Fan The Flames: A Feminist Reviews "50 Shades of Grey"

I know what you're saying.  "That's so last year."  Well, I had been resisting reading the books, having successfully done so with the "Twilight" phenomenon.  But I had so many people (including my church-lady cousin, which was...bizarre) tell me "OMG YOU SHOULD READ THIS" that I started to get curious.  I also had students read them (their decision) for a paper in one of my classes, and I was wondering about the "plot."   I was able to borrow copies from a friend, so I could feel good about not actually contributing money to this!

I should also disclaim that I am by no means a romance novel aficionado.  I find the stories predictable and formulaic, the heroines are needy and one-dimensional, and their romantic targets just as shallow.    I have read them, and never has one kept my interest for anything other than "Will my prediction about the plot be right?"  The answer has always been yes.

The typical plot (since I am pretty sure no one here has read them either) is the following:

• Boy meets Girl
• Boy and Girl are from "two different words" that are inherently in conflict in some way.  Maybe one of them is rich, the other poor.  One's family owns a lumbermill, the other is an eco-terrorist that drives spikes into trees.
• Conflict causes problems that appear to be insurmountable
• Conflict is overcome because one or the other completely changes their outlook, beliefs, whatever is necessary to make this work, OFTEN the woman.  
• Happily Ever After

.

The sex scenes also have their formula.  There's a good deal of sexual tension through the first third of  the book, and then they are completely and totally swept away by some chance event and have the best sex ever.  It's never awkward or fumbling as two people get to know how things work together (i.e. not realistic), it's always the most amazing experience she has ever had, and even if she's a virgin she has mind-shattering multiple orgasms.  There's usually just the one scene with minute detail, and the rest are anywhere from a 'fade to black' kind of thing, to significantly less detail (but still mind-shattering multiple orgasms).

Orientation, over, we turn now to "50 Shades."  The first book, Fifty Shades of Grey, follows this formula  fairly closely.  Anastasia Steele, awkward, middle-class, soon-to-graduate English major meets super hot, super smooth, super wealthy Christian Grey.  Grey.  Steele.  Get it?  It's like destiny.  Pretty soon he's showing up at her work, and engaging in all manner of stalking behavior that should, for most intelligent women, send her for a restraining order.  Of course that would make this a short story, rather than a trilogy.  I'll spare the details, but she falls hopelessly in love with him in short order, and he buys her laptops, Blackberries, iPads, and Audis.  Yes, an Audi.  A bit extreme.  But the ONLY thing that differentiates this from other romance novels is that, oh yes, he's into BDSM.  Bondage and Discipline;  Dominance and submission; Sadism and Masochism.  He asks her to be his new "sub," has her sign a contract  and nondisclosure agreement and, upon discovering her virginity, makes short work of that (which is of  course an awesome experience for her).  Eventually she decides that she can't handle this, and by the end of the first book, she leaves him.  

A lot of the tropes of romance novel writing are there, so none of this was unexpected.  The sex scenes  are all in the same amount of detail as the typical 'first time' scene in other romance novels, rather  than just skimming over anything after the big first time, so that is new, as is what happens in some of  those scenes (unless you read BDSM erotica, that is).  In fact, were it NOT for the kink, the books would never have gotten much attention at all.

And there are two more books to go.

They get back together obviously, and have many an adventure.  The second book, "Fifty Shades Darker" was probably the best one of the trilogy in that I wasn't actually sure where things were going to go.  Christian begs Anastasia to come back, and she predictably does.  She continues to be stubborn and resist when she doesn’t like things.  She asked him to try 'vanilla' sex when he was desperate to get her back, and he agreed.  

Normally, this is a problem of romance novels.  "If I love him enough, he'll change" is the theme song of  many a novel and many a bad relationship.  So automatically I think I see where this is going.  But...he doesn't change.  He doesn't give up his detached BDSM tastes, but makes them secondary to the other aspects of their relationship.  They still have a large amount of sex, both vanilla and kinky, described in painstaking detail, which leaves me to wonder how either of them have enough energy for their jobs when they never seem to sleep.  

The second and third book focus on them negotiating their relationship in and out of the bedroom, while also dealing with his myriad psychological issues.  They eventually marry within about six months of their first encounter, and in an epilogue of for the third book, they have one child with a second on the way and are of course ridiculously rich and deliriously happy.  

I recall when the books came out, the pop culture pundits wanted to know:  What does it all mean?  Middle class women are completely and totally devouring these books, and the new term "mommy porn" was coined, never mind that romance novels were already that before this.  Obviously, most of the talk centered around the kinky nature of the sex, and commentators focused on the post-feminist  era of women realizing that maybe they didn't want to have it all, and they really secretly wanted men to be in control somewhere.  My favorite was that all women specifically wanted to be dominated.  But because we're expected to have both career and family, we sublimated those desires into fantasies about domination, which E. L. James just happened to put into writing.

I call bullshit on that.  I know a few people in the BDSM community, and I know just as many female  "dommes" as male "doms," so the idea that this is some sort of anti-feminist reaction is flawed.  But then, there's no evidence that EL James knows anything about BDSM other than what she might have read somewhere.  First, the "kinky" sex portrayed, is barely outside of the vanilla realm.  It's being tied  up and blindfolded, with some spanking and teasing.  That's it, and only barely qualifies as kink.  In the first third of the book, where they are negotiating their relationship, Grey gives her a list of hard limits (things that are non-negotiable that he refuses to do), and eliminates nearly everything from the kink realm that isn't binding and teasing his partner.  He does seem to like the flogging and caning, but when  Anastasia says she doesn't want that, he easily discards it.  One could say that's being a sensitive  dom, except there's nothing about their relationship that remotely resembles a dom/sub relationship, which is my second quibble.

In a dom/sub relationship, activities are negotiated, and James portrays that, but she leaves one very  important bit out:  The sub always has the power to say no, and negotiate, but this is not presented to  Anastasia in anything but the vaguest of terms.  He tells her she can say no, and gives her a safeword,  but  it isn't until two-thirds of the way through the first book, and quite a few scenarios, that he  actually expresses what power she has.  Even then, it isn't until the second book that she actually realizes it, and uses a safeword when things get too much.  We can chalk it up to her virginal inexperience, but as he is an experienced dom, it falls on him to make sure she understands.  He doesn't, and she is so desperate to be with him (and I would argue in any kind of relationship) that what they actually have is a codependent relationship, not a dom/sub relationship.

Leaving the bondage aside, there was one thing about the trilogy I did like.  I mentioned that Anastasia  leaves Christian because she doesn't like the arrangement they have.  He is devastated and promises  to change, so she comes back, as already discussed.  But then, the change is subtle, and it is more about  incorporating each of their tastes into their lives and finding a balance that works. This extends outside  of the bedroom where her demands for independence and his need to control come into conflict, and both parties make allowances and negotiate compromises.  This was the most pleasantly surprising part of the trilogy, as it violates the framework of most romance novels.  Even though I still think they're a codependent mess, they continue to grow and change and work together.  

Having said all that, I still can't seriously recommend the trilogy to anyone.  It's poorly written, with lots of inner dialogue where Anastasia deals with what she calls her 'inner goddess' whenever Christian  blinks at her, and she spends a great deal of time reacting to whatever he does, good and bad.  (Another  review referred to her biting her lip and blushing a lot.)  The author seems to have some difficulty  referring to female body parts, which is problematic if you want to write erotica.  Anastasia frequently  refers to being touched or kissed "Oh my god...THERE." James also relies heavily on using e-mail and text  messaging as a means of telling the story, which is cute at first, and likely reflects the changing ways  in which couples communicate, but is difficult to follow when reading it on the page.

I don't think it's a closeted critique of feminism, like many commentators think.  If anything, Anastasia  could very well be a feminist hero.  She meets the man she loves (as unrealistic as that is; it IS fiction)  and stands her ground as far as what her needs are.  A damn sight better than most romance heroines.

Read more »

Fan the Flames: Why You Should Vote

First, I wanted to announce that I now have a name for this little column here:  "Fan the Flames."  Obviously, it had to be something related to the Internet (and occasionally real life) nick name.  It is also the name of a feminist bookstore in Columbus that I only went to once before it closed, but was pretty cool.  Since I'm the lone woman here so far, and a feminist (who clearly needs to educate a few of you on just what that means), I thought it fairly appropriate.

But the definition of feminism will have to wait.  For those of you in the United States, there's this little election thing happening on November 6.  And, as usual, the typical complaints about our process surface.  I am always amused by them, as they're easily dispatched with, with just a little common sense.

Probably the biggest one is "I don't know anything about the issues or people."  As the Internet has grown, this reason becomes less and less plausible.  Right now, I can go to congress.gov and find my representatives and senators and see what they have been up to.  What bills have they written or sponsored? Have they voted yes or no?  Don't know your representative or senator?  There's a handy thing to look that up.  The same thing exists for the Ohio General Assembly as well, and probably the one in your state.

"I don't have time to surf the Internet", you say. "Please," I say.  You're spending time reading an Internet blog, and I see many of you posting on a few message boards I could name.  We have time if we make time for what is important.  And voting is important.

I am fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on the day) to live in the Swing States Of All Swing States, Ohio, which means we have a whole bunch of appearances and advertisements for each of the presidential candidates.  "But the ads are misleading" you say.  "Factcheck and Politifact" I say.  They analyze campaign speeches, debates, and advertisements, so you know what's true, what isn't, and in the mean time, get a healthy education as to what they are even talking about.

Most Boards of Election have sample ballots on their websites with names, issues, and sometimes even the pros and cons of various issues.  The local paper will have a voter's guide in it, as well.  Merely watching the evening news and reading a paper or news magazine once in a while will give you plenty of information about where we are going and how we are got there.  Is it perfect?  No.  But consider this.

There's no way for anyone to know everything about the candidates or issues.

Take the Middle East.  (Someone, please.)  We all have opinions as to what should be or could be done there.  The simple truth though is that NO ONE knows all the information.  People that live there have their view.  Scholars and policy experts have theirs.  The President gets information that no one else is privy to, so knows more than Romney, but still not all.  Our information about candidates, issues, and anything else will ALWAYS be imperfect.  If everyone waited until they knew ALL THE FACTS, then no one would ever vote, because no one would ever have them.

As I was writing this, I got an interesting point from the Facebook post of my friend, Ian Corrigan, in discussing why he votes by party, not by person.  He says "I believe that it is a mistake to try to vote for the person, not the party, especially in statewide and national elections. First there is no way to use the existing data to form an accurate impression of the 'character' of the candidates. Secondly the character of the candidate will have little to nothing to do with what measures they propose and support."

When you look at the circus of media consultants and stylists the national campaigns employ, you will find that we have no idea who these people are.  We know the version that their handlers in the party have packaged them to be to enhance their likeability or whatever other characteristics they think will get them votes.  We don't know them.  At all.  We don't know their character at all, either.

Even though some may criticize single-issue voters, or those who vote party lines, or because a candidate shares some characteristic of theirs, are not really making the uneducated guesses we think they are.  If I vote for someone just because they are female (which, incidentally, I have never done), I am assuming that she and I at least share a few issues in common.  And social research would show I'd be right, or at least more right than if I chose someone at random.  If I'm a fan of Jesus, traditional marriage, and think I pay too much in my taxes, I'd probably be okay voting a straight Republican ticket, even if there are a few of the folks on there with whom I'd disagree on a couple of things.  If I'm a big fan of keeping abortions legal, voting for Democrats would be fine, even though there are pro-choice candidates on the Republican side.  It's not perfect, but nothing is.

"Both parties are the same, there's no real choice, and I refuse to choose the lesser of two evils."

That does increase the likelihood that the greater evil wins, however you define that.  Fortunately, there actually is a often a choice that doesn't involve Republicans or Democrats:  You can write a candidate in.  Or, if one is available, you can vote for a third party candidate.  For the presidential election, that does effectively count as a "none of the above," given the stranglehold the parties have on the FEC.  However, it's not without effect.  Parties notice, and end up incorporating the values of the third parties into their platforms.  So over time, the two major party platforms change.  It does take a while though.

But ignore the presidency.  No, really.  Do.  He doesn't represent the people.  Don't believe me? Read Article II of The Constitution.  He's the CEO, whose job it is to make sure the laws passed by the legislature (which is, incidentally, the very FIRST thing in the Constitution) are enforced and followed.  It does mean he has to decide how much money gets placed towards those things, and he can put forward his own agenda for what should be included.  But he's not the one really deciding what our money gets spent on.  No, that is the job of the now 535 Members of Congress.  The ones we DO elect directly.  THOSE are the ones you should be paying attention to.

(That's one of the reasons why don't elect him directly anyway.  At some point maybe I'll do a thing on the electoral college, but it won't be for a bit, this has a good summary

Thus, if you are not happy with the choices offered, you can skip the presidential race as a further "none of the above" option, and vote for US Senate and House.  (Check your local election laws though, to make sure that skipping choices doesn't invalidate your ballot.  And good grief get that repealed!)  Third parties can and have been elected to both Houses, and have made their impacts felt there.

You know what impacts your pocket book way more than the federal government does?  State, municipal, and local elections.  They are right there in your community.  That freeway expansion project that annoys your commute every morning?  Those children who are graduating without knowing how to read?  That's all tied to your local elections.  And some of that comes in spring primaries and in off-term general elections.

Now, look out our voter turnout rates.  It varies by state, but just scrolling down the Excel file, the voting eligible population (VEP) turn out rates are abysmal in a society that values participatory democracy as much as we claim we do.  In the 2010 Midterm elections, it was 37.8 percent.  The 2008 presidential election it was 56.9 percent.  Not even two-thirds of the population could bother to show up for an election that was probably the most historic ever?  Imagine if we had that, or 80 percent, or even 90?  Would the election have turned out differently?  How will we know?  Forty-four percent of the population gave up their right to have their voice heard.  What might that have meant to your state assembly, or your local school district?

My cousin has worked in for one the Ohio Democratic Party for as long as I can remember.  In the election of Kennedy in 1960, she recalls that while Kennedy won the state, it was precinct by precinct.  He won by single digits, sometimes by ONE VOTE in each precinct.  That eventually added up.

Your vote matters.  It matters nationally, as each single vote adds up to a whole bunch of votes.  And it definitely matters locally.  Do you want 20 percent of your city deciding where to put an casino?  Remind me to tell you how that works out.

To stay home surrenders the ONE thing that Americans have historically had the ability to do since the beginning. At least the white males with land.  But eventually that right did get extended to all, however not without a cost.

This is a photo of  Helena Hill Weed.  She stood outside the White House in the winter of 1917, and got arrested for something called "obstruction of traffic" to insist that women be given the right to vote.  While in jail, she and her colleagues, American Citizens ,were beaten when they refused to plead guilty, declaring themselves political prisoners.  Some went on hunger strikes and were force fed, and were submitted to psychological testing to be declared mentally ill.

Black men had technically had the vote since they were freed, and black women since the passage of the XIX Amendment.  But many laws and practices kept them from doing so.  In the early 1960s, blacks protested along side whites.  Within 10 weeks of the "Freedom Summer" project of 1963, "four civil rights workers were killed, three Mississippi blacks were murdered because of their support, four people critically wounded, eighty Freedom Summer workers were beaten, 162 people were arrested, 37 churches were bombed or burned, and 30 black homes or businesses were bombed or burned" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Summer).

Suddenly "I don't want to have to get up early or stand in line" doesn't seem like such a good reason, does it?

To stay home negates the struggles of all those Americans who fought and sometimes died for the right to vote in this country.

It negates the sacrifices of OUR armed forces who fought and DIED so citizens of OTHER countries could secure their OWN right to vote.  Like these.

If still photos don't do it for you, rent and watch "Iron Jawed Angels" about the women's suffragette movement or "Mississippi Burning" about Freedom Summer.  They weren't too busy, or tired, or too whatever to stay home and NOT get arrested and beaten and burned and killed just for demanding this right. Watch video of Iraqi citizens risking suicide bombers just for the opportunity to hold up a purple stained finger in their first real election ever. They weren't too tired, or too busy, or too whatever to risk their lives for the opportunity to vote.

Yes. I feel strongly about this.

If that doesn't work, then how about you go vote to cancel mine out.  I dare you.

Read more »

Unamed Firewoman Blog - Rush Limbaugh, The First Amendment, and Women’s Health

Nate told me I could write a blog if I wanted. I said “all I can think of something all political and feminist and stuff.” He said that would be fine, as long as I made it funny.

Well, I’ve been working on this one for a while, and I still can’t make it funny. And I know my audience here are mostly men from Punshouse, so I think I’ll try to show you why these issues are important for you males, not just for one of the few womenfolk you let hang out in your locker room.

If you haven’t heard, a few weeks ago, Congress had hearings on a portion of the health care act that said that insurance companies are required to provide coverage for birth control for women, no matter who the employer. The exception of course is religious institutions that are against birth control, but here’s where the disagreement begins. If I work in the Church’s office, then I am clearly working for a religious institution. But what if I work at the Catholic-affiliated hospital? Or school? Is THAT a religious institution?

The sides have lined up framing the issue as they will. The Republicans are framing it as a religious freedom issue and crying for their First Amendment rights. The Democrats are framing it as a women’s health care issue. So, the stage is set for the hearings, where we find that the only ones called to testify are….men. No women. No women on the committee hearing things either. If you saw the pictures, the absence of women was glaringly obvious even to the least politically-minded friend of mine. There of course were women there to testify. One of them, Sandra Fluke, is a law student at Georgetown. When women were not allowed to testify, they left, and the Democrats held their own hearings. Ms. Fluke testified on behalf of a friend who needed birth control pills not for pregnancy prevention, but because of a painful medical condition.

That is not how Mr. Limbaugh portrayed it, however. For three days, Ms. Fluke was slandered by Mr. Limbaugh, who mischaracterized her testimony, which was not about sexual behavior at all, but serious health issues. He called her names, which is his job, really, but then also suggested that he would want to watch all this sex she was having via the Internet.

Predictably, the media erupted. Calls for Rush’s removal from the air echoed, and advertisers dropped like flies. Such is the way of capitalism in the media. (I have no doubt that many of his advertisers will quietly make their way back once things have died down.)

The political response was intriguing and scary. Predictably, Democrats defended Ms. Fluke, and condemned Mr. Limbaugh. President Obama called Ms. Fluke to see how she was doing. Even twenty-six Republicans sent a message to Speaker of the House Boehner asking him to condemn Mr. Limbaugh’s tirade. For their part, the rest of the Republicans, including Boehner and the presidential candidates called Mr. Limbaugh’s words “inappropriate.”

We know the outcome. Mr. Limbaugh issued an apology that was only slightly less sincere than Komen Foundation’s was. And interest was deflected away from the real issue for a few days.

So what you say? Well a few things disturb me about this and they all center on the First Amendment.

Let’s go in order.

“Congress shall make no law respect an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Right is arguing that mandating that affiliated hospitals and schools allow employees to use insurance to pay for birth control is violating that. And let’s be clear. That’s all the law is stating.  It’s not stating that we hand birth control out willy nilly to everyone who asks. It’s not mandating that women be forced to take birth control pills as a condition of employment. It’s not even stating that, as Mr. Limbaugh continued to rant about, taxpayers pay for birth control pills. It is say insurance companies have to cover them as they would any other prescription.

It’s also maintaining the exemption for churches themselves, but hospitals and schools are not religious institutions. They are medical and educational, respectively, and while they may receive some funding and support from their religious affiliates, they also receive it from private donors and government funding as well. (When they start providing medical care and education free, then we can talk).

One could also apply the same logic the other way: Allowing for an exemption actually RESPECTS an establishment of one religion, saying that it is someone special and thus special rules need to be made for that religion.

Both arguments are flawed though. The Amendment is about making a religion the official state religion and making others illegal. This doesn’t do either of those things.

The second relevant part of the First Amendment in this debate, and one that’s getting a little lost, I think, and the more important one is “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” Let’s be clear. Congress hasn’t done that. Private individuals and companies withdrawing their support is not a violation of the First Amendment. And Congress hasn’t passed any laws about this issue. But Congress and the President have weighed in on the appropriateness of Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, which does not carry the weight of law at all. Or
does it?

Mr. Limbaugh has the Constitutional right to say what he wants, even if it’s factually wrong, and even if it is civilly liable (civil law being a very different animal). And I have the Constitutional right to say he’s a big douchebag. The President and Congress however, do not get a say in this matter however. To say speech of any kind is inappropriate is the first step toward saying “Hey, we ought to write a law…” I’m not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but when it comes to the Bill of Rights, I’d rather be safe than sorry.

Having determined that this is actually not a Constitutional religious freedom issue, that just leaves one other issue, and it’s one that the Republicans are finding has support from even voters within their own party. At best this is a miscalculation. At most, it might cost them the next election. People, not just women, want the government to mind its own business when it comes to medical decisions (isn’t that the point of opposing the whole health care act anyway?) Of course, some don’t see it that way. Some see it as a lack of personal responsibility (although getting birth control to avoid an unwanted pregnancy seems to be the very height of responsibility). Others see it as…well, I can’t even fathom what some of them are thinking. And it’s not Republicans. There are Republicans who are not on board with this, and Democrats who are disturbingly silent.

I know that most of the readers here are men, and if you’ve stuck with me this long, you might be thinking, “So what. “ This doesn’t affect me.” Well, sit back.

What if your sister ends up needing a full or partial hysterectomy due to untreated endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, or any number of other medical conditions birth control pills can treat successfully, but she couldn’t get them because the Catholic school she works for is allowed to ‘opt out’ of that portion of her insurance coverage?

(And in an era of still 8 to 10 percent unemployment, the “find another job” argument isn’t going to fly.)

What if your daughter is raped and impregnated. Before any discussion of abortion she is required to hear the heartbeat (if she’s in Ohio, potentially), or be laid down on a gurney while a total stranger takes a probe to do an internal ultrasound, whether she wants one or not? (That requirement was stripped out of the Virginia legislation, but if you live in the state of Virginia, what if it had not?)

What if your pregnant wife, gods forbid, discovers that your child is going to be stillborn or miscarried, but instead of being able to go to the doctor and have it removed safely, she is forced to go through the emotional and physical pain of either miscarrying (which can be a very slow and dangerous process) or must carry the child to term and deliver as if everything was okay. You get to watch. If you live in Georgia, there’s a law going through right now proposing that very thing.

Still think it doesn’t affect you? Something to think about this November.

Firewoman is a regular contributor to both the Pun's House and Online Onslaught message boards.  She is also a charter member of the OOWF e-fed.  Her interests include sex, drugs, rock-n-roll... chips, dips, chains, whips... You know, your basic high school orgy type of things.

Read more »

Wait...Did I Just Agree with Newt?

Today we have a new guest blog by PH/OO regular firewoman:


I know. You're reading this saying, "I thought she had more sense than that." Or "I thought she was too much a pinko commie feminazi leftist for that." Imagine my own surprise.


I have been avoiding the Republican debates for a number of reasons. First, I'm not a Republican so I'm not going to invest a lot of time into watching a bunch of people I'm highly unlikely to vote for spar with their talking points not really saying much of anything. The three candidates that I might have an interest in did not get any respect anyway (Buddy Roemer and John Huntsman) or will not (Ron Paul), so why bother. I'll just wait until they decide which one it is, and then pay attention. Second, I have Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Saturday Night Live, Morning Joe, and Stephanie Miller to keep me updated on the more humorous or eye-rolling happenings at said debates.


Secondly, what little I have seen has resembled more of a pep rally than a debate. Once upon a time you weren't supposed to cheer, boo, or do anything when in the audience of a presidential debates. Maybe this is just for the Presidential debates, but it gives the whole thing the air of civility, class, and respect that such an occasion deserves. Hearing people cheer for depriving sick people of medical care so they die, or the number of people executed kind of puts me off. (And from the 'pro-life party, no less. But I digress.)



So I was listening to Morning Joe today, waiting for Stephen Colbert's appearance, when I heard the opening question by John King of CNN to Newt Gingrich in Thursday night's debate, asking him if he'd care to comment on the ABC Nightline appearance of his ex-wife, where she claimed Rep. Gingrich had asked her if she would consent to an open marriage. There were many things about his response to that opening question that have been rattling around in my head since then.


Rep. Gingrich opened with, "I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that."


And you know what? He's right. The news media has focused more on infotainment rather actual content that might be beneficial to voters, and rather than getting better because full time all-news networks, it's actually gotten worse. And it's worse on all three news channels. FOX and MSNBC pander to the right and the left, respectively, while CNN latches on to anyone that happens to be flipping by with flashy graphics, and constant reaching out to Facebook and Twitter. Even when one candidate ventures into allegedly hostile territory, they seldom get the grilling they deserve. Take Chuck Todd's interview of Rep. Gingrich where he drops the line about Planned Parenthood providing the most abortions in the US (which is so easily demonstrated to be false, I'm not even going to bother here), or whether Citizens United plays into the negative ad campaigns. Rep. Gingrich disagreed, saying the negative ads being run by 'someone' were just a bunch of millionaires who have gotten together to run negative ads. Both of those, Mr. Todd just lets it all go, no questioning, no challenging.


However, salacious details about a man's sex life? We will go RIGHT after that. Because that's going to keep my property values from falling, stop my retirement accounts losing money, and helping all my friends find jobs. And in many cases, it's our own fault. The long standing journalistic maxim of "if it bleeds, it leads" does refer to the public (i.e. us) and also the need to increase revenue from advertising so we can have news channels that we will watch, but only if the dirty little secrets get aired in public. They do it because we watch.


It comes a shock to no one probably that I am no prude. People want to have open marriages, okay. What two, three, or four consenting adults decide to do with their spare time and who they do it with doesn't concern me really. As long as I'm afforded the same courtesy, and I can still afford groceries and don't have to worry about some guy blowing up the next plane I get on, knock yourselves out.


But, let's move on. Rep. Gingrich, after the ridiculous standing ovation dies down, continues. "Every person in here, knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife, and make it two days before the primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign, is as close to despicable, as anything I can imagine."


Um, wait. For someone who has run in the past and is (up until about this point) using sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman only as one of his key platforms, Rep. Gingrich has a funny definition of the word despicable. As one of the many people in Washington leading the charge against President Clinton over his affair and subsequent lying about the affair with Monica Lewinsky, and if memory serves, right ABOUT the same time he was also having an affair (never mind the part about asking Mrs. Gingrich the Second for special favors), there's another word that springs to mind: hypocritical.


(I would also call having an affair with Mistress 1 while Wife 1 was fighting cancer, then divorcing Wife 1.0, translating Mistress 1.0 into Wife 2.0, then having an affair with Mistress 2.0/Wife 3.0 while Wife 2.0 gets diagnosed with MS despicable. But that's just me.)


At the time, I recall stating the same thing I stated above. I didn't care who Clinton was fucking. But Rep. Gingrich certainly did. He thought that this "personal pain" that the Clintons were going through at the time was the perfect tool to discredit a political adversary. Now that the tables are turned, suddenly using "painful things" as political tools is despicable.


Well, he can not have it both ways. He can not question a rival's values, morality, and ethics by revealing private issues into the spotlight of an ever-hungry media machine when it serves his purpose, and then cry fowl when his own sword is turned against you. John King lobbed him a softball, allowing him respond to the allegation with a little bit of class, (something ABC apparently did not do) and had he stopped after the first quote, we all could have probably moved on. But since he continued, those of us who don't forget fairly recent history have no choice but to step up and cry foul.


So to recap. I don't care who Gingrich fucked, and he is right that personal issues such as these have no place in a debate that is supposed to be focused on issues that concern us all. Who Gingrich fucked doesn't effect me in the least. But he has no right to feel victimized here. He should maybe focus on that Bible he claims to have read and Galatians 6: 7-9. He should have plenty of light coming in through the glass house.

Read more »