to call her ugly I would think she should be called a gorgon or Medusa, sticking with the Greek mythology theme. From the name harpy I conclude that she is a screeching vile creature which feeds off the misery of others.
Posted by: Schmeer | February 24, 2009 1:09 PM
I have to agree that the term 'harpy' was badly chosen -- and the comments about her appearance -- based on one picture -- offensive. Ironically the comment from the woman who is the center of the vendetta is somewhat different, see the piece Ed links to:
"Over the phone, Spears and Joanne laughed at the silliness. Perkins wasn't exactly a fashion maven. Though beautiful, with alabaster skin and blue eyes, Perkins wore lots of makeup, flashy costume jewelry and kept her long brunette hair teased high. One ambassador thought someone should tell Perkins that "1985 called and it wants its dress back." (Emphasis mine.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 24, 2009 1:14 PM
The more important point is not the appearance of the crusader, but the effects of the crusade. Maybe the jokes will lessen after this -- again from the same piece (again, emphasis mine):
The whole thing would be funny if the gossip and righteous indignation hadn't nearly destroyed a family. His business blackballed, Chris had a nervous breakdown and now hauls trash to pay the bills. The Webbs' vehicles have been repossessed or sold, and in February they declared bankruptcy. If convicted of the misdemeanor charge, Joanne faces a fine of up to $4,000 and a year in jail. As a "sex offender," she will lose her teaching certificate.
Not quite so funny now?
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 24, 2009 1:25 PM
Wow, she sure doesn't look like a sex toy hater. But then I always thought Don McLeroy didn't look like a creationist.
So, to recap: Don McLeroy doesn't look like a creationist, and Shanda Perkins doesn't look like a sex toy hater.
Posted by: 386sx | February 24, 2009 1:40 PM
Okay, Kristine, that gratuitously mean-spirited analysis of dildophobic church ladies earned you a place in my blogroll.
Posted by: Dr X | February 24, 2009 1:50 PM
I took the comments and picture to mean that she looks like she could use a big O.
If she doesn't look like someone who has never had a true orgasm, I don't know who does.
If you want to read "ugly" into it, that's up to you, but perhaps we should find out if that's what Greg intended before chiding him for it.
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch | February 24, 2009 2:36 PM
Great beard. Terrible hair. Kinda Fat. Interesting politics.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | February 24, 2009 2:38 PM
Obligatory link to The Wet Spots performing "Texas Annie."
"And it said so in the bible
that a vibe will leave you liable
for a prison term of twenty seven years."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvJyA-7PwKM
Posted by: Lee | February 24, 2009 2:52 PM
Edit***
I meant Ed, of course.
Sorry
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch | February 24, 2009 2:55 PM
"Harpy" or not, her appearance should be irrelevant to our opinion of her politics. I agree that showing her picture to expose her to ridicule was in bad taste, regardless of how ridiculous and harmful her beliefs may be.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 24, 2009 3:26 PM
Gretchen - did you read the Dallas Observer article prior to making the assessment that showing her picture was in bad taste? See my prior comments, especially, "The article makes it quite clear that appearances, including Perkin's, played a major role in this issue."
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 24, 2009 3:36 PM
Posted by: Taz | February 24, 2009 3:56 PM
I think some are missing the point of putting her picture in there. I didn't say, as one person suggested, "She's an ugly bitch." I found it interesting and humorous that she looks exactly like virtually every religious right crusading woman I've ever seen. As the article says about her, quoted above by Prup, "Though beautiful, with alabaster skin and blue eyes, Perkins wore lots of makeup, flashy costume jewelry and kept her long brunette hair teased high. One ambassador thought someone should tell Perkins that "1985 called and it wants its dress back." A perfect description of every wife of every TV evangelist in the country - ridiculous amounts of eye shadow and hairspray and a look on their face of being so uptight that they could crack walnuts with their stare. If pointing that out bothers some people....well, I can live with that.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 24, 2009 3:58 PM
Dunc:
"I mean, no offence Ed, but you're not exactly a great looker yourself. Fortunately, very few of your readers judge you on that photo in the sidebar."
Now, THAT is somewhat insulting.
Is my memory correct that you took me to task for saying someone was a stupid bitch a while back, Dunc? If so, then maybe there's a pattern here. Do you hold women to be above being insulted, in terms of their gender, but it's okay to call them names or belittle them otherwise? I'm curious.
In any case, if you feel that it's necessary to bring up Ed's "beauty" as part of your argument, well, wtf?
Posted by: democommie | February 24, 2009 4:08 PM
Michael Heath,
I don't know what "issue" you're talking about, but her appearance should not play any role in anyone's opinion about the appropriateness (or not) of her appointment to the state's Board of Pardons and Paroles.
Ed,
So "everybody's doing it," basically, and that makes it okay? It's strange that it should be so hard to consider that making fun of somebody's appearance is no more classy when "we" are doing it than when "they" are.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 24, 2009 4:32 PM
"Would we be discussing appearance and even hairstyle (of all things!) if the loon in question were male?"
I would say yes actually, just look at all of the jokes revolving around Senator Blagojevich's hair.
I agree that these kinds of criticisms/jokes can be petty, and at the very least are not substantiative. I don't buy into there being any inherent sexism in them though.
In Ed's case though, it seems obviously added for the sake of levity, and does nothing to detract from the very real criticisms of this situation.
Posted by: Lumen Second | February 24, 2009 4:35 PM
You know, the "get her a vibrator" thing makes a lot more sense as a "...she clearly needs some SERIOUS relaxation" than a "okay, nothing with eyes would have her." I'm a little disconcerted that I didn't think of that.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 24, 2009 4:44 PM
Gretchen - the reason I asked you whether you read the article so you understood the "issue" prior to criticizing Ed's use of her picture is that the primary motivation for Perkins to aggresively attempt to ruin the family she decided to persecute was that she didn't like the appearance of the wife, Joanne Webb. Specifically the way Webb did herself up and the shortness of her skirts. This persecution by Perkins against Webb became so absurd Perkins was able to get her local Chamber of Commerce to consider imposing a dress code for its members, unprecedented in the Chamber. While I forgot whether this rule was passed, it caused Joanne Webb who was a leader in the Chamber to quit.
While other factors were also in play, the primary motivation that led to Perkins' local infamy was her going after a family based on how they dressed. The sex toy prosecution was merely the available lever to destroy the Webbs and the twist that caused the story to go national.
The Harper Valley PTA analogy does not do this story justice, Perkins took her persecution for others' appearances way, way farther than that famous song's lyrics. You'd know all this if you had read Ed's sources which is why I was "harping" on it to everyone who criticized Ed on this - it appeared obvious y'all hadn't read the background material first.
I understand that Ed has made his take known now and it differs from my justification as to the usefulness of showing her picture. However given the circumstances that make Perkins infamous, I would argue her appearance and description as a harpy is required to properly portray the story within its proper framework.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 24, 2009 4:53 PM
Ed's right. Try watching the 700 club sometime. It's all Pat Robertson hanging out with middle-aged women who wear too much makeup. Fox News is the same, except that the women are younger and blonder. Is point this out sexist? I don't think so.
Posted by: Chuck | February 24, 2009 4:57 PM
I agree with Dunc, stevevogvsu, Gretchen, and any others who expressed disappointment with Ed's making this woman's appearance an issue. Face it: if the offender were male, his appearance would not be pointed out, and this is an unacceptable double standard. Equally disappointing, Ed (if not more so), is that you won't own up to it.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 24, 2009 5:02 PM
horse shit, a males apperance is brought into the equations as well . President Bush was called chimpy mcgee , blogavich`s hair , "bald men" , people always tend to use penis size as shaming lamguage . past criticism of Ed by some of his detractors have called him Fat. critcism of ones looks HAS NEVER been gender biased. if you have ever looked at qualifiers on Dating websites , women as well as men Have requirments about fitness and looks that are often times unrelaistic (perhaps the reason they are on dating sites) .
Posted by: Vic Vanity | February 24, 2009 5:21 PM
Sadie - did you read the Dallas Observer article Ed linked to prior to making that argument? I can't imagine reporting this story without showing a photo of the protagonist given the primary driver was appearance, regardless of sex or their appearance. The protagonist made it mainly about appearance; not showing a photo vastly limits our perspective of the story.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 24, 2009 5:31 PM
The whole episode—accusations, trial, smug self-satisfaction, and appointment to a state board—is so typical of southern politics. It just reeks of hypocrisy and the denial of reality, and that includes Gov. "Good Hair" (Molly Ivins name for Perry). It's also typical of the reasons I left Texas after graduating from high school more than half a century ago and haven't looked back. The more things change the more they stay the same!
Posted by: Keanus | February 24, 2009 5:32 PM
Does anybody remember Tammy Faye Baker? Ms. Perkins reminds me of her.
Posted by: SLC | February 24, 2009 5:46 PM
Tammy Faye never had the mean streak Perkins has given that Bakker was capable of disassociating herself from being a thief. I can't see Tammy Faye going out of her way to destroy an innocent person's reputation because of that person's success and popularity like Perkins so actively did to Mrs. Webb.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 24, 2009 6:03 PM
"Here's one of those "only in Texas" stories"
Really, only in Texas?
You state this on a science blog!
Ed, Bill O'Reilly would be proud!
Posted by: Llano Escantado | February 24, 2009 6:07 PM
Sorry, but it's simply nonsense that I would never make a comment about the appearance of a man in a similar circumstance. For an exact analogy, I have also joked in the past about the fact that TV evangelists always have plastic snap-on hair. For crying out loud, I made that comment in a speech on C-Span. Is it sexist to make fun of Tammy Faye Bakker or Jan Crouch for their ridiculous appearance? Or of Elvis for his ugly jumpsuits? Some people look ridiculous, often by their own choice. Those people are often made fun of. And no, there's nothing wrong with that. If that lowers anyone's estimation of me - again - I can live with that. Lighten up, folks.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 24, 2009 6:18 PM
Vic, would you care to explain why most celebrity rags focus almost exclusively on women's appearances? Which gender gets more coverage as far as weight gain/loss is concerned? Why does there continue to be in 2009 focus on what women are wearing, but men's wardrobes are mostly ignored by mainstream sources? Why is it considered by many to be appropriate for men to select women based on appearances, but if a woman does it with a man she's labelled a "bitch" (true story; I'm speaking from personal experience)? Your claim, to put it mildly, lacks legs.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 24, 2009 6:29 PM
Sadie Morrison:
I'm sure this will open another, perhaps bigger, can of worms...Which celebrity rags are you talking about? And why do you know so much about it?
Posted by: democommie | February 24, 2009 6:45 PM
Would we be discussing appearance and even hairstyle (of all things!) if the loon in question were male?
I would, but Don McLeroy doesn't have any. He doesn't have any hair. Sorry.
Don McLeroy has no hair, and he does not look like a creationist. Not at all.
Posted by: 386sx | February 24, 2009 7:01 PM
I think Sadie has it exactly wrong. I didn't hear one word when I made fun of Grant Jeffrey and Carl Baugh in a speech on C-Span for their TV evangelist hair. No one went "oh tsk tsk, how dare you say anything about someone's appearance." I certainly do agree that as a society we focus far more on a woman's looks than on a man's and that we hold women to an entirely different standard of attractiveness. I absolutely agree that our whole society has an absurd focus on a woman's weight (notice the ridiculous attention paid to Jessica Simpson putting on a few pounds over the last couple weeks) and gives men (me included) a pass. But my comment was not about attractiveness or weight, it was about that overly made up, rodeo clown appearance that seems to be almost universal among a certain religious subset of this country. And I've made fun of their male equivalent in the very same group time and time again. But no one noticed that or complained about it. I don't see why making fun of this woman's appearance is any different than making fun of Elvis impersonators, or of Alan Keyes for that picture of him in a cowboy hat, or of Chuck Norris for that picture of him with his shirt open and his chest hair flowing (and I did both of those in that C-Span speech too). Some people look ridiculous. Pointing that out is hardly a scandal.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 24, 2009 7:19 PM
"Some people look ridiculous. Pointing that out is hardly a scandal."
Ed, you are correct. Saying someone looks ridiculus is not, in our society as a whole, a significant scandal. Such an opinion is not infrequently expressed in the gossip pages of many grocery store magazines and on the tube in shows like TMZ.
But, Ed, where you offer such opinion does make a difference. ScienceBlogs is, based only on the name, a science blog. Content associated with a scientific perspective is expected.
Of possibly even greater import is the audience to which an opinion is directed. Given that ScienceBlogs is advertised to be a science blog, my guess is that most of your audience are either scientists, science students, or science enthusiasts. As such, your audience is (my guess) given to less inflated language.
Posted by: Llano Escantado | February 24, 2009 8:03 PM
Llano Escantado:
Sorry, we're not all scientists, science students or enthusiasts. Ed's blog is ONE of the "Science blogs" and it is clearly stated in the masthead that this particular blog, "Dispatches from the culture wars" deals with "Thoughts from the interface of science, religion, law and culture". So that's what goes on here.
Posted by: democommie | February 24, 2009 8:25 PM
I might add, that just as James Randi's background as a conjurer rather than a scientist serves him well in exposing frauds and charlatans pretending to do science, I find it strangely appropriate to have a journalist with a background in stand-up comedy covering our politicians when they dabble in scientific and cultural matters.
Posted by: DaveL | February 24, 2009 8:35 PM
Because more women buy celebrity rags, in general are more concerned with weight, and in general are more interested in fashion than men are?
Posted by: Spartan | February 24, 2009 8:38 PM
Ed:
Sorry, but you come across as a simplistic, parochial idiot, every bit as narrow as your cartoon version of Shanda Perkins. But let's set aside the implicit dishonesty of quidditizing Shanda Perkins' public service the way you and Scott Henson do, and talk about Burleson.
This story is about one of the many fault lines in American society. As Americans, we hold freedom of expression as a high ideal. But we are seemingly unable to abrogate our Puritan roots. Whether your Puritanism is the kind that objects to the smutty store on Main Street, or that rushes to the defense of Anita Hill's virgin ears, or that insists on some kind of ideological purity in the biology classroom, we seem to fall into the mold of intolerance all too easily. And there you are, too, at the center of American intolerance, in about as mean-spirited a post as I've seen on ScienceBlogs lately.
Though I enjoy, in nearly all senses you care to imagine, the freedoms protected by the First Amendment, I also understand the instinct of the heartland that really doesn't care to have San Francisco values permeate every small town in America. God bless the Mitchell Brothers, but do we all have to have a strip joint on every block? Does every Main Street have to have a sex shop? Because that's what's at stake here. Can people with deep roots in a community preserve that community, or do we all have to surrender to this mandatory coarsening of the culture?
Joanne Webb, bless her heart, rightly protected by the First Amendment, probably won't be happy in Burleson, just as I wouldn't be happy in New York or San Francisco or Zurich. Why is the kind of diversity that is symbolized by the distance between Burleson and San Francisco the only kind that the so-called "liberal" mindset refuses to preserve?
I think the moral texture of this tragedy escapes you completely.
Shabby.
BBB
Posted by: bbbeard | February 24, 2009 9:06 PM
bbbeard:
Me think thou doth protest too much.
I'm an atheist in an area that's got quite a mix of non-believers, pleasant christians and a goodly smattering of asshole kkkristian fundies. No strip joints in my town, no gambling casinso, no "needle parks". I think the moral texture of most of America escapes you completely. Tragic.
Posted by: democommie | February 24, 2009 9:25 PM
"...but do we all have to have a strip joint on every block?"
Who's arguing "that we all have to have a strip joint on every block?"
"Does every Main Street have to have a sex shop?"
Who's arguing that "every Main Street" has "to have a sex shop?"
"Because that's what's at stake here?"
Wrong. What's "at stake here" is demolishing dumb and invasive laws like the one Mrs. Perkins was championing.
"Can people with deep roots in a community preserve that community,..."
If that "preservation" involves bad laws, then no.
Posted by: daniel rotter | February 24, 2009 9:47 PM
I hear you. I can't tell you how digusted I was to hear those accounts out of San Francisco of good Christian families being run out of town for refusing to use butt plugs or frequent prostitutes. I was appalled by that case in New York where an obscure law against owning a Bible was used to rob innocent people of their livelihoods.
Oh, wait, that never happened.
That's because you're perfectly free to live as puritanical a lifestyle as you wish in New York, or San Francisco, or Zurich. It's just that you don't have the power to compel others to do the same. That power is not a right and never was, and neither diversity nor tolerance demands that it be respected, as indeed it is antithetical to both.
Posted by: DaveL | February 24, 2009 9:48 PM
And why do you think this is? You don't think it might be because it's been drilled into their minds that physical appearance is more important for them than it is for men?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 24, 2009 10:27 PM
The person in the photograph - that chin, that adam's apple - is clearly a transsexual. Yeah, I read that stuff about her being a mother of six, but frankly I don't belive it.
Posted by: Paul Murray | February 24, 2009 10:36 PM
Sorry I'm so late to the party, but I can't believe that no one has linked to this yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaUl6x1YXpg
Molly Ivins was great at putting some of the peculiar pecadilloes in Texas in perspective for the rest of y'all.
Posted by: Tex | February 24, 2009 10:46 PM
While I don't know some of these people, I certainly recognize the attitude. These're the same people that tell me I absolutely *must* use the term Native Americans, even though I hate it. Even when I'm talking about my mother. Who also hates it.
The woman looks like the bastard child of Alice Cooper and Elvira Mistress of the Dark. At some point your appearance is so over the top people are going to notice and they're going to laugh at you.
Isn't making fun of everyone equally equality?
Are women so fragile they must be treated with kid gloves and never spoken ill of? All the ones I know would be far more insulted by that than whatever mockery could be thrown their way.
Posted by: JThompson | February 24, 2009 10:54 PM
Posted by: Danio | February 25, 2009 12:00 AM
Get over yourselves, morality brigade. There is nothing wrong with insulting someone, yes even his/her appearance if the person deserves it. She clearly has shown she deserves no respect based on her actions, so why should he show her any? Ad hominem attacks prove no point, but that doesn't make them wrong when the person deserves it. He just called it as he saw it.
I'll say it straight out, she's an ugly bitch. Any of you who have a problem with that can go screw.
Posted by: SDR | February 25, 2009 1:37 AM
bbbeard: Nobody is trying to force you to use sex toys. Nobody is even forcing you to sell them. All they are trying to do is to stop you from denying rights to others. Why is that a bad thing? If a community really does not want sex toys in its midst, then a sex toy shop would only be a temporary thing as the market would not support it and it would go out of business.
Posted by: Donalbain | February 25, 2009 1:52 AM
democommie:
Not that I can recall.
Posted by: Dunc | February 25, 2009 4:42 AM
Dunc:
Then, I apologize, although I still disagree.
Posted by: democommie | February 25, 2009 6:11 AM
Re Michael Heath
I meant to say that in appearance, Ms. Perkins resembles Tammy Faye Bakker.
Posted by: SLC | February 25, 2009 8:42 AM
SLC:
Why do you hate Tammy Faye Bakker?
Posted by: democommie | February 25, 2009 8:48 AM
No, I don't think that, because I don't think anyone has anything 'drilled into their minds', and if anything I think other women are as much the perpetrators as men are of what you see as over-obsessiveness with women's appearances. You don't think that women, in general and more than men, enjoy dressing up and looking nice period irrelevant of what society drills into them, or is the enjoyment they get from that just a result of this purported drilling?
Posted by: Dave L | February 25, 2009 8:49 AM
God she is ugly. Shiver me timbers!
Posted by: Marie | February 25, 2009 9:08 AM
Posted by: Taz | February 25, 2009 9:11 AM
Oh, Dave L.
"enjoy dressing up and looking nice period irrelevant of what society drills into them, or is the enjoyment they "
it has nothing to do with "enjoy dressing up" but rather that it is expected of us, as women, to "dress up" and wear makeup and constantly worry about our looks and our weight..
Posted by: marilove | February 25, 2009 10:18 AM
And, Dave L? You might want to do some feminist research before you continue blathering on about things you clearly know nothing about.
And in response to: "Does every Main Street have to have a sex shop?"
What would be so wrong with this? It would mean that people are comfortable with their sexualities and enjoy exploring their sexuality (by themselves, or with partners). Why is this a bad thing?
Posted by: marilove | February 25, 2009 10:21 AM
"Can people with deep roots in a community preserve that community, or do we all have to surrender to this mandatory coarsening of the culture?"
And guess what? You don't have to surrender to anything. Don't want to go into a sex shop? DO NOT GO INTO ONE. It being there is not going to harm you.
"If convicted of the misdemeanor charge, Joanne faces a fine of up to $4,000 and a year in jail. As a "sex offender," she will lose her teaching certificate."
Did you read that? So basically, Joanne may have to register as a SEX OFFENDER for some FUCKING SEX TOYS.
This is ridiculous.
Posted by: marilove | February 25, 2009 10:31 AM
Sadie;
perhaps because women are the largest group of consumers, i will point out that women are far more concerned what other women look like than men are. a example would be britney spears or jessica simpson both these girls dress and look a certian way , yet their fan base is made almost entirley of teen girls . Mens weight is also an issue . i recall President Clinton being called Fat (i dont see it)i recall John travolta being touted in a magazine as fat .in society you will far more often see a girl with . "extra pounds" with a guy who is skinny far more often than the other way around . most guys dont care that women are "overweight" i myself dont care if a woman wears makeup either.
Sadie , i dont know you or the situation were you pursued a relationship where someone calle you a bitch . but perhaps there were other reasons besides you being the pursurer . the far most attractive quality i find ina woman is her smile and if she is approachable.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | February 25, 2009 11:08 AM
I don't think Ed is remotely sexist, and I don't think it's wrong to make fun of people's appearance. What rankled me about it in this case is that it wasn't making fun of someone's appearance for its own sake, but rather a kind of ad hominem attack-- "Ha ha, look at this harpy! She sure looks like she could use a vibrator if anyone can-- a diesel-powered one!" It's sort of like the standard comment that gets trotted out whenever a woman objects to something that she thinks is demeaning to women-- if the woman complaining is anything less than gorgeous, then naturally she's just complaining because she's jealous. Unattractive women apparently aren't allowed to think that objectification of women can be a bad thing. Now, I don't think it actually is a bad thing, but I can understand how some people do and have reasoned objections to it. And their attractiveness level has nothing to do with whether those objections are reasoned or not.
Do you see what I'm trying to get at? It's idiotic and wrong to try and get sex toys banned, yes. But that has absolutely nothing to do with how this woman looks, and Ed's making fun of her appearance in this way strongly implied otherwise.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 25, 2009 11:18 AM
marilove, (I was Dave L above, wrong username) let's just start by pointing out the obvious, that you in no way speak for all or most 'women'. I know plenty of women who like to get dressed up to the hilt occasionally and go out, yet I know far fewer men who enjoy ever putting on a suit or tux. Many women like cool new shoes and new purses and such; are these women just victims of society's drilling and they really don't like fashion but have to stay current or be outcasts, or is it perhaps that they find shoes and purses appealing and interesting? For some it does have something to do with 'enjoy dressing up', and to my point, the number of women who do enjoy dressing up is greater percentage-wise than men.
Spare me. Perhaps you should try improving your reading comprehension before blathering yourself; you obviously missed where I said 'in general and more than men'. How about you make an argument yourself if you've got one, and enlighten me to what I know nothing about.
Posted by: Spartan | February 25, 2009 12:05 PM
Um, and there are reasons for that, Spartan. Maybe if you'd do some research, you'd know why women tend to dress up more than men, and why men only have boring suits to choose from.
And, you do realize that your personal, annectodal experience isn't evidence, right?
Posted by: marilove | February 25, 2009 12:36 PM
And yes, there are women who actually enjoy dressing up. I never said there wasn't. HOWEVER, as a society, it's EXPECTED that women dress up and wear uncomfortable heels.
Go read some TMZ and the comments therein, and you'll see where I'm gettin' at.
Posted by: marilove | February 25, 2009 12:38 PM
Personal experience is evidence, it's just anecdotal and hence not worth much. But then neither are broad (cough) generalizations without anything offered to support them.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 25, 2009 1:03 PM
Are you not capable of stating the argument yourself? There's a lot of feminist writings to pick through.
I don't dispute that there are many women who don't want to dress up who feel like they have to because of societal pressures. True or false though, in your opinion: percentage-wise, more women than men are interested in fashion and enjoy dressing up ('enjoy', not feel pressured to or are dressing up under protest because they feel they have to).
What, are we talking about weddings only here? I'm at work with over 90 women, not a single one of which is wearing heels. Yep, purely anecdotal, but I don't see a ton of women even at the mall strutting around in uncomfortable heels.
Uh, at least my anecdotal evidence is generalized across all women I know; your anecdotal evidence is one of the more extreme tabloid outlets? Are there that many women who care what the posters at the TMZ site think about anything?
Posted by: Spartan | February 25, 2009 1:09 PM
I hate to tell you this, but if your community can financially support a strip joint on every block, then perhaps you're being a bit presumptuous to complain about the "coarsening" of it's culture.
And all of the pearl-clutchers here need to understand what sexism is and is not. Noting someones gender is not sexism. Insulting someone with a gender-specific insult is not sexism, whether it be "harpy" or "dick". Insulting someone's looks is not sexism, no matter how much you may wish to pretend that males never have their looks insulted (Michael Moore is fat, BTW). Sexism is stating or implying that a person is deficient or superior due to their sex. Ed did none of those things; he pointed out that this particular harpy looks ridiculous. If you wish to quibble that she is not a harpy, or that she does not look ridiculous (or even that she would not benefit from some self-administered sexual stimulation), then Ed left himself wide open for such valid argument. But if you want to bemoan the fact that Ed can tell a woman from a man by looks with a reasonable rate of success, and chose to use an accurate derogatory term that also describes her gender in addition to her unsavory qualities, then get over yourselves; no one is impressed by your exceptional social sensitivity. You are actually harming the gender equality movement every time you crank up the outrage machine at a triviality, because you make it easier for people to dismiss true sexism as more mere pearl-clutching by the eternally offended left.
Stop it. Seriously.
Posted by: Shygetz | February 25, 2009 1:28 PM
Um, Gretchen, perhaps I'm just dense but...I don't understand how sex toys can be construed as "objectifying women". If anything, dildos seem to be an extreme case of objectifying men. At least for sex dolls, men include the entire body; women just see men as a mechanical penis to be used for stimulation and then turned off ;-)
Posted by: Shygetz | February 25, 2009 1:34 PM
Shygetz,
I didn't say that sex toys objectify women-- I was making a comparison. When women complain about objectification, their appearance is often used against them to disqualify their position. Similarly, I think that in the case of Perkins' objection to sex toys, her appearance has been used here to disqualify her. Just like insulting someone generally, it's possible to make fun of someone's appearance just for its own sake....or it's possible to do so as an ad hominem. It can be harder to see this happening when you already believe that a person's position is absolute bollocks (as I do of Perkins), but it's there.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 25, 2009 1:50 PM
Okay, maybe I understand your reason for the picture better -- though you still might have been more effective if you'd mentioned the description of her as 'beautiful, with..." and then asked why so many Religious Right women make themselves appear as harpies -- would have avoided the spelling mistake too. But the main complaint is that you highjacked your own discussion with the picture and term.
It is far more important that this woman can be branded a sex offender for the rest of her life and lose her teaching certificate for life if she is convicted than what her accuser looks like -- even if her crusade was started by the defandant's miniskirts. And I think that 'bbb's' comments -- as much as I disagree with them in almost every particular -- were a more valuable contribution than were all the appearance ones.
But ahhh, bbb, I look forward to dealing with you at my usual length -- duck, everybody -- later in the day.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 25, 2009 2:26 PM
bbb: Maybe I won't go on as long as I promised, because your whole argument depends on the clash between 'small town values' and 'city values' (though you don't phrse it that way).
Before I begin, let me ask you if you've ever seen the movie, play, or TV series "Sordid Lives." It is exaggerated for comedy, of course, but it is set in a small Texas town -- and the author, Del Shores, grew up in a town not that far from Burleson, Winters, TX.
The show and play are exaggerations, but, from all I know from meeting people from small town, and reading about them, the values in the show are nearer the real 'small town value' than you refer to -- and they can be described pretty briefly as 'go to Church and don't let the neighbors find out that you...'
There isn't that much difference in what people do -- sexually, at least -- in the two places. (Okay, some, mostly because small town men still try to keep the fact that women can enjoy sex a secret from them -- that's another 'small town value.')
The difference seems, to me, to be the amount of shame they feel doing it.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 25, 2009 5:03 PM
Gretchen, the thing I disagree with you on is the implication that this was an ad hominem. To me, with all due respect, you basically contradict your argument above. If you agree that trying to get sex toys banned is idiotic on it's face, and regardless there's no question that Ed thinks so, then the argument is made right there, period, and I don't know why you think then Ed is even remotely offering that picture as an ad hominem 'argument'. Her appearance has not been used to disqualify her since there's nothing to disqualify; her position is already disqualified because it's idiotic, and you seem to admit as such.
Ed didn't imply that you don't have to listen to her arguments for banning sex toys because she uses a paint gun to apply her makeup, which would be an ad hominem (and is actually not the point of the post, which is her lack of qualifications). I think he assumed that his readers agreed that there are no good arguments for banning sex toys, a point you also seem to agree with, so it's strange to see an accusation of an ad hominem which you already agree is moot.
Posted by: Spartan | February 25, 2009 6:16 PM
Spartan,
So your position is that since Ed made it clear how little he thinks of Perkins' position, there's no need for him to make an ad hom argument against her and so he wouldn't do so? Since when have people refrained from ad hom arguments for this reason? On the contrary, the more vehemently a person disagrees with someone, the more likely it seems to be that they will address them in this way. If you could just manage to remove the question of who is wrong and who is right in this situation, I think you'd find it easy to see. The simple fact of being in the right doesn't in any way mean that people are immune to making logical fallacies!
Posted by: Gretchen | February 25, 2009 6:25 PM
Oh great, it's Gretchen again.
Gretchen, Ed was making fun of this woman. It's not *exactly* the same as an ad hominem, though it has, I grant you, a similar flavour. However, coming from a person who was previously defending her right to judge a person's intelligence from their dialect (in the Kanye West thread), your moral outrage strikes me as a bit rich. Let me remind you about the adage about glass houses and thrown stones.
Posted by: KristinMH | February 25, 2009 6:55 PM
Gretchen, get off your victim feminist high horse.
This harpy was so jealous and judgmental of another woman's appearance that she may cause serious damage to that woman's life. Again, it was over that woman's appearance.
Have you not heard of glass houses and stones? This harpy was living in the thinnest layer of glass imaginable. In a rock pile. Next to a baseball pitcher training camp.
If a woman is stupid enough to go after another woman over her appearance--to go after her so insanely that it becomes a vendetta of the worst sort, the vindictive cow cannot expect to be shielded from criticisms of her own appearance.
Period.
It would be hypocritical not to point out that this harpy has zero right to criticize anyone over appearance.
Posted by: Aquaria | February 25, 2009 7:15 PM
Gretchen,
Ultimately I disagree with your point that the post 'strongly implied' that we can disqualify Perkins' position on banning sex toys because of her appearance; I see you making that connection, not the post, and regardless it most certainly is not 'strong', since that isn't the topic of the post to begin with.
This is where we diverge, as I think your ad hominem inference depends on whether we are talking about something that is really arguable. To me, and I think to Ed and many if not most of the people who read Ed's blog, trying to ban sex toys is idiotic and wrong, no matter who agitates for it. Change the above post to have Perkins be a flat-earther being appointed to a school board or something, whose qualification is that she runs a popular website on the flat-earth, and Ed posts the same picture and some joke about her needing the flat earth to lay down on blahblah (I'm not the comedian). You can't make an ad hominem argument if there is no real debate; we call those statements just plain insults.
You admit you don't have a problem with making fun of someone's appearance, and her appearance is ridiculous, so it's beyond me how you can tell how this mocking is intended. It's based on very little, especially the lack of any discussion of the rightness or wrongness of banning sex toys, as if that is even debatable. To quote the way you interpreted it above, "Ha ha, look at this harpy! She sure looks like she could use a vibrator if anyone can-- a diesel-powered one!" , looks a lot like he's making fun of her, and her idiotic position, and is ironic in a way. No big deal, you don't agree which is cool, but I just think you need more to go on before we whip out 'ad hominem'.
Posted by: Spartan | February 25, 2009 7:15 PM
Harpy : “That which snatches”
Person obsessed with snatches: “Harpy”
Posted by: J Fox | February 26, 2009 11:25 AM
Wow. I'm just going to ignore Kristin and Aquaria, because they have bypassed my actual point completely. There is nothing particularly feminist about it (I'd be making the exact same argument if Ed had been making fun of a man's appearance to discredit his position), and I'm not particularly "outraged."
Spartan,
My impression is that you just think it's not possible to make an ad hom attack against somebody that everyone agrees is both ridiculous-looking and has a ridiculous position, something I find strange. Since when is a logical fallacy against a ridiculous person no longer a logical fallacy? An ad hom is distinguished from an insult by the fact that it does not merely denigrate, but denigrates for the purpose of discrediting someone. The fact that someone is already discredited certainly doesn't mean that ad hom attacks on them suddenly aren't anymore.
If Ed had said "And just look at this harpy-- gah! She looks like Tammy Faye's little sister," that would've been just an insult and I wouldn't have had a problem with it. The comment about the diesel-powered vibrator is, imho, what turned it into an ad hom. If you disagree, I can certainly understand why since it's a muddy issue. But I do appreciate your actually trying to understand and engage my point.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 26, 2009 11:45 AM
Hi Gretchen,
I think one point of yours that I had overlooked is the diesel-powered vibrator tie-in. I saw that as an obvious joke, and if anything an ironic one: 'Look at her, the person who's trying to ban sex toys is a person who looks like she could really use a session with one'. Agreed though, that's just my interpretation but I see how you're connecting that to the sex toy issue.
Not exactly, and my bad for not being clearer. I would add to your ad hom definition that it is distinguished from an insult in that it's purpose is to discredit someone's arguments for a position based on something that is irrelevant to the validity of the position. (I'll leave aside that one could say that denigration can implicitly imply discrediting, and it's difficult to tell when that line is crossed) It's rare to see clear ad homs, and we usually have to rely on interpretation; it's rare to see something like, 'whatever Gretchen says is bull because she can't dance the Charleston.'
In this case and to your quote above, the reason I brought up that she's ridiculous looking is that that makes it more difficult to determine whether Ed's purely mocking her or whether it's an ad hominem; her appearance is insultable enough all on it's own. It is ridiculous positions that I think make ad hominems more difficult to glean, without someone being absolutely clear like the Charleston quote above. Taken to the extreme, if Perkins held the position that 2+2=3, then nearly any kind of mocking of her, even if it connected her appearance and a joke about her math skills, would be assumed not to be an ad hominem, as she is taking a position that is already discredited by definition, and thus it seems strange that it's still possible to commit a logical fallacy concerning something that isn't arguable. But yes, I do see somewhat where you are coming from despite seeing it as far from clear.
Posted by: Spartan | February 26, 2009 1:05 PM
Thanks, Spartan.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 27, 2009 3:43 PM
Hi Gretchen,
I think sex toys is a person who looks like she could really use a session with one'. Agreed though, that's just my interpretation but I see how you're connecting that to the sex toy issue.
Posted by: Sex Toys Store | March 6, 2009 7:11 AM
http://etwiddle.wordpress.com blog offers information about adult sex toys, vibrators, adult sex toys for women, men and couples along with a large selection of dildos, vibrators, fetish and bondage gear, personal lubricants, massage accessories, body jewelry, erotic clothing, adult gag gifts, Adult novelties and more.
Posted by: e-twiddle | March 6, 2009 7:46 AM