RoR: Forum

Bottom line- If I were a lesbian who had read Rand and was excited about learning more and I came on this site, one of the first things i would see right now is a joke being made at the expense of "Muff divers". I think I'd turn the other way thinking very poorly of Objectivism. My guess is that if you approve of this kind of post you'll say "good riddance" to that lesbian. If this is a site for bigots now I don't belong here either. We need every mind we can get these days.

I know one Objectivist lesbian, and I think she'd be amused, not insulted. But if she were insulted she'd be free to express that, as you are, Richard. Her own language would make you blush, though.

Post 21

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 7:51am

Why would you presume only lesbians are muff divers? One of the best ways to pleasuring a woman is that, bringing her to orgasm first, then entering her for more... why consider it a derogatory remark?

Post 22

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 8:12am

I think the context makes the attitude of the author clear. As does my own comment. What's at question is not the words, but the contempt involved. The 'muff divers', clamoring for semen, represent the end of the world. Nothing is more pathetic or decadent to Steyn, apparently, more science fiction dystopian, then these desperate subhuman creatures. It drips with superiority and snide condescension. That's how I read it, anyways, and that's my reaction.

Theresa is free to post whatever she deems appropriate. I think this one is a mistake. But I don't have to approve. I'm free to find content elsewhere, and to post my thoughts on another site.

I think I understand Rand's angry side better every day, unfortunately. I can't sanction stuff like this.

Post 23

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 8:51am

Why isn't anyone defending the duff donors in this heinous injustice? Similar silly epitaph, same exact contextual usage. Since noone pissed off about this is a member of either group, what principle was used to determine that one group is being insulted and the other is beneath notice?

Post 24

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 9:47am

Richard,

I didn't read any "contempt involved" - and I didn't take him as seeing the women as "pathetic or decadent" and certainly not "subhuman." He made some things seem foolish, but it wasn't attributed to all lesbians, but rather beliefs. Someone could write a piece making fun of who some of the participants in a gay/lesbian parade were costumed, and not be attacking people for being gay or lesbian. I would suggest that you look again and see if you misread his subtext.

If there is any sense of superiority, it came across to me as someone who is humorously considering an aspect of the human condition in our culture - not a feeling of superiority of a member of one group over another.

There seems to be two related issues: Is "muff diver" a necessarily derogatory term in any context, as long as it's clear the phrase stands in for "lesbian"? And, given the context of the column Steyn wrote, is he attributing negative character traits to lesbians as a group, i.e., is he treating the category of lesbians like a racist treats a group defined by skin color?

I'm not sure that "muff diver" by itself is derogatory, but maybe I'm wrong. There is so much ugly history associated with all of the terms used by racists to describe blacks, that the terms carry that ugliness. Separating out the knee-jerk PC reactions, I'm not sure that is the case here.

As to Steyn's column as a whole, I think he has a witty style where he puts himself up above an example of human foolishness and has fun with it. I don't sense that the wit is being used as a tool to attack a group. I don't sense that it holds contempt or hatred or disgust. He appears to poking fun at a subculture - like if someone made fun of some aspects of the hip-hop subculture - which could easily be done without it being a racist piece.

Richard, if you can show me where I'm wrong I'll join with you in protest.

Post 25

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 10:37am

Steve- thanks for the reasoned post- everybody else seems determined to make me out as the intolerant censor.

I see your point of view about the article. I do sense a superior and condescending attitude in it, but I might be a little more aware of such things then most. As far as "muff-diver" as a term, yes it is inherently derogatory. Just as or "spear chucker" or "fish eater" or "camel jockey" or any one of a dozen phrases are. It's reductive and intentionally diminishing to the people referred to.

I wouldn't even object if it was just a link was to this article and the article had all those phrases. I wouldn't object if the phrases were discussed or bandied about in a thread as they are here.

But just as art is intentional selectivity, so is the picking out of this one sentence for selective focus and featuring it on the main content page. What I object to is that the phrase has been selected and featured. It says- this sentence is what is important, this sentence is worthy of reproduction, this sentence and this phrase is the one we want to get behind and repeat.

Essentially, to select out the 'muff-diver' sentence and repost it on the website's main page is to give it greater emphasis then the author gave it himself, to make RoR the promulgator and champion of that sentence, to hold it out as something really everybody must read. Like the cold sore on the face of a painted beauty, the fact that this is what you would choose to emphasize carries implications about what message is most important to spread. I object to what it implies about this site and the attitudes of the people on it towards gays and lesbians.

Call me hypersensitive, but I can't believe I see this and no one else does.

Post 26

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 12:51pm

Richard,

You said, "I do sense a superior and condescending attitude in it, but I might be a little more aware of such things then most."

I agree that the column is a little bit superior and condescending, but not in a mean spirited fashion, and not towards a group as such. It seems to me that much of the article is a light-hearted look at the human quandary of figuring out what to do about sex - psychologically, culturally, reproductively. We have become confused with our own variety. 100 years ago we were all straight or in a closet. Now, as he exaggerates in the article, we are straight or "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgendered, Intersexual, Queer, Questioning, etc." - He seems to be making fun of our situation as a people who have found out we don't who we are and we are doing lots of funny things as we go about this process of life in a new gender-diverse world. He was making fun of the situations we get ourselves in, with legislation like the Canadian situation, or just cultural supply and demand as in the Swedish example. And he poked fun at the British for having low sperm count. In fact, the column was more about sperm stories from around the world than anything else.
----------------

There were many comments following the column and some were very indignant - you aren't alone in having a negative reaction to Steyn. One critic, who seems to have gone clear over the top, wrote, "The language and tone of his article in relation to First Nations, homosexual and gender-diverse people was hateful, ignorant, self-serving, poorly informed and nuanced with racism, homophobia and transphobia." I'm not trying to paint you as being in the same camp as this fellow, but rather I was wondering if you saw any racism or homophobia. Does First Nations refer to Native Americans?

Post 27

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 2:06pm

Theresa is free to post whatever she deems appropriate. I think this one is a mistake.

Damnit! I did not post this, Ted did! Members are allowed to post gallery items at will, that's why I called him a loose cannon!

Post 28

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 4:35pm

See, here's the thing- I don't care what's in the article- I care what's on RoR. And RoR is treating that as a featured quote the same way you'd quote Jefferson or Madison.

If this were an article discussion, it would be presented differently. If it were posted as an article the headline would be "Mark Steyn on Artificial Insemination" or something. And Ted could say "my favorite sentence is..." in the description. That would be very different.

This is a featured quote and so the whole point is to draw attention to that particular sentence. The point of quoting something is to present the quote as an end in itself. The link to the actual article is tiny and secondary. As such, to see those words in this format implies agreement and a degree of sanction from the website and the people on it of those words separate from their original context.

If I'm registering these facts as an instantaneous emotional sum, sue me. :-P

Post 29

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 4:55pm

Richard,

I often use the "Quote" feature when my intention is to feature an article or a column - it is an easy way to give some of the flavor. Then I make a post - the first post - to explain more about what I like about the article or column.

But I understand your position on the featured quote. And I see things on RoR every now and then that don't "feel" right to me - that seems to represent a wrong-headed, ugly sense of life despite no explicit contradiction of an Objectivist principle.

Post 30

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 5:15pm

OMG. The point is, every single issue that becomes a focus for the left's social engineering bullshit interference turns out badly, like some crappy scene from a sci-fi novel. That's what the quote suggested to me, I don't read any insult to anyone. Is it okay to talk like adults? Adults who AREN'T psychotherapists?

Post 31

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 5:38pm

Please, by all means, keep it up. This quote is categorized under humorous, not serious. (Maybe it should have been under "fetish love" all along?) The fat chick joke didn't get this many posts or generate this many Atlas icons. This is hilarious.

Mark Steyn is a widely respected best-selling author. He writes for the hundred-year-old business magazine, Maclean's, the highest circulation Canadian weekly. He satirizes the left and its self-defeating effect on health care. And in response we get an Objectionist [sic] whining that he wants to protect our delicate lesbian readers (as if that's not a patronizing insult in itself) while he does his best to keep vulgarity off the website - by bandying about real insults like "C sucker" and "jungle bunny."

And who, besides someone saying "Don't cruise him girl, he's a muff diver," would actually think that "muff diver" is an insult?

So "sue me" he says. I'll leave that up to whoever holds the copyright for derivative works based on Atlas Shrugged.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/29, 8:20pm)

Post 32

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 11:13pm

Richard,

For whatever it's worth (this late in the game), I agree with your sentiments.

However, please remember that I was the one who first (or most strongly) objected to you putting into one of your videos a scene of 2 guys DP-ing a girl with a beer on her back (and the beer wasn't the issue). I had the same or very similar criticisms which you now bring up and, to my knowledge, you had the same or very similar justification for including such vulgarity (in a work of art that was meant for intellectuals) as folks do, here and now.

Each invoked artistic license to drive a point home harder. Each tapped into vulgarity for a heightened emotional appeal. Sex sells, but novelty moreso.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/29, 11:15pm)

Post 33

Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 8:01am

This seemed like such an odd thread - much ado about nothing. Steyn's article was clearly written tongue-in-cheek, more humorous commentary about the human condition than anything else.

Oddly, the first post I saw in this thread was Robert's. Certainly caught me off-guard, but in the end it was the clearest, most accurate, and to the point.

I would have been been too shy to say it, myself.

: )

jt

Post 34

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - 6:06am

"Mark Steyn is a widely respected best-selling author."

Nice argument from authority Ted
(Edited by Richard Gleaves on 9/01, 11:55am)

Post 35

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - 6:32am

I wasn't approving of the vulgarity, Ed, I included it as an example of what was disgusting and vile in our culture. Which you know- it was clear from the context- you guys are attacking me for supposed hypocrisy rather then addressing the points I made. Nice.

Now that Ted's also trying to attack me not my arguments (wow Ted- argument from authority AND ad hominems in the same post! however do you manage?) and I don't suppose anyone's going to call him on it- I don't think I'm going to be returning here- at least not for a while.

Let me reiterate- at no point did I insist or even ask that the quote be removed. It's the site's decision, not mine. I posted my reaction. I didn't think it was appropriate for the site and I was disappointed that that phrase was on the content page. Why is my disappointment and opinion, when expressed, a call for "censorship"? I said in my judgement it was not appropriate to the site. It's counter-productive at best and destructive at worst. And hasn't it been? Yes, I was angry at the use of the words, and that's my right. I've heard enough name calling in my life. And again, no one has answered my question- what value is this quote supposed to have- value to whom? For what? I think I'm absolutely correct that it's just a bit of stupidity for the sake of stupidity with no value qua objectivism or objectivists. Just Ted having a bit of a lark and he is now angry that I called him out on it.

if anyone was offended by my use of similar pejoratives to illustrate my point, my apologies. It was not my intent to offend. I think the context makes clear where my sympathies lie.

If you care to express a contrary opinion, i certainly will not attack you personally for expressing it. I will not call you a "whiner" or anything as childish and puerile as that. I won't post stupid pictures or any such nonsense. I will say, oh, that was not my intent. I see your point. Please consider it in the context I intended. (There, was that so hard, Ted?)

I DO care that nobody here has bothered to answer the points raised in my post. A site is responsible for how its members post and without some standards will bleed members. I DO care that the level of dialog here is of such a low level. What passes for discussion here is at a strictly grade school pissing match level. And I DO care that I no longer feel I can participate here. I don't trust the moderators to actually moderate, which means to look out that its members treat each other with some courtesy.

So at the very least Ted's "loose cannon" posting has cost RoR one member, myself. Kind of proves my point, even if not in the way I intended.

(Edited by Richard Gleaves on 9/01, 12:30pm)

Post 36

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - 10:53am

STEVE- thanks for engaging without attacks. Take care.

Post 37

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - 11:33am

Theresa- Ted says he posted this as "Humorous" and he may well have, but there's absolutely nothing on the page or at the top of this thread to indicate that- if it's humorous it doesn't say so. A glitch in the system? Why have the ability to post something in a "humor" category if the category doesn't show up with the quote?

Post 38

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - 11:54am

RoR: Wishing you all well. Thanks for reposting my articles and videos. Take care.

(Edited by Richard Gleaves on 9/01, 12:03pm)

Post 39

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - 12:34pm