Garth and his Women
After reading Turner's notorious weblog, the thing that struck me the most was his bizarre descriptive modifiers and adjectives of the Elizabeth May and Rona Ambrose contrast - it was sort of like he was writing a screenplay for some trashy hollywood flick - Just wondering, if he would have used the same adjectives to describe any of his male colleagues,let's say, Stockwell Day versus Jason Kenney.
Let's give it a try. Here is Turner's paragraph about May and Ambrose:
"Above her and looking on from the public gallery was Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party. Unlike the petite, angular, cool, brunette and impeccable Ambrose, May exudes an earth-motherliness punctuated by flying blonde hair, black glasses, an uninhibited laugh and lots of touching. It's an interesting study in contrasts. Does it set the scene for conflict?"
And here is the Stock versus Kenney version:
Above him and looking on from the public gallery (in this reality, Jason has left and formed his own party: Voices for a Free Canada) was Jason Kenney, the leader of Voices for a Free Canada. Unlike the stealth, buff, nicely coiffed with slightly receeding - salt and pepper, smooth Day, Kennedy exudes an earth-fatherliness punctuated by flying (i.e. more) coarse black hair, a little pugdy around the middle, unihibited tendency to shriek, and lots of touching. It's an interesting study in contrasts. Does it set the scene for conflict? (ohh intra - male conflict -exciting!)
All that to say that it was just a matter of time till Turner was kicked out of caucus - so I'm not really surprised - and that I find the blatant sexist nature of his post a little over the top - which leads me to Scott Tribe's tagging me for 5 things feminism haas done for me - I will save that for the next post (seeing as my computer is currently being repaired (hence typos and spelling mistakes) and I am off to NYC tomorrow night for the weekend - might try to sneak in some mobile posting... we shall see..)
posted by JJ @ 11:03 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Firing Garth is a disgrace and shows how tightly HArper controls thought in the Con party.
Thanks for that kick in the pants.
Have fun and kick some butt in DC :)
So if you comment on someones appearance or demeanor you are a sexist?
I felt uncomfortable with those comments from Mr. Turner, too.
This post from Well's blog on Turner was brilliant in my view...taking a page from 1984:
"Unquestionably Garth Turner will be vaporized, Winston thought again. He thought it with a kind of sadness, although well knowing that Garth Turner despised him and slightly disliked him, and was fully capable of denouncing him as a thought-criminal if he saw any reason for doing so. There was something subtly wrong with Garth Turner. There was something that he lacked: discretion, aloofness, a sort of saving stupidity. You could not say that he was unorthodox. He believed in the principles of Ingsoc, he venerated Stephen Harper, he rejoiced over victories, he hated heretics, not merely with sincerity but with a sort of restless zeal, an up-to-dateness of information, which the ordinary Party member did not approach. Yet a faint air of disreputability always clung to him. He said things that would have been better unsaid, he had read too many books, he frequented the Chestnut Tree Cafe, haunt of painters and musicians. There was no law, not even an unwritten law, against frequenting the Chestnut Tree Cafe, yet the place was somehow ill-omened. The old, discredited leaders of the Party had been used to gather there before they were finally purged. Goldstein himself, it was said, had sometimes been seen there, years and decades ago. Garth Turner's fate was not difficult to foresee."
— George Orwell, 1984 (substituting "Garth Turner" for "Syme" and "Stephen Harper" for "Big Brother")
"There was something subtly wrong with Garth Turner." - Yes
"There was something that he lacked: discretion, aloofness, a sort of saving stupidity." - Yes
"He said things that would have been better unsaid" - Yes
"Garth Turner is a sexist" - No
Oh no, Prairie Fire?
PF: while your opinion is moderately interesting, you have done nothing to support your claim other than distract the reader with your Orwellian (and now, less than original) re-write. A bit of evidence showing, as you suggest, that Garth Turner supports women’s issues and promotes gender equity in Canadian politics might have made your claim a bit more convincing. As it stands, however, you state your view as though it’s fact and simply expect us to take it as fact. Or, did you actually believe that a bit of literary wit and assertive statements are all it takes to convince women of your opinion?
Dear Anonymous:
1) I never claimed that "Garth Turner supports women’s issues and promotes gender equity in Canadian politics"
2) Now that you are asking, no, I don't believe that he has actively advanced those causes
3)I was however claiming that just because he has some..."unique" posts on his blog doesn’t make him a sexist, just because the subject of those postings happen to be female and he happens to be male
4) I have never asserted that I have the ability to convince women of my opinions through wit and assertiveness. In fact, I can assure you, I am rarely able to :-)
5) At least when I pick a fight, I don't do it anonymously
Dear PF,
In response to your points:
(1) and (2): I offered those as *examples* of ways that you could have defended your claim; I wasn’t putting words in your mouth.
(3) THIS is your point, I think. This elaboration would have been useful in your previous comment. However, I don’t believe that the DC Grit was implying that Turner was sexist because he, as a male, has unique posts about women. I think the issue here is that it seems somehow acceptable to describe women in one way, but yet somehow inappropriate to describe men in this same tone. Turner’s description of May and Ambrose was, I think, sexist, not by virtue of him being male, but by virtue of the modifiers and adjectives. It would have been equally inappropriate, I believe, had it been written by a woman.
(4) Hmmmm…. I won’t go there….
(5) First of all, I was asking for an elaboration or for something substantive, not picking fights. Secondly, what do you mean by this exactly? That you are a bigger person that I am? You’re probably correct. Or, that you are willing to be accountable for your ideas and to defend them? This is what I assumed, and why I pushed you on your position in the first place.
Post a Comment
<< Home