cross-posted at skippy and a veritable cornucopia of other community blogs.

big tent armando needs to attend some 12 step meetings…and not because we think he’s addicted to anything (at least, other than his own writings, but if that were a crime, let us be guilty).

no, we think big tent armando needs to attend a few 12 step meetings learn the meaning of the word enabler.  because then he might not be so quick to defend markos as “merely clueless” rather than outright “misogynistic.”

on talkleft, earlier this week, big tent armando wrote  

markos wrote a post that is poorly put together and that wrongly ignored the underyling sexism and misogyny issues. but for jessica to equate that with misogyny is really beyond the pale.

markos has made a number of mistakes, imo, on gender issues. indeed, i have had many a dispute with him over them. but to label him a misogynist is completely over the top and wrong. frankly, it cheapens the issue. bad show jessica.

of course, big tent armando is referring to jessica of feministing writing over at tpmcafe about markos’ view that kathy sierra is a big crybaby because she doesn’t want to be raped and killed for blogging.

= =  more = =
big tent armando also goes on to defend and clarify (if, by “clarify,” we mean “obfuscate”) his position in the comments there on talkleft and also on various other blogs around blogtopia and yes, we coined that phrase.

now, please rest assured, that we love armando and his writings.  he has been nothing but kind to us except for when he’s been a prick, but then, that’s the joy that is armando.

however, in this case, he is making the same mistake that most humans with penises between their legs make in their approach to active misogyny, and that is that, as eldridge cleaver said about rascism, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

sorry, bta, but being clueless about misogyny, especially in the 21st century america, is not a valid, or even believable, excuse.  to say, “hey, the guy wasn’t the one who punched the broad in the face, he was just watching,” is not a defense that will hold up under scrutiny.

armando would have us believe that markos does not hate women.  replace the concept of women with the concept of black people in that world view, and you get the old canard, “some of my best friends are negros.”

just as there is such a thing as lying by omission, there is such a thing as bigoty by inaction.  and in something as horrific as a woman getting photoshop-quality graphic death and rape threats anonymously, such firmly-stated inaction can be legitimately viewed by some (read:  human beings with vaginas) as beyond the pale.

you don’t have to lynch negros to be a racist, you just have to sit by as institutionalized racism destroys entire communities.  

and you don’t have to rape to be a misogynist, you can just as easily poo-poo someone’s legitimate fears of rape.

and, armando, we are afraid, is getting very close to the republican-technicalities defense (“bush never actually said there were wmd’s in iraq in any of his speeches!”) when he parses the line between hating women and not caring if women are hated.

being clueless is no defense.  or was that “ignorance”?  

meanwhile, over at booman, steven d covers markos’s non-apology response to the whole fiasco en toto (and dorothy, too) and bob x guesses kos never heard of alan berg.