# Dan Savage (advice columnist) rants against anti-fat prejudice



## Janet (Apr 18, 2008)

Savage Love
by Dan Savage

I'm a 29-year-old married man. My wife and I are both active people (rock climbing, cycling, and kayaking) and our sex life is good. However, since high school I've been turned on by thick, big-butt, big-tit, ugly, trashy girls. In my 20s, I would secretly go to bars in the suburbs to pick up these thick, ugly girls. But I've only ever been in relationships with fit, attractive, intellectual girls. I'm married to one and I'm madly in love with her. I've been able to repress my desires for the past three years, hoping that I'd become sexually attracted to my wife. Unfortunately, it's now clear that fat, ugly, hick girls are what turn my crankbut I could never be in a relationship with one of these girls. Quite frankly, these girls are of no interest to me outside of my sexual desires. What should I do?

Big And Trashy Lover



Sometimes I don't even know where to begin.

But, fuck, might as well start with the truth: Do you know why you dismiss the girls you find attractivegirls who are not, by your dick's definition, unattractive in the leastas "ugly, trashy girls," "thick, ugly girls," "fat, ugly, hick girls," etc.? For the same reason, BATL, that you've ruled out the possibility of ever having a relationship with a fat girl: You're a cowardly, hateful piece of shit.

That's unkind, of course, just like describing all fat girls as "ugly" or suggesting that women can be intelligent or heavy but never both. So here's a kindler, gentler take: A long, long time ago you internalized our culture's anti-fat prejudice. We all do, of course, to greater or lesser extents. But when you hit puberty, BATL, your sexual tastes brought you into conflict with those anti-fat prejudices. At that moment, BATL, you had an obligation to yourself and to your future sex partners to overcome your prejudices. Instead, disgusted by your desires, you projected your disgust and anger onto the women you want to fuck. Terrified of the shame and judgment that would come your way if you had a relationship with a big woman, you convinced yourself that all big women are thick, stupid trash. A big woman might be worth fucking, you concluded, but she could never be worthy of love.

So what do you do now, BATL? Well, you either stay with the skinny woman you marrieda woman who will never satisfy you sexuallyor you divorce her and find yourself a big girl, a woman who's active and intelligent, a woman you could love madly and wanna fuck, er, badly. But you know what? That woman deserves better than you.


----------



## LalaCity (Apr 18, 2008)

Yay! Thank you for posting this! I always liked Dan Savage, but my respect for him has just shot through the ionosphere.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 18, 2008)

This is just the kind of thing I thought we were trying to get away from here.

Sure, my knee jerk reaction is "Right On Dan! Smackdown."

But the salient point is what Dan said regarding the writer's sexual orientation (as far as being sexually aroused by fat women, not sexual orientation as in gay) clashed with social anti-fat bigotry. That sucks. I mean it sucks for a guy who can't fulfill his own sexuality, it sucks for the fat women he uses and it sucks for the thin woman he's married to who can't fulfill her partner.

It can't be productive to continually rail on these guys rather than trying to help them work through their issues. 

I do hope this forum can start actually helping FAs to deal with this conflict in a constructive way. That isn't going to happen if there's this mad rush to judgement that anyone who's not a Southwest boycotting out and proud FA with a "Fat Chicks Only" logo on his chest gets told he's a jackass.


----------



## Tad (Apr 18, 2008)

I kind of get what lovesBHMs is saying but.....I think I'm going with "Go tell 'im Dan!"

The writer knows how Mr. Savage tends to write, and chose to use quite spiteful terminology with regards to the women he lusts after. Given which, I think being gentle might have sent the message that it was not a big deal, and here I think it was.

If the writer had been respectful, I'd have hoped that Dan would have been more supportive--but from what I've read of Savage Love he may not have been. But I don't think giving any wiggle room on whether the guy's attitudes were acceptable or not was a good thing.

Mind you, I think Dan also skipped over another possibility: that the guy is even more messed up, and only lusts over women that he can despise, that part of the lust is tied into how he despises them. Those guys really scare me.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 18, 2008)

Well is he giving advice then or being Doctor Laura and just going for shock?

If he does only get turned on by women he despises, that is pretty sad. It's not helpful to give him a smackdown about being such a loser.

It's entertaining, but not helpful.


----------



## Tad (Apr 18, 2008)

LoveBHMS said:


> Well is he giving advice then or being Doctor Laura and just going for shock?
> 
> If he does only get turned on by women he despises, that is pretty sad. It's not helpful to give him a smackdown about being such a loser.
> 
> It's entertaining, but not helpful.



Good points. Sadly you have good points far too often, so I can't rep these ones. 

But yah, Dan Savage is largely about the shock value I think. Do you ever read his columns? I do get the sense that he likes to be shocking and offensive.


----------



## love dubh (Apr 18, 2008)

Old news. Part of a theme of fat write-ins and equally cutting (and some nice) responses.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 18, 2008)

Ever since he "called out" a female writer for not really being female when she said she was into some freaky stuff along the lines of overstuffing her partner, I decided he was not worth my time.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Apr 18, 2008)

LoveBHMS said:


> This is just the kind of thing I thought we were trying to get away from here.
> 
> Sure, my knee jerk reaction is "Right On Dan! Smackdown."
> 
> ...



I love you like candy, but this post is a knee slapper. If someone on this board posts anything negative about thinness you are all over them with a sound kick in the ass. No cooing and coddling for them but someone calls us a bunch of stupid ugly c*nts and it's, "Awwww, poor misundertood baby. " ROFL Possibly that's not what you meant, maybe you should clarify.


----------



## LalaCity (Apr 18, 2008)

Sorry, but why are we women who have lifelong been the target of open hatred obligated to handhold and coddle the ignorant, despicable pieces of shit who daily degrade us? 

Savage was replying to a hate-monger, not a bashful FA trying to "find his way."

Everything he wrote was spot on.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 18, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> I love you like candy, but this post is a knee slapper. If someone on this board posts anything negative about thinness you are all over them with a sound kick in the ass. No cooing and coddling for them but someone calls us a bunch of stupid ugly c*nts and it's, "Awwww, poor misundertood baby. " ROFL Possibly that's not what you meant, maybe you should clarify.



It was basically a carryover from what was being discussed on the thread about FAs and the need for an FA board.

I'm the first one to say that being a FFA is easier and different from being a male FA. Don't deny it.

In no way was I defending the writer for being a jerk or for disrespecting fat women (or poor, stupid women for that matter.) What I meant was that Dan's most important point got lost in the middle of it--that the guy got too caught up in social pressure to simply own up to his own sexuality. 

That happens. We all know it happens.

The best thing Size Acceptance can do is to help these guys become a new generation of (_mods feel free to delete names if you have to_ Blackjacks and SlackerFAs and BothGunsBlazings and Placebos.

Getting called a jackass isn't going to either fix him or fix any in-the-closet FA who is reading that.


----------



## lipmixgirl (Apr 18, 2008)

APPROVES! 
go dan! with your big bad self!​
the big apple has spoken...
::exeunt:: :bow:


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 18, 2008)

LalaCity said:


> Sorry, but why are we women who have lifelong been the target of open hatred obligated to handhold and coddle the ignorant, despicable pieces of shit who daily degrade us?
> 
> Savage was replying to a hate-monger, not a bashful FA trying to "find his way."
> 
> Everything he wrote was spot on.



I didn't say anything about coddling people.

If you follow Dan's logic, the guy was not by nature an ignorant, despicable piece of shit, but he got brainwashed by social bigotry. Pretty much nobody is just born a racist or homophobe, it's learned behaviour.

So as Dan said, his sexuality clashed with social pressure and pressure won out. Which isn't good for anyone.

I'm just thinking if some nascent FA is at the proverbial fork in the road of either becoming THAT GUY in the Savage piece or becoming one of the FAs i mentioned in my above post, the best thing is to figure out how to nudge the nascent FA in towards being BothGunsBlazing rather than Savage Piece Guy.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Apr 18, 2008)

LoveBHMS said:


> I didn't say anything about coddling people.
> 
> If you follow Dan's logic, the guy was not by nature an ignorant, despicable piece of shit, but he got brainwashed by social bigotry. Pretty much nobody is just born a racist or homophobe, it's learned behaviour.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry but anybody who claims to be an intellectual and is married to one has no excuse whatsoever. Clearly he knows better than to carry on in that letter like he did withotu getting kicked in the ass by somebody. Bad behavior should never be overlooked and instictively Dan knew that fat women all over the world are better off with him staying with his wife, unfortunately for her.


----------



## LalaCity (Apr 18, 2008)

So it's a "knee-jerk" reaction to get angry when I'm called an ugly, stupid, worthless piece of shit by virtue of my dress size...yeah, I should really have stopped and thought about how better to smooth and massage that guy's tortured sexuality...


----------



## lipmixgirl (Apr 18, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> I'm sorry but anybody who claims to be an intellectual and is married to one has no excuse whatsoever. Clearly he knows better than to carry on in that letter like he did without getting kicked in the ass by somebody. Bad behavior should never be overlooked and instinctively Dan knew that fat women all over the world are better off with him staying with his wife, unfortunately for her.



I SECOND!:bow:


----------



## LalaCity (Apr 18, 2008)

LoveBHMS said:


> I didn't say anything about coddling people.
> 
> If you follow Dan's logic, the guy was not by nature an ignorant, despicable piece of shit, but he got brainwashed by social bigotry.



Reviling millions of women as trashy, stupid and ugly because they are not thin -- that's the height of ignorance, especially so because he _decided_, by giving into society's prejudices, to think that way.

I'm surprised that, even on this board, this kind of hate-speech is not universally decried as it would have been if it were an anti-semitic or other kind of racist rant...


----------



## wistful (Apr 18, 2008)

I must admit that I'm actually suprised(in a good way) by Dan's advice.Dan Savage has actually made any number of nasty,fat bigoted remarks over the years..so I'm kinda shocked with his sticking up for fat women here.While his fat bigotry used to rub me the wrong way,I kinda didn't take it too personally, because Savage makes a career out of being ultra-snarky and cutting on any number of subjects.

I seem to recall a column of his years ago,where he mentioned that because he himself has a preference for very thin men,that it's hard for him to wrap his head around the concept of anyone finding fat bodies attractive.I'm glad to see that time and maybe a bit of maturity(not to mention angry letters!) has expanded his viewpoint on the subject of fatness.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 18, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> I'm sorry but anybody who claims to be an intellectual and is married to one has no excuse whatsoever. Clearly he knows better than to carry on in that letter like he did withotu getting kicked in the ass by somebody. Bad behavior should never be overlooked and instictively Dan knew that fat women all over the world are better off with him staying with his wife, unfortunately for her.



In your whole life, how many people have you met who referred to themselves as "intellectuals" who actually were?

And look, we all know these letters are made up or composites of letters he gets. In some way, is this a whole lot different from the outing of gays that was so big a decade ago? "Let's take people who for any number of reasons are in the closet and out them."

Being out about ones sexuality is easy for some people. There are lots of factors involved though, and I happen to think there are better ways for THAT GUY to have wound up as Blackjack/SlackerFA/BothGunsBlazing then saying what a loser he is.

If a young gay person is hesitant about coming out, I doubt reading about blogs that out people and destroy their personal lives is going to make that young gay guy feel more confident about coming out.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Apr 18, 2008)

For a moment, I feared this was a MICHAEL Savage response, which to me would have been totally different, peppered with neoconservative hate and an insufferably pompous air. Glad it was the OTHER Savage! 



LoveBHMS said:


> If he does only get turned on by women he despises, that is pretty sad. It's not helpful to give him a smackdown about being such a loser.
> 
> It's entertaining, but not helpful.


As Banky Edwards said in Chasing Amy: 

Alyssa: ... I'm sure you don't love every girl you sleep with... 
Banky Edwards: Some of them I downright loathe.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 18, 2008)

The original letter is obviously fake. By the way. I mean, it was written as a gimmick and used because it hit triggers without a doubt. 

Because of that I can't really decide how I feel about Dan's response. 

Let's pretend for a minute that he wasn't duped by a joke letter-- he should absolutely tear the guy a new asshole. Because this has absolutely nothing to do with him being an FA. "Fat, ugly, hicks" doesn't mean "I like fat girls". It means "I secretly want women who aren't in my same social stratum." 

We're getting hung up on the word "fat" used in the letter. The letter isn't about fat or not fat. It's about social "classes". IF the "writer" were actually expressing a secret attraction to bigger girls (even if he couched it in abusive shit), it would make sense to tear him a new one and *then* tell him to be open about his sexuality. But this is about a guy who thinks that he is elite wanting to fuck a lower caste. It's stupid, but it's not about FAs.

Also? Fake.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 18, 2008)

I don't think he'd be duped by a fake letter so much as make the letter up himself.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Apr 18, 2008)

LoveBHMS said:


> In your whole life, how many people have you met who referred to themselves as "intellectuals" who actually were?
> 
> And look, we all know these letters are made up or composites of letters he gets. In some way, is this a whole lot different from the outing of gays that was so big a decade ago? "Let's take people who for any number of reasons are in the closet and out them."
> 
> ...



If young in the closet gay guy reads a column where the letter writer says, "Im married to a hot woman but I really wan't to fcuk faggots. Faggots are my passion in life though my wife is beautiful she doesn't arouse me sexually. What should I do?" I think it's the wrong message for the young gay person to thing that calling someone ****** is somehow forgiveable or understandable under the circumstances. I don't think calling the letter writer a gutless twit who does't deserve any gay man OR his wife is going to scar the young gay lad for life. Young gay boy is probably thinking, "Holy shit, I don't want to wind up like THAT guy. What a moron." Looks like the correct response to me though I'm not gay so I don't know.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 18, 2008)

Never mind. Sum up: The fake letter is repulsive, Dan smacked him, end of story. 

EDIT: I never heard about Dan being anti-fat, but I've not read all that many of his columns. When did this happen?


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 18, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> If young in the closet gay guy reads a column where the letter writer says, "Im married to a hot woman but I really wan't to fcuk faggots. Faggots are my passion in life though my wife is beautiful she doesn't arouse me sexually. What should I do?" I think it's the wrong message for the young gay person to thing that calling someone ****** is somehow forgiveable or understandable under the circumstances. I don't think calling the letter writer a gutless twit who does't deserve any gay man OR his wife is going to scar the young gay lad for life. Young gay boy is probably thinking, "Holy shit, I don't want to wind up like THAT guy. What a moron." Looks like the correct response to me though I'm not gay so I don't know.



When you put it that way you are right and I'm wrong.

I should not have let things said elsewhere carry into what I wrote about a totally separate topic. I apologize if anyone thought I was defending the man's words, i wasn't. I've just recently realized that it's been wrong of me to jump on the "tell closet FAs they're jerks" bandwagon.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Apr 18, 2008)

wistful said:


> I must admit that I'm actually suprised(in a good way) by Dan's advice.Dan Savage has actually made any number of nasty,fat bigoted remarks over the years..so I'm kinda shocked with his sticking up for fat women here.While his fat bigotry used to rub me the wrong way,I kinda didn't take it too personally, because Savage makes a career out of being ultra-snarky and cutting on any number of subjects.
> 
> I seem to recall a column of his years ago,where he mentioned that because he himself has a preference for very thin men,that it's hard for him to wrap his head around the concept of anyone finding fat bodies attractive.I'm glad to see that time and maybe a bit of maturity(not to mention angry letters!) has expanded his viewpoint on the subject of fatness.


 Oh good-- someone else remembers. DS was quite unapologetic about fatbashing for years and got plenty of mail from DIMmers about it. Good to see him doin' the walkback.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Apr 18, 2008)

Ned Sonntag said:


> Oh good-- someone else remembers. DS was quite unapologetic about fatbashing for years and got plenty of mail from DIMmers about it. Good to see him doin' the walkback.


 To me having a sexual preference minority discriminate against a size minority is hypocritical. Kettle: My pot, let me show you our blackness.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Apr 18, 2008)

LoveBHMS said:


> When you put it that way you are right and I'm wrong.
> 
> I should not have let things said elsewhere carry into what I wrote about a totally separate topic. I apologize if anyone thought I was defending the man's words, i wasn't. I've just recently realized that it's been wrong of me to jump on the "tell closet FAs they're jerks" bandwagon.



I'm starting to lean a bit more toward tolerance for the timid but I'm still holding out battery priviledges for the toxic ones who think fat girls are merely stupid sheep good only to fcuk when the urge is too strong to ignore.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 18, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> I'm starting to lean a bit more toward tolerance for the timid but I'm still holding out battery priviledges for the toxic ones who think fat girls are merely stupid sheep good only to fcuk when the urge is too strong to ignore.



I'm not saying so much tolerance, as look at the opportunity to guide in a positive direction. I don't think a closet FA thinks _ill_ of fat women, I think he's confused by the colliding of innate sexuality and social bigotry.

Waxwing is right though. Not one of us took issue with either the writer or Savage picking on poor people or "suburb" people or "hicks". Equating body size with where you live or what your income is is nonsense.


----------



## liz (di-va) (Apr 18, 2008)

My impression is that Dan has changed a bit. We've debated this on the boards before. 

I've seen him say very mixed things over the years, but it seems like he's kinda...gettin it. Not sure though.

I personally thought this one was spot on (I think it's a repeat? feel like I've seen it before).

I've also said this before: DS was the only guy to look down my dress when once out to dinner with a bunch of (straight _and_ gay) guys, so I have some fondness for the old dude. His recent col about his mother made me bawl.


----------



## Fascinita (Apr 18, 2008)

LoveBHMS said:


> It can't be productive to continually rail on these guys rather than trying to help them work through their issues.
> 
> I do hope this forum can start actually helping FAs to deal with this conflict in a constructive way. That isn't going to happen if there's this mad rush to judgement that anyone who's not a Southwest boycotting out and proud FA with a "Fat Chicks Only" logo on his chest gets told he's a jackass.



Love,

Alls I got to say on this is that, when someone calls me a trashy, fat, ugly chick, the last thing I am going to do is say, "You poor soul, let me help you with your troubles."

Pffffft. 

No, I'm going to move on and help a cat get down from a tree, or an old lady cross the street, or rescue a puppy from a pound. There's way too much work to be done in the world for me, fat chick extraordinaire, to take on the job of teaching another adult how to act like a grownup.

Praises to Dan Savage, whose anti-fat comments in the past made me upset, for taking a fat-phobe to task.


----------



## butch (Apr 18, 2008)

This is an old column, and if you think Dan Savage has mended his anti-fat ways, head over to bigfatblog or shapleyprose or some of the other fat positive blogs where you'll read about a somewhat recent debate between Dan and Kate Harding that exposed his continued anti-fat bias.


----------



## ekmanifest (Apr 18, 2008)

I'm with Liz on this one (and most other ones too . . . ). I also listen to his podcasts and was particularly interested, after reading about him here, to see him handle a caller who was overweight and afraid she would never have sex in a very encouraging and positive way, letting her know that there were men who were attracted to her type of body, etc.


----------



## liz (di-va) (Apr 18, 2008)

butch said:


> This is an old column, and if you think Dan Savage has mended his anti-fat ways, head over to bigfatblog or shapleyprose or some of the other fat positive blogs where you'll read about a somewhat recent debate between Dan and Kate Harding that exposed his continued anti-fat bias.



thanks for info...I thought I had read somethin recently


----------



## Qit el-Remel (Apr 18, 2008)

I haven't liked Dan Savage for quite some time now. He has no respect for straight men, seems to out-and-out _hate_ fat people who dare to question his biases, and—perhaps worst of all—tries and fails at sardonic and only succeeds at _snotty_.



wistful said:


> I must admit that I'm actually suprised(in a good way) by Dan's advice.Dan Savage has actually made any number of nasty,fat bigoted remarks over the years..so I'm kinda shocked with his sticking up for fat women here.


So am I. Very much so. But I don't think he's really done any growing up.



> While his fat bigotry used to rub me the wrong way,I kinda didn't take it too personally, because Savage makes a career out of being ultra-snarky and cutting on any number of subjects.


I don't call dismissing anorexia as a red herring—or singing the praises of notorious diet-pill whore Greg Critser—"snarky."



> I seem to recall a column of his years ago,where he mentioned that because he himself has a preference for very thin men,that it's hard for him to wrap his head around the concept of anyone finding fat bodies attractive.I'm glad to see that time and maybe a bit of maturity(not to mention angry letters!) has expanded his viewpoint on the subject of fatness.


Even if this were the case, I doubt the angry letters would have anything to do with it; he dismissed those out of hand.

P.S.: Read this.

-Qit


----------



## Jon Blaze (Apr 18, 2008)

butch said:


> This is an old column, and if you think Dan Savage has mended his anti-fat ways, head over to bigfatblog or shapleyprose or some of the other fat positive blogs where you'll read about a somewhat recent debate between Dan and Kate Harding that exposed his continued anti-fat bias.



Plus one. I thought this was new, but if it isn't from just a few months ago, then he still has his bias.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Apr 18, 2008)

LoveBHMS said:


> Equating body size with where you live or what your income is is nonsense.


 The Goddess works in mysterious ways.


----------



## olwen (Apr 19, 2008)

Look, I've been reading Dan Savage for a really long time. I actually love his column and the advice he gives is always in the vein of "hey you with the sexual problem - own up to what you like, be true to yourself and take responsibility for your actions. The people around you don't deserve your bullshit." I too was surprised that he was being pro-fat given that he tells readers who are fat that they're at the bottom of the sexual food chain and that they have to live with their lot so to speak.  Dan thinks the guy's a jerk for basically being a misogynist creep, not for being in the closet. Change the word "fat" to "hairy" or "short" or "insert adjective here" and he would have given the same advice. 

I agree with his advice here. Whether or not the person will feel like shit for being called a jerk is on the person. Sometimes people need a good sharp kick in the ass and that is Dan's style. He's an ass kicking advice columnist, not a pyschologist. 

And I'm sorry, but I've been burned too many times by guys like that to have any sympathy for them. It's not fair to me or to the girl who will come after me. I don't have the patience or desire to coddle a guy like that either. Being true to yourself is not difficult. Having the presense of mind to recognize that you'll be better off if you are true to yourself seems to be what's hard. 

We will all be tested in one way or another at some point in our lives. And if it's me who needs a swift kick in the ass to make me grow as a person, I'll gladly bend over.


----------



## wistful (Apr 19, 2008)

butch said:


> This is an old column, and if you think Dan Savage has mended his anti-fat ways, head over to bigfatblog or shapleyprose or some of the other fat positive blogs where you'll read about a somewhat recent debate between Dan and Kate Harding that exposed his continued anti-fat bias.



I just did..You're right.I was really hoping that somehow he had reformed or at the very least,become a bit less fat hating but nope he's still the same assh*le on this subject as always.



Qit el-Remel said:


> I don't call dismissing anorexia as a red herringor singing the praises of notorious diet-pill whore Greg Critser"snarky."
> 
> 
> -Qit



Qit,I just wanted to let you know that I was not aware of Dan's stance on either subject as it's been quite some time since I read him.I'm not going to lie,I used to read Dan's column faithfully when I was younger and I often found it entertaining.Fat is not the only subject on which I have found myself in disagreement with him..to put it mildly he's got quite the ego on him.


----------



## elle camino (Apr 19, 2008)

i've been a fan of dan's for years, i've read not just his column but the seattle weekly paper which he's been editing/writing/masterminding for the past couple of decades ever since i've been old enough to make conscious reading choices, i've differed with his on MANY a subject, and i've read all of the him vs. harding stuff i've been able to get my hands on. 

and i still honestly don't think he's got anything against the fatties. 

he's not attracted to fat people personally, but so _what_? he's never said fatties were shitty people, ferfucksakes. he's as accepting of us as he is of any one else, really. if he's gone on some huge rant that i'm unaware of, PLEASE someone link me. 
as for this , i'm SUPER sorry, but i agree with what he's saying. eating well and exercising and eschewing fast food is a healthier way to live, period. it's got fuckall to do with weight. and if you eat shittily and never exercise and you weigh more than your body would naturally weigh if you ate well and weren't sedentary, guess what? if you change those two things you WILL lose weight. 
he's not saying anyone HAS to eat differently, or exersize more, or way any less than they want to. he SPECIFICALLY SAYS that it's everyone's right to eat and act and weigh whatever they please, AND that it's fucked up to treat people like crap because they may make different lifestyle choices. 
so WHAT is the big problem, here?


----------



## Fascinita (Apr 19, 2008)

elle camino said:


> WHAT is the big problem, here?



One problem is that when people's response to the mere existence of fat people is, "You clearly have a problem, and I have the solution for you: eat this way, exercise this way, etc.," it leads to all kinds of crap for you and me down the line, even if it's well-meaning. Dan Savage doesn't have the last word on what's healthy for me, or on how much exercise I should get. "Eating healthy and getting enough exercise" is a kind of mantra in the "war on fat," as you know. So it's not a matter of denying that "eating healthy" is a good thing. It's a matter of resisting having our choices defined for us and our bodies forced to adhere to a narrow acceptable standard. It's a stone's throw away from "It's better to eat healthy," to "If you're fat it's only your own fault," and then to "Fat people are ruining our lives." And saying that fat people are at the bottom of the sexual food chain (ha ha! food chain! fat people!)--or however else Dan puts it--is no less reprehensible than saying that people of a certain ethnicity or sexual preference have the lowest moral standards.

I wish it didn't work that way, but it seems to me that it does.


----------



## elle camino (Apr 19, 2008)

dan savage isn't TRYING to be the last word on your diet or size or activity level, though. people mail him questions, he answers them with his own views and opinions, without really mincing any words for political correctness's sake. that's why he's been successful, that's why he gets paid the medium bucks. the whole 'what dan savage thinks of the state of fat america's personal health' kaffufle started because of his responses to people ASKING HIM ways to deal with their partners who've put on weight. they wrote to dan savage for advice, and he gave them dan savage-brand advice, i.e. "listen, if you REALLY ABSOLUTELY CAN'T deal with your partner's weight, you need to be honest with your them about that. you're doing them a disservice by obfuscating those feelings. if you're honestly saying you can't be attracted to them any more and that there's no foreseeable change in_ your_ opinion, then you're left with two options: leave, or suggest _they_ try to change. perhaps you could present it as a mutual lifestyle change for health reasons, and see if that doesn't soften the blow. because really dude (or lady), at the end of the day, your partner - like everyone - deserves to be with someone who loves them and is into them for who they are, in the body they have. if that REALLY can't be you, then you've got to let them move on, either from the body you're not into, or from you entirely. good luck!"
which somehow was interpreted as 'dan savage just sounded the trumpet for every fat person in creation to get off their lazy ass and quit eating bonbons all day'. 

like i said, i've read everything this guy's said on the subject of fat, and as a fat person i've never felt lectured, or condemned, or in any way derided by what he's had to say. 

i mean, if you know your lifestyle isn't unhealthy, and that you're not neglecting your well-being out of lazyness or whatever other scenario may be presented by dan savage or anyone else, why on earth would you be offended? why should you feel like you're being falsely accused of not giving a shit about yourself when you know you DO, so you know he's not talking about you personally?

i've never seen the guy say 'all fat people are unhealthy', or any permutation of that statement. i HAVE seen him go OUT OF HIS WAY on several occasions to explicitly acknowledge that fat people _can absolutely be_ healthy, happy, sexually fulfilled, all while being fat. so he's open about not thinking fat people are attractive! so what? he's open about not thinking women are attractive either! should i feel doubly offended? is it ok that i'm actually not offended at all, by either of those things? why on earth WOULD i be? unless he was using his column to say that NOBODY can or should be attracted to fat people, or women, or _what_ever. which he's not. 


so really, i'm saying...when there are SO MANY people out there on the internet and elsewhere who are more than happy to say any and every terrible, untrue, cruel, disgusting thing that comes to their mind about every single fat person, no exception...why are we tilting at this dan savage windmill?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Apr 19, 2008)

I'm not an expert on Savage and never even heard of him till I came here, still not interested. Didn't he say one time though that he thought fat people were sloppy and gross and he couldn't understand how people could like them, or something to that effect?


----------



## elle camino (Apr 19, 2008)

not that i can recall, and that's the kind of thing i'd have no difficulty recalling if i'd read it. like, ever. 

but i'm open to links proving me incorrect, if they exist.


----------



## olwen (Apr 19, 2008)

Yeah, he's very opinionated. I think over the years he's gotten more impatient with people and their sexual hangups since the tone of his column has become more and more sharp. And all the fat bashing over the years has always bothered me, but dammit, he's entertaining. So part of me wants to kick his ass and the other part wants to read more. I've yet to reconcile the conflicting feelings, so I just let it be for now. He does champion GLBT rights and managed to turn the word "Santorum" into a very descriptive noun. If he were on our side he'd probably get a hellova lot done.


----------



## Fascinita (Apr 19, 2008)

elle camino said:


> not that i can recall, and that's the kind of thing i'd have no difficulty recalling if i'd read it. like, ever.
> 
> but i'm open to links proving me incorrect, if they exist.




I'm not going to provide links proving you incorrect, but I am going to state my opinion: Dan Savage is a narcissistic, anal retentive fat-o-phobe who is probably secretly attracted to fatsoes. (Ha ha! That's what people used to say of homophobes! That they were secretly homosexual! Take that, all you fat-haterz!) 

Dan Savage is so uptight that if he wasn't already full of himself you could stuff a lump of coal in his ass and pull out a diamond. If Dan Savage wasn't a gay man, you know who he would be? He'd be Ann Coulter, that's who. Same style, very similar MOs of using political controversy as a front for self-promotion while remaining as insubstantial as dandelion fluff--the one possible exception to this is that Savage took on Rick Santorum, that hateful anti-choice, queer-hating throwback to the dark ages. 

But I don't particularly see Dan as someone who stands for progressive social values anymore than your typical Big Mouth self-promoting, self-appointed neo-con voice-of-their generation pundit stands for traditional values. What these pundits offer--let's call them neocons and neolibs--is a pie-in-the-sky, narrow-minded vision of a shiny American utopia that would be _just_ the perfect place for them and their friends, but that often leaves little room for the existence of such unclean, unhealthy inconvenients as "illegal" immigrants, the working classes, and homosexuals (on the con side) and simple-minded religious types, "lazy" couch potato fat-asses (with the irony being that some scientific research suggests poverty and fat are co-related), and trailer-park "rednecks" (on the lib side.) Aside from his having helped make "perverted" sex of all manner more fashionable, Dan actually strikes me as very much a throwback to the worst of American cultural jingoist models--self-aggrandizing, self-seeking, my-way-or-the-highway, John-Wayneisms. 

Oh, and just like Ann Coulter and so many of the youngish neo-cons, Dan doesn't seem to like women too much, does he? You're right about that. He _tolerates_ them, is even jovial with them frequently--but you'd be crazy to try to cultivate a career in lefty journalism and not at least _act_ like you're toeing the feminist line, wouldn't you? But from the beginning there are strains of misogynyg that showed in his writing. Don't take my word for it. Go back and read his columns. One of his main complaints against women is that they don't act more like men.

Quoth the man:

"(E)ven as a victim—excuse me, a survivor—of the male gaze..., I can recognize the disconnect between demanding, as so many straight women do, complete sexual fidelity from a male partner and then declaring the subject of my sexual attractiveness out of bounds for the little bit of emotional blackmail that it is.

But I know enough about women that I would never, ever advise a straight man to be honest with his wife about her weight—not at first, anyway. "

In other words, Dan thinks if you've gotten fat and are "deteriorating" (as he says in another column), you need to face up to that fact and understand that your man isn't going to find you attractive anymore and stop "demanding" sexual fidelity, "as so many straight women do." So yeah, just learn to take your lumps, ladies! A man would know how to take it on the chin, after all. Only a sissy girl would be so sentimental as to expect sexual fidelity from the person she has made vows to and probably made many sacrifices for along the way. A man would know that he'd better shape up or ship out.

And really, that's just one example. Look, elle, I understand that you disagree with me on this. And that's cool with me. But I feel differently about Dan. And since you asked what the problem was, I'm trying to explain.

(For the record, I first read Dan in the early 90s, found him amusing and promising, but slowly lost interest in his column. Dan is neither a particularly good progressive nor a particularly good _writer_. I find him actually rather one-dimensional on both of those fronts. He's kind of cute, I'll give you that. But by no means does he "send me" on that count, either.)


----------



## olwen (Apr 19, 2008)

Fascinita, I see what you mean about the guy's politics. I don't disagree there, but as far as his anti-feminists leanings are concerned I'm not so sure I agree. He does have particular ideas about straight people and has expressed his disdain for "breeders" time and again, but I've never interpreted his columns as misogynist, just not always breeder friendly. He's just not a fan of wishy-washy people period.

Let's say he got a letter from a gay guy whose man likes to wear panties, but he doesn't like it. He'd tell the guy that he'd better learn to like it or else his bf will go out and find someone who will like it and that if he isn't meeting his bf's needs then his bf has every right to go out and find somebody to fulfill that need with or without his consent. Replace the words panties with some other thing and change the sex of the couple - it doesn't matter. The one thing he's been consistent about over the years is that a good couple is GGG - good giving and game no matter the sexual orientation, or the particular sexual need except in cases where he thinks the sexual need is something that would harm the participants or if one of the participants isn't able to give consent.


----------



## elle camino (Apr 19, 2008)

wow fascinista. just wow. 
i like you to pieces so i'm just going to say: a hyperbolic rant with nothing more substantial than a completely out-of-context blurb with no link to _provide_ any context, nor any direction towards any _other_ fat-hating dan savage missives so we can see the beast in technicolor (or even at all), is really not going to be enough to convince me that the guy is anti-feminist, anti-fat, or really anything other than a particularly evocative writer.


----------



## Fascinita (Apr 19, 2008)

elle camino said:


> wow fascinista. just wow.
> i like you to pieces so i'm just going to say: a hyperbolic rant with nothing more substantial than a completely out-of-context blurb with no link to _provide_ any context, nor any direction towards any _other_ fat-hating dan savage missives so we can see the beast in technicolor (or even at all), is really not going to be enough to convince me that the guy is anti-feminist, anti-fat, or really anything other than a particularly evocative writer.



Oh, elle. First, thanks for liking me to pieces. The feeling's mutual.

Next, tell me you _don't_ like being depicted as a Michelin-Man-like caricature. Tell me you _don't_ think this is _that_ funny. Tell me that it smacks of every frat-boy insult that's ever been flung at you or the fat women you know and that you deplore it that Savage stoops that low. Tell me you see where I'm coming from, at least on this one.

Also: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dan+savage+"fat+people"&btnG=Google+Search

and the following, from June 27, 2007:

"I was extremely disgusted by I Loves Me Some Sleepin Ladies, the somnophiliac who sought your advice about having sex with his sleeping wife. If someone cannot give consent in the moment, because, in this case, he or she is drunk or passed out, any further sexual actions constitute rape. It is irrelevant that she gave consent while she was awake. I am further offended that you did not hold him accountable. Although short, your response (Ambien. Next!) supported his criminal behavior.

I hope in the future you will hold perpetrators accountable and put a name to their actions: RAPE.

Disappointed Reader And Rape Survivor



Im extremely sorry that you were raped, DRARS, although your baseless accusations of rape make me doubt you when you claim to be a survivor of rape. The feminist bloggers are going to accuse me of thought crimes: If a woman says she was raped then, by God, she was raped. (Tell it to the lacrosse team.) But if my reaction to your letter is a thought crime, I can only plead entrapment: I wouldnt have had these illegal thoughts if you hadnt sent me such a stupid letter in the first place. "


And really just any number of comments over the years wherein Dan makes it clear that he's not exactly a championer of feminism.

Hey, just calling 'em as I see 'em. I mean, I'm glad he told So-and-So what he thought about his anti-ugly-fat-hickgirl so-called problem. I'll give him that. Dan's a complicated guy, maybe. Some of us see his ambiguities as signs of disorganized, off-the-cuff thinking and, as I mentioned, it was his writing style itself that turned me off from reading him, though at first I had been glad to see someone taking on the anti-gay haters with such vim and vinegar. But none of it negates the fact that he has consistently, over the course of his career as a self-styled advice columnist and pro-gay activist, shown distaste for fat people and women. I mean, have you read his rants about how disgusting vaginas are? 

One more thing, read his interesting take on gender roles here. I think you'll agree with me that there's some evidence that Dan is not exactly socially progressive. I'm sorry you feel I was ranting. My intentions were only to express my opinions, which are founded on my reading of Dan's writing over the last decade.


----------



## Qit el-Remel (Apr 20, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> But none of it negates the fact that he has consistently, over the course of his career as a self-styled advice columnist and pro-gay activist, shown distaste for fat people and women. I mean, have you read his rants about how disgusting vaginas are?


IIRC, he's not too fond of straight men, eitherthinks they're all dirty dogs.

-Qit


----------



## Littleghost (Apr 20, 2008)

wistful said:


> I must admit that I'm actually suprised(in a good way) by Dan's advice.Dan Savage has actually made any number of nasty,fat bigoted remarks over the years..so I'm kinda shocked with his sticking up for fat women here.While his fat bigotry used to rub me the wrong way,I kinda didn't take it too personally, because Savage makes a career out of being ultra-snarky and cutting on any number of subjects.
> 
> I seem to recall a column of his years ago,where he mentioned that because he himself has a preference for very thin men,that it's hard for him to wrap his head around the concept of anyone finding fat bodies attractive.I'm glad to see that time and maybe a bit of maturity(not to mention angry letters!) has expanded his viewpoint on the subject of fatness.



Thank goodness a few others remembered. I was beginning to think I had hallucinated the whole thing. And I don't even DO drugs...


----------



## elle camino (Apr 20, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> The feeling's mutual.


^____^ 



Fascinita said:


> Next, tell me you _don't_ like being depicted as a Michelin-Man-like caricature. Tell me you _don't_ think this is _that_ funny. Tell me that it smacks of every frat-boy insult that's ever been flung at you or the fat women you know and that you deplore it that Savage stoops that low. Tell me you see where I'm coming from, at least on this one.


i do see. i'm not personally offended, but i can understand how that column could really piss someone off. 
but the thing is, i can also see how _everything he says_ could really piss _some_one off. being frank and opinionated and bitchy is his bread and butter. 
and really, the way i see it, it's either all off-limits, or none of it is. and i'll always prefer the latter. if i giggle my ass off when dan savage is aiming his snark at the rick santorums and ellen craswell's of the world, it's only cricket that i at least be good-natured about when he swings that little snark-beam back around closer to where i live. 
and i'd be the first to call him out if he were to put anything off limits, or start coddling any one particular group, but as far as i've seen, he's incredibly equal-opportunity. he's said things about the gay male community that'd make that phelps guy proud. it's all fair game with him, which is another reason WHY it's so significant for me that he's gone out of his way to explain his opinions on the whole fat topic, to the extent that he has. i've really never seen him make that much of an effort to reach out to a group of people who've been pissed about something he's said - and he's pretty regularly pissing people off, in very public ways. especially when you share a city with him. 



as for the letter you quoted, it'd be more fair to quote his entire response:


> _I was extremely disgusted by I Loves Me Some Sleepin' Ladies, the "somnophiliac" who sought your advice about having sex with his sleeping wife. If someone cannot give consent in the moment, any further sexual actions constitute rape. It is irrelevant that she gave consent while she was awake. I am further offended that you did not hold him accountable. Although short, your response ("Ambien. Next!") supported his criminal behavior. I hope in the future you will hold perpetrators accountable and put a name to their actions: RAPE.
> Disappointed Reader And Rape Survivor_
> 
> I'm extremely sorry that you were raped, DRARS, although your baseless accusations of rape make me doubt your claim to be a survivor of rape. The feminist bloggers are going to accuse me of thought crimes: If a woman says she was raped then, by God, she was raped. (Tell it to the lacrosse team.) If this is a thought crime, well, I plead entrapment: I wouldn't have had these illegal thoughts if you hadn't sent me such a stupid letter in the first place.
> ...



...don't you think?


----------



## pani (Apr 20, 2008)

For once, I'll have to give him his due. It was a great, on target letter! I do agree with Waxwing that he seems to use "straw man" letters to easily prove his point. Once he said he had a problem with SA because a fat woman wrote him and DEMANDED everyone find her beautiful. In my 27 years of research, I have yet to meet a fat women in SA who demanded it was her right that the entire world find her beautiful.

But fake or not, many men fall into this pattern of marrying thin women and *ucking fat women. They deserve a good chewing out. Attraction is one thing, acting out is quite different. It is flat out wrong to use other people in an attempt to work out your own issues!!!


----------



## olwen (Apr 20, 2008)

I remember reading this letter. Hate him all you want. He gives good advice. 


elle camino said:


> ^____^
> 
> 
> i do see. i'm not personally offended, but i can understand how that column could really piss someone off.
> ...


----------



## elle camino (Apr 20, 2008)

and for the record: i'd be pissed off and extra-bitchy too, if someone were accusing _me_ of condoning or endorsing rape when i clearly was not.


----------



## olwen (Apr 20, 2008)

You know, it's those kinds of knee jerk reactions that give Feminists a bad reputation. I remember reading a blog written by a woman I once knew that was about how Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly had female characters that were not strong and that Joss Whedon was a misogynist. Her analysis was superficial at best. She based all of her opinions on one episode of each show. Re firefly: Zoe is not a strong character cause she takes orders from a man. I'm like what??!! She's an effing soldier and Mel is the captain. Re Buffy: She's a skinny little tart who dresses in feminine clothing who also takes orders from a man. I'm like who gives a shit, she kicks vampire ass. She the freaking leader of the scoobies for crying out loud. And Giles is a father figure not a tyrant. She doesn't always follow his advice either. Geez.

Sorry for the off topic rant. I just had to get that out.


----------



## Fascinita (Apr 20, 2008)

elle camino said:


> ^____^
> 
> 
> i do see. i'm not personally offended, but i can understand how that column could really piss someone off.
> but the thing is, i can also see how _everything he says_ could really piss _some_one off. being frank and opinionated and bitchy is his bread and butter.



Yeah, I thought about it and I guess I do see what you mean about his making his bread and butter by being bitchy. I think this is partly why I don't like him. As I said in one of my rants above, I think he uses controversy to make his living. I personally dislike this about him, and I think he contradicts himself all over the place and abuses his readers. But as entertainment goes, I agree that there are worse ways to get a laugh. And I still read him from time to time to see what he's up to. He's smart, there's no doubt about it. So I won't argue that he's enjoyable on a level.



> and really, the way i see it, it's either all off-limits, or none of it is. and i'll always prefer the latter. if i giggle my ass off when dan savage is aiming his snark at the rick santorums and ellen craswell's of the world, it's only cricket that i at least be good-natured about when he swings that little snark-beam back around closer to where i live.



Yeah, I get this. I do. Totally. I'd prefer he aimed at the bad guys exclusively, but mayhe he really believes that fat is ruining civilization (not just fat--as I said, I understand him as having a low "ick" tolerance for certain sectors of the population--there are just certain things that he seems to have a distaste for--whatever, it's his right, and it's just entertainment.)



> he's pretty regularly pissing people off, in very public ways.



Well, that's how he makes his living  He's good at it, no question about it.





> as for the letter you quoted, it'd be more fair to quote his entire response:
> 
> 
> ...don't you think?



Yeah, I didn't realize that letter was longer. I copied what I pasted here from someone else's blog. Reading the full letter, the fact that the guy left his wife alone changes everything--see, I didn't go to the source, so I thought I'd read the entire letter, and that the guy had proceeded to have intercourse with his sleeping wife! My bad, for not going to the source. I still don't like that Dan uses the Duke Lacrosse debaucle to cast doubt on the reliability of "a woman's word" when there's been a rape. And there are other instances of Dan's anti-feminism, to be sure. I'll have to leave it to interested parties to look for links. I have crap to do and Dan isn't _that_ exciting to talk about. But I should've verified the quote before I posted it here, for sure.

OK, elle. It's been a pleasure arguing with you  I like you, kid. Let's do it again sometime. Good show.


----------



## Fascinita (Apr 20, 2008)

olwen said:


> give Feminists a bad reputation.



Feminists have a bad reputation? Not as far as I know, they don't. 

What about all these feminists? Do they have bad reputations?

Jane Addams 
Susan B. Anthony 
Simone de Beauvoir
Elizabeth Blackwell
Carrie Chapman Catt 
Alice Clark
Francis Power Cobbe
Frederick Douglass 
Margaret Fuller
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Emma Goldman
Sarah Grimke
Angelina Emily Grimke
Marianne Hainisch
Rosa Luxemburg
Lucretia Mott
Emmeline Pankhurst
Sylvia Pankhurst
Alice Paul
Margaret Sanger
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Sojourner Truth
Harriet Tubman
Virginia Woolf

Bella Abzug
Susan Brownmiller
Mary Daly
Angela Davis
Betty Friedan
Germaine Greer
Donna Haraway
bell hooks
Kate Millett
Robin Morgan
Bernice Johnson Reagon
Gloria Steinem
Gloria E. Anzaldúa
Margaret Atwood
Judith Butler
Susie Bright
Ani DiFranco
Rebecca Walker


----------



## olwen (Apr 20, 2008)

I mean the general public perception. What it means to be a feminist is something we talk about often and how to get younger women involved is also a big deal. Believe it or not some people still think a feminist is some radical man hating bra burning angry lesbian. And my coworkers say that when they tell people they are feminists they say the reaction the usually get is something like -"but you don't look like a feminist." Strangely that hasn't happened to me yet. I guess I look like one.


----------



## Fascinita (Apr 20, 2008)

olwen said:


> And my coworkers say that when they tell people they are feminists they say the reaction the usually get is something like -"but you don't look like a feminist." Strangely that hasn't happened to me yet. I guess I look like one.



lol Yeah, I know. I've gotten the "you don't look like a feminist," but not lately. The fatter I get, the more I "look" like a feminist, I guess.  But you know, what does a feminist look like? We can't let the adversary define us. I believe that you just go out into the world and you do your best to act according to your conscience. Damn the opinions of approval or disapproval. Everyone's got an opinion. 

Anyway, yes, let's try to give feminists their due. Without feminists, us womenfolk might still be suffering from wandering wombs and fainting spells, and barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. :happy:


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 20, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> Feminists have a bad reputation? Not as far as I know, they don't.
> 
> What about all these feminists?




HAVE I NOT TAUGHT YOU ANYTHING?????? 



Why isn't Mary MacLane on that list? 


Though I will give you kudos for not leaving Betty Friedan out


----------



## olwen (Apr 20, 2008)

and Marilyn French is missing too.


----------



## RedVelvet (Apr 21, 2008)

LalaCity said:


> So it's a "knee-jerk" reaction to get angry when I'm called an ugly, stupid, worthless piece of shit by virtue of my dress size...yeah, I should really have stopped and thought about how better to smooth and massage that guy's tortured sexuality...




There is an angle to this that everyone here (including Dan....) doesn't seem to be noticing...


This guy doesnt just want fat, it seems...could be he wants fat sloppy "hick"....maybe its not just fat that turns him on?

I mean..on THIS BOARD, thank you...I see guys drawing fat women as sloppy and dirty or "trailer trashy" with stringy hair and cigarettes....I mean...they aren't Toil Girls...not by a long shot.

There seems to be a subtype desire here.

MAYBE....maybe I am wrong, and this asshole really DOES just think that all fat girls are stupid and sloppy and dumb...or maybe he just likes a certain type of girl who is fat.

Now...whats the point of this? He's still an arsehole? true....damn true. If anyone knows me at all they know I am one of those hateful bitches with absolutely ZERO tolerance for the perceived hardships of the tremulous, cowardly, closeted FA...so there is no excuse.

Just looking at a pattern here....I mean...seen many a man post here wishing for a "sloppy lazy wife" he could come home to.

meh.


----------



## RedVelvet (Apr 21, 2008)

Waxwing said:


> The original letter is obviously fake. By the way. I mean, it was written as a gimmick and used because it hit triggers without a doubt.
> 
> Because of that I can't really decide how I feel about Dan's response.
> 
> ...




ooops....I missed this...sorry...I think you nailed it...


But love.....Dan's letters?..not fake..trust me on this.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Apr 21, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> But love.....Dan's letters?..not fake..trust me on this.


 Having seen some of Dan's previous letters, as well as years of listening to/watching Loveline, nothing on this subject surprises me anymore. I've read Dan rip into assholes so badly it almost tears a hole in their reality.


----------



## elle camino (Apr 21, 2008)

...savage wasn't on loveline.
that was adam carolla and drew pinsky.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Apr 21, 2008)

elle camino said:


> ...savage wasn't on loveline.
> that was adam carolla and drew pinsky.


Yes, I knew that. I probably didn't punctuate correctly in referring to two different sets of "relationship advice" gurus, and the fact that ignorant people are everywhere.


----------



## Qit el-Remel (Apr 21, 2008)

olwen said:


> You know, it's those kinds of knee jerk reactions that give Feminists a bad reputation. I remember reading a blog written by a woman I once knew that was about how Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly had female characters that were not strong and that Joss Whedon was a misogynist. Her analysis was superficial at best. She based all of her opinions on one episode of each show. Re firefly: Zoe is not a strong character cause she takes orders from a man. I'm like what??!! She's an effing soldier and Mel is the captain. Re Buffy: She's a skinny little tart who dresses in feminine clothing who also takes orders from a man. I'm like who gives a shit, she kicks vampire ass. She the freaking leader of the scoobies for crying out loud. And Giles is a father figure not a tyrant. She doesn't always follow his advice either. Geez.
> 
> Sorry for the off topic rant. I just had to get that out.


Don't even get me started on how much of a tool Andrea Rubenstein is. It will set off a long rant.

But...yeah, I'm agreeing that "feminist" has become something of a dirty word: On the one hand, there are guys (and some women) who think that a "feminist" is some crazy woman who despises men and sees everything as an attack. On the other, there are self-proclaimed feminists who think that if you _don't_ see the hand of the evil man-o-centric man-ocracy in everything, you must be working for it.

I'm still willing to claim the term. But I find myself having to get on the defensive about _that_.

-Qit


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Apr 21, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> Feminists have a bad reputation? Not as far as I know, they don't.
> 
> What about all these feminists? Do they have bad reputations?
> *LIST REDACTED*


I noticed that Camille Paglia was suspiciously absent from that list. Is it because she's a bad reputationed feminist or that no one reads her work because it's written like a stereo manual?

At the end of the day, if man = Y and woman = X and Z = (X+Y)^n where n = children, AND we can get all the values to be positive integers, it's a good day all around.


----------



## Qit el-Remel (Apr 22, 2008)

Admiral_Snackbar said:


> I noticed that Camille Paglia was suspiciously absent from that list. Is it because she's a bad reputationed feminist or that no one reads her work because it's written like a stereo manual?


The latter. 

-Qit


----------



## Fascinita (Apr 22, 2008)

Admiral_Snackbar said:


> I noticed that Camille Paglia was suspiciously absent from that list. Is it because she's a bad reputationed feminist or that no one reads her work because it's written like a stereo manual?



Nah. I just forgot to include ole Cami. She's feminist and then she's not, too. She sometimes reminds me a little too much of Dr. Laura, what with the emphasis on hardline gender roles. But I also like many of her ideas. Plus I've fixed many a stereo going by her book.

Kudos to Marilyn French. And did I forget Valerie Solanas?  I must've been trying to stay out of controversy.

Red (and by that I mean Green), I don't know of Mary McLane? Do tell.


----------



## olwen (Apr 22, 2008)

I thought of someone else for the list too. She's not an american tho, she's egyptian - Nawal El Saadawi. She took flap in the arab world to the point where she had to flee the country, for suggesting that women take the names of their mothers instead of their fathers.


----------

