Another Provocative Post; Attention Whore is a legitimate Criticism.

Provocative in the negative sense.

But "Attention Whore" points to motivation, and unfortunately for Cindy Sheehan it's a particularly damaging one, because she has not portrayed herself as a politician or even an activist (for the most part) but as a grieving Mother trying to deal with the death of her son. I don't see how see how she could actually portray herself as anything else as she actually is a grieving mother trying to deal with the death of her son, but there you go.

I do appreciate the pain she has gone through, and I do appreciate what she's done for the Peace Movement. She's put a human face on it, and raised issues in a way that people could no longer ignore them.

But her moral legitimacy comes from her quality of being a grieving mother, and because of that she is vulnerable to criticisms the longer she stays in the public arena of being more than a grieving mother. The moment she stepped on stage we saw right wingers doing exposes on how she'd been a long time liberal and was all about politics. Those sorts of attacks were laughable and are laughable, but the Republicans know what they are doing. Because as long as America looks at Cindy Sheehan and sees a grieving mother, she's if not unassailable, at least very hard to assail.

If they look at her and see a political activist or, worse, a political opportunist than she is very assailable. And in the minds of some, some of her actions have moved her off of her core message.

Attention Whore is a crude term, but it is common enough; this is hardly the first time I've read it (hell I've been described as one myself, many many times). And while it is a pretty nasty term, we all know what the person saying it means. It's a critique of motivations, and as such has to be considered an open area of criticism. Now you might disagree with that assessment (I'm a bit on the fence myself, but in view of her suffering and her service tend to come down on the side that says it's an unfair assessment (for those of you who need a little help, that means I think that Cindy Sheehan is not actually an Attention Whore), but it is a legitimate area of discussion.

I do think she's making the right choice getting off of the stage for a little bit. I hope she doesn't stay away permanently.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

It's simply stupid and rude.

No you don't.

Damn. I thought I did. Thanks for clearing that up.

I appreciate her attempts at "attention," because its not attention on her but the lying sack of crap in the white house and his band of ass kissing syncophantic cowards in the senate and the house and on TV and radio who all proudly call themselves "conservatives."

for what constitutes "legitimate criticism."

Occasionally Bryant has something very meaningful to say, but more or less his writing tends to be like listening to the "Monty Python Argument Sketch" which is truly a shame.

When intelligent people decide to play debate handball for the sake of demonstrating their intelligence, it becomes a waste of time and bandwidth. He could be much more if he stopped looking for crowded theaters in which to yell "FIRE!"

Because really you don't.

You have good things to say once in a while, but it's getting fewer and farther between.

If you really are looking for attention, then I can suggest a couple of "fistfight forums" where you can get in all the fights you want.

But if you're sincere about this place, WHY don't you try to help herd the cats instead of bringing in a big dog?

Some people have gone WAY past the point of earning their tombstone. I wish I had disposable income to donate to sites simply to hassle the residents.

and she actively sought it. But she didn't seek attention just for the sake of getting attention. She did it because she wants the war to end. An attention whore just wants attention and will use anything to get it. She certainly isn't using her son's death and the war as a way of getting attention any way she can. She wants to bring attention to the war and the anti-war movement for the sake of the anti-war movement, not for her own sake. That's the difference.

She's donated her time and her money to pursuing a noble cause, which makes that particular criticism not only illegitimate, but ludicrous.

But I was at a loss to find a better one to describe her personal image.

personally, she just ain't my "thang". That said, one cannot expect to build support, publicity, and moral authority for leading a movement over a sad event (her son's death), and then later use it as a shield against criticism or scrutiny. I don't know if that's what SHE does, but many posters on DU certainly use it as both a weapon and a shield for her. So her "raison d'etre" in the peace movement (of which I am not a member) is also, unjustly, her reason to escape any sort of harsh judgment or analysis.

You wouldn't happen to be a...well, ya know...

:toast:

maybe you want to post that as a poll, i'm kind of surprised this thread isn't one.

Cindy was a grieving mother, shattered by the death of her son in a war that she found to be unnecessary, unjust, and not in defense of the United States.

Instead of sitting at home becoming an alcoholic, she decided to get out and try to do something about it. And she did. She became a media darling, as the media never failed to report every arrest, and twist every fact to make it look worse than it really was.

I don't agree with everything Cindy has done, but I've never been in her shoes, so I can't really understand how a parent feels at the loss of a child, a life that they created and brought into this world.

Parents aren't supposed to bury their children.

The media created this, fueled it, and kept it fed. I'm sure Cindy would have been happy to have the war end sooner, without all the notoriety. If you asked her, she'd probably just have said she was glad no more mothers would get the news that their child has died in Iraq.

The great irony of the derogatory term whore is that it refers to women satisfying the sexual appetites of men, yet there is no corresponding derogatory term for these men.

Let's level the playing field here and suggest the names of some men to be called media whores.

Her moral legitimacy comes from being an injured citizen speaking out for justice and accountability.

And as for other Media Whores, how about Chris Matthews or Bill O'Rielly?

Bryant

so I don't know.

But Dinesh D'Souza is a professor and a Media Whore

Bryant

That's a real shame for the Bacevich family.

I am unlikely to call Professor Bacevich a whore, though.

Bryant

:shrug:

lol!

perfect answer!

American, a human. Her activism may seem more glamorous to you because her son died in the cause she opposes, but it would be just as legitimate if he were still alive.

"But her moral legitimacy comes from her quality of being a grieving mother..."
That statement belittles every American who opposes this war without having had a close relative die in Iraq. Why not just take a vote amongst the Gold-star mothers and be done?

I think she and everyone else who gives up on this fight are wrong. We must push forward harder and faster until this war is over. Casey and the rest of the dead demand it from us. All of us. Not just his mom.
I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x839917 :P

Bryant

...it's unproductive to focus on the term instead of on the facts. On the facts, I think you're exactly correct. Sheehan is an instance of something commonly seen on the web and elsewhere, of someone who becomes sucked up in the rush of feeling like the center of a movement. The very fact that she referred to HERSELF as "the face of the antiwar movement" is indicative of this -- that's something that you should let other people say about you, not something that you say about yourself. In fact she was only effective as the antiwar movement's "face" when she could plausibly present herself as a grieving mother with no other agenda than getting answers. She willingly, eagerly, gave away that status by behaving instead as a typical activist, with focus splintered ineffectually in (sadly) typical leftwing activist fashion -- no longer just the war but Chavez, etc. The issue isn't whether one likes Chavez or whether one agrees with Sheehan about the other issues she involved herself in -- it's that hanging out with Chavez, etc. did NOTHING to help end the war, did NOTHING except keep Cindy Sheehan feeling at the center of things. No doubt she's motivated in part by her grief, but that's no reason to ignore the fact that she stopped being the effective "face of the antiwar movement" a long time ago, because she didn't understand the nature of her own role or didn't have the discipline to adhere to it.

in dealing with the fame/celebrity side of her public efforts, and was unable to say no to those who wanted to use her for unrelated "side show" stuff. She seems to have lost control of her own image once her face became plastered onto the anti-war movement--a little like a deer in the headlights.

I just wouldnt characterize Sheehan as one. Ann Coulter is an attention whore.

My problem with this is it plays right into freeper hands - we need someone who lost a son there to give the position "legitimacy." We don't. We can be against this damn war if we don't know a single troop.

It's a political issue and the freepers and PNAC keep trying to make it personal and we keep letting them. They keep framing it that way.

We should let the grieving grieve and insist on political opposition, based on the fact there is no need for that war, to drive the protest. We don't need a personal loss to be able to do that.