Why aren't more people, men especially, shocked and outraged

[thucythucy]

by what Brit Hume said on Sunday?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251347854

Basically, Hume is equating masculinity with being a bully and a thug.

We hear a lot about "misandry" on DU, and today have a 260-plus post discussion on some lone "rad fem" blogger, with obvious issues, who equates all sexual intercourse with rape. She has no apparent influence on anyone outside of her (presumably small) circle of personal friends, and is, from what I can read of it, coming out of a place of anguish, even bitterness, as has been pointed out by dozens of DUers.

But when a mainstream media figure with millions of viewers says that to be a real man is to be a thug, a bully, a creep who impedes medical care to a 92 year-old woman and the search for a missing four year-old child, we get crickets, relatively speaking. Oh, yes, the woman on the panel freaks out, and there's blowback on the part about the "feminized" atmosphere making it so tough on poor widdle Chris.

But shouldn't men be just as outraged by this statement as women?

And if so, I'm curious to know then why there's been such an evident disparity in the response here on DU.

[Bluzmann57]

1. Can't speak for others

But in my case I have too busy to care about what a half witted asshole like hume says.

[demwing]

111. I bet you speak for many here.

At least on this issue. Thanks!

[edbermac]

2. Because nobody gives a shit what Brit Hume thinks.

Fox News Asshole

[athena]

3. But what some random nutcase on the internet says is more relevant?

See this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4327339
which got 267 replies.

I think that's the OP's point.

[Xipe Totec]

13. That just shows that DU has more viewership than Brit Hume

I haven't read the DU post in question (now I don't want to) And I also did not see the Brit Hume commentary (and don't care to).

But if the numbers are as you say they are, then the numbers speak for themselves.

[athena]

16. That blog post wasn't on DU

Someone posted about a misandrist blog belonging to a self-labeled radical feminist. The implication was that all radical feminists are crazy. The post did not sink.

On the other hand, a post about a misogynistic remark by Brit Hume sank.

In other words, if some man makes a misogynistic remark, people let it go, even when the man is a politician and therefore yields some power. If some woman makes a misandrist remark, they don't let it go, even when the woman happens to be just a blogger no one's ever heard of.

[thucythucy]

35. It's even stranger than that.

A misandrist blog by a "radfem" gets hundreds of posts.

A misandrist comment by a "pundit" with millions of viewers: crickets.

"If some woman makes a misandrist remark, they don't let it go..."

I think you're on to something there.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

72. No one on the D.U. defends Hume or FOX...

More than a handful seek to blame all men for what rapists do, and treat "mens-rights" groups (many of which also complain about gender roles in society from the male perspective) as inherently evil - due to a handful of kooks in their ranks.

That's the difference.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Dorian Gray]

95. Plus that thread

is older. Give it time. This one will probably surpass that one. With condemnation and all.

[thucythucy]

103. The Hume threads are all older

than the "RadFem" thread, yet the "RadFem" thread got more than 5x the responses of the most active Hume thread.

Actually, I think this thread here now has more responses than any of the Hume threads.

Go figure.

[nomorenomore08]

14. Yeah, I kind of get people's fascination with the far-out and extreme. If only for the car crash

factor. But when they try to pretend that it's indicative of anything more than the views of "some random nutcase," that's where I get skeptical.

[athena]

17. Nonsense.

As many people pointed out on that thread, not a single feminist on DU shares the views of that blogger.

[nomorenomore08]

26. The only people who think that way - and their extreme MRA counterparts - are very damaged

individuals by and large. Their neurosis may be legitimately rooted in trauma, but that doesn't make them any less delusional.

[athena]

29. Some people indeed are delusional.

However, the thread seemed to imply that the views of the blogger were those of the feminists on DU. It seemed to suggest that all feminists are misandrist. That's like claiming all liberals are like Stalin.

[nomorenomore08]

32. I agree. That's why I, too, question the existence of that other thread.

And of course people try the innocent "I'm not stirring shit, I'm just discussing issues!" routine like no one has the ability to take a look at their posting history.

[NoOneMan]

54. That rad femmer was a riot

Britt Hume isn't funny even on shrooms

[boston bean]

6. but they do care what some out there feminist says, who speaks to a small group of people.

hmmm..

[CTyankee]

36. Oh, yeah...there's that, too...BUT I DO SPEAK FOR FEMINISTS!

So yeah, there...

[Shampoobra]

19. You took mine (nt)

[mdbl]

65. Agreed. Who cares what Brit Hume says

or any other moron on fux noise for that matter.

[marmar]

4. I'm outraged, but not shocked. I expect nothing else from Human Shar-Pei Brit Hume.

nt

[thucythucy]

38. "Human Shar-Pei Brit Hume"

is hilarious.

Best wishes.

[Starry Messenger]

5. Because it's important to keep women from over-running the internet with their opinions.

That shit could spread, yo. Obviously some blogger and her pals are WAY more of a problem than the structural misogyny that leads to death and political mayhem.

[Egnever]

7. My guess

It's fox. They say stupid stuff every day. Hard to keep up.

[thucythucy]

39. Well, anonymous bloggers say stupid stuff

every day as well. I mean, who can keep track of all the crazy shit on the internet?

So why the responses to one, but not the other?

[Egnever]

85. well

Again it is fox news we are talking about. Pick a day any day and they are sure to have said some crazy racist or mysoginistic or otherwise deplorable garbage. Pretty hard to muster up outrage every single day about it. The blogger post was a special kind of crazy not on the same footing as your usual fox bs.

But who knows. Why do you care?

[WillyT]

8. Right-Wingers LOVE/ARE Bullies...

And they are sad that they are now in the minority.

But I hear ya...

Theory being, it's ok to punch upward... afflict the comfortable, and comfort the afflicted.

The GOP likes to punch down... on those not so able to defend themselves.

AND... when we punch/push back on the GOP... they turn into whining "victims".

& Rec !!!!

[LadyHawkAZ]

9. Faux produces several metric tons of such shit per day

We expect it of Faux, and indeed have daily threads about what some idiot said about something.

Threads on radfem that don't devolve into a screaming match within 20 posts are rare. It's got novelty appeal.

[frazzled]

10. Yes, men should be outraged about it.

None of the men I know, from my father and brother and husband to friends is a bully or a thug. They are all kind and gentle and caring.

Remember Robert Bly's mythopoeic men's movement? Yuck! Maybe Hume is a secret reader of Bly's poetry.

[gcomeau]

11. Who here is expected to have been watching Brit Hume??? -eom

[Kurovski]

37. Trolls, for the first.

But we already knew that.

Whenever extremist, devisive nuttery and ranting are deposited at DU, it has that kind of stench regardless.

DU needs an outrage-meter, It would seem. It's a big contest that two sides have come here to DU to play.

As for myself, I'm pissed-off that more rage isn't set into the framework of 99% against the 1%! GRRR!! When will you all ever learn !!??

[thucythucy]

55. I've got plenty of rage to go around.

You're talking to a very early supporter of Senator Warren.

Oppression is like clockwork: wheels turning within wheels, gears meshing with other gears.

Sexism, racism, classism all augment each other.

Anyway, I very much appreciate your point.

[Eleanors38]

89. Not I. On a deer hunt where only ranchero music can be picked up.

[One_Life_To_Give]

12. Big shoulders and partially true

Having lived with a degree of privilege means we can take a bit of negative comment in stride without having to make a mountain out of it. And while what Hume said is an exaggeration we also are aware that it's rooted in some fact. Macho culture is frequently about being a bully. People have trouble differentiating a quiet strength from the macho bravado that is so common today.

[thucythucy]

41. I see your point, but

why is it that "we can take a bit of negative comment in stride" from a Fox News pundit--with millions of viewers--but evidently not from an anonymous "RadFem" blogger?

If what she wrote can elicit hundreds of DU responses within hours, how is it that Hume's smear on men gets hardly noticed?

[democratisphere]

15. Brit Hume; consider the source.

Grumpy Brit attempts to act like a bully and thug, while being a wimp.

[99Forever]

18. Why precisely is it that you expect from...

... "the men on DU" to be outraged about when some asshole on a network that very few, if any of "the men on DU" ever watch, over. Assholes on Feux Snooze say outrageous stuff all the time. If I wasted my time and energy every time that happens, I wouldn't have time for anything else.

Hey, if you want to tilt at windmills, have fun. I've got better things to do.

[thucythucy]

34. So then why have there been 250 + posts

on what some anonymous, clearly disturbed "radfem" has to say on her blog? Isn't taking on a random individual blogger as much "tilting at windmills" as going after Hume?

Besides which, Hume isn't "a windmill." He's a "pundit" with millions of viewers, some of whom at least take him seriously.

So, anonymous "radfem" who attacks men--DUer's blaze away. Whole day of discussion, hundreds of posts. in fact, I'd bet the DU thread probably gave her more readership than she's had in her entire life.

Fox pundit with millions of viewers, who attacks men, "yawn."

So again, why the disparity in the responses?

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Hume is a scantly known figure on a fading niche cable outlet. Instead of the 'millions of viewers'

you speak of, a daytime FoxNews Sunday show might get half a million if it's very lucky. It's as close to not being on TV at all as you can get and still be on TV. He's a hack, a patsy past his prime and he says offensive things for a living. Giving him the time of day is a disservice to the time of day.

[thucythucy]

47. Okay, so my figures were wrong

and I accept yours as closer to fact. Truthfully I really don't know much about Fox News ratings, and only ever watch the portions posted here.

That said, we have a situation where a right wing man with a half a million viewers says something insulting to men, something that at least SHOULD be insulting to men here on DU, and we get relative crickets.

But some anonymous "Radfem" blogger, who probably has fewer readers than the thread that was started about her here on DU, elicits hundreds of posts.

I still don't get it.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

Best wishes.

[secondvariety]

49. Hume

is as relevant as a wad of gum on a sidewalk.

[thucythucy]

61. You often have to walk on a sidewalk

to get where you're going.

Not sure I can say the same thing about Hume.

[freshwest]

21. 'Basically, Hume is equating masculinity with being a bully and a thug'

The sad thing is that the wives and girlfriends of many such figures in politics, sports, and less public ones, apparently agree with Hume. Not all women are outraged, so the men should not be taking it as a slight either. Expressions of outrage in many public cases is an attempt to draw those who have nothing to do with the matter at hand into an argument. Refusal to join in is not an agreement with bad behavior.

[progressoid]

22. Well, there was this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017169184

and this one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024326562

and probably more but I got tired of looking.

[LadyHawkAZ]

24. this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024320526

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Another 3:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024320526
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251347854
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024324525

[Kurovski]

42. a search b4 posting would defeat the purpose of further dividing DUers

You're being too helpful.

[thucythucy]

48. I came up with three of those threads

when I did my search before posting this OP. Thanks for posting the rest.

From what Ive seen (and I may have missed something) the highest number of posts in reply was 55. Lowest: 7.

In part this is no doubt because we evidently have a number of threads on the same basic topic, so we don't get the same mass in any one thread.

Even so, the OP I'm citing has 5 times the responses of the most visible thread on Hume. Five times the responses in a single day, as opposed to these other threads being open for days now.

I'm not trying to divide--the divisions, apparently, are already there.

I'm trying to figure out WHY there is this apparent difference in scale, what would seem to be a division in its own right.

Any thoughts on that?

[Kurovski]

51. The DU mins don't like the wimmins, They must really haytz the wimmins, I guess...

but the mins must REALLY despise the manbot known as Brit.

AND NOT ONE WORD about how the 1% likes to roll ALL the shite downhill.


Grrr.

[Eleanors38]

91. BWAA-HA-HA-HA!

[kcr]

77. I was just about to say. None had more than 50 posts

Most had far fewer than that. It proves your point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. Because there's disagreement among DUers about a 'radfem' being a good thing to be

whereas everyone agrees Brit Hume is a jerk.

Some people say being a 'radical feminist' is fine - even necessary. Others say that, when you look at the people who call themselves 'radfems', you find they can be offensive - like the author of that blog that the large thread linked to. So there's a big disagreement in our community about the term 'radfem', and all the evidence that people bring up in the argument.

Hume, on the other hand, works for Fox News. He's well known, as is the whole channel, for being idiotic, and saying anything to push a right wing point of view. If you look at the threads (as well as the 55 reply one, the first one progressoid linked to above got 63 replies) you'll see the pattern is a lot of replies to the OP, but relatively few replies to those replies - because people have something to say on how stupid Hume is, and pretty much all agree with each other. The radfem thread, on the other hand, is a lot of people arguing with each other. If you count up the number of people who have posted in a Hume thread, and in the radfem thread, you may well find more people posted in a Hume thread (I'm not sure on the exact numbers, and it's not worth the effort to count up precisely). But they return to the radfem thread more, because there's unresolved arguments in it.

[redqueen]

99. The author of that blog is not a "radfem", she's a SEPARATIST . Odd that some find it so difficult

to comprehend the difference.

But then, that's assimilate they are genuinely confused, and not intentionally attempting to demonize radical feminists.

It's kinda like if a right wing liar called an Earth Liberation Front environmental activist with wildly unpopular views a democrat.

Sadly such mendaciousness is far from rare on this site.

A radical feminist is an excellent thing to be. If only more people actually understood what the term means. If only a few people here weren't so intent on spreading misinformation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. She calls herself a radfem

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/24/on-colonisation-by-men-friendships-with-type-2-colonised-women-and-how-we-understand-it-as-radfems/

Notice that, as well as a recent thread with "we...as radfems" in the title, the sidebar has "Radfem Resources".

[thucythucy]

109. Well, and the Teaparty folks call themselves "patriots"

while various Koch Brothers fronts use terms such as "Freedom" and "Liberty."

I take your point though, that there's some disagreement in that thread, some back and forth driving up the post count, whereas the Hume threads are pretty much entirely negative.

Still, I'm surprised that, with "misandry" being such a hot button topic of late, Hume's exposition of it didn't get more of a rise here. Even in the Hume threads, many of the responses seem to be from feminists objecting to his use of "feminization" as a term of derision, as opposed to people pointing out his highly toxic definition of "masculinity."

In fact, I think the responses to this OP here now outnumber ALL of the replies to all of the original Hume threads. If this means that some people at least are reading his comments, and mulling them over, maybe this did some good after all.

Thanks for your comments.

[Shampoobra]

23. I lost the ability to be outraged by Fox News 10 years ago

When they tried to "swiftboat" John Kerry I realized that bunch is capable of literally any level of corruption, stupidity, and ugliness. They jumped the shark, in terms of offensive comments, way back in 2004, and very little they've said or done has gotten to me since.

Had this been a statement by someone other than a Fox News personality, I would be outraged for the reasons you pointed out.

[thucythucy]

50. I can see that.

I suppose when Rush Limbaugh, for instance, says something outrageous, the surprise factor at least isn't there anymore, nor has it been for a good long while now.

Then too, Rush tends to use language inherently more inflammatory ("sluts" vs. "feminized" for instance).

I think I may be going at this the wrong way. Many of the responses here are coming from folks who didn't post in the other OP, so it's not like they can explain to me why they personally responded to the one, but not the other. I tried asking this same question there, but got crickets. Which might be something of an answer in itself.

Do you think I should take this OP down? Is it really, as someone else said, "divisive"?

[Shampoobra]

83. Here's the way I see the comparison

From an earlier reply of yours:

A misandrist blog by a "radfem" gets hundreds of posts.

A misandrist comment by a "pundit" with millions of viewers: crickets.

"If some woman makes a misandrist remark, they don't let it go..."

I think you're on to something there.

Honestly, if a woman at Fox News said had the same thing Hume said, I'd be equally as unconcerned with her nonsense as I am with Hume's. That's because Fox has become an organization that gets a kind of unconscious, default "it doesn't matter what they think or say" attitude from me.

On the other hand, I at least read your OP. I didn't even bother with the OP that quoted the "redfem's" blog. I guess that's because I recognized the name Brit Hume, and wanted to know what he had stepped in this time.

[NoOneMan]

56. No, you are supposed to be outraged at DU for lack of outrage at Fox!

[thucythucy]

60. Well, if you can't get folks on DU outraged at Fox

(or Rush or Beck of any of the Pauls) who CAN you get outraged?

Seriously though, did you personally post in reply to Hume's misandry on any of the threads started about it? And did you reply to the OP on the "radfem"? Neither? Both?

I'm beginning to think, as someone else responded, that it's the "shiny new toy" effect, though bashing some anonymous RadFem would hardly seem to be shiny or new.

Any thoughts on that? Seriously.

[NoOneMan]

62. This is the first of heard of Hume's hub bub.

I really don't watch Fox. I don't give a shit. Its opium for the hateful. What do you expect?


Yeah, I laughed at the rad femmer, because it was hilarious. My wife and I had a huge giggle over it. The topic title was outrageous enough to win my click through.


I don't think there is much about Fox that is funny, so why waste my time?


You won my click through with a meta post. Way to go!

[Shampoobra]

84. I'm glad you brought up Beck...

Last edited Wed Jan 15, 2014, 12:39 AM - Edit history (1)

...because the thought of him helped crystallize my thoughts on this whole subject.

There exists a growing list of political pundits and politicians I can never take seriously. In no particular order, they are Beck, Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Palin, Ryan, Cruz, Bachmann, anyone else associated with Fox News, and probably several more I'm forgetting about right now.

When I see a headline or subject line, here on DU or anywhere else, and it involves one of these nutjobs, I click on it for one reason only. And that reason has nothing to do with a need or desire to be further outraged by their stupidity, meanness, or lack of common sense and logic.

The only reason I'd click on a story or post about something awful one of these clowns has said: in hopes that it was bad enough to cause the speaker (or writer) a lot of negative, personal consequences. My hope, as I'm clicking, is that the person has said something so bad that he or she will lose advertisers, revenue, and possibly even his or her job.

I'm looking, when I click on one of those, for Beck to incite treason, or for Bachmann to claim that Jesus holds her closely at night, or for Hannity to advocate child abuse ... anything that will finally and permanently compromise the offending speaker/writer's ability to further pollute the public discourse.

Hume's remarks, while ridiculous and downright wrong, nevertheless did not rise to my desired level of scandal. In other words, I care enough to click on these message board threads or news articles, but when it's just the usual wacko nonsense, I've become desensitized because I have to consider the source.

EDITED TO ADD: A perfect example is this new DU thread: Fox psychiatrist invents ‘data rage’ after theater shooting to blame phones instead of guns. I didn't click on it, because I assume it's the story about the man who was shot dead in a theater for texting, and therefore an attempt to blame the man with the phone instead of the man with the gun, and since this nonsense comes to us courtesy of Fox News, I don't even have to waste my time reading it.

[Dorian Gray]

96. I think Muriel

above got it right. People post "Brit is a jerk!" and everyone agrees in the Brit Hume thread.

In the radfem thread, there were more divergent opinions, and arguments that ensued, so much more discussion.

That's most likely the crux of the difference.

[thucythucy]

107. I think in large part that's right.

Originally, I think I was more worked up by the evident glee with which some people went after a self-described "radfem" while giving Hume pretty much a pass.

Now I can see there are other factors involved as well, including "Brit is a Jerk!" and "shiny new toy"--as have been mentioned in other replies.

I do wish, though, that Hume's toxic definition of masculinity (which is shared I think far more widely than the notion that "no woman is a heterosexual&quot would receive more attention here, especially in light of the recent gender wars. Along those lines, I'm going to check out the "media and masculinity" TED talk that was posted here this morning--if I can get my computer to stop being so recalcitrant.

Thanks for the response, and best wishes.

[Vashta Nerada]

27. My shock and outrage is being expended elsewhere.

Also, I don't give a shit what Brit Hume says/thinks/does.

[liberal_at_heart]

28. I don't know why you seem to think you can demand people post more on one topic than

another. I wish more people would post about education, but guess what? They don't. I can't force anyone to post about education, nor can you force anyone to post about what FOX idiot says.

[thucythucy]

69. I'm not trying to force anybody to do anything.

I'm asking why the response to the one incident, but not to the other.

TreasonousBastard did a pretty good job I think of both summing up my question (which I'd been as articulate to start with) and posing a series of possible explanations.

It's worth a read, if you're up for it.

Best wishes.

[HockeyMom]

30. Married to a Republican for 40 years who is FORMER Faux Viewer

He would get a foot placed stragetically in one of his body parts if he EVER said anything like that to me, and he KNOWS it.

[dipsydoodle]

31. I'm outraged at the redefinition of the expression thug.

I've known thugs : you may not have. Start off with sawn off shotguns and go downhill from there.

[thucythucy]

52. Well, indirectly keeping elderly people

from medical care, interfering in a search for a lost child, standing hundreds of school kids on their way to school, inconveniencing tens of thousands of commuters, all for the sake of pursuing a personal political vendetta is pretty thuggish, in my book.

I've known some thugs as well.

[dipsydoodle]

86. I wasn't disagreeing with what your OP conveys.

Just, in connection with that, the choice of use of that word which I'd picked up on elsewhere here some weeks back when it was mentioned. Needs an alternative word - bully maybe,

[thucythucy]

108. You're probably right about that.

"Thug" implies direct physical abuse, whereas this was something more subtle, if just as destructive.

Thanks for clarifying.

Best wishes.

[AgingAmerican]

33. Why would I be 'shocked and outraged'...

...by a bunch of nonsense? Befuddled is a better word.

[MarianJack]

40. I give NO credence to ANYTHING...

...that a rapidly aging Ken doll like Brit Hume has to say...what an asshat!

PEACE!

[mokawanis]

43. I'm shocked and outraged by Faux News and Hume every time I'm exposed to that garbage

I didn't participate in the post about the "rad-fem" blogger. In fact, I trashed the thread after reading it, just like I usually trash threads about Faux News.

I will also say the Hume commentary is the more disturbing of the two, because he has a wider audience.

[Zorra]

44. I called him a pompous, insecure little weenbag in another thread, but DUer FatBuddy quickly

corrected my error, noting that, in reality, he is a simpering, pompous, insecure little weenbag.

[CTyankee]

45. I LOVE "weenbag"!

[Chan790]

46. Because I pay no attention to the likes of Brit Hume...

and have no idea what he said. If he confessed to being the Antichrist and raping puppies, I'd be the last person to know.

Now that I know what he said, I'm just resigned to the reality that he's willing to make a fool out of himself and destroy his career to carry water for his paymasters.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. Brit Hume is a piece of human garbage in the employ of Fox News

I expect him to say horrible things on a regular basis. I expect him to act just like his colleagues do. He's a piece of shit, doing what pieces of shit do. Why do you hold the expectation that people who were sick to death of Fox News 10 years ago will go out of their way to see what Hume's latest outrage is? Don't give a fuck what Ann Coulter says, don't give a fuck what Brit Hume says.

[thucythucy]

71. I think my question should have been

why all the outrage about this anonymous blogger, who essentially is spewing hatred for men, but relatively less outrage toward Hume, who has an exponentially larger platform to spew what is on the face of it a hateful vision of men and masculinity?

Yeah, Hume is as dull as ice thawing, and dumber than a box of nails.

Maybe it's simply that, as some have replied, the "RadFem" blogger was more exciting, funnier. Though I saw her as more sad than funny.

I think my OP could have been more clearly worded. My bad.

Thanks for the reply.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

73. I think your original premise was off

Instead of the "men of DU", you might better have mentioned the people in the other thread. I saw that thread, but didn't waste time with it, because I grew tired of the back and forth on that topic awhile back. For the record, the lady sounds like she's crazy. But also for the record, there's no doubt in my mind that the OP of the other thread posted it in order to cause trouble. He may have felt justified in doing so, or he may have just been throwing stones to see what he could break. There have been mean-spirited threads started on both sides of that divide. Anyway, in my opinion, your post might better have been directed at anyone in that thread who was acting like a jerk (I just saw the first 20 responses or so, and I don't know what shape the argument ended up taking). As for Fox News talking robots, they're there to propagandize, to shock, to try to normalize behavior that is no longer acceptable in our society. They're to be treated as unserious people, as pariahs, lest we accidentally give them too much credence by arguing against their insanity. I didn't put that very artfully, but when you see a crazy guy on the street claiming he's Ghengis Kahn, you don't argue the point with a stack of genealogy papers, you get him committed for being insane. Ok, that was also put very artfully, but you get the idea. Thanks.

[thucythucy]

79. I think you're right, my OP

was poorly worded, for starters, and I hadn't put as much thought into it as I should have. I think TreasonousBastard did a pretty good job upthread of stating what SHOULD have been my OP, assuming it needed it's own thread at all. Ah well.

I did post on that "Rad Fem" takedown thread, and didn't get much by way of any response, which contributed to my posting this OP. Now I'm debating whether to take this whole thread down and chalk it up to a learning experience.

Also, and I should have said this as well, that OP not only pissed me off--in terms of it being yet another let's bash on the feminists post--but it also bugged me because of the piling on. I tried reading that blog, and gave up. Mostly, it made me sad. It reminded me, as you say, of the kind of word salad you might hear from someone with a significant mental illness. I have friends who are brain injured, and one of them in particular has a tendency to go off on these weird verbal jags that can also be quite disturbing, if you didn't know his problems. If you wrote it all down and posted it as a blog, it might read something like that "RadFem." And here was an entire thread, with hundreds of replies, basically piling on and either attacking her or ridiculing her. I'm kinda beat right now, but eventually I think I'll go back to the thread and post this thought, for what it's worth.

Anyway, thanks for your reply. A couple of folks replying here have really been instructive to me. Like I say, a learning experience.

Best wishes.

[Kingofalldems]

57. Brit Hume is a chickenhawk who supported the Viet Nam war

and would not serve.

[TreasonousBastard]

58. That was an incredibly idiotic thing for Hume to say...

pretty much equating thuggery and heroism.

But, somehow I missed all the threads about Hume and managed to accidentally see the one by the man-hating alleged "feminist". I posted in it when there were maybe a dozen replies. It does seem to have since lit a fire under some people.

Your point seems to be that a nutty woman gets more negative attention than an idiotic male newscaster around here. That might indicate a problem if actually true. Yet another in the ongoing examples of the horrors of Sexist Underground.

Or, it might indicate nothing more than a general boredom with serious topics, which would require some thought, or actual work, to keep up with. And Brit Hume being an asshole is old news anyway.

DU does have a history of ongoing, occasionally long, threads about unlikable radicals. Many, if not most, of them tend to be in fundie churches, Nazi-related organizations and such, and tend to be more often men. Except for Ayn Rand, of course, and the continuing complaints about her, or a certain former governor of Alaska, don't turn this place into Misogynist Underground either.

[thucythucy]

66. That is one hell of an excellent reply!

In fact, looking back on it, I think I made a serious mistake phrasing this as I did. It would have made much more sense had I started with something along the lines of: "Why is it that a nutty woman gets more negative attention than an idiotic male newscaster around here?" That indeed was the point I was groping for, but couldn't quite articulate. That's a pretty neat skill you have. A cleaver right through the BS. Nice.

And your answers seem to fit the bill. I would guess it's probably some mix of all of them, depending on the individual poster. I would hope it's more to do with the general boredom with serious topics than "sexist underground"--but it's of course difficult to know. Then too, it occurs to me now that any OP that is explicitly about sex (and one's desire or lack of desire for same) will generate more interest than pretty much any other topic. So there's that to consider.

Now that you've articulated it so well, I guess a further question of mine would be why didn't this stir more of a response within the Men's Group? I mean, shouldn't such an obvious instance of smearing all men be of concern? It sure as hell concerned me. Or was there a response, and I missed it?

Anyway, what do you think, TB? Should I take this whole thread down, especially now that I have a (somewhat) clearer sense of what's happening here? Or is it worth keeping up for whatever discussion it generates?

Either way, best wishes.

[TreasonousBastard]

110. Thanks for that, and while I can't...

speak for the Men's Group, I can say that, regardless of what some others have charged, none of us there are looking for a fight. And past history shows that bothering to comment on things like that insanity clothed as feminism within the group will invite a response we don't need. (Bad enough that some of us might comment within the original thread.)

Anyway, looks like it's a good discussion here, so don't dare take the thread down.

[FrodosPet]

59. Brit Hume is a jackass

Most of us knew that two decades ago.

[thucythucy]

81. So did you in any way reply to his misandrist statement,

broadcast on TV to hundreds of thousands of people, or were you too busy bashing some anonymous "RadFem" blogger?

What was the point of posting that OP anyway?

[obxhead]

63. I read and was outraged by the link you provided. I didn't post in that thread though.

I didn't reply. It was so over the top outrageous that words simply failed me when it came up on Sunday.

While I have missed the other thread you speak of, I can only guess why it has brought such an audience. That guess would be that it is controversial in a big way.

The Hume thread nearly every DU'er is outraged in the same way and for the same reason, leaving most of us with a WTF that is simply beyond statement. A comment would likely lead to little more than a kick because other than outrage, there's not much more to say.

I'm betting that other thread (without a link) lead to debate over a subject that had a controversy (right or wrong) of some kind.

So, an outrageous post will sink here because we all agree it's so damn outrageous.

[iemitsu]

64. Britt Hume does not know what it means to be a man.

Men stand up for what is right, they protect those weaker than themselves, and they have integrity (something so far from Hume's character that he's unaware of its existence).
Hume may perceive Christy to be masculine but it really means nothing about masculinity, it just highlights that Hume gets excited over authoritarian behavior.

[LittleBlue]

67. Brit Hume is Brit Hume

We know he's a douche. No one on DU supports Brit Hume. There is no Brit Hume Fans subforum.

And honestly, Brit Hume is about as interesting as a vegetable. Even when he's being a massive douche, it's not very interesting. He isn't even a good troll so he can't say anything provocative, like "all sex is rape" or "I let my infant kids play around pit bulls". He just says dumb, predictable shit like "liberals are so wrong" blah blah blah.

What do we have on DU? Radfems. Pro gun types. Pit bull lovers. Pope lovers/haters. Basically you need to find someone on the forum who agrees with this stuff before an argument/debate can occur.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

68. It's the numbification by Fox News of its viewers and reactions from the left.

I just made up this word - Numbification, but think it ought to be one applying specifically to those who've been so bereft of facts and filled with lies, that the best response is to put up a shield and protect one's self from it.

[thucythucy]

80. "Numbification" is good.

Fox is like an anesthetic delivered via IV. Drip drip drip drip, and before you know, you're sleeping, and then before you know it, your brain is dead.

Thanks for the response.

[niyad]

70. brit, you vacuous, vapid, banal little waste of resources, this little piece of advice:

shamelessly stolen from salmon chanted evening's sunday joyfest.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. I find adolescents (of any age) strutting their "masculinity" more pathetic than outrageous.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

75. Well, I've never seen Brit Hume, and missed the thread you're talking about, but my thought would be

that in this society, it is admirable to be tough, a "thug" (yo, dawg, thug life!), in control, strong, and even, yes, a bully. Cowboyism, tough-guyism, is a plus. Just look at top grossing movies. As long as we think of them as wearing the white hat, it's cool. So to call men "thugs" may cause a small flap, but only for show. A manly man is a tough man.

However, to be a woman and object publicly to male aggression or to express bitterness about sex (with men) is to commit a serious transgression.

[adieu]

76. I agree with most of the other posters here

the comment by Hume is so over the top stupid that it can't be bothered to have a reply. We, at least I, hope that he will quietly slink away and his comment goes unnoticed. I think he said it in a trolling way, hoping to rile up the opposition. We should respond with *crickets* precisely to not feed that troll.

[bravenak]

78. Being shocked at something some guy says on Fox News is unrealistic.

I mean, who has the energy to constantly manufacture outrage because some old bully is scared of women and defends a younger, bigger bully.

[thucythucy]

82. I think the real point of my poorly worded OP

was, as TreasonousBastard put it, how is it that an OP about some anonymous female blogger with obvious issues relating to men gets hundreds and hundreds of posts on DU decrying her "misandry"--but a TV pundit with hundreds of thousands of viewers saying something equally toxic about men gets comparatively little response from these same decriers of "misandry"?

"Outrage" might have been a poor choice of word, but it's still rather puzzling to me how the one rates a full scale pile-on, while the other, which I would have thought would have been of more concern, gets crickets.

And even by Fox News standards, this comment by Hume seems to me a bridge beyond.

Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

[stevenleser]

87. Very simple. There was no controversy. Everyone here disagreed with Hume.

And the few initial comments spoke for everyone.

It's not the things that everyone agrees with that generates 300+ comment OPs here. Its where there is strong disagreement.

[athena]

97. Everyone here also disagrees with the misandrist blogger.

I'm referring, of course, to this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4327339
which got 309 replies.

But when there is an opportunity to paint all feminist with the same unfair brush and imply that we're all misandrists, some people just can't pass it up.

[stevenleser]

98. Two things. First, as someone pointed out upthread, its a shiny new toy.

Second, there was not universal disagreement with that blogger. There were several folks attempting to validate parts of her philosophy.

[bemildred]

88. Hey, it's a sensitive issue.

But seriously, Big Man politics and social theorizing is kind of the norm, everybody wants to have a Daddy to take care of them, in the media anyway.

Whereas, "men are unnecessary" is a much more unusual point of view, not to say more extreme, and threatening to us owners of penises. Hume is not saying "we don't need no women", after all, he just wants them to stay in their place.

But I get your point, and I agree, the burst of energy over the radfem piece betrays an unconscious sensitivity to the ludicrousness of Big Man theories once examined critically.

[cali]

90. gad. this is just embarrassingly silly.

Are we really supposed to react with outrage over idiotic comments by wingnuts? We'd be at it 24-7.

[Eleanors38]

93. Rejoice and re-boot your schedule: Gunz is back!

[Dorian Gray]

94. This is the first I've heard of his saying

anything of this sort. What's the exact quote?

I don't really ever listen to or watch Hume, so I wouldn't know anything he says.

[Orsino]

100. Everything Hume says is wrong.

I'd like to stay outraged because so many people watch and believe him, but I can't.

[CrispyQ]

101. It's sad

that so many DUers are dismissing this thread because it was Brit Hume who made the comment, instead of discussing the real point of your post, which is, the west's harmful definition of masculinity.

[thucythucy]

105. Thank you.

That was indeed a big part of my concern.

[Tom Ripley]

104. Brit Humes knuckle-dragging perception of "masculinity" was a likely factor in his son's suicide.

[thucythucy]

106. Wow! I had no idea this was part of his personal history.

I generally feel squeamish about blaming someone's suicide on anyone other than the direct victim/perpetrator. Still, attitudes about masculinity no doubt contribute to the high rate of suicides among men.

Last time I did any reading on this topic, I seemed to glean from it that men are generally more "successful" at suicide than women, because men statistically are more likely to use a firearm, where as women are more likely to overdose. I don't know if that's still the case, but either way I think unrealistic and wholly toxic definitions of "what it means to be a man" are a big factor in why young men especially reach such a sad ending.

Thanks for the comment.

[Xyzse]

112. Because I don't care what he thinks?

If I become outraged with every single stupid, hypocritical, narrow-minded, lying crap that they say every single day, I wouldn't have time for anything else and spend my days mad all the time.

It would also mean getting in to fights with my mother.

I don't really want to create more friction and drama any more than necessary.
She starts more than enough by herself, that I don't want to add to it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. Its just more political polarization by gender.

If I thought that Republicans were the only ones doing it, it'd be easier to criticize.

Hume knows that men are more likely to vote Republican than women, and that once women marry they tend to vote more like men than single women.

From a Republican perspective, it's not bad politics, and it's a bed in which we're full partners in making.

The problem with Christie is; "what" not "how". I don't care that he's a bellicose, belligerent asshole. The problem with him is that he's a Republican who is willing to break the law to punish his enemies.

I don't think that LBJ was a bad president from a "how" perspective... and he was a serious asshole.

[sibelian]

114. That's certainly not an unreasonable question.

Unpacking my own thoughts, I guess I would say that it's simpler, and the habit of the Internet, to respond to the "plain English" reading of a statement rather than delve more deeply into it. The subject of a statement is usually the focus of its response, and the subject of Hume's criticism is women, whereas that of Witchwind is men. One can certainly draw the inference from Hume's statement that he has stupid ideas about men, whereas Witchwind openly despises them.

From the examples you used to ask your question, I think it's pretty obvious that there is also a rather pronounced difference in the degree to which each individual has expressed their gendered bias, Hume thinks women have exerted some kind of nebulous, influence over what he considers a "normal" social process which has resulted in his feeling unable to say things, whereas the redfem blogger is far more specific and refers to well-understood biological processes as if they are articles of political oppression and depends on an understanding of men as fundamentally unwholesome.

[Marr]

115. I don't take advice on masculinity from men with names like Alexander Britton Hume. /nt

[redgreenandblue]

116. Me, I wasn't outraged by either. I am comfortable with who I am.

I don't need a Brit Hume or nutcase blogger to define who I am.

In fact, I thought it was pretty hilarious when Hume went on about how muscular Christie is.

[redgreenandblue]

117. To explain why the "radfem blogger" thread got more attention than Hume:

The post you cited about the "radfem blogger" was part of an ongoing flame-war. Hume was not.