Friday, September 19, 2008

Margaret Cho: Colluder Of The Week, Tap That Ass

image Well it's been a while since I have given out a colluder award.  This week it goes hands down to Margaret Cho for her sexist attack on Sarah Palin.  There is absolutely no doubt that almost everything that Palin stands for is anti woman but reducing her to a sex object for the sake of a few cheap laughs is anti-woman and anti-feminist.

But even though I would never, ever vote for Palin, I am kind of obsessed with fucking her. She is sexy and hot in a MILF/Cougar way. Like you could have that real mature, straight to the point, adult, over forty, gonna cum multiple times with a big, oversize t-shirt on and nothing else and "I don't care what I look like cuz I am gonna bust nuts in your curl" kind of fucking with her. I want to steam up those glasses and show her what a pitbull with lipstick really needs – doggy style!

Seriously – I wanna eat her Alaskan pussy from behind. Like an Eskimo. What?! I'm just trying to keep warm!

Patriarchy continually reduces women to fuckable objects; and for a woman to perform the same behaviour is collusion.  Shit like this is exactly why women continue to be marginalized and oppressed.  This is not liberating or empowering; it says to the world that that the only thing valuable about us is the gadget between our legs.  I am all for women demanding orgasms and being sexual beings but this kind of commentary is just pussy pandering to titillate the patriarchal imagination. 

There is a reason why no one is talking about whether or not the "first dude" is worthy to work out your jones with.  Todd Palin despite being conventionally attractive has a ...are you ready....dick.  First dude might get ridiculed for being the "man behind the woman" (no sexual imagery intended), however he won't be reduced to a fuckable object because his body is male. There I said it. First dude has a dick, so let's not tee hee to ourselves about how hot he may, or may not be, or the various things we would like to insert in his orifices, because that is just not how the male body is constructed.  Instead we will save it all for Sarah and in the process demean all women.

First Dude will even notice some increase in rank.  You see, he is tapping the ass that everyone is talking about.  Since sex is still considered something that men do to women, when he is challenged with a reduced masculinity his ability to fuck Sarah, thus marking his territory will prevent him from being totally emasculated.  Todd and Sarah are both in the limelight but what separates them is more than political office, what separates them is gender.  As long as women continue to be deemed always available for male sexual pleasure she will continue to be devalued and he will continue to be the invisible body behind (sexual innuendo intended) the woman.  Tap, Tap, Tap, That Ass!

H/T Shakesville


34 comments:

Anonymous said...

right on! thanks for bringing Cho's "jokes" to our attention and providing a great commentary.
-Lincoln, NE

a. brown said...

I've always been a Cho-waffler, and here's a good example of why. She gets on a roll and goes to a bad place for laffs.

Anonymous said...

I've never seen the point of Cho, but the reason no one cares about Todd Palin is that he's . . . nobody important. No one cares about Mrs. Biden either.

Anonymous said...

"pussy pandering to titillate the patriarchal imagination" however is a line of poetic genius.

Sandalstraps said...

Anonymous 3,

...but the reason nobody cares about Todd Palin...

Actually, Mr. Palin has been all over the news for refusing to testify before Alaska's legislative council, which had issued him a subpoena as a part of their "Troopergate."

In addition to this bit of notoriety, he has also been something of a minor celebrity as Alaska's "first dude." But, thus far none of his publicity has come with any sexualizing, and I suspect that Renee is right about why that is.

Danny said...

First dude?

Anonymous said...

"This is not liberating or empowering; it says to the world that that the only thing valuable about us is the gadget between our legs."

Point me out exactly where, in the above passage, she says this. At what point does Ms. Cho make this declaration?

The truth is that, in the above passage, Ms. Cho didn't actually say anything at all about Mrs. Palin, because she was not talking about her. She was talking about HERSELF.

Renee said...

@Danny I called him first dude because that is how is wife addressed him on CNN and he responded to it.

@ANON2 she was talking about what she wanted to do to Palin thus reducing her to a sex object...damn 2+2= 4 simple math.

rachel said...

yo im offended by the comment "this kind of commentary is just pussy pandering to titillate the patriarchal imagination." How dare you assume her comments are motivated 'to titillate the patriarchal imagination'. Theres nothing in her past to merit that sort of bold claim about her sexuality.

And im sort of appalled that you would make such a simple claim like she was talking about wanting to fuck Palin and so thats clearly sexist 2+2=4 simple math as if feminism is not complicated and not defined or interpreted differently by different women.

To me, thats not sexist. It would be sexist if a newscaster talked like that publicly, but not in a personal blog. It would be sexist if she said I wanna fuck that bimbo bitch, or talked about wanting to fuck her in a derogatory way, but shes just saying she digs the older sexy woman vibes and kinda wants to eat her out from behind. I'm sure there's tons of conservative women who wanna hump obama, and appreciating his bod isnt demeaning him as long as theyre not all 'I want his mandingo love'. The point is, its totally ok to talk about wanting to fuck people so long as your not doing it in a derogatory way or professional setting where you need to evaluate this candidate on her record and the content of her character.

BTW, Cho is soooo not alone in the dykeish crowd wanting to fuck Palin. Her badass flair, gun toting, sarcastic commenting appeal has endeared her in a sort of culty way to the gay grrls who duh would never vote for her b/c shes not down with gay rights. I think we can all appreciate her guts and flair even if we dont do her politics. To me its not necessarily demeaning to have that disconnect between sex appeal and brain appeal.

Anonymous said...

@Renee:

She was talking about what SHE wanted to do with Sarah Palin...

...and thus was talking about HERSELF.

And no, she wasn't reducing her to a sex object. Sarah Palin IS as sex object. As are you, and I, and all other living, breathing, tangible beings. There is a difference between acknowledging this about someone and reducing them to that and that alone. At no point in her post did Ms. Cho either say, or imply, the latter.

Jack Valentine said...

Objectification happens and can be okay when it does not reduce the fullness of a person's character. As a man, if I am objectified, I am free to take it as a compliment, because I know that I am valued for a variety of other things. When women are objectified, it is frequently at the expense of attention to their other positive qualities. That is the problem.

Cho's comment is risky because it chooses to focus on Palin's sexuality at the expense of focusing on something more substantive. Her womanhood becomes correlated to her fuckability. For a progressive female celebrity to do this is a normalization of objectification. Men will not understand that it is different for Cho to make these comments than for them to make these comments. I understand it is not Cho's responsibility to make sure her comments will be received properly, but she does have a responsibility to consider how they will be received when deciding whether or not to make them.

Women objectifying women does not make it okay. I think this kind of humor is very similar to what Chappelle was doing with race before he quit his job. Why did he do that? Because his humor went over the heads of white folks who thought if he could do it that meant it was okay for them to do it.

All that said, I think Cho's comments are irresponsible.

Also, "like an eskimo" is completely fucking unacceptable.

Renee said...

@Lauren Look I have no problem with lesbian sexuality but the point is the way she reduces Palin to a sex object is problematic and entirely resembles the ways in which men sexualize women, and that says nothing about the "eskimo" commentary. There is nothing wrong with being sexual but when it is reductive in this way I simply don't like it and I don't care who does it. The whole I won't vote for her but would still fuck her is far to reminiscent of the so-called liberal male left attempting to be progressive.
I will admit when I wrote this I was thinking in terms of my own sexuality which is hetero, however does that erase the objectification of Palins body? Would we even ask this question if the same commentary were coming from a male celebrity? Somehow I doubt it. If we understand it as reductive from a man it is reductive from a woman.

Melissa McEwan said...

yo im offended by the comment "this kind of commentary is just pussy pandering to titillate the patriarchal imagination." How dare you assume her comments are motivated 'to titillate the patriarchal imagination'. Theres nothing in her past to merit that sort of bold claim about her sexuality.

Except for being in a long-term relationship with a man, of course. Snort.

And, btw, "titillat[ing] the patriarchal imagination" isn't just about sexuality; it's also about servicing male privilege. Cho has tons of gay male fans, many of whom will be just as misogynistic as their straight counterparts and whose affections can be won just as certainly by demeaning women.

Anonymous said...

Margaret is not a feminist nor is she a pro-gay activist. She is an entertainer in search of an audience. When the mainstream turned its back on her she did the only thing she could - rally the disenfranchised.

She's gay, bi, or straight (she's been married to a straight man for 5 years) when it suits her and her audience at the time.

I thought I had a role model and found out I was being sold out by her like I was everyone else.

Lisa Harney said...

Cho's comments about trans people are just as objectifying, so I've been done with the way she, well, uses her humor to objectify people this way for awhile.

Not trying to divert into that, too, just noting that this is a pattern of hers, and one I've been disappointed with for the past year.

Renee said...

@Lisa I have not heard a lot of Cjo's routine so I had no idea that she made objectifying commentary on trans people. BTW I for one am a huge fan of yours and would never consider your commentary diversionary.

Renee said...

WOW I need a green tea, it should read I have not heard a lot of Cho's comedy routine.

Tyson said...

I hadn't heard about Cho's MySpace post. Thank you for sharing it. I'd been wondering what happened to her so I've looked at her VH1 show the other night. I didn't like The Cho Show. It was annoying.

cooper said...

I actually like Cho but also caught her show and was disappointed. She was referring to herself but the whole objectifying thing is a game not worth buying into or paying to buy into any longer.
I'm not sure of the solution, but as a few of my friends from the Middle East have discussed with me, it is pretty ironic that we are so critical of their culture regarding women while at the same time so unaware of how hurtful our culture is to women.

rachelcervantes said...

Racism, huh?

I came home tonight to find this.

http://rachelcervantes.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/racism-is-thriving-in-the-us/

seitzk said...

I have disliked Cho for a long time due to what I see has her colluding in the racist depiction of Korean Americans. She persists in doing imitations - I can't help but make the connection with minstrelsy in my head - of her Korean mom, and it's just horrifying to be in a room of predominantly white people who just find it all HILARIOUS...

Lisa Harney said...

I haven't seen her do it in any routines, but I would be surprised if she didn't. I've seen her do it at interviews and the like.

It makes me really uncomfortable, though, because she's playing directly into the exotification of trans people as other. It also means when she goes off and starts objectifying other people, I just sort of shrug. I don't really care how much anyone wants to have sex with Sarah Palin, because that's just playing into the same crap as the other sexist attacks.

Lisa Harney said...

Of course, Margaret also said some other stuff that's politically relevant.

Anonymous said...

I think good comics make us laugh while shoving a point down our throats at the same time. Is Margaret Cho doing that, maybe not, but to say something most will disagree with and really piss them off is an accomplishment in itself.

Renee said...

@Anon your point fails...its all to easy to be an ass in this world.

Lisa Harney said...

Ack:

"I just sort of shrug" is totally not what I was trying to say there. I sort of get pissed off all over again is the truth.

And pissing people off is easy. Challenging them in ways that make them angry because they can't handle that challenge is entirely different.

Also, Renee, I gave you a certified honest blogger award.

whatilike said...

I have to agree with Lauren, she articulated what was bugging me about this analysis. Being that it is Cho making these comments, that it is female-to-female desire puts a different nuance on it. I hate the thought that a woman expressing sexual interest in another woman is labeled as "pandering to the patriarchal gaze". It's like saying bi/lesbian women shouldn't express desire b/c it makes women look bad.

I've seen that argument before and this brings me back.


And no I don't condone sexism/misogyny when done by women either.

Theresa H. Hall said...

Well ... I used to like Margaret. Seems that some comedians lately are all for saying the most repulsive and outrageous things. What in the world is happening to our sense of decorum? Isn't anything off limits nowadays? Personally, I don't want to hear anyone speaking offensively about personal sexual proclivities. While I absolutely love great humor and rancor, I have to draw the line at disgusting.

a. brown said...

I think where the objectification comes in is that she does not like Palin, she doesn't like her as a person and doesn't believe in her. But she would fuck her. That's similar to "She's not pretty, but if you put a bag over her face she's totally fuckable". That's my opinion, at least. I just can't imagine fucking a Republican.

*blanches*

Anonymous said...

Margaret Cho likes sex. With everyone. And doesn't appologize for it. She feels women shouldn't be called names or judged for choosing to have sex. Just because this time the woman she talked about wanting is a politician doesn't make it sexist. It just makes people like the writer of this article twist her words around and throw a hissy fit because they're either afraid of their own sexuality or they can't take a joke and just need something to complain about.

As for the other comments against her said here by commenters.
She changes her sexuality? She's always said she's bi. She has a straight husband, who allows her to be with women from time to time. She's always said she prefers men but likes women too.
She's pro gay because she's from San Francisco. She talks about her drag queen friends in highschool. This isn't just some group she turned to when the main stream rejected her as you like to think. It's the culture in which she grew up in. She was at San Francisco pride this year, and got ordained so she could perform weddings there. She cried the whole time.

And as for calling her a racist. I'm totally lost on this one. Yes, she does the accent when doing impersonations. Usually it's of her mother. But I've seen other comedians do impersonations of their parents. And maybe they grew up in California, but their dad was from Texas. So they do the Texan accent when they impersonate their parents. That doesn't make them anti-Texas. It makes the joke more interesting. It really makes us picture her mother.

You all need to start focusing on actual issues instead of attacking someone just because you need something to attack. Making issues where there aren't any. Get over it and find something productive to do.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Palin is not reduced to such lows not just b/c he's a man, but b/c he's a WHITE man. Obama has been reduced to an object, 'i'm in love with obama' song ring a bell?

GallingGalla said...

Anon @30 - Expressing one's desire for another person (regardless of genders involved) isn't a problem, not when you recognize that other person as just that - a person.

Turning a woman into a sex object to be used and thrown away because you don't like her politics - not cool at all, and Cho comes awfully damned close to advocating rape.

Colluder of the week is right.

Anonymous said...

Yes, people are people and not objects. But you cannot tell me that people (gay, bi, straight, whatever) don't sometimes have sex just for the sake of fucking. As a woman, i've had sex with another woman just because i wanted to and she was hot. That's not anti-fem, thats the way hormones work sometimes. All this whining about "objectifying" is a load of shit. I'm not a Cho fan, but here she was just saying what SHE wanted to do and as others have pointed out, there are plenty of people who are having the same thoughts about Palin. Cho's dirty fantasies just get more publicity.

I've heard some "feminists" - both in my social circle and many outside it - complaining about what Cho said, saying this exact same stupid thing about how it's demeaning and objectifying... but these are the SAME "feminists" that say a woman ought to be able to be a stripper or a prostitute because its "empowering", these are the same women that deny the fact that dressing in stilettos, a tube top and a leather mini skirt make them whorish sex objects. Which is also a load of shit.

Renee said...

@Anon, here is where your argument fails. If a woman is choosing to be a prostitute or a stripper she is deciding to be object over subject. Just making the decision in and of itself encodes her body with agency. In the case of Cho she is the one making the decision to sexxualize Palin, thus removing the possibility of agency.