In Reply: "Princess Boy" - "tomboy" girls vs "sissies" (and a tribute to Cassandra, once of Villainous Company)

In reply to Cassy Fiano - Would You Let Your Son Be A Princess Boy?, and in particular, to to the wise comment (#14 -- If there's a way to get the permalink of another commenter, I can't figure out how...) of Cassandra (once of Villainous Company, but sadly not blogging at her old blog, currently. While we surely didn't always agree, her decision to disconnect is a real loss to reason and nuance in political blogging, especially on the conservative side...)
---

Cassandra...

Just saw that you disconnected your blog back in November (Sorry... I've been busy...) I hope you keep commenting on occasion (or better, miss blogging and reconnect your own) because there just isn't enough nuance and "thinking through" in the political blogosphere (as your 11:48 AM comment here once again shows.)

While I assume this to be a more serious internal issue than just a kid who wants to explore his feminine side -- Given the prevailing attitudes about gender roles, especially for boys (as you say), I just don't see too many boys doing this for several years straight, with the parent writing a book and going on national TV, without it being more than just exploration or a simple preference for colors and frills -- your comments about the difference between how our society treats boys vs girls as regards taking on the opposite roles is spot on, and for some, it persists into adulthood. (I'm willing to bet that every person reading this knows at least one person like POW, above, who questions the sexuality of men who work as nurses or teachers, or who knit or dance "too" well. And unfortunately, too many of us let them get away with it, unchallenged -- I've let it go unquestioned, myself.)

I hope you're right, and this is just a story about a kid who's willing to explore his feminine side, and not a boy who believes he should've been born a girl, like the ones in the Atlantic article I linked to in my first comment. While both circumstances require some deft parenting, most of 'em don't grow out of gender dysmorphia, and it has to be resolved, one way, or another...
---

Comment submitted with website in header. Zilch.

Added the following postscript, and submitted again, without the blogspot address:
(Seems my comments don't post if I include my blog address in the "Website" header field... Is that a bug or a feature? -- Guessing some might think it the latter... 8>)

Posted: January 5, 2011 • 2:43 pm (comment #17)

Roundup and Commentary - 10/17/09

To the ant, a few drops of rain is a flood. - 8,789 Words of Wisdom by Barbara Ann Kipfer

Commentary:

"I see a huge difference between the carefully scripted and vetted-for-political opinion crowds at the average Bush speech, vs preferring to avoid something on the order of a boisterous transvestite or code pinker contingent disrupting an event."
Immoderate Monk: Comparing Bush/Obama: audience vetting and the press (& maybe Villainous Company: What A Difference an Election Makes... in Press Coverage)

Roundup and Commentary - 10/16/09

Start planning a vacation you've always wanted to take. Call a travel agency for brochures, talk to people who have been where you want to go, organize "planning sessions" with others who will go with you -- make the preparation as much fun as the trip itself. - The Check Book: 200 Ways to Balance Your Life - Bret Nicholaus

Commentary:

"What a sad bunch a people, who go out of their way to hurt a gal's feelings, when they could just, ...well... not do that." Megan McCain: Don't Call Me a Slut - The Daily Beast

Cassandra @ Villainous Company: (October 16, 2009 08:03 AM comment) puts her radical feminist credentials in jeopardy by discussing Megan McCain's boobtacular twit pic. (While Megan did a dumb thing, I think the incident exposed more about a good number of her critics than Megan did of/about herself.)

I left several comments on this subject, mostly on TDB (though there was a second on VC, as well.) Since this seemed to be the subject of the day, a short video tribute:


(Probably my favorite episode of the RP series.)

And another video I just happened to find, that sums it all up nicely:



"Fuck you, boob haters!!"

Roundup and Commentary - 9/15/09

Learn to play a musical instrument. - Life's Little Instruction Book

Commentary:

"In disagreeing with Dr Douglas, we have "wronged" him, and that wrong must be avenged. (or something.)"
Villainous Company: Donald Douglas: Moral Relativist Extraordinaire "September 15, 2009 06:35 AM" comment (no permalinks)

American Power: Black Thugs Beat White Student on Bus in St. Louis ...And of course to Donald, this is the fault of Democrats and Obama... No... REALLY... If Donald Douglas really believes the things he's written here, he's lost whatever attachment to reality he once had. This is a politically partisan issue because most black adults are Democrats, so therefore the two black boys that beat up this kid did so because they're Democrats?

Immoderate Monk: Sometimes a banana is just a banana... (or "theblogprof: Video: White Student Beaten On School Bus To Cheering Crowd") -- At least the blogprof gets it... He may still believe it was a racial thing, but he's not crazy enough to buy into what Don's selling...

In Reply: "...newsworthiness is not a sufficient argument for publishing photographs/videos of people against their (or their family's) will..."

Revised and extended, in reply to the American Power post Realities of War? An Update:
---

One or two more bits about Cassandra.

1) I'm not seeing the hard-left, radical feminism in either of her arguments that Donald says he does. While I'm sure Donald's actions & reactions would likely've been different, does anyone doubt that Cassandra would've reacted any differently were it hottie sports reporter "Eric" Andrews who was videotaped in a hotel room naked, and fellow conservatives like Donald (though more likely "Donna" Douglas) were providing links to the illegally shot video in hopes of increasing their blog traffic?

Does anyone think that Cassandra's arguments about rape & incest victims would be any more or less forcefully argued by her if the majority of victims were men & boys, rather than women & girls? After reading a good deal of what she's written before and since, I sure don't.

While gender absolutely does play a part in sexual exploitation--be it voyeurism or rape--I submit that Cassandra's arguments against re-victimizing Erin Anderews and against photographing rape or incest victims are not based on the gender of the victim, but on the fact that the victim is a victim.

2) Cassandra's argument in the Erin Andrews matter is not inconsistent with her position here. In both (and seemingly all) cases, she believes that newsworthiness is not a sufficient argument for publishing photographs/videos of people against their (or their family's) will. That is true whether the person is a famous sports reporter, a member of the military who was injured or killed in the line of duty, or a rape/incest victim, or whether the person in the photograph is male or female.

While I don't agree with her argument equating soldiers with crime victims, her argument is consistent, and at least as rational as it is emotional.

Of course YMMV...
---

Sunday, September 6, 2009, 3:01 AM (AmPow blog time)

In Reply: Striking a Balance Between Privacy and the Public's Right to Know

In reply to the American Power post "Realities of War? An Update," discussing military families and privacy rights vs the public's right to know:
---

It's a shame that Dr. Douglas included the bit about Cassandra at Villainous Company. Given his history with her (and the fact that he relates it here in this post), it seemed a little more vindictive that informative.

Aside that, this is among Donald's best posts, as he shows himself willing to look at all sides of the issue and admit that he's not sure there is one right answer.

While I believe the media should have the legal right to use legitimately newsworthy photographs, they have a moral obligation to balance newsworthiness against the privacy wishes of the person being photographed or, when they cannot express their wishes, the wishes of their families.

While there will always be some who prefer to keep their grief private, there will also always be those who, for one reason or another, choose to share their grief and the loved one they lost with the rest of us, and I agree that those latter families, no matter the reason for their choice, are allowing their loved one to serve their country one final time.

While it's sad that some families will find themselves in the position of having photographs published against their wishes, and that there will be times when the public will lose out on a better understanding of an issue because the media outlet chose to honor a families wishes, I believe that the system we have now is about right -- though I remain suspicious of the whole embed system.

Aside legitimate national security concerns, the military should not be dictating what stories and images they must or cannot use to a free media. (However, I agree that if the contract the photographer signed said she was restricted in what she could offer for publication, she should've lived up to her word, and not used those photographs. It's a bad rule that I believe reporters & photographers ought to refuse to sign, but those who do sign ought to live up to it.)

As for Cassandra (since Dr. Douglas did bring it up), I believe she is playing the reductio ad absurdum game (or something like it at least).

First of all, we do in fact see some of the physical effects of rape, on those victims who despite privacy concerns, are willing to show some of their injuries in the media or in public. Even very graphic images are "published" in court, where some members of the general public do see them.

Images of genitals etc. are for the most part kept out of the media whether the person is a soldier or a rape/incest victim, so I'm not sure her analogy holds.

And the fact that soldiers volunteer to serve their country and perhaps be maimed or killed whereas crime victims do not makes a difference, as well. Whatever injuries a soldier sustains s/he receives on behalf of all of us. That means we have an obligation to know what we're asking our military men & women to risk for us. There are very few situations where anyone (let alone the country) asks a woman to become a rape victim on another person's behalf.

On the other hand, Cassandra is right about one thing; Thankfully, relatively few of us really know what it means to be a victim of the kind of crimes she describes. While I'm not sure we need to or that it would help anyone if more of us did, she is right about the fact that few of us do. But while the tolerance for some crimes (like the video voyeurism of Erin Andrews, where the video was essentially a product of the crime) is too high, VERY few are similarly tolerating, celebrating or otherwise defending the acts of rape or incest or any of the products thereof. And again, no one volunteers to put themselves as substantial risk of becoming victim of such a crime on behalf of their country.

While I admire her passion, Cassandra's arguments are way off base.
--

Posted Sunday, September 6, 2009, 2:11 AM (AmPow Blog Time)

Roundup and Commentary - 7/28/09

Say "thank you" a lot.

Commentary:

I believe it's important to draw the lines for oneself, and to argue for why one believes them to be right for others, too. While this does open one up to charges of being holier-than-thou (and taken too far, one can become that), it's important to stand up for what one believes in and to try to impart it to others, even if only by example.: Villainous Company: Decency: July 28, 2009 01:32 PM comment (No permalink)

“The best defense is offense” seems to be his creed, and all of you hypocritical, feminist, Victorian, writers of “lunkheaded prose” might as well just accept that he has done no wrong. Hits is hits, and enemies of Dr D. quickly becomes “nihilists.” (although frankly, even I’m surprised how quickly he turned on y’all…)": Smitty Apologizes . . . | Little Miss Attila

Roundup and Commentary - 7/26/09

Commentary:

Whatever one’s opinion of rule 5 though, there is a difference between a willing model and an unwilling one, and no amount of “newsworthiness” justifies posting pictures, videos, or links to pix/videos of unwilling models captured illegally or immorally. - Donald Douglas Would Like Some Attention. - Little Miss Attila

One who cannot admit error, and must instead lash out at others, is a sad person, indeed.: Villainous Company: First Rule of Holes: July 26, 2009 12:14 PM comment (No permalink)