Author
|
Topic: Barbara Black - Is it ok to Laugh?
|
|
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357
|
posted 21 March 2007 05:18 AM
Good question Quelar. God help me, I almost agree with, gulp, Barbara Kay in today's Post. The DiManno article is just so very yucky and gratuitous.Now, Kay asks rhetorically, "Would a male journalist have been able to write what DiManno did?" Absolutely, I think, in fact the main difference is that a male columnist wouldn't have faced the comments about "betrayal" of one's sex. Reaction would have been more on the lines of "What a bastard" or "Way to go!". It goes without saying that Barbara Black holds very little interest for me. And, if I can indulge in a bit of nastiness, I find it amusing that way that certain older women of a say, certain ethnicity (Wente, Kay) are always fawning over her knock-down "great beauty". She's always been kind of meh, to me.
From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 21 March 2007 05:26 AM
Yeah. My answer would be, "not really". As for the question of whether a man would be able to write what DiManno did - well, that's not really the point. That's kind of an old question on babble, one we really don't need to go over again and again, so I'll just say this: people from marginalized groups get more leeway to roast people from their groups than those from dominant groups. So it would be a completely different power relations situation for a man to say those things about a woman than for a woman to do so. That said, I don't think most of DiManno's article was acceptable either. I laughed spitefully at the last line in the article, but the rest was just a gross display of ageism and sexism. Here's Barbara Kay's article. [ 21 March 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 21 March 2007 09:25 AM
quote: N.R.Kissed:There are certainly far more inteliigent and better woman writers than Dimanno, Blatchford, Wente, Ameil crew but they won't get the profile.
Has anyone ever wondered why the more well-known (and likely better-paid), women journalists are all right-wing? From Barbara Kay's article: quote: Under the circumstances, how could it possibly matter if she was less physically attractive than some other member of a plaintiff's family entourage? What male writer would call attention to such insignificant details?
Um, first of all isn't Conrad the accused, which would make him and his "family entourage" on the side of the "defendants"? Duh. And, actually, male writers do this all the time. They've done it for so long and for so often nobody but the most hard-assed of feminists (ahem) notice and get outraged anymore. See any article written about Belinda Stronach (I bet she's happy to be out of the headlines these days), or any other female politician, or any woman who is in the news because a tree fell on her car or something. Irrelevant comments about what she was wearing, the colour of her hair, her age, her "fiance" or "husband", etc, etc, blahhhh, are everywhere in the media, especially the papers. And no, it doesn't make what Rosie said okay, and I talked about that on the other thread. One last point, how handy is it to have so many "friends" in influential and journalistic places? Gotta get me some of those.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 21 March 2007 09:40 AM
What auto-immune disease?I agree with heywood, it must be Barbara Amiel, or Barbara Amiel-Smith-Jonas-Graham-Black, though her close friend "Barbara" Kay, does call her Barbara Amiel Black. Did anyone else notice Barbara Amiel sounds like Jerry Hall? And she has a fabulous arse? ETA: Also just noticed the Star article picture shows Barbara AB wearing green rubber gloves. and a really off topic comment, but BCG started it! Belinda Stronach, interestingly made an appearance the other night on the Next Great Canadian Prime Minister show. So, we had Mulroney, Clark Martin Campbell and Stronach all appearing together. It seemed strange to me. [ 21 March 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076
|
posted 21 March 2007 09:21 PM
quote: people from marginalized groups get more leeway to roast people from their groups than those from dominant groups. So it would be a completely different power relations situation for a man to say those things about a woman than for a woman to do so.
But aint' that kind of like saying it's OK to insult your own kind, just as long as it's not anyone else? (The whole debate in the US about 15 years ago about Black comedians and musicians using the word "nigger" to describe themselves or their ethnicity come to mind). It can be said that if you abuse yourself in public consistently, then others may start to get the impression it's OK to treat you that way as well. It also can encourage the simple lack of respect for people's families, cultures etc, in general (whether they are considered dominant or not), which itself runs counter to the whole idea of building a more mutually respectful, egalitarian society that honours diversity. Add to this the fact that DiManno is hardly marginalized. She's a well connected corporate brown-noser who enjoys privileges that most Canadian working class folks--be they male or female--don't enjoy yet in some way have to pay for. Besides, it's a plain sad fact that female physical beauty does not necessarily equate to good honest character and principal. Amiel, if anything, is proof of this. (I, for one, have never really noticed any stunning features about her. Then again, I have never looked at her that closely). So even for DiManno to make this an issue in the trial is plain stupid, as well as, not surprisingly from her kind, unethical journalism. As for His Lordship of Lies and his Lady Black, DiManno claims in her article that in many news rooms there is more sympathy for suspected "terrorists" at Gitmo than there is for Blackie & Barbie. That's as it should be. They are two profiteering dictatorial parasites who have used their unearned (as in legally stolen) wealth and power to help screw my industry--media and communications--into the cess pool it is today. Sadly, these are crimes they can't be charged with in court. But still, they deserve nothing but contempt and hostility. [ 21 March 2007: Message edited by: Steppenwolf Allende ]
From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phrillie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13965
|
posted 25 March 2007 03:19 PM
Sorry to digress ...but I just wanted to confess here that I only realized within the last 2 weeks that a certain Barbara Amiel (I've only read 2 of her vomit-inducing columns in Macleans) and Lady Black are one and the same. All Ms. Amiel's recent scorn for "victimology" makes a lot more sense, all of a sudden.
From: Salt Spring Island, BC | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|