Comments Posted By Robin Munn
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments
MALKIN'S CRITICS: APPALLING INCIVILITY
You know something? I don't much like Michelle Malkin's writing style. I've never met her personally, but I'm sure I would like her if I met her. However, much of what she's written seems unnecessarily over-the-top and provocative to me. Calling someone a moonbat, for example, is much more effective if you don't do it all the time, and I recall several times thinking "OK, she really didn't need to be that rude" while reading her site. Even when I agree with her (which is often but not all the time), I sometimes wish she'd be a little more moderate in her argumentation style. Pick the good arguments from the other side and attack their logic, instead of going after the easily-demolished fringe from the other side.
But Geraldo Riviera should be ashamed of himself for his "spitting" comment. And nothing justifies the kind of hate mail she's received. Goodness gracious, that stuff is ugly! You'd think people who pride themselves on their "tolerance" would refrain from that kind of behavior. But clearly, for far too many people, "tolerance" means "You will tolerate what I say, because otherwise you're just a hateful, bigoted racist. And I will not tolerate what you say, because clearly you're a hateful, bigoted racist."
So count me in as defending Malkin. I sometimes disagree with her opinions, and more often disagree with her over-aggressiveness, but the attacks on her have been WAY beyond the pale. Those who've written the kind of hate-filled emails she gets should -- if they have any scrap of decency left in them -- be utterly ashamed of themselves. Sadly, they won't be, but they should.
Comment Posted By Robin Munn On 7.09.2007 @ 22:21
IN DEFENSE OF FEMINISTS. . . OR AT LEAST THEIR BREASTS
I understand that many feminists take issue with the way the female breast is used in our society – especially in marketing various products to males. Does it cheapen or denigrate women to be portrayed thusly? I have never bought into the notion that such advertising “objectifies†women any more than women objectify themselves when accentuating their physical attributes via clothing or makeup (a tradition that predates modern marketing) at the expense of their numerous other gifts.
I think I disagree with this. When a woman uses makeup or clothing to accentuate her beauty and call attention to it, whether it's done tastefully or poorly, the point is to attract attention. Attention that's being paid to her. In philosophical terms, the attention isn't the means to an end, it's the goal itself. Whereas when advertising uses images of beautiful women to sell their products, their beauty isn't the main point of the ad. It's merely being used, exploited, to sell cars or beer or whatever. So the difference is in the point, the goal, of how the beauty is being used. Is it being used as an end, or a means to an end? The latter is exploitative, IMHO, while the former is not (or is, at least, less so).
Comment Posted By Robin Munn On 17.09.2006 @ 17:08
I agree with Santay -- if the Democrats take the House we're going to go into Full Impeachment Media-Circus Mode. Even if the only way to fix the Republican party is to throw the current office-holders out and start over, I think 2006 is not the time to do it.
Comment Posted By Robin Munn On 17.04.2006 @ 08:57
