(Arguably I should be too, but I haven't been inspired to write about much recently--well, nothing--so I figured I might as well take a detour and rant about the various things that tilted me about this Gawker piece by Tom Scocca I just read).
I appreciate the fact that Obama apologized for the "distraction" created by the comment and not the comment itself, because there was nothing inherently offensive, degrading, or minimizing about what he said. It was, in essence, a charming remark, and, considering the context is an interaction between two politicians, a humanizing exchange.
This is how Scocca (a man) explains why it's not cool to tell women they're attractive: "Because it's rude, you idiots. Because what you're saying is: Let's stop thinking about her and start looking at her—everybody here in this room, have a look, check her out. Check it out."
I believe Obama's comment (again, had it been delivered in an appropriate context and not from the President in a public forum) can just as easily be interpreted in a strictly positive light, with a subtext that reads more along the lines of: "Since my professional respect for you goes without saying, please take this old-fashioned compliment in the most flattering possible way." It's the sort of kindness that is easily communicated and understood between friends or associates with a history, who are secure in their gender identities.
The smart women I've encountered in this lifetime have don't have a problem making these kinds of distinctions.
Love how this argues that women are individuals too and then puts them all in a box - gawker.com/5993807/manspl…
— Sanat Gersappa (@sanatgersappa) April 7, 2013
***
The person I know best in this world, the person I would call my soulmate, is a woman. It's not an overstatement to say that my greatest pride in this life has been witnessing her extraordinary success in business. I don't say "extraordinary success" because she's a woman, but relative to the thousands of people I've known and observed in this world (and myself), our trajectories and ability to harness talent and ambition efficiently. She is a woman who proved to me that "there are no second acts in American lives" is complete and total bullshit.
She built much of her career at a company that is known for being a "boys club." Would it really shock you to learn that she has had to field a range of compliments and come-ons in her rise to the top? Do we really expect that in her years working in a male-dominated environment, that no one noticed (or--gasp--mentioned) that in addition to having the brains and the talent to do the job better than anyone else around, she also has a nice rack?
Should she feel objectified by flattery? Or empowered by it? Or maybe she just work with the fact that her physical presence as a woman is necessarily an aspect of how men perceive her, and maybe that's not so bad.
She doesn't have to rely on her attractiveness to get the job--the work speaks for itself--but she doesn't have to let thousands of years of biological hard-wiring bum her out, either. The reaction that men have towards women is far more pure and genuine that the convoluted sexual politics we pile on top of it.
***
The more intellectually annoying aspect of the media blowup after Obama's comment is how it once again demonstrates the increasing importance we place in reacting, in advancing theories based on emotion and half-thought out arguments instead of reasonable, measured contemplation. The need to say something is stronger than the need to say something that's actually true. (I'm guilty of it, too, of course).
This erodes our ability to connect with each other as humans as opposed to socio-political constructs, of living breathing creatures and not merely creations of social media. I'd say the only thing that allows us to engage in a meaningful way is our ability to filter out immediate feelings and emotions through a rational eye. It is the basis for empathy.
But the die has been cast, and our ability to communicate in a calm and intelligent way is not-so-gradually becoming whitewashed and muddled.
(Of course, there is plenty value in our current ability to react quickly and incisively: the above imbedded tweet probably summarizes the confused, creepy nature of Scoccia's piece better than I will, no matter how many words I spew).
***
"Mansplaining," as far as I know, is a recently popular term meant to denote the condescending way that men explain certain things to women, so I guess by re-appropriating this fad term, the editors of Gawker are hoping to create some sort of high-minded unified understanding of women's issues. Or generate page views, whatever.
The thing is, I don't need to be explained anything by Gawker editors about modern-day feminism or the antiquated architecture of sexual politics or the inequities women continue to face.
I don't need a Buzzeed reaction piece to (an intentionally provocative comment by) Adam Carolla to be informed there are funny female comedians. That's because I've been listening to funny female comedians since I was a child, and I never made the distinction before the media invented the distinction. (I also happen to think my girlfriend is the funniest person on the planet of either gender).
Of course, I'm not automatically hip to all the issues that women face. I hear my female peers in the poker world tell me that they still run into situations at the table where male players say stupid or offensive shit or otherwise make women uncomfortable. So, I understand that the poisons of old, oppressive attitudes still linger in various ways, and I realize it's important to be vigilant, cognitive, sensitive, and open-minded.
The difference is, I try to get my information by listening to actual women talk about their actual problems and emotions and not from the groupthink that persistently seeps out of the new media culture.