PUMAPAC is the gift that keeps on giving. Today, they celebrate the 160th anniversary of the Women's Rights Movement...by calling a fellow woman, Anti-Puma
Christina Cedeno, a "piece of shit," "stupid," and by implying that
she is a prostitute.
I tried to get some clarification from Darragh Murphy on her comment today, #43 on "Happy Birthday Seneca Falls
." She was happy to oblige.
Darragh, I wanted to ask you about this comment about Christina Cedeno.? It looks like you are attacking her for having a dissenting viewpoint, but I wanted to get your take on it.
#43 - Christina is a piece of shit who is so stupid that she thinks being swarmed by flies is the same thing as being popular.
I'm attacking her for being a piece of shit who is so stupid that she thinks being swarmed by flies is the same thing as being popular. That's all.
Thanks for the email
I can hear it now, in Christina's pre-school class: "Miss Cedeno, what's a piece of shit?"
I also relayed The Anti Puma's
challenge to meet in a public forum and debate the issues. I'm still waiting to hear back on that one. In the meantime, let's talk.
I was surprised that she responded at all to my email, let alone within minutes of receiving it, so I sent a quick follow-up. See, I don't like it when people try to tar a site based on what the commenters say, but I also know that Murphy moderates hers very closely, so I wanted to see how she felt about one of them.
I notice your comments are closely moderated, and that BMW60 mentioned that Christina wrote a sex column and might be friends with Ashley? What did you think about that?
How would you feel about accepting Christina's challenge, to debate the issues in a public forum? Sorry to bother you. Didn't expect an answer, lol, but I'm glad you did.
The comment refers to Ashley Dupre, the much-vilified sex worker from the Eliot Spitzer scandal. Murphy hasn't responded yet, but I hope she does. To their credit, I have seen PUMAPAC commenters denounce certain kinds of attacks before, but I guess I'm trying to find out where the line is.
The Anti Puma
had this to say: (via email)
" I find this comment extremely revealing of PUMA's collective character. It's disheartening that a woman cannot even speak of sex without facing some kind of ruthless indoctrination from a cavalcade of so-called Feminists. Why even bother correlating prostitution with someone who writes about sex if no ill-will is wished?
Though I have no affiliation to Ashley Dupre, I can say without second-thought that she is probably more of a woman than any of those females that degrade her are. We now live in a society where"feminism" is used a soapbox to denigrate and mock the choices of other women. The comments like this one, left by PUMA voters, are proof of that sad truism.
I also want to say that I find it ironic, pathetic, and laughable that these so-called new century suffragists take the time to burn me at the stake while supposedly "celebrating" the anniversary of a feminist holy day, The Senaca Falls Declaration of Sentiments. It's telling, very telling indeed.
When women like myself, and any woman really, reads the hostile words written by Darragh Murphy and her minions, it just provides more proof that these women don't care about women's issues at all. I don't know if I should be relieved that their true intent is exposed, or saddened that they are so blinded by animosity, that they cannot see the forest through the trees. "
I, too, wondered why a self-proclaimed feminist would demonize another woman for writing a sex column. Is that not sufficiently "ladylike?"
The irony is emblematic of PUMAPAC's overall disconnect: That, as feminists, it is their duty to see that John McCain, a candidate with a vicious anti-woman streak, gets elected. In a story celebrating the birth of the women's movement, they attack a fellow woman for exercising those very rights. I would truly love to hear an explanation of that.
On the other hand, while researching these stories, I have encountered plenty of fair-minded PUMAs, and I like most of them. I like them so much, in fact, that it fuels my desire to see their sense of injustice channeled productively, not leeched onto by opportunistic Republicans, and diminished by the frivolity of their leader.
Shortly after my first contact with Darragh Murphy, she let it be known that she had received death threats. That was a truly horrifying development, and obviously the work of an unstable crank. It is an ugly by-product of the anonymity of the internet.
But, rather than stick to a passionate, reasoned denunciation of this loathesome act, she decides to try to score some points
against Barack Obama.
THE OBAMA MOVEMENT'S CALL FOR DEATH TO WOMEN WHO OPPOSE HIM WATCH
So far, my list includes these women. If you have received threats of violence or death from Obama supporters because of your political activities or writing, or you know someone who has, please tell us in comments. Also send me an email at email@example.com
* Riverdaughter of the Confluence
* Diane at JSND
* Murphy at Puma PAC
* Paula Abeles
* Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
* Patsy, Soldier For Hillary
* Sugar from PA
* IP from Puma PAC
* Heidi Li of the Denver Group
So, 1 to 10 internet cranks are now spokespeople for the "Obama Movement." The intent is vicious, but the effect is laughable. One PUMA was amused
and heartened by my description of them as an "Army of Ahabs." I hope she reads this and sees what I'm talking about.
The Anti Puma story
from yesterday also drew what I thought was a well-thought-out response from one of my readers, Sarah Deats, Texas Democrat:
PUMAs are pseudo-feminists
I enjoy reading your articles and have been particularly pleased to see your remarks about the PUMAs. One angle to this story has never, to my knowledge, been mentioned: Where are these supposed feminists when the Republican sludge machine is busy generating garbage about Michelle Obama? Whatever "mistreatment" Hillary endured as a candidate (which mostly seemed to me to be of her own making or just the slings and arrows of running for office) was nothing compared to the concerted effort to discredit a woman who's apparently too uppity for the guys in red. (Of course an uppity black woman is bound to raise even more hackles than a standard-issue uppity intellectual white woman, but that's another story.)
I'm a second wave feminist. After some hard thinking at the beginning of the primary campaign, I decided I had to support Obama against the first viable woman candidate -- no small decision for someone who has stood for feminist causes since the early 70s. But Obama's clearly superior understanding and judgment looked to me like the only hope for getting us out of the gigantic hole we're in, and Clinton's reliance on old methods and old ways of thinking would simply dig us in deeper. In some ways, I even felt that Obama was truer to feminist principles than our lady in shining armor. Her old-style politics still reflects the old-boys competitive/combative way of doing things, whereas Obama has consistently chosen for a more cooperative, collaborative approach. As the campaign proceeded, there were plenty of reasons to feel that my original assessment had been correct.
Now we've got these twits risking an absolutely crucial election because "their" candidate lost in a fair race. (They've clearly graduated from the Gramm school of whining.) Oh so righteously indignant over unfairness to Hillary, but not a word about what's being done to Michelle Obama. And nary a word out of our erstwhile heroine. Sorry, ladies, that's not feminism -- it looks more like Republican politics to me.
This is true, I have not seen a defense by any of these "feminists" of the vicious, sexist attacks on Michelle Obama.
I have barely begun to scratch the surface, but so far, it seems pretty clear that PUMA isn't about feminism. It isn't about election reform. It definitely isn't about Hillary Clinton. It is about one thing: Getting John McCain elected. As long as you can face that fact, growl away.