I’m quite careful when labeling issues as “taboo,” I believe that we tend to label too many issues with this description in an attempt to “pick up the torch,” per se. It gives us a false sense of purpose, and instead of simply talking about the subject, or bringing awareness, we instead make it an uncomfortable topic when most of the time it wasn’t one to begin with.
I’m not insinuating that some subjects aren’t truly taboo, because clearly there are many. My point is to simply note that talking about certain subjects removes the taboo, labeling it “taboo” for some self-serving purpose, does not. It always boggles my mind to google and find thousands of different blog posts about one “taboo” subject. I have that special little, “I do not think that word means what you think it means” moment.
To my point – If there is a beloved female in the conservative movement right now, it is Dana Loesch. She is worshipped on twitter, and held in high regard in the majority of conservative circles. So in the beginning of last week I stifled my opinion for the most part, especially since I kept thinking to myself that speaking negatively against Dana is “taboo,” so “just don’t do it” flooded my mind. Then I found myself writing a letter to The Blaze, and in said letter I proclaimed the opposite of what I had said in my silence:
“So while the crowd follows this type of vitriol with excited anticipation for the next “take down,” there are some of us who have never followed, tail wagging, behind the popular girl who purposefully hurts people to get a laugh or a pat on the back. I never have, and I won’t start now.”
SO, here I am to put my money where my mouth is after calling out my own hypocrisy, even if no one was privy to its existence in this particular case.
As noted above, last week I sent a letter to The Blaze concerning The Dana Show, and while I won’t share the entire letter, I do plan on sharing bits of said letter throughout this blog piece.
As a Conservative, very little that the left does makes me cringe anymore. I’ve learned to accept the depravity that accompanies most of their ideologies, especially those that have an incredibly destitute view of human value. Don’t get me wrong, there are decent people on the left side of the aisle, but the policies themselves wreak of principles that embrace proclivities for the sheer sake of self satisfying goals.
That said, I find myself cringing quite often these days when reading the, almost villainous, replies from fellow Conservatives. So, this blog post is for those of us who wish to be more in this world than a cheap and forgettable witty comeback. So, pretty much everyone. If you don’t fall into that category, you probably shouldn’t be reading my blog.
I can be sarcastic, a lot, but I try to remain sarcastic towards the beliefs or stance of a person while making truth and honesty the forefront of my arguments, not their personhood, and I always keep it clean. Why? Because why shouldn’t I? Should I fight back with material that only serves to demonstrate a possible absence of substance? That’s exactly what the elitist “progressives” crave. They want us to get down into the mud and play their game, because then they’ll photograph us when we’re muddy and use them as a weapon against us; rightfully so, I might add. This doesn’t make me special, or superior, it simply makes me reasonable. Do I think things about some people that I shouldn’t? Of course, but like most people, I try to control myself.
So what happened to make me write a letter to The Blaze? A woman called Dana a “bitter hag.”
Call me cold hearted, this would not even budge my feelings enough to garner a reply. I wouldn’t be rendered speechless out of offense, I would be rendered speechless out of a need to conserve precious time that this particular comment would waste with an unwarranted reply. Yet this comment was used as the catalyst for a childish “yo momma” segment. “You’re gonna love this,” Dana declared before reading the “bitter hag” comment in her character voice of the day, to the sound of intimidating music.
Hmmmm…probably not, Dana.
As I mention in my letter, “When I think of the things that she has been called, or what I’ve been called, or pretty much anything else that any other conservative woman has been called, “bitter hag” is an incredible upgrade.” I stand by that statement, and my reasoning was clarified later on in the letter:
“Have we crossed the isthmus? Are we no longer able to voice personal opinions without juvenile Mean Girl-esque attempts to personally attack someone? More importantly, did being called a “bitter hag” really offend Dana that deeply? Or was it a convenient way to get the “attaboy” accolades from the masses? If she was offended that deeply, I’m forced to reconsider my personal opinion that she is a strong conservative woman. If it was the latter, I’m forced to reconsider my opinion that she is a strong conservative voice of reason.”
Why was I so impassioned by this particular segment? After reading the comment, Dana proceeded to show a picture of this woman, then showcased a photo of this woman’s mother. She then proceeded to verbally assault this woman on her overbite, attacked her facial features, her couch, her hair, and also made fun of their looks in comparison to her family’s self-proclaimed superior looks. Oh, to be so blessed aesthetically. Somewhere within the diatribe there was even a z-snap, then it ended with a final jab that taught the woman a lesson about helping her frizzy hair to be tamed with a dime size amount of conditioner.
Too far, Friends. Too far.
My below reply to her may seem harsh, but her response to this woman was the quintessential villainous response from Conservatives that I’ve grown to fear:
“My elderly family members are, shockingly, not supermodel candidates. I’m guessing that this reality is shared by, well, everyone that doesn’t have a 50 year old supermodel Grandmother. Imagine that, people get old and unattractive, and if your daughter calls someone a “bitter hag,” your photo can be paraded and mocked on TV by a woman with an Ichthys tattooed on her wrist.”
Every person that she ever debates will probably have an elderly family member or an unattractive feature. Come on, it’s low hanging fruit. Female empowerment does not find its core in the arrogance of the popular girl, female empowerment is found in our ability to think rationally. If we can’t move above grade school tactics, we are just as immature as those who buy votes with “free” contraceptives and degrading “first time” commercials that are specifically targeting an audience that they assume is of lesser intelligence, i.e., women.
I disagreed with the hate mail portion of The Dana Show to begin with, but this was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Why, you might ask, was this so important to me? Important enough to create a letter? Because I know that Dana is capable of thought provoking points, she is talented in opening the eyes of those she debates with, and she is incredibly intelligent. All of those qualities are lost on the other side if this is how she plans to conduct her behavior. As I said in the letter, the hate mail segments just seemed to cross the line between wit and obnoxious to me, even though they did nothing to offend me.
If she read her hate mail with a Darth Vader mask I’d be a bit more amused…maybe. Probably not, but it’s a possibility.
I felt in a way that it was belittling to women. Is this how we see ourselves? As sniveling beings in need of pointless vent sessions using various accents for theatrics? Maybe I’m on my own little island when it comes to that view point. Or, maybe I realize that if I wasn’t grounded in my opinions, and I was looking for a side that was speaking the truth, I would pass up the theatrics and look for the adults with facts.
So now the question is posed to us: What do we want to be known for when it comes to our political opinions? For our, questionable at best, wit when it comes to producing nicknames, e.g., “Obummer,” and “Moochelle,” or our ability to comprehend the Labor Force Participation data? For our solid z-snap, or our dedication to fighting for the voiceless? Whether we can weaken our opponents into a crying hot mess over their hair texture, or whether we can present them with facts that leave them unable to intelligently defend their position?
I know what I’ve chosen.
Sarcasm and wit lighten the mood, or get your point across in a more direct manner, when used in the right context. But when they are used to attack a person extraneously, as she has done sporadically in the past, they only serve to demonize the views of conservative women everywhere. We should find our views to be substantial and without need for petty attacks that speak to the supposed ignorance they accuse us of having. Not because we need them to think we have a factual viewpoint, but because we do have a factual viewpoint. We don’t need the petty attacks, because we have the truth. Personal attacks are nothing but unmitigated nonsense when either side participates in their furtherance, and beyond that, they are harmful to conservative women who stand on reasoning and facts.
Alright. Now I feel better. Time for coffee.