I would have made the same points in you had posted these images as things Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Sarah Palin, etc., hated. However, you would never have used to images to mock those women, so I never have the opportunity to do so.
Knowing you to the extent I do, I think this is probably an accurate self-revelation to the point you make. But by the same measure, I think it's probably true that the only reason you would have raised the issue if Pearl had done the same line on a Republican woman is because of your special misogyny for Pearl herself. It deeply bothers you. . . . to the very core. . . . that she can pop off and say the things she says. If it were a guy doing that, you'd brush it off just calling him a guy. I see a lot of material in this forum that I think is demeaning to women, but by large measure it's locker room man talk and leering at sexy pics. I haven't seen you raise the issue on that stuff to defend the true value of women as mature, thinking, and caring persons in our society. A little objectivization of sexuality is more or less "to be expected". Kicky's objectivization of Hillary just a few posts above didn't trigger anything from you. Fun to throw out labels, isn't it. Not so interesting to look at ourselves with the same level of criticism.
I learned a long time ago, before the age most kids start getting sexual, and as the consequence of being abused by older people, that it was necessary to get past the objectivization of sexual abuse and analyze the situation in terms of other attributes people possess. I made a decision to refuse to think of humans in solely sexual terms, and to put that aspect way back in my assessment of the entire person. I see porn as a mental/neurological/reflexive addiction as powerful as any hallucinogenic drug, and I see people who are in the mode of leering at human beings, or dressing to the mode, for sexual emphasis, as seriously maladjusted. That is part of the reason I see the whole GLBT crowd as, well. . . . sad cases of humans gone wrong. Nobody should be labeled first of all, or considered solely in terms of neurological responses to sexual attraction. Why will you demean yourself in doing that? Why will you demean others by doing that in your mind?
I see learning to govern yourself on principle as the way to be a man or woman of character. Failure to do that in any department of your life only takes away from your possible humanity, your potential to act on principle, and your privilege of governing yourself.
I see the entire Democratic Party in America as "bowled over" with lesser values, as people failing to live by good character. I see a lot of Republicans in the same boat. But I see people like Pearl as at least symbolically trying to seek a higher standard, for personal conduct and for consistency with truth. A lot of the fundamentalist Christians at least have that working in the background despite whatever their deficits may be. People trying to become better people, and people with internal standards of character seeking consistency with those standards from their government are the only hope we have as a people, or as a nation. I wish more Democrats would take that stand. You might be able to take back the Democratic party as the party for the people in this country.
But you won't be able to that by following the lead of our CFR folks, or the Rockefellers, Bushes, or even Romneys and McCains of our political crowd. Not even McConnel or Boehner. We owe the financial soundness of the Clinton administration to Newt Gingrich and his little band in Congress, perhaps, but even Newt falls short on the score I'm talking about. I sorta understand the criticisms of even Ron Paul as set out by Democrats of the FDR cult crowd, who see the government as a tool for solving problems for the people, but at least he has personal integrity.
Without deep-seated personal integrity in our representatives, we are a rudderless ship in a stormy sea. I've held on to friendships with even genuine Marxists for the sake of what I perceived as principled integrity. My bud would have, and did, put his own job on the line for the sake of principle, a principle as small as refusing to train management personnel to replace workers during contract negotiations in preparation for a possible strike.
When you decide who to label derisively and try to shout down, try to pick on someone who actually has problems in the integrity department. Or you'll find me sticking up for them.
I guess I suspect that if she were a Democrat, you'd cut her some slack for that reason, too. Certainly, you cut a whole lot of slack for people who are in your progressive boat. If I saw you out in the trenches taking the same principled stand for the slackers within your own political camp, it would. . .. almost. . . . shut me up as your critic.
