In my continuing morbidly fascinated viewing of the Style channel, I find that I am variously moved to various emotions, from hearty laughter to sadness, outrage, and sometimes just plain old nostalgia for the days when the great couture houses while certainly not above reproach in the rigor of their dictates, and the resulting social impact, were at least at least to some degree, possessed of an interest in helping ladies who are not 100 lb six foot fashion models look their best.
There is no man or woman alive who can remember Worth and his mystical magical tiny pleatlets who will ever forget them, or how they flattered such a variety of feminine figures. And would still do so, had they not given way to the “tank top” and the “gaucho pant.”
Fashion today seems more intended to mock the ladies than to flatter them, and once the marketing goose has laid its egg, it will become, as a descendant remarked to me recently, actually difficult to locate “full length” trousers in the ladies’s department, the entire selection being given over to the “capri” and the previously-mentioned dreadful “gaucho.”
Perhaps this is due to purely commercial factors, perhaps social ones, or a combination, but it is difficult not to wonder what Mr. Balenciaga would say to some of the horrors that are paraded down the catwalk today under his name. And thus it is with all the great old houses. Their great old founders have departed to clothe the angels, and while it is unrealistic to expect a large percentage of geniuses to come out of the design schools, a Worth, after all, does come along only once in a lifetime, the utter trash that is now marked with the old names that used to denote elegance and quality to ladies from Paris to Calcutta to Tokyo and back to Madrid via Buenos Aires is enough to sadden the soul.
Not that fashion as a negative social phenomenon is a new thing, even in the relatively new society of the US, one has only to read the works of one of America’s first feminists, Miss Louisa May Alcott, to get a notion of just how insidious and enmical to civilization were the fashionistas of the era in which she set her simple, but heart-written stories, and the challenges faced by her Megs and Pollys and Roses have changed little for the Kristins and Caitlins and Tiffanys of today.
But if I were obliged to select the one most harmful fashion custom that has tragically survived from the days of Miss Alcott’s heroines to the present, I would without hesitation choose the high heeled shoe.
Every man believes his country has the most beautiful women, and his culture the most superior methods of oppressing them.
It has become popular in the west in recent years to be outraged at the dress requirements imposed upon women in some eastern nations.
Barbaric! Medieval! Cruel!
And indeed, as any lady who has travelled to some of the warm desert lands can attest, being obliged, whether by law or custom, to cover herself from head, or even neck, to toe in hot, suffocating cloth, the discomfort, especially for those unaccustomed to either climate or garment, easily rises to the level of cruel and barbaric within minutes of even the most leisurely-paced stroll in the desert sun.
To call it medieval would be inaccurate, however, since this custom predates the Middle Ages, predates Islam, on which it is frequently blamed, by several millennia.
While the Bible contains text pertaining to women covering their heads, as do the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed (the Koran merely says that both men and women should dress modestly), neither St. Paul nor the Prophet centuries later were announcing the launch of a new fashion craze, but rather acknowledging existing custom. And indeed, both men and women are well advised to cover their heads in the land of the Prophet, where sandstorms occur with frequency and seldom with warning. Which they do, as you will notice, not only in Arabia, but even in the deserts of Central and South Asia, in fact, in deserts anywhere, it’s a good idea ๐
Head covering for women, and sometimes men, is not limited to deserts, however. Almost every culture in the world has a traditional everyday head covering, from the rebozos of Mexico to the beautiful folds of cloth worn on the heads of the Guatemalan indigenous people, to the elaborate wraps of Africa.
All that notwithstanding, any government that legislates what women (or men) must wear is certainly fair game for criticism, as is any culture that ostracizes women who do not conform to certain dress codes, even if these are not legislated.
The traveller to the Holy Land, for instance, will see women of all three Abrahamic faiths with heads covered, especially if one ventures out from the urban areas, and women who do not do so, though subject to no legal penalty, do pay a price. In addition to social opprobium, she may find her economic prospects impacted by fewer opportunities both career and education-wise, and even her marriage possibilities may be affected. A would-be suitor will have to sigh and contemplate his family’s reaction to bringing home a bare-headed lady, and the prospect may be so daunting that his potential courtship goes no further than a witsful glance!
In contrast, there are areas of Africa and South America where both ladies and gentlemen wear very little clothing, and one of the sights that has occasioned more than its share of the smiles of travellers are certain communities in Africa where Islam is the prevalent religion, and one can see ladies who take great pains to thoroughly cover their heads and hair in accordance with their interpretation of Koran and hadith, yet keep their upper bodies uncovered as has been their custom for thousands of years!
And any lady who insisted on maintaining her own blouse-wearing habits in such a community will also become the subject of smiles, if not outright laughter, and should she indicate any intention to remain in the community in any sort of non-colonial role, most likely some degree of ostracism.
In the east, a woman’s greatest value is seen as the producer of sons. In the west, it is as an object of sexual desire. If the east requires women to cover themselves with all manner of cloth, in the west, by contrast, she must maintain herself on display to the best advantage at all times.
Not only must the western woman forego the flexible privacy of the dupatta, or long scarf that can be worn about the neck, two ends hanging in front, over the shoulder, or over the head, where an end can be used to cover the face if the lady desires.
Her face and hair, bad hair day or not, must be visible to all who would gaze upon her, and if she wishes not to wear trousers, her legs also must be displayed. And to their best advantage, according to the standard of beauty in their culture, which means that on her feet she must wear painful, crippling high heeled shoes, usually also with toes so narrow and pointed that some women in the west actually go to surgeons to have toes removed so that they can squeeze their feet into an even more unnatural shape!
The abuse inflicted upon ladies’ feet by these shoes is rivalled only by the old Chinese custom, mercifully now defunct, of binding up the feet of little girls so that the toes break and the foot matures in a tiny unnatural shape, and the lady unable to walk more than a few mincing, hobbling steps, all for the purpose of appearing desirable to men.
So it is with the western high heeled shoe. It lengthens the leg, say the fashion mavens, and it does indeed give the illusion of a longer leg, a leg which will in most cases, available for public viewing at least up to the knee, and frequently above that!
Even trousers cannot save the lady from these torturous shoes, as they must in most cases also be worn with the western pants suits.
While these shoes are not required by law, a western woman who wishes to appear “professional” in the workplace has little alternative but to wear them, for advancement in her career, even obtaining employment in the first place, may depend on how attractive her displayed legs appear to the man who is interviewing her, or observing the candidates from his nearby office.
Even if she seeks to further her education, she must also, to increase her chances, or to have a chance at all, depending on the institution, project a certain image at her admissions interview, and that image will include the high heeled, pointed toed shoes.
Study after study has shown that women who are considered sexually attractive by the decision-maker will be more likely to be selected for jobs, for a place in an academic institution, a promotion or a raise in salary, than their sisters who may not, either by virtue of nature, or lack of tampering with it, are not viewed as desirable by the party making the selection. And this is true even if the decision maker is a lady herself!
A lady sales manager, after all, must be pragmatic, and keep her eye on the bottom line, and she knows that if she sends out a representative who is more likely to be considered physically attractive and desirable by her client, including form-fitting clothing to make visible the bosom and hips, with legs on display, balanced precariously on the tall spiky heel of the pointy shoe, that client is more likely to place an order, even if she too is a lady, because she will be aware of the positive impression the saleswoman will have made on her male colleagues and superiors who see the display, and they will thus consider her decision a good one!.
If it were not enough to condemn the ladies to a lifetime of foot pain, the shoes cause a host of medical problems. Obviously, the feet themselves, with the bones cramped, will develop ingrown nails, corns, calluses and bunions, as unsightly as they are painful, thus requiring the lady to incur expenditure of time and money, and the additional discomfort of having these blemishes removed, so that her feet will be more alluring in high heeled sandals!
And it does not stop there. The very reason the high heeled shoe is so favored, remember is because of that leg-lengthening effect, and the resulting jaunty, suggestive angle of the derriere, usually displayed in a tight-fitting skirt or trouser. This forces not only the legs, but the entire spine into an unnatural position, and as a result of years of tottering around in this fashion, back problems ensue, requiring even more expenditure of time and money, often in vain, as any doctor or patient with experience in this area will tell you, back problems are “hard to treat.”
There are some ladies, however, who may tell you that mere heel spurs and bunions and dislocated vertebrae are nothing compared to the injuries suffered by those who fall while attempting to walk at as normal and reasonable a pace and manner as is permitted by the harmful shoes. The forced misalignment of the spine as well as the forward tilted body, against the center of gravity, not to mention the foot itself forced into such an unnatural and cramped position, could not be a more efficient device for tumbling the wearer onto her head if it had been designed for that purpose!
The more fortunate may get away with only a sprained ankle or twisted knee.
Perhaps the most inexplicable and absurd use of these shoes is at dances or elaborate functions, where the ladies usually wear long gowns, so long, some even with trains, so that not only are the legs are not visible, neither are the feet, so the whole reason for the use of the shoe is obviated. And when dancing begins, almost every lady will remove the shoes, and wisely too, since if walking is rendered nearly impossible in the things, one can only imagine the orthopedic peril of dancing in them, not to mention the danger to her partner, should the stiletto heel, true to its name, come down hard on his instep!
At one awards show a few years ago, Sophia Coppola, daughter of the famous director, won an Oscar award. It gave me great pleasure to see her walk up to the steps of the podium with a normal, healthy gate, wearing very pretty flat heeled pumps. And quite visible, too, as her skirt was short. I considered her the most tastefully dressed lady there.
I am aware that she is not alone. There are some sensible and iconoclasic women who refuse to hobble about on painful heel-stilts in the hope that a man will find their legs so sexually desirable that he will give them the job, promotion, or salary that they have earned and deserve by reason of their abilities and accomplishments. Yes, most of them will go without their due, and while it is unlikely that they will face the same fate, suitor-wise, as their sister in the east who dares to bare her head when she feels like it, she will nevertheless be the subject of whispers, she would look so much better, be able to go so far, and even well-meant offers from friends to “help” her with a fashion “makeover” that will of course include forcing her healthy, sound feet into the torment of a pair of crippling high-heeled shoes.
For the benefit of ladies who if I may dare to hope, have read this far and may be toying with the idea of renouncing these vile shoes, you may be interested to know that in the east, where this cruel, barbaric custom has thankfully, never taken root, the art of crafting beautiful footwear for ladies has thrived for thousands of years, and there is nothing in all of Mr. Blahnik’s collection that can compare to some of the exquisitely embroidered and embellished sandals and slippers created by the artists of Asia – and all with elegantly rounded toes, that follow the natural contours of the foot, and blessedly flat heels!
As a man, though blissfully married for more years than most peoples’ lives last, I can attest that today as in my youth, there are few sights more pleasant to the eye than to see a young lady, dressed in loose, comfortable clothing that give her freedom of movement, striding along on healthy feet whose heels, as nature intended, touch the ground with every graceful step. The pleasure of seeing such a picture is neither lewd nor prurient, but a grateful appreciation of the beauty God made, as one takes in the breathtaking loveliness of a rose in full bloom, a stream kissed by moonlight; one is grateful for eyes with which to see these things.
NOTE: In the interest of full disclosure, some material in this piece was previously published on another forum.
I am also aware that this article does not address other forms of self-harm currently popular in western culture, most notably the prevalence of “eating disorders,” affecting even little girls who have not yet reached puberty, in an impossible attempt to starve their bodies to match the proportions of the fashion models and other “celebrities” whom they are taught exemplify the standard of sexual allure and beauty that they must attain if they are to have value.
I used to hobble around in high heels, mostly to be “socially acceptible” until I developed a nerve problem in the ball of my foot and could no longer tolerate them. That was years ago and I will never go back. For the record, I don’t paint my face either, at least not on a daily basis. I go to job interviews in flats and no face paint on the basis that if the potential boss doesn’t want to hire me for my skill, then it is not a job I want.
What really has been getting to me lately is teen fashions. The boys are all in ultra-baggy jeens and XXXX-Large white t-shirts, but the girls are supposed to be in ultra-short mini skirts and shirts that stop just below the breasts, the tighter the better. Trying to find clothes for my 12 year old daughter is a real challenge as all the clothes are cut for anorexic girls and hooker wanna-be’s. She is modest and a healthy weight. Obviously, something must be wrong with her. :>)
other than what they want to be in. This is ridiculous……there isn’t a clothing police or a clothing policy. It is hard when you are teenager….but teach your children how to be trendsetters and how to steer the trends around them in healthy ways for themselves and define things for themselves for Christ Sake! There is fashion and a million ways to interpret it. Fashion is all about self interpretation! Where’s Curly at? There’s a fashion girl and I know that Curly will tell all of you that fashion is in your head and she makes a lot of money off of that right now because she deals with material and fabrics and that is all about trends and fashion and what everybody has in the heads at a given time!
And she is also to be commended in her own right, for having the independent spirit to assert her prerogative to spurn the current trend. This speaks especially well for her as she enters the age when the desire to wear what is seen in the fashion magazines, in the stores, and on the school-mates reaches its zenith. I think this zenith is from about twelve to sixteen, during that time, some of the girls – and their brothers as well – can become obsessive about the tiniest detail of the most basic item of apparel – not to mention the importance of the label!
I have heard the same complaint about the clothing for teen and “tween” girls in the stores from many parents – and not just my own descendants! I have heard tales of having to visit four or five stores in order to locate clothing for girls of this age that is compliant with the school regulations, as some of them require that the girls wear tops that cover the torso sufficiently to reach the waistband of the skirt or pants, and some specify that neither pants nor skirt may be of the “Paris Hilton coin slot” style.
The “oversized” look is comical to my old eyes, but as long as they are able to devise a method to keep the pants up, so that they do not run the risk of losing them while walking on pavement, thus causing a fall that can be injurious, I categorize that as merely a fashion that is disliked by parents whose own parents disliked the clothing styles of their teen years. ๐
If she could get away with jeans and a t-shirt, she would be happy, but her school has a strict dress code of “professional” style clothes. That means button down blouses, no jeans, no open toed shoes, no slogans or labels, no skirts above the knee, no tattoos, etc. This year they had to relax the requirement to allow for capri pants for girls since finding full length trousers is so darn hard and capris have worked their way into even “professional” styles.
It took us many days and several stores to come up with appropriate clothes. By and large, I found going into the adult section in petite sizes worked best. But pants still are the real problem. For a while we had to by “husky” or “+” sizes, even though she is no where near overweight. It did a number on her self-esteem.
The guy fashions make me laugh too. I view it much the same way as you…one of those weird quirks that adults “just don’t get”. On the other hand, knowing that it came from gangs as a means to conceal weapons, does make me cringe.
jeans made to measure, for $40. Several descendants and their friends have tried them, and been pleased, (and to my eye, they look fine) though one descendant found that on some subjective questions regarding tummy and derriere, she and Target differed, and the jeans were too large in those areas and had to be taken back for adjustments, which were done at no charge.
You are totally playing on my field now and
This is so stupid it’s pathetic Ductape!
What sort of girls do you hang out with or do you just make this shit up and believe it because you judge women in this fashion? As a feminist this diary is the armpit of unwashed for days and stupid and ignorant and only lives in your own mind which is really not fucking impressing me at all this evening! If I ever wanted to not be taken seriously….and believe me there have been times…all I ever have to do is throw on a pair of high heels.
And suitor-wise…….fucking spare me, I’m a tall woman……I had to give up high heels to land a date with my husband. We had our photo taken at one ball and he wore his stetson on his head in the photo so I could wear my black velvet heels that matched my black velvet dress, I’m a visual girl and I like to match damn it and I like heels every now and then (What a Mensch……he was willing to look ridiculous for me!). I am the same height as my husband. My daughter is having identical problems with her boyfriend and our chore was finding flats to match her prom dress. Shit Ductape, Phuleaze……this diary is a damned joke isn’t it?! You are being silly right?
I was just talking with an older woman the other day after she stopped and sat at my table to change her heels for sneakers. She had a job interview, so naturally, she had to wear painful heals. She did admire my flats and we had an interesting discussion about shoes. I don’t think DTF is off at all. By far the vast majority of women I see downtown are wearing heels, often very high heels. I often find myself shaking my head and wondering why they torment themselves so. There’s nothing wrong with wearing high heels on occasion, but there is something wrong with a society that has women wearing high heels as the norm and not the exception. I remember the old phrase “Beauty is pain”. Now that is a crock of shit.
I’ve never understood how women can wear shoes that distort their feet and thrust all of their weight onto the ball of the feet. Ick.
But DTFs suggestion that this a purely American phenomenon is pure bullshit.
You are absolutely right about it not being an American phenomenon.
but such a subtlety would be apparent only to those who are such Patriot Act scofflaws as to actually read the piece in its entirety, which observation should in no way be taken as a suggestion that any laws of any kind be violated, and in the case of secret laws, it is always more prudent to err on the side of caution.
On the subject of the high heeled shoes, the custom is also quite prevalent in Europe, but in this as in other areas, Europe tends to be a bit lax in terms of social and professional enforcement, in this case the laxity could be because so many European countries provide medical treatment to their citizens. ;->
I own my choices though. I don’t make them for other people, I make them for me and women who feel good about themselves can draw interest and admiration in a damned gunny sack! As far as my generation goes and the women I know, we don’t wear crap shoes for anybody…..we wear what we want to wear! I dare you to take this shit over to Suburban Guerrilla Ductape, I fucking dare you! You better take some body armor though. And Europeans make fabulous shoes too and a fuckin slipper doesn’t hold up very well in the fuckin snow! This is just more fuckin Ductape Propaganda! But hey, fight on by continuing to insult my sex and it’s abilities to decide things for themfuckingselves because this is normally a slow blog month! Booman’s intellect is likely to really feel unappreciated when this fucking shoe diary gets more comments than a real diary on the front page!
Ahem …with a wink ;o)
I think you might be the most prolific commenter in this diary Tracy……..
What do you think a girl is going to do? Where do you think a girl is going to spend her time and her money?
I guess I was confused because you said this diary would be full of comments, when it wasn’t even recommended. No recommends tells me that DT’s occasional supporters aren’t as snowflakey as you would make them out to be in some of your other comments. And because I give a shit I have to say that some of your comments here and in other diaries have bothered me with the way you’ve gone off. I see those comments as some of what you say DT is doing. Now I consider you a friend, and because of that consideration I’ve kept my mouth shut about what I’ve seen. But if we are to be fair, if the language you’ve used is to be accepted here, then so should anything that DT writes. Then we can all agree or disagree. I don’t see any of it as a threat. Just more hashing out.
With respect
This diary is offensive. Women have choices in this culture. We aren’t culturally strapped and I’m not going to start believing that right now because then it would be true for me and it isn’t true. No, I have choices and I will stick with having choices. I’m sorry that I have offended you with my choice of language in this diary and past Ductape diaries, but to me this diary is a stark example of AntiAmerican propaganda as most of Ductape’s recent diaries have been. My country does not suck and my country is not the incubus and I refuse to sit back and tell myself that everything is hopeless and pathetic and I’m flawed right down to the soil that I walk upon and the shoes I am forced to walk upon it in! Perhaps some women are self harming but there are lots and lots of counselors and books out there to help them with it if they wanted the help……this is not an AMERICAN CULTURE problem! My generation has been raised with access to feminism and I have imbibed heavily and I have choices. I hate that almost all of Ductape’s diaries lately portray Americans as being idiots who all act like drones with no awareness of choice while other cultures make wonderful beautiful gorgeous shoes that don’t fuck up their women’s feet like we do! It’s ridiculous and I have had enough!
This diary, while a little tongue-in-cheek at times, resonated particularly with me right now because I’m in the middle of reading “The Feminine Mystique” for the first time (yes, I know I’m always late to the party – but at least I get there). And I just finished the chapter where Freidan documents (yes, documents, does not assert) that the corporate/media complex in this country worked very hard to convince women that their ultimate place was as a housewife.
I know that was in the 1950’s, but it was impossible not to see the tie-in today what with Martha Stewart et al. So, while we are free to make choices (and I am thankful every day for that), there is a STRONG cultural pull in this country to dress AND define women in a way that objectifies their sexuality and attempts to keep them barefoot and pregnant. I’m proud of all the women who buck that trend, but it is an uphill battle and I worry for the youngsters who are still working their way through it in ways that I don’t have to anymore.
And one more thing, has anyone seen the movie “The Devil Wears Prada?” I did last week and my feminist bell was ringing loud and clear. DT’s diary could have been a commentary on that movie alone!
I respect you a whole lot, Tracy, but I can’t help but wonder how you would react, if DTF ( or anyone else) came a storming into the diaries you write, cursing and attacking you personally, for having written them, or for whateve stance you took. If a writer is so compeltely unacce[table to you, amd upsets you do much why read them at all? I honestly don’t understand this.
Every week or so Ductape puts up some “stirring” and “inciteful” (his word) diary that I just click over because it is bullshit. He has caused a lot of people to be hurt though and leave the site and I’m sick of it. He has a little following that usually shows up here to promote all of his shit to the top of the list and people turn their backs on the place figuring that he has this enormous following here……….and his stuff is absurd. It didn’t used to be but it is now and I’m tired of witnessing silently his weekly damage and defilement of the site with all of his incite. It’s just about like clockwork anymore! He calls his own stuff incitement…….go to his website, see for yourself. Why I am being judged because it worked and now I have been incited! What a shitty goal anyhow……..a goal to write stuff that hurts people and pisses them off! Yeah, we’re going to get a lot done taking that tack!
First off, I am not judging you, or anyone else. I was genuinely baffled by why you are doing this, so I asked. You answered. Now I am wondering what your ultimate goal is. What do you wish to accomplish?
It was a fabulous success where I am concerned, I have fully been incited and many Ductape admirers think that being inciteful is such a fine fucking thing until it really happens I guess. I have had more than a few little Ductapey digs pertaining to my family and our service and I have had enough thanks.
is as i was reading it i was thinking of all the cross dresssers, drag queens and tranny girls who would die if they couldnt wear their stockings and heels.
some people are slaves to fashion…some are slaves to blowing things out of proportion to make an obscure point…my slave wear a doggie collar.
to each their own.
Whether America is a free country or not is debatable (I say it isn’t) but the govt. has not got around to deciding what shoes we wear yet, so we can drop the nonsense about anyone being forced to wear high heels. Many women may be guilty of having bad taste, but very few are forced to.
Many many women wear comfortable shoes. I love Dansko. I see lots of girls going to work in flip flops these days. And even for those whose jobs require formal attire, many companies specialize in comfortable heels, and there are many non-deforming styles to choose from.
Many many women also like to wallow in their sex appeal on occasion and wear heels and lipstick and push-up bras and all kinds of fun things. Women like to have silly fun too. Women like to dress up. Women like to have sex and look hot and make boys swoon.
The only thing less sexy than a woman crippled for life from wearing high heels is a man telling a women how she should dress. You see, women are like, independent human beings, who can provide for themselves, make their own decisions. (Fashion or function? Hmmm. I’m feeling practical today, will go with the mocs.) Can do their own shopping. Can dress themselves. Can raise kids, earn PhD’s, run countries, and … wear heels if they want to.
Rather obnoxious to come here and tell us something like generations of feminists haven’t already said it, though. Well, congrats for catching up on the last 30 years, anyway…
Women suffer for beauty, no doubt about it. But they do it out of choice.
Self-harm? Millions of women do resort to self-harm, usually as the result of psychological trauma. To compare their struggles with the style dilemmas of the fashionistas on Sex & The City is obscene.
But you knew that.
I’m not convinced that women do this out of choice or out of social pressure. Sure, getting dressed up and sexy is fun and harmless, but it goes a lot farther than that in Western culture. It has been a topic of feminists for years and remains so. I don’t see that a guy questioning why we do this is such a bad thing. I think it’s a fine opportunity for re-examing our own culture values and why after 30 years of discussing the issue, we still cram our feet into tight high-heeled shoes to get jobs, look sexy, or just fit in with social norms.
I love Born shoes…..and I have like four pairs including these awesome snapping black boots…..they are like walking on heavens clouds. My grandmother loved those comfy shoes called Mushrooms I think. They were all soft and cushiony but the styles – yuck…..I was forever trying to steer her to something “cool” and she told me I wore the ugliest shoes in the world. Well excuse me because I thought that was her.
It’s a vicious shoe season. I don’t think I can sleep now after Zappos tonight…..it’s like a double latte for me!
And of course this is viewed as acceptable since it conforms with American cultural norms, and for many Americans, and for that reason, simply cannot be compared with laws in other countries. ๐
You are correct, to the best of my knowledge, that there are no ordinances requiring or prohibiting a particular style of footwear.
And while the “flip-flops” may be permitted in certain types of jobs, I wonder how many employment counselors would recommend that a young woman seeking a professional level job in an office would advise her to choose the flip flop sandal for her interview – or for on-the job wear.
You do make a very good point, however, that there are other choices available to ladies in many situations, such as the lower or “kitten” style heels, and I do not doubt that there are instances of ladies who manage to get by with some of the very nice looking and professional flats.
The fact remains that for most, their choice will be the crippling shoes, a choice which they are free to make, and some could also argue, a choice they will be well advised to make, if they wish to advance in their career, and therefore have a better chance of being able to purchase the medical treatment they will need as the years pass and the foot and back problems begin.
And I did acknowledge, in the original article, the cultural custom of ladies displaying themselves in order to appear “sexy.” And this display is encouraged from their earliest years, a display not limited to husbands, boyfriends, or their circle of family and friends, but for the general public, and it is also important in the workplace.
Please cite the law that requires American women to wear blouses. I know many that wear t-shirts on a regular basis, and would be quite surprised to know that they’re breaking the law.
Or are you complaining that they’re required to cover their breasts in public, so you are deprived of the privilage of being able to oogle their exposed breasts? If so, allow me to remind you that this does not just apply to women. You will find that most American commercial establishments have signs to the effect of “No shirt, no shoes, no service” – IE, all persons are required to wear the (very minimal) cultural and climate-appropriate level of clothing. Aside from this, there is no “dress code” as such, and when the weather is warm enough, you will find people wearing tank tops, tube shirts, and a variety of other minimalistic upper-body modesty preservers.
Then again, if you stopped obsessively watching the news for an hour and ventured out to a public area, you’d know this.
As for your bullshit about the workplace… Heh, whatever. Most successful female or male professionals that I’ve encountered in my field, whether in industry or academia, dress in a gender-neutral manner.
Put that in your pretentious pipe and smoke it.
ladies to cover their bosoms would, because that conforms with US cultural norms, and in many cases, religious beliefs, be viewed as quite different from laws in other countries regarding what women are required to cover.
Apples and oranges, I would speculate that many Americans might say.
And while people in those other countries might raise eyebrows at apparent western interest in ogling knees, noses, etc, that would be viewed by some westerners as just not the same thing at all, apples, oranges, etc. ๐
And if in my use of the term “blouse” to include t-shirts and similar garments, I have offended any cultural or religious sensibilities, please be assured that such was not my intention.
Here are some of my faves:
Didn’t I see your feet in blue ones?
Those were purple, but yes.
almost forgot these:
is this a shoe diary? Izzy?
It must have been all that talk about stiletto heels being an American phenomenon that got me confused…
I’m not sure about them though…..I think I saw them on a really naughty girl recently.
at Nordstrom that I fell in love with — they have Velcro straps on the back AND on the uppers so they could probably fit even my boat feet (8-1/2 W, as well as being flat; I should probably call them “barge feet”). And as I was cringing at the price, the salesperson told me they’re going on sale this Friday…I am sorely tempted to at least try them on next weekend. It would be totally out of character to spend more than $50 on a pair of shoes; I’m more likely to blow $50+ in a book or record store than a shoe store…
I can attest to the difficulty of finding actual long pants in the majority of stores…one reason I live in jeans (especially now that I’ve found some that I love) and my sneakers. I have one leg that’s larger than the other (leftover from a major infection over 10 years ago), and the current crop of short pants makes that very evident. Yet I know this too shall pass — capris and crops are pretty much a summer thing and long trousers will return in the fall.
Even in my working days, if I had to wear something that required dress shoes (and dress flats are still not that comfortable for extended walking, like from transit stops), I had no hesitation about wearing my cross-trainers or other comfortable shoe, carrying my dress shoes in my tote bag and changing at the office. In fact, in the 90s that was the typical style, especially for transit riders who might have to run and flag down their bus.
One fashion style I admire are the pant outfits worn by the Indian immigrants in the apartment complex where I live — such beautiful flowing fabrics, lovely patterns and colors, and styled in a way to cover a multitude of sins. That’s a look that I wish I could adopt without looking ridiculous…
this late at night and all. I have these born mules that are two years old and they are sadly shot. I couldn’t wait to buy them, and apparently my daughter agrees with my grandmother when it comes to my taste in shoes because she told the sales lady, “Yeah, my mom wants to try on those rug shoes over there!” Look Cabingirl…….they make a whole boot of that shoe now! When do you think I can justify buying these living in Alabama and if you say when I move to Colorado I will cry!
to hell with that…….I can get them in blankets now too Bren so ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
I don’t know, do these come with reindeer?
…and by doing so, I’m providing a much-needed public service:
Note to author: Frequent and exclusive use of the word “lady” and “ladies” to describe WOMEN is anti-feminist.
Question for the diarist: If you “can’t reason with Americans”, why are you posting this diary on a site read almost exclusively by Americans? Is this an attempt to reason (i.e., PERSUADE) us to your point of view about fashion, etc? Wouldn’t this be more profitably displayed to enlightened European eyes?
Eh, don’t bother replying. As the young people say, I am “over it”.
made the assertion that Americans cannot be reasoned with, within the context of accusing me of attempting to do so.
As I said in a previous post, I do not intend to suggest that anyone actually read that article in its entirety, lest they be accused of treason, cruelty to animals, or general violation of some secret provision of the respected Patriot Act, or any other laws, however I do feel the need to point out that despite the best efforts of so many qualified candidates, I am not yet convinced that my eastern correspondents are correct.
Don’t give up, though!
…it’s a neat trick. Do you juggle kittens as well? I’d pay to see that.
The only thing worse to me than someone who takes strident anti-American positions that cast the vast majority of Americans as irrational barbarians is someone who hides behind someone else’s opinion. An unidentified “email from the east”, indeed.
I believe during Nixon’s time, that was called “plausible deniability”. Those of you who are interested in other tactics of evasion and obfuscation may wish to Google the phrase “modified limited hangout”.
Summary: Clearly, what you clearly stated last week is no longer clearly your position. You are clearly now in doubt about that which you were formerly clearly in favor.
Ok, as long as I’ve cleared that up….
one of those times it is buried in the first paragraph, so naturally it would not be something noticed by most commenters.
Would your interpretation have more impact if you included text that indicates that the reference reflects my own opinion?
And none of this is intended to suggest that what I actually said would be relevant to the far more chilling, not to mention irrefutable argument that whatever it was or was not, it was I who said it. ๐
Actually, I could respect someone who stated an anti-American position and then stuck around to argue that position, however wrong I might think it is.
I cannot respect someone who throws out inflammatory positions and then ducks the inevitable argument with the BS explanation, “Oh, this highly inflammatory opinion isn’t MINE–it’s SOMEONE ELSE’S and I’m just REPEATING it. The person who wrote that opinion? Oh, you can’t argue with him, he’s not around! And you can’t argue with me, it’s not mine!”
To which Lewis Carroll would say:
And to which I say:
Bullshiiiiiiiit.
An apt response to both Lewis Carroll and certain other nigh-incomprehensible writings.
(Actually, I do like some of Carroll’s stuff, the bits that are intentionally written to have no connection to reality whatsoever. Like Jabberwocky.)
not to paste the text that supports your interpretation, and I don’t think it can be emphasized enough that whatever I actually said or didn’t say pales in relevance to the fact that it was I who said it or did not say it.
I will make every effort to deserve this honor, it is something many strive for, but few achieve, especially on the internets.
Now, I can’t really speak for anyone but myself, but here’s what I think the original poster was trying to do: it was not to ridicule a broad swath of people while ducking responsibility for the sentiment expressed, it was to say “holy shit! this is how millions of people feel; what do we all think about their perspective? what are we going to do about their concerns? how do we see ourselves when we look into this mirror?” If I’m right, and those were the implied questions, then the answers have been telling.
because of?…….because Ductape says so? Who are these people? Where is the evidence of their beliefs?
The Internet.
The Library.
Books.
TV.
News.
Travelling.
Just because you don’t like Ductape doesn’t mean you have to attack every thing he writes or posts.
You wrote about what the entire country of South Korea thinks earlier today – why should I believe you either? It’s a slippery slope Tracy you are on here.
I don’t agree with half of what he writes and tell him so in the spirit of continuing discussion, which he actually never shuts down unless the comments start out as attacks on him personally. And if the diary doesn’t interest me, such as this shoe stuff I go elsewhere.
But it has been quite interesting to see the responses to him though. The judgmentalism, the fundamentalism, the anger, the hypocrisy, all that. In a way, I wonder if he’s just doing all of this as one big social experiment.
for the Korean War Memorial too……where’s all the “shoe” links?
Implied my ass. You don’t ask a question like that by attacking someone, claiming that an entire society approves of torturing children as a matter of course (DF still hasn’t produced any positive evidence supporting that assertion, I should note), and then insulting everyone that goes “Whoa, wait a second!”
If DF had wanted to ask that question, he should have. If he had, he would have gotten the answer that has been given in the past: we’ll address their concerns and right our wrongs as best we can, but productive change takes time.
But I just re-read the diary in question, and he did not ask that question, and trying to make it look like he did is fundamentally dishonest. He stated outright that Americans cannot be reasoned with, and did not attempt to ask any questions. It was pure trolling and flamebait, and should’ve been treated as such.
Instead, it got promoted to the recommended list. And people wonder why the sane posters on the site are so upset?
And people wonder why the sane posters on the site are so upset?
Nice.
So you’re sane and the rest of us are insane because we aren’t marching in lockstep thought with you “sane” ones. Beautiful.
I don’t know. Do you think that people who praise a diary that opens with the lie that most Americans consider it perfectly normal and acceptable to torture their own children are sane? I sure as hell don’t. I’d call that “completely out of touch with reality”, but you might think differently.
Also, direct that Ductape’s way. He’s the one that lumps all his opponents together as the evil American exceptionalists. People can disagree with me without being insane. They do frequently.
be the best prospects in terms of getting them on board with the “change takes time” view.
As the numbers of those victims swell, though “taking time” may continue to be a cherished view of many Americans, as it was of their great grandfathers, the popularity of the tenet among the American political class inevitably takes a back seat, in terms of events-on-the-ground relevance, to the lack of enthusiasm for it among the victims, their families and friends.
As with the doctrine of American exceptionalism, no one is denying that it is a deeply held belief, but that it has simply not caught on outside the US, and the chances of that changing are so small as to be reasonably referred to as “none.”
You’ve got three choices:
Ah, the smell of bullshit in the morning. I think you’ll find that few people on this site advocate American exceptionalism. Or you would, if you actually engaged in rational analysis. The problem is that you divide the world into “those that agree with me” and “evil American exceptionalists”. Alas, most Americans don’t like being insulted, so they wind up in the second category.
Perhaps the humble wallah may be permitted to suggest that Sahib seems tired, and might wish at this time, to lay his Burden down, and in the fullness of time, take comfort in the knowledge that while the Burden might be so very real to him, it is a reality of Sahib’s mind only.
Even humble wallahs understand the plight of poor tired Sahib, and humbly, in our simple child-like way, express the glad wish that the “regime change” be as gentle as possible, to spare Sahib from knowing more than he does about realities outside his own esteemed head, and also express glad confidence that Sahib will find the new regime more to his liking, perhaps than he can imagine, so tired is he from his Burden…
Whatever you just said, you’re missing the fish.
Even though you may be a devotee of one or more, and do not wish it to be so, empires fall.
How the American Question will be answered is not up to me.
At this point, it is not even up to America, who has waived the option of having some input.
You’re still missing the fish.
If you don’t share the same interpretation as I do, that’s fine: we disagree. But, don’t tell me I’m being dishonest, because all I have said is my own opinion. I’m not here to make anyone look good or bad. Well, except maybe the Bush Administration, but they seem perfectly capable of making themselves look bad. I thought MWOC made a point which was worth responding to. I disagree with him, but I can respect him for saying that’s his take on things. Feel free to tell me I’m wrong; that’s your right.
Read this.
Note the author.
Note the language at the end: answer to the American question.
Draw your own conclusions.
I’ve been mostly silent here, over the past couple of days, in the face of the all out racism, bigotry, nationalism, and anti… what? foreigner? Muslim? hysteria displayed by a few people on here, but this is just beyond the pale vile. Beyond silence and “well, maybe once they calm down they’ll take another look at themselves” vile.
Obviously my strategy was the wrong one, as all people have done is do what others have done in the past who feel they’ve gotten their teeth into a live one (look ma! a darkie! let’s hang ’em!) and don’t intend to let go. Thankfully I would say that the majority of people on this site didn’t fall into the mob mentality and start addressing not a person’s opinions but their religion, foreignness and/or national origins… and (before this) you weren’t even the worst of them.
Do yourself a favor and do some research on “the american question”. information is very easy to find without going through weird convoluted steps to… what? equate Ductape with the holocaust? Or at least to make the point of… a Muslim… Jews, hmmm!
Or better yet, ask Ductape. It’s easy, just say… “Ductape, I was doing some oppo research on you and came across an old article you wrote about “the american question”. what did you mean by that?” Simple enough, when dealing with other human beings. He doesn’t have fangs.
Ah, so now I’m the racist. How convenient. I guess I’m just another American who can’t be reasoned with eh? Just another madman who needs to be put down so “rational thought” can prevail? Never mind that Ductape hasn’t actually tried. Nor has he actually said what he is. His many supporters have claimed that he’s a Muslim (which he has, occasionally, denied) or a woman (again occasionally denied). His identity seems to morph as necessary so as to paint anyone that questions him in the worst possible light. From assorted comments in the past, I’ve gathered that he’s an educated American male that’s travelled extensively abroad.
As for Ductape’s wording, there’s two ways it can be interpreted. One is calling for foreign instigation of and intervention in an open, bloody war in America, if we take Ductape to be using this meaning. The other is the extermination of the American people.
Given that Ductape seems to think that Americans are sub-human monsters that torture their own children and cannot be reasoned with, I think the meaning’s quite clear.
Now, if Ductape is willing to apologize for his bigoted remarks, I’ll be more charitable in my evaluation of his article.
But hey, that’s pointless. After all, because I don’t like being insulted and told that I approve of torturing children and cannot be reasoned with, I’m a racist. Makes so much sense now. Why didn’t I see it before?
I guess I’m just another American who can’t be reasoned with eh? Just another madman who needs to be put down so “rational thought” can prevail?
Who has said this?
Nor has he actually said what he is. His many supporters have claimed that he’s a Muslim (which he has, occasionally, denied)
Where?
or a woman (again occasionally denied).
Again, where? for either what was said by “supporters” or Ductape.
His identity seems to morph as necessary so as to paint anyone that questions him in the worst possible light.
I’ll be happy with even just one supporting piece of evidence of this.
From assorted comments in the past, I’ve gathered that he’s an educated American male that’s travelled extensively abroad.
You know the drill.
As for Ductape’s wording, there’s two ways it can be interpreted. One is calling for foreign instigation of and intervention in an open, bloody war in America, if we take Ductape to be using this meaning. The other is the extermination of the American people.
Or there is the likeliest meaning, which deals with the poor and marginalized, the ‘underclass’, taking steps to rise up and make themselves heard, make demands, fill the streets, get to the point where they realize there is power in numbers and so on. Likeliest because this theme is a common one in Ductape’s writings… which you don’t have to wander all over google for, by the way… they are all at his site. Again though, the simplest method of finding out is just to ask him.
Given that Ductape seems to think that Americans are sub-human monsters that torture their own children and cannot be reasoned with, I think the meaning’s quite clear.
He’s already answered this a number of times. I don’t flatter myself that you would absorb the answers any better from me.
Now, if Ductape is willing to apologize for his bigoted remarks, I’ll be more charitable in my evaluation of his article.
He made no bigoted remarks, especially not personal ones; he did make observations, any of which you are welcome to disagree with on the basis of whatever those observations were.
But hey, that’s pointless. After all, because I don’t like being insulted and told that I approve of torturing children and cannot be reasoned with, I’m a racist. Makes so much sense now.
No, trying to conflate Ductape with some sort of terrorist, and making arguments on the basis of his religion, origin, and attempting to imply that he is calling for the extermination of the American people, by linking to a site talking about the Jewish holocaust, or whatever it was all that was meant to imply, this is what puts you in the iffy category as racist. Disagree with issues and opinions all you want, that’s how debates and conversations go.
Why didn’t I see it before?
I imagine because you, along with others, are so blinded by nationalism and anti Muslim hysteria or whatever is the case that you find it impossible to actually see what is being said and instead put an interpretation on it that better matches your preconceptions.
Again tho… disagree all you want. Rant, rave, call him a doo doo head that doesn’t know what he is talking about, troll rate him, ignore him… but leave the religious and national origin stuff out of it, unless those points are germane to the debate and I don’t see how they are. Unless you (and others) are attempting to indict his argument not by providing counter arguments, but by saying that he doesn’t have the right to make them, or that there is some sinister agenda behind them.
Both months ago, around the time SusanHu left, for the questions about other posters’ claims. For the other two, reviewing the diaries in question, I appear to have mistaken DF for another poster. My mistake, I apologize. DF has not provided any information about their identity, nor any evidence to defend their claims. Their profile is empty of even the most basic personal information (as you’ll find in mine), other than claiming to be an American.
However, it’s not really relevant, as none of my posts in any way refer to his nationality, religion, ethnicity, class, or anything other than his arguments. You’re the only one here doing that, I’m afraid.
Americans cannot be reasoned with. Americans torture their own children.
Perhaps bigoted’s not the right word. Still, I find those statements to be unbelievably offensive and prejudiced, especially since DF has outright refused to provide evidence supporting either of them.
If you want evidence that these are prejudiced and offensive, replace “Americans” with any other nationality you can think of. Chinese? Offensive. African? Offensive. Why is it acceptable to you to declare Americans to be sub-human?
Provide a link to a specific comment. I saw no comments in the diary in question doing so. I saw nothing in the diary itself doing so. I saw a lot of comments in which DF deliberately avoided being specific about what he meant or what measures he was calling for.
So please, link to an apology for and retraction of those statements. Especially the second, which I explicitly disproved in the comments on the diary in question, and which DF refused to prove or retract. Do so, and I’ll gladly apologize to DF. Please note when you do that claims that DF was simply expressing sentiments from a friend “in the east” are not valid. The original diary was presented as DF’s own words, and must be considered to be DF’s position until DF explicitly apologizes for and retracts it.
Please provide a link to a comment where I say:
1) That Ductape is a terrorist.
2) Mention his religion.
3) Mention his origin.
I do imply that he is calling for the extermination of Americans. The context means that the phrase cannot conceivably involve the American underclass rising up and making demands. I suggest you read the paragraph in question:
Unless, of course, “the world” is code for “the American underclass”.
I found that more than vaguely reminiscent of the propaganda employed by a certain regime who also referred to their actions as “self-defense”, who also argued that they could not reason with their “enemies”, and who also spoke of “answering the question”. I read it as the rest of the world deciding to employ “self-defense” to take care of the “American Question”. Perhaps you can provide a detailed explanation of any alternative readings? Note when you do that the actions taken have to be easily mistaken for “vengeance” by the targets of them.
Produce a post or apologize.
Ah yes, I’m so blinded by anti-Muslim hysteria that I couldn’t see that he didn’t completely make up the point about torturing children.
Oh wait.
Turns out he did completely make that up. In fact, all the evidence I could find pointed in the opposite direction, with all government authorities and private groups doing the best they could to shut down the school in question without breaking the law. And the only people supporting it were a handful of nutcases.
Bugger, strike most of this post, would you? I still say Ductape was being blatantly offensive and lying, and I still have seen no hint of an apology or retraction. If you know of one, I would like to see one. However, I honestly do want to see how one could possibly read that last paragraph any other way. I cannot see any interpretation other than “resolve your issues now or the rest of the world resolves them for you”.
I never implied anything about Ductape’s religion, nationality, ethnicity, nor anything else, nor did I mean to. As with the “All Americans are sub-human” diary, it is insulting and infuriating to come home after fighting against the lone nuts that keep popping up and bringing racism, nationalism, and other unpleasant isms into one’s social life and one’s country’s politics and find highly-lauded posts saying, basically, “All you’re doing is irrelevant.” If you want to get your hair burned off, it’s a great way to get lots of flames. If you want people to consider your points? Not a good approach.
Try it sometime. Walk up to someone in the street and start insulting them and criticizing their country in the same breath. You won’t get far, and for good reason. Claiming that people who react negatively to Ductape doing this to them online are “blinded by anti-Muslim hysteria”, are racist, or any of your other spurious insults is simply dishonest.
Now, unless you actually have something productive to say in defense of a poster who’s insulted almost everyone on the site most vilely, I’ll drop the matter.
Sorry for the late reply, I had to leave suddenly. That’s probably a good thing, as it’s given me more thinking time.
You have every right to believe Ductape was being blatantly offensive and/or lying or insulting or infuriating and whatever else in his diary, if that if your reading of the words, and your interpretation of his intentions. That is up to each individual and an ensuing debate should either support your beliefs or show you where you are wrong. If they didn’t, again, not my concern.
I never implied anything about Ductape’s religion, nationality, ethnicity, nor anything else, nor did I mean to.
I went wrong in conflating you with some others on this site with the anti Muslim stuff, it just happened that your post was the last straw and I apologize for that. I’ve not gone back and read your other posts, I’ll just accept it as said. I still the implication of the post I reacted to was vile, but I better understand where you are coming from with it.
As with the “All Americans are sub-human” diary, it is insulting and infuriating to come home after fighting against the lone nuts that keep popping up and bringing racism, nationalism, and other unpleasant isms into one’s social life and one’s country’s politics and find highly-lauded posts saying, basically, “All you’re doing is irrelevant.”
I don’t think that is what was said.. and in fact, that is not at all what people reading on other sites, or even within the diary on this site got out of it. A good portion of the instant, violently disagreeing reaction was to Ductape himself, and a continuation of old grudges and rah rah USA!USA!, go home where you belong stuff that was carried over from other times… but which immediately infected and colored just about the entire conversation and reading of the piece.
Now, unless you actually have something productive to say in defense of a poster who’s insulted almost everyone on the site most vilely, I’ll drop the matter.
Well, I don’t think he’s insulted much of anyone on the site, personally… again though, people can choose to read things and converse on the basis of those readings however they wish.
Claiming that people who react negatively to Ductape doing this to them online are “blinded by anti-Muslim hysteria”, are racist, or any of your other spurious insults is simply dishonest.
No, it is not dishonest, it simply may not apply to you, as I said above.
However, I honestly do want to see how one could possibly read that last paragraph any other way. I cannot see any interpretation other than “resolve your issues now or the rest of the world resolves them for you”.
This is not an uncommon belief, if this is what Ductape meant, especially among those that work with the poor in many different places. Or among the poor or marginalized themselves… I’ve been warning of this, in some ways, for years. I am a believer in non violence, and I would hope that there will be Gandhi-ans and MLK-ans and so on rising up all over the place, or that the political process will work for many in various countries… South America seems to be having a fairly good start.
And FYI, I’ve been working under the assumption that DF is not a Muslim, is American, and is male, because I vaguely remember posts asserting all three. How I can then be blinded by anti-Muslim, anti-foreigner bigotry is beyond me. Maybe I’m simply more mentally adept that I give myself credit for? After all, as a poster who’s repeatedly denounced racism and sexism in all forms, I’d have to be plenty agile already to also be, as you claim, racist and sexist.
Or maybe I just don’t like being told that I cannot be reasoned with (I can be), that my culture endorses the torture of our own children (we don’t), or that the only remedy to the present situation in America is violent revolution. (It isn’t)
As an aside, how the hell does advocating violent revolution make one a terrorist? There are plenty of historical instances where this is far from true. However, many people tend to have an… Overly rosy view of the outcome of a revolution. Historically, the outcome has been uniformly negative, with the resulting regime being or quickly deteriorating into one that is as bad or worse than the one that was forcibly dethroned.
I should also note, again, that DF has not denied that DF is calling for a resolution, despite being asked point-blank several times. If DF ever does so, I will gladly revise and apologize for my appraisal of said article.
Until then, or until you provide a link to a post where I express a racist attitude, toodle-oo.
I have never denied being a “foreigner,” meaning a non-American, nor have I ever denied being a Muslim, nor denied being a male, nor have I ever considered any of that to be relevant to expression of my views on current events, or any other subject, with the possible exception of theology, which I make it a point never to discuss without a large quantity of excellent Burgundy, at least three drunken Jesuits, a gaggle of diametrically opposed Rabbis, several pairs of duelling Mullahs, at least a dozen Hindu saddhus, none of whom anyone can understand, a calming contingent of Buddhist monks, and a sparkling handful of smirking Zoroasterians who steal all the wine and tiptoe out to file copyright infringement actions against the entire Abrahamic delegation.
Actually, you have. In your own profile, you claim to be an American resident. Whatever your place of origin, you are no more or less a foreigner than any other American resident.
Good, we’re agreed. Now, perhaps if you could maybe address the substance of the issue at hand? If such mundane engagements might not overly sully your beautiful mind?
in recent years, it is believed that there may be several individuals now living in places other than those from which they were born, and in some cases, without becoming citizens of the countries in which they reside.
There are even some unconfirmed reports that there may be Americans living outside the US while retaining their American citizenship, but that could be just more Ductape propaganda. The prudent will wait for confirmation from Fox News.
As an interesting footnote, when I registered here, I actually asked BooMan about this, and he said that whatever the person’s country of residence, not origin, would determine in which category the diaries were placed. My argument was that precisely because I am not an American, my writing would be more accurately categorized as “world,” but it is his site. ๐
Also, I’d like to point out that this is all that Ductape’s defenders always seem to resort to. Not logical arguments. (As they don’t have any) Not clear statements of principles, objectives, or methods. Just insults and shock that anyone could possibly disagree with them.
I’d be much more charitable towards Ductape if he didn’t have a history of extreme, repulsive suggestions and claims. Of throwing out insults and then dancing away when confronted about them.
I’ve laid out my reasoning. Disprove some part of it if you can, everything I’ve based my comments on is a matter of public record. You’ve got nothing to support your downright insulting, disgusting, and foul claim that I’m a racist. If you’re going to join the discussion, please employ rational arguments based on facts.
as a “matter of public record” where you believe I make these claims to be this or that, or not that or this would give the assertions more impact for some readers, I think that one of the things that you have helped me, and others establish, is that it is not so much what I said or did not say, but what you, or someone else, believes I said.
Beliefs can be very real things, and much more important to the believer than something as dry and prosaic as mere facts, and I would be the last one to suggest that anyone renounce their beliefs.
However, I would suggest that it be recognized that those beliefs, whether it is a belief that I claimed to be an American, or a mime, or a tree frog, or whether Western culture and people are inherently and either secularly or divinely mandated as the rulers and owners of the world and all it contains, or a belief that Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin all her life, are YOUR beliefs.
And just as no one can, or should, take them from you, neither is it a given that others will share them, or that they can be persuaded to share them, either by pen nor sword, and that therefore, you show greater respect for those beliefs by following the example given in the Christian bible by Mary, and ponder them in your heart.
This will be better for everyone than the “weaponizing” of them, as one poster used to so aptly put it.
Believe that only America is Number One, only America should rule the earth and stars. But understand that no matter how strongly you believe it, there are billions of people who do not, and who, in fact, consider themselves every bit as human, as worthy of life, as you.
This simple philosophy, sometimes called the Golden Rule in the west, could in my opinion, help a great deal in the current struggle to ensure that human life on earth continues.
Hm. Well, at least I now know for sure that you’re completely out of touch with reality. Enjoy your ego and fluffy revolutionary bunnies. I’ll be off actually fixing things. Call me when you’re interested in joining in.
after having been offline for a time and returning to a full inbox, which gave me, I thought, an interesting opportunity to look at a lot of emails at once, was the huge gap between perceptions.
While my correspondents from the east almost unanimously said, in various ways, that Americans are not capable of reason so why do I persist in posting on American sites, the western mail almost unanimously said that I hate Americans and have no business posting on sites that are for Americans.
It was not without its comical aspect, but at the same time I think reflects a very serious and very dangerous chasm.
To support Reform and modernization, and by extension Americans who are Pro-Reform, is to one group, indicative of hatred of a nationality, so strong is the US opposition to Reform, and I have seen how the Reform-minded Americans are vilified by their own countrymen.
And I have made the point before that those Americans who are in favor of Reform and advancement are not getting their message out to the rest of the world, there does not seem to be an awareness of the existence even of that small (and endangered) minority.
This troubles me, because I believe it would be in the best interest of that Reform-minded minority to be known more widely, and to be able to benefit from international support and protection as events unfold…
On Americans:
That’s about all I need to know.
point out that your post could, to those who read the entire sentence, imply that you disagree with my contention that there are reasons not to “do all that.”
Granted, while it is understood that the entire sentence would be read only by anti-American obstructionist fluffy revolutionary bunnies, there is still the undeniable fact that this site may receive viewers who, difficult as it might be to believe, have no idea how evil I am, nor understand that by reading the entire sentence they are automatically throwing themselves in with rejectionists who do not understand that some people have to get hurt in order for America to prevail, so it is for their benefit that I point this out, lest they unjustly be counted among the Enemy Who Reads…
Wherein the esteemed diarist steps all over his readers and grinds them into the dirt with his heel. </snark>