Douchebag Decree: DOUCHEBAG SHOWDOWN EDITION

Someone should make a bumper sticker that reads So many douchebags, so little time. I'd buy it. Every week when the Douchebag Decree comes around, there are too many douches and it's almost impossible to determine who deserves the honor most. This week, we have two very strong contenders, which is why we need YOU to vote for your (least) favorite in a DOUCHEBAG SHOWDOWN. Two douches enter, one douche leaves!

douchebag_decree.jpg

In one corner: Erick "Ugly feminists return to their kitchens" Erickson! The fightin' feminist-hater!

In the other corner: Margaret "Blogs are a guy thing" Wente! The super cybersexist!

Ladies and gentlemen, place yer bets! Here's some more info to help you decide, once and for all, which douche reigns supreme!

THE SHOWDOWN

Erick Erickson:
This Redstate.com editor in chief has just been hired as a CNN news contributor. He tea parties! He makes jokes about Obama only receiving the Nobel Prize because of "affirmative action"! And he tweets. Oh, does he tweet. Behold (via Alternet):

Here's Erickson (@ewerickson on Twitter) on SuperBowl Sunday, upon finally viewing the much-anticipated Focus on the Family ad featuring Tim Tebow.

That last one is less vile than simply nonsensical, of course, but given that it was the Superbowl, my guess is that he'd had a few beers, hence the total lack of misogynist filter.

Then again, maybe not.

The next day:

Oh Erickson. Are you honestly going to be a part of "the most trusted name in news"? And do you really think a joke about feminists performing "post-birth abortions" is going to get laughs? GET IT? BECAUSE FEMINISTS CARE ABOUT A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE, WHICH ALSO MEANS THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM MURDERING SOMEONE WHO TWEETS SOMETHING THEY DON'T LIKE!

Erickson is clearly childish, ill-informed, and a straight-up douche. Also, he is living proof that have two nearly identical names doesn't increase your credibility (there go my plans to change my name to Wally Wallace). CNN, please fire this douchenozzle before he goes on the air and spews his racist, sexist, extremist bullshit all over the place.

VS.

Margaret Wente:
In an article in yesterday's Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente responds to the people who have asked her why she doesn't blog. Her answer?

The answer is pretty much the same as why I don't get a souped-up snowmobile and drive it straight up a mountain at 120 kilometres an hour into a well-known avalanche zone. It's more of a guy thing.

The gist of Wente's piece is that blogs are strictly dude territory, because the opinion-driven nature of blogging is akin to "peeing contests." Since women rarely hold peeing contests, apparently we can't blog, either. Wente qualifies her argument by saying that sure, women can form opinions, we just don't want to. We'd rather leave that up to the snowmobiling, pee-contest having men. As a female blogger with a buttload of opinions, clearly I beg to differ. I bet many of you do too.

After saying that she used to be shy but now she loves socializing at dinner parties (Yay for dinner parties! We women don't belong in the blogosphere, but we'll always have dinner parties!), Wente concludes her piece,

But blogging? No way. That's guy stuff. And they are welcome to it.

If this isn't ridiculous essentialism, I don't know what is (and yes, Wente is very likely pulling a sexist media stunt here, but my opinionated nature compels me to call her out on it. In the blogosphere, no less).

Wente might think men are welcome to rule the realm of blogs, but I'd like to officially welcome women to blogging (not that you women bloggers need my permission, you opinionated ladies, you). Women, you are welcome to it. And you, Wente, are asking for it.

THE VERDICT:
It's time to vote. Who deserves this week's Douchebag Decree? The contender who thinks feminists should go back to the kitchen because we're too ugly to date? Or the one who thinks women should stay out of the blogosphere because we have no experience with peeing contests? Both of these douches are trying to tell women what we should and shouldn't do, but only one of them can win the coveted DOUCHEBAG DECREE. Who will it be?

Guess what? Subscriptions to Bitch—our award-winning, 80+ page print quarterly—are 20% off to help us reach our $25,000 funding goal by September 30. Pitch in to support feminist media: Subscribe today

Subscribe to Bitch


Comments

5 comments have been made. Post a comment.

Wente all the way.

Wente all the way.

I started off leaning towards Erickson, but he's really just your typical uninformed jerk, which definitely puts him in the douche category, but he just can't compete with Wente's douchery. RANT ALERT!

How dare she try to make any kind of biological assertion about how men and women differ by using examples set in a very specific cultural context? So she's basically saying that men are idiots who are incapable of thinking before they speak, and women like to avoid any kind of confrontation and better just stick to listening. While that's obviously gross generalization, you could make the argument that that may often be a reality in our society due to cultural implications. Hell you can even make the biological argument if you really want to, but you'd better have something to back it up with.

"Are these things cultural? Not entirely, perhaps not even mostly." Her reasoning? Because for all her adult life she was afraid to talk, oh and so were her friends. I'm sorry but that's nothing BUT cultural. How much you want to bet that she and her friends make up a very specific sect of society, of white, straight, married, educated, upper-middle class, professional women? Sorry, maybe now I'm generalizing, but if she wanted to make any type of biological argument she'd have to at least imply that these traits occur across the board with women, rather than just to her and her friends.

"Fortunately, something happens to women in midlife that disinhibits them. It is the same thing (in reverse) that turns bold, extroverted little girls into painfully self-conscious adolescents: a drastic change in hormones." Women everywhere of a reproductive age, shut up and get back in the kitchen because your hormones essentially render you useless! It, you know, has nothing to do with any type of cultural reinforcement in the least... Once you go through menopause, you're more than welcome to go back to being a happy, out-spoken individual, but even then, no blogging!

In my opinion, Wente gets the douchebag decree for reinforcing horrific cultural stereotypes through bioligical determinism. But maybe that's just my hormones talking.

Erickson's a douche

To me, Erickson takes it much more than Wente. In Wente's blather, she seems like the misinformed one. She's vastly wrong on how biology works for men and women, and she'd know that if she'd done some actual reading. I know far more women that blog, in part because we have more to say (or think we do) and tend to be a little better at articulating it (and maybe because blogging is seen as a trendy, 'chick' thing to do. If guys did it, it'd be 'gay' or something lame like that), but I don't think it has anything to do with wiring. I do agree that sometimes women are silenced and taught to keep their mouths shut, lest they be not 'real' women. And men are told to say whatever they want, whenever the notion strikes them. To me, Erickson's woman-hating is a choice, moreso than Wente's ignorance. Erickson has this idea, nasty as it is, of what women are and should be like and sticks to it, blaming us ugly feminists for every problem he has in his pathetic little life. Maybe his girlfriends/wives wouldn't put up with his bullshit and left him. And as for getting dates: this ugly feminist is a mostly happily married woman, who's not afraid to let her intelligence be known. I'm smart and strong and damn proud of it. Am I conventionally pretty? No, but I'm cute. I do like to cook and I do always end up doing the chores around the house, but it's not by choice. The kitchen and the laundry room are not my 'place', thank you very much, and anyone that thinks it is, should spend a little time there themselves.

oops

sorry about the double post, guys. Damn computer.

I just emailed CNN asking

I just emailed CNN asking them to reconsider his employment; I suggest you all do the same.

They both are up there

Oh, they both are awful. Erickson seems to be the greater of the dutch bags, but the problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still picking evil. They both could be up for the BDIU - though Erickson is more of an active douche, she's more of an institutional douche. It's a catch-22 to declare which is the worst - institutional douchebaggery is in many ways worse than just being a dbag because that's what you are, but being a dbag when you could avoid it or at least keep it to yourself is just about as bad. Tiger Woods or Jesse James can't keep from being dutch bags in public, either.