People who don’t know what they are talking about should keep still….
A little while ago, I made the following observation:
“Poker is a game of incomplete information. People wager money, sometimes a whole lot of money, that their ability to interpret incomplete information is better than the next person’s. Nonetheless, collectively poker players (at least those who inhabit Poker World) do a miserable job of reading between the lines. ”
Well, now I have an excellent example of exactly such a miserable job. Someone named Bernard Chapin (also known in Poker World as ChicagoY) has seen fit to publish a piece deriding my son and daughter-in-law on a website called mensnewsdaily.com http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/16/so-i-married-a-radical-feminist/. He has taken material derived from an interview with my son and gleaned from the archives of Poker World, interpreted his incomplete information–and gotten it all wrong.
Mr. Chapin writes:
“Before going any further, I must note that her name isn’t actually “Mrs. Miller.” Predictably, this former Woman’s Studies major refused to change her name after marriage, and even gloated in a post about her plans to name her kids something other than Miller. Those paragraphs were quite amusing and I’d love to quote from them, but I cannot as they were deleted over the summer after causing her husband considerable embarrassment.”
What makes Mr. Chapin think that anything Elaine wrote embarrassed her husband?! And it’s not HER plan to use an assortment of family surnames for my grandchildren-yet-to-be-born; it’s THEIR plan. My take on that idea is whatever, but I have supplied them with possible surnames from Edward’s side of the family. Personally I changed my name to Miller when I married, and I didn’t jettison it when I unmarried because I like the ease and anonymity and unethnicity of it, but, as I said, whatever….
But this interchange is what really motivated Mr. Chapin’s article:
“What really “got her goat” was that she found my query about Mr. Miller’s stint on the little screen to be homophobic. She also thought that it would have been unwise for her husband to turn down any type of free publicity. Homophobic? Let’s take a look at exactly what I said:
Allow me to ask you a final, non-poker related question. Your bio mentions that you appeared on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, where “the Fab Five transformed [you] into a hip, clean cut television personality with Buddy Holly glasses.” I cannot help but ask, why would you do that show? Who cares about fashion and being trendy? It seems to me that with your physics background, work at Microsoft, brilliance at poker, and voluminous publications you’d be a continent above that stuff.”
Let’s set the record straight on this. The Queer Eye thing was MY idea. I saw the call for potential “straight guys” from Vegas, and I thought that Edward’s “story” would interest the producers–which it did. My motivation in making the suggestion to Edward was strictly free publicity for the books, because the publisher depends solely on word of mouth through Poker World to do his marketing–and word of mouth is not appropriate for a beginner book like Getting Started in Hold’em. And, in my opinion at least, word of mouth alone does not generate the maximum sales potential for the more advanced books. Mr. Poker Publisher has repeatedly indicated that he feels that the quality of his books speaks for itself and no further speaking is necessary, but, hey, even Mercedes Benz advertises. Interest in fashion or home decorating or fine wining and dining really had nothing much to do with it. I must say, however, that judging from the large number of posts on Poker World about fashion, food (both cooking and restaurants), wine and spirits, and decorating bachelor pads, the answer as to who is interested in such things is young men who have made a lot of money playing poker and want access to the “finer things,” if only they could figure out exactly what the finer things are. And since when is anyone above looking good, eating well, and living in attractive surroundings? Having a physics degree, being a former employee of Microsoft, and playing poker do not condemn one to live forever like a hobo.
Throughout the remainder of the article, Mr. Chapin paints my son as the victim of a “dworkinite” wife. Besides setting up Andrea Dworkin as a sort of straw woman (I think it is fair to say that her ideas are way out there even among radical feminists), Mr. Chapin’s argument seems to assume that Edward has had feminism rammed down his throat by his wife–to his everlasting detriment. ‘T’ain’t so. As a matter of fact, he and Elaine are in very close agreement on the majority of political issues. As it happens, he is in much closer agreement with her than he is with me.
Judging from the comments appended to Mr. Chapin’s piece, the audience for Men’s News Daily is primarily men who are so insecure that they have imported wives from foreign cultures in which women are trained to be docile and obedient. They are by their own admission unable to cope with the educated and assertive women who grew up in the decades since the start of the women’s movement. On the other hand, my son was reared by an educated and assertive woman, and he has no problem with a woman who has a mind and mouth of her own. If Mr. Chapin had a pair, he wouldn’t be so threatened by “feminists,” and we would be spared his misogynistic rants. (Even some of the poker dudes found Mr. Chapin’s misogyny to be over the top: “this article would be a lot better if the author wasn’t an arrogant misogynist” and “I hate the mysoginy[sic] dripping from your article.”)
January 17th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
[…] lolspeaks: “Someone named Bernard Chapin (also known in Poker World as ChicagoY) has seen fit to publish a piece deriding my son and daughter-in-law on a website called mensnewsdaily.com” […]
January 17th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
What’s a pingback? If anyone wants to get in touch with me, please send me an email with a legitimate email address. I am not into chatting with unknown quantities.
January 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Only one point…You wrote the longest paragraph here about the alleged homophobic remark “Elaine” made, and you didn’t address Bernards point AT ALL. He was asking, rhetorically, why he was called homophobic for disparaging that program, he recreated his comments and I agree with him, none were of a “homophobic” (what a tired and useless word) nature.
No, MensNewsDaily isn’t comprised of readers who import wives (Yes I saw ONE!!!! comment by a guy who said he had a philippina wife…how you extrapolate that to the entire readership is only explainable through feminist statistical analysis), rather men fed up with and explaining legitimate disadvantages in family law etc. Perhaps if you’d spend a couple weeks reading some of the articles, keep it emotionless, talk to a few men outside youtr normal circle about what you’ve read, you may find you agree.
You seem like a bright person, and you overtly proclaim your strength and intelligence…we could use a couple of your type on our team.
January 17th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Actually, conservativation, my point was that Mr. Chapin was interpreting the incomplete information available to him incorrectly. That is to say, he doesn’t know what he is talking about, but that doesn’t stop him.
To comment on Mr. Chapin’s point since you raised the issue, Elaine’s use of the term “homophobia” to characterize the question about Queer Eye is an overstatement. However, Mr. Chapin’s “outrage” at his question being characterized as “homophobic” strikes me as a tad disingenuous. When he asks the question,”Who cares about fashion…?” the answer, obvious to everyone who doesn’t live in a cave, is great hordes of everyone. Fashion is a gazillion dollar business and isn’t confined to women and gay men. Since Mr. Chapin aka ChicagoY posts on Poker World, I am sure he is familiar with the large number of dorky-looking, unstylish poker dudes who are constantly beseeching TT, El Diablo and the other “cool guys” for advice about what shoes and suits and jackets and shirts and jeans and dress pants to buy. Certainly there is nothing unusual in our appearance-oriented society in caring how one looks. So why ask the question since the answer is obvious? Why would Edward be any different from everyone else who wants to put his/her best foot forward in public? Not to mention that the collective poker dudes were constantly ragging on Edward’s grooming and attire (especially his notorious eyebrows). Why would Edward be exempt from the general desire to present an attractive, polished appearance to the world?
So if the question has an obvious answer, why ask it, unless there is some other agenda? And if, as seems likely or at least possible, there is another agenda, what could it be? Homophobia is a reasonable guess. The question/comments about Queer Eye are not explicitly and overtly homophobic in so many words, but they do leave the door open for that interpretation.
Of course, the true answer to the question “Why would you do that show?” is that the Queer Eye experience was motivated by the possibility of free advertising for the books, since the publisher makes no effort toward marketing and promotion. I would also say that there was some curiosity about how such a show is produced and a certain amount of interest/amusement about the three of us (me just a tiny bit, of course) taking part in the reality-tv fad and having our fifteen minutes of “fame.” The desire for fashion advice did not in fact much enter into it.
As for your second point, I explicitly said that I was judging the audience only by the responses to Mr. Chapin’s article about my family–not by an overall reading of the website. Of the eight responses I read, three explicitly talked about having relationships with women from foreign cultures–one Filippina, one Chinese, and one indeterminate, that is, a guy who simply expresses distaste with American women and says he will look elsewhere for women in future. Three out of eight is a substantial percentage in my book.
No, I am no more interested in spending my time reading Men’s News Daily than Alice wanted to spend hers listening to Jankyn reading from his Boke of Wikked Wyves. Who painted the lion anyway?
January 17th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Subservient women? A Filipina and a Chinese woman, subservient? You have obviously never been married to women from either country. Traditionally Chinese women decide who their children would marry, controlled their sons for their whole lives, even reserved the right to chose their husbands; girlfiends (I know that sounds strange, but trust me, it happened and they enforced that prerogative.) The horrible foot-binding business no more negates their position of power in society than our horrible business sending young men off to get maimed in war (men far out number women in combat casualties) means that men have no power in our society.
Marrying from outside the US hardly means a man is insecure. He may just not go for hairy women.
January 17th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Well Jim,
Subservient women? A Filipina and a Chinese woman, subservient?
It is the typical refrain from a feminist. They also use the misogny word when they are called on anything. Oh and by the way you are going to be called a misogynitst troll for that “hairy women” remark. They absolutely no sense of humor either. LOL
January 17th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Hmmmmm Mr. Chapin’s remarks were characterized as misogyny by a couple of his fellow poker dudes. I guess they are typical feminists too. As for the issue of foreign women, folks can read the comments following Mr. Chapin’s article concerning American/UK women and compare them to what the same posters said about non-American/UK women and judge for themselves. Their attitudes are not something I dreamed up. BTW I am an American woman, and I have almost no hair, except for what remains on my head. I suppose that makes me highly desirable, eh???
These guys are not the only ones who prefer foreigners to Americans/Brits. For the record, I myself have a definite preference for Dutch men as opposed to Americans. Better lovers, better friends, all around sweethearts….
January 17th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Well, if little Edward is in such a pleasure palace with his feminist wife, it’s no wonder. Look from whenst he came.
“Dutch men as opposed to Americans. Better lovers, better friends, all around sweethearts…. ”
So you are in no position to question the motives of American men going elsewhere for real women. Dutch? More than likely for their ability to be henpecked and subdued in short order.
Poor Eddie…. poor poor Eddie….Somehow, the courtship of Eddies Father comes to mind…. Oh wait, he’s gone. You kept his name (and more than likely most of his wealth as well) but, I digress….
TMOTS
January 17th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Quoting ChicagoY:
“Yeah, you know, Ed’s mom posted something about how I took things out of context from our interview but nothing I mentioned came from the interview other than that question.”
You missed my point. My point was not that you took the interview out of context, but that the totality of your information was the interview and the posts on Poker World, and yet you presumed to say that Edward was embarrassed by Elaine’s posts about the names. Which he wasn’t and which idea you apparently got by misinterpreting your incomplete information–or pulled out of your ass, whichever.
Further from ChicagoY–
“As for me, I’m an equity feminist as I would never want to see anyone discriminated against for any reason. Equal pay, equal hiring, equal everything would be my fantasy.”
Here you and I (if you are sincere) are in absolute agreement. I am not a radical feminist by any stretch of the imagination. I even refused to have anything to do with the women’s studies program at my university.
Further from ChicagoY:
“I don’t know Mason but I love him now based on his enemies.”
Here you go trying to interpret incomplete information and getting it wrong again. It is not my place to give the details concerning Mason’s behavior, but there are real reasons why Mason has had problems with a great number of people involved with poker. This is not a matter of poor Mason being set upon by a crazed harridan, not at all. FWIW I foresaw some of the problems right from the very beginning when I read the first contract–and that was well before Edward and Elaine met.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Dear TMOTS—
You said (speaking of Edward’s father),”You kept his name (and more than likely most of his wealth as well) but, I digress….”
This provided me with the laugh of the day. Another failure at interpreting incomplete information…. I supported Edward’s father for many years, and he kept a chunk of my money, not the other way round. I never saw a penny of his money, such as it was. In fact, no man has ever supported me except for my father during my minority.
So Elaine gets criticized for not taking the name Miller, and I get criticized for taking it and keeping it. I believe that’s called damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Yes, I kept the name Miller because it is a shorter, easier name to handle than the one I got from my father, because I had already established a career and published under the name Miller, and because it is Edward’s name. So sue me!
January 17th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Did Ed’s mommy defend him? Did his buddies side with his mommy againt BC. Why is she telling us this?
Why is the default button, any time a man sticks up for men, or trashes feminist propaganda, suddenly he is a mysogynist. Ifthe poker playing guys think BC is a misogynist, tell him, don’t just pass it on to Ed’s mommy.
Equity feminist for equal pay - is that still the issue with “equity feminists” ??? How about asking women to take equal risks, and to pay their way… read “Why Men Earn More” MS EQUITY FEMINIST … To learn that it’s men who give more, risk more, suffer more, and support the “other gender” financial … it’s not women who got screwed in the work pay arena, it’s men, …and to point that out doesn’t make anyone a misogynist.
SD
January 17th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
You first agreed with me that Elains use of the term “homophobic” was an overstatement, it would have been nice to leave it there as that was essentially what I was suggesting that Bernard was suggesting, that you failed to address in your comments to him.
But later in your reply you explain how it is quite reasonable to assign homophobia to Mr. Chapin. So which is it, over stated or reasonable?
My 2 cents, the concept of homophombia is silly. If I were a serious hater of gays, even a gay basher to be extreme in the hypothetical, I would assume thats the person meant to be portrayed by the poor nomenclature…homophobia. But the hater neednt FEAR gays, and for me, I am less then enthused by gays lifestyle choice, and oppose the marriage of gays etc. but I do none of that out of fear, or phobia. I dislike a lot of things that, if you assigned a phobia and the requisite prefix and suffix it would look hilarious. I don’t fear squash, I dislike it alot, no squashphobia here. I dislike radical feminists, but no femaphobia here. Hoestly I’m tired of the language being coopted by the left and used to shut off dissent by silly name calling.
You Ms. lol come across to me as a reasonable person, not at all offensive to me, intelligent, mature in attitude, and seeking to , in a detailed way, affirm or deny ideas posited correctly or incorrectly. When you explained your flavor of feminsim, well there may be some disagreements on the margins, but we’d get on just fine in a coffe shop conversation, so my point is I’m not here nor to badger you in the blogoshere or cyberstalk your commentary and badger that either.
At 45 years old Ive become “argu-o-phobic” and you didnt send my neck hairs standing…so thanks.
Thanks for the short diversion.
January 18th, 2007 at 12:12 am
To s deluca–
Essentially it’s my blog and I’ll say what I wanna. I no longer care to post on Poker World, but in this case I wished to respond to some of the things being written there, so I have quoted them and responded here. I am not telling “you” whoever you are anything. You are choosing to read what I felt like writing. A fair number of poker dudes are in fact telling Mr. Chapin/ChicagoY to his face that he is out of line: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8794176&an=0&page=0#Post8794176 (See MicroBob’s post in particular.) They don’t need me to tell him.
I don’t know where you got the idea that I am defending Edward who needs no defense and if he did need one is entirely capable of providing one for himself.
And who in the world says women aren’t paying their way? According to data just released by the US Census Bureau a few days ago, the majority of American women are now living without spouses. There might be a few kept women in that number, but the vast majority of such women are supporting themselves. Of the women who are living with spouses, most of them are working outside the home and at least contributing to their own support, if not supporting themselves entirely. So exactly who are these giving, suffering, risking hordes of men who are getting screwed by having to support women?
January 18th, 2007 at 12:50 am
To conservativation–
There is no contradiction in terms in my response. I said that there is no overt, explicit anti-gay remarks in Mr. Chapin’s questions concerning Queer Eye. I went on to explain how his remarks could be interpreted as having a hidden anti-gay agenda. I see no conflict in those two positions.
Mr. Chapin/ChicagoY went on to say elsewhere: “Queer Eye is a bad show, in my opinion, because it’s about fashion and being trendy. I think its sad and for shallow people but if you want to watch it.” So ostensibly his issue isn’t homosexuality but a hostility toward fashion. Guess he doesn’t like Project Runway either. I would agree that being overly preoccupied with appearance is shallow, but I would also point out that as far back as the Stone Age humans have been adorning themselves with cosmetics and ornaments and wearing clothes that are more than utilitarian. I don’t think that learning how to choose appearance-enhancing clothes is particularly shallow. IMO it’s a matter of degree, but I guess mileage can vary here.
As for the word homophobia, what we have here is an example of semantic drift. The suffix -phobia has shifted meaning and no longer means simply “fear of.” In combination with homo- it can also mean aversion to, dislike of, contempt for, discrimination against, prejudice toward, or antipathy toward. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia
Semantic drift is very common; words are always changing their meanings. Most semantic shifts belong to one of four categories. A word expands to take on additional meanings (that’s what has happened here) or it shifts to a narrower meaning. A word can also acquire a more positive meaning or a more negative one.
In any case, etymology is a very unreliable guide to current meaning. Thus your ‘ridiculous’ example of squashphobia is totally beside the point. It would work only as a jocular coinage and says nothing about the meaning of homophobia which is widely attested as denoting some sort of negative attitude toward homosexuals.
And I am entirely tired of the Right’s co-opting of language: the estate tax becomes the death tax as if one could tax death and anti-abortion becomes pro-life as if anyone is anti-life and as if the “pro-lifers” are all out there opposing the death penalty and war.
That’s what propagandists of any and all stripes do–play games with words. That trick is neither the sole province of the Left nor of the Right.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:56 am
Methinks you protest too much over too little. Is this usual for you? Do you protest too often too?
January 18th, 2007 at 4:47 am
Obviously you are ignorant and typically afraid of foreign women for good reason. Like most American women, you confuse argumentative, profoundly selfish, and bossy, with strong. American women, the most entitled class of people in the history of the world, have no idea what it means to be strong. Most foreign women outclass you completely. No American man who knows better would choose an AW for a wife. I can only imagine why you are formerly Mrs Miller rather than still Mrs. Miller. I guess you’re just basking in your new found freedom at your ex-husband’s expense. How strong and independent is that?
I read Men’s News Daily and am one of those men married to imported wives. My wife speaks six languages and talks out problems rather than reflexively blaming everything on the men in her world. How many do you speak? My wife is beautiful, highly intelligent, and a lady in every regard. If I could have met an American woman like her, I would have married her too, but they don’t exist. AW don’t even know how to imitate that kind of behavior, they are simply too vulgar.
I imagine from the tone of your blog that you are a typically combative American woman who knows everything and nothing at once. I suspect you have more in common with your daughter in law and your son doesn’t have much to say in any matter at all. You two have double teamed him and run his life for him it seems to me now. Certainly there is little appreciation for his efforts at making your lives happy and free from material want. My heart goes out to men such as your son, indeed any man who is married to an American woman has my deepest sympathy. They are reduced to nothing more than beasts of burden and the butt of their women’s own self loathing.
The impression I get from this blog entry of yours is of a calculating woman conducting damage control, not an intelligent, independent, and strong lady. Then again, I’ve never met a truly independent and intelligent woman who had to tell people she was that way.
Feminism is evil and the word is out now. Your lifestyle model for society is a failure. We men will no longer allow our sense of chivalry and decency to be used against us anymore. You can’t run society without us and we will no longer be cowed by feminist mendacity. Your game is over now. Its time to restore the patriarchy and bring back some sense to this world.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:11 am
“I supported Edward’s father for many years, and he kept a chunk of my money, not the other way round. I never saw a penny of his money, such as it was. In fact, no man has ever supported me except for my father during my minority.”
Sure you did. Exactly what page in the feminist retort manual did that come from again? I’ve heard it so many times now I should actually remember the page, but it eludes me at the moment.
TMOTS
January 18th, 2007 at 10:04 am
The day is comming closer and closer, when radical feminist will be hanging from each and every tree!
January 18th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Have you figured out what a “pingback” is yet?
January 18th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Your son will be happy unitl his wife steals his children and all of his future paychecks.
I hope he blames you for it.
Afterwards, you can read his laments at mensnewsdaily.com
January 18th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
You opine that those who don’t know what they are talking about should keep still. After taking a look at your blog, I tend to agree.
Have fun getting the worms back in the can.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
TMOTS & LOL. Jump from the boat quick before you’re on the tree too. The time is coming. Feminist pigs and their allies are changing their stories quickly as the pendulum swings back in the other direction.
January 20th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Bernie is right, as usual. I suspect he just salvoed the wrong femninest-a. Maybe “Mommy” born from the 60’s plague of radical left wing silliness should let Sonny-boy work out his own agenda, he seems bright enough. Hopefully dumping the entitled queeny and her mommyness will be the first step in the right direction. Sheeesshhhh.
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Hi LoL. I hope you chime in on this thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8865423&page=0&vc=#Post8865423