Read the latest by Alretha Thomas on!

The artist behind the blacksnob logo!

We have a good place for buying fashion statement necklaces

Latest Fashion Sammy Dress for Less

Like Me, Really Like Me

General Snobbery
« Michelle Obama on the Cover of Newsweek | Main | Corruption, the Congressional Black Caucus and You »

Word of the Day: Emasculation (Rielle Hunter/John Edwards Edition)

All the pictures at GQ were skevvy, but this one was the least so.After reading this hot, bourgousie mess of John Edwards' mistress Rielle Hunter/Lisa Druck trying to pathetically put a postive spin on her role in the clusterfuck that is John Edwards' everyday I came to two conclusions:

1) This woman is completely dellusional. And in the worst, mind-numbing, narcissitic way. She posing with NO PANTS ON while sitting with her legs apart on her daughters bed surrounded by Barney, Kermit, Dora the Explorer and one petrified looking pink pillow with googly eyes. But she didn't know those pictures without her pants on would come across as SO TACKY! She had no clue, y'all! Even though it was for GQ and SHE DIDN'T HAVE ON PANTS!!!

2) Rielle Hunter's definition of the term "emasculation."

I feel comfortable talking now, because Johnny went public and made a statement admitting paternity. I didn't feel like I could ever speak until he did that. Because had I spoken, I would have emasculated him. And I could not emasculate him. Also, it is not my desire to teach my daughter that when Mommy's upset with Daddy, you take matters into your own hands and fix Daddy's mistakes. Which I view as one of the biggest problems in all female-and-male relationships.

According to Webster "to emasculate" means "to deprive of strength, vigor, or spirit" or "to castraste." I'm going to offer up six examples of "emasculation," which is the act of dening a man his manhood in a demeaning and dehibilitating fashion, and I want you to tell me which definition makes the most sense.

More after the jump.

A. A young black man, who also happens to be a slave, wishes to marry the woman he loves, another slave. He asks his half-brother -- his white master -- for permission. The master insteads rapes his would be bride and when she is unable to deal with the rape she is promptly sold to another plantation away from the man she loved. The master tells his half brother to let it go and tells him to pick another bride, but he doesn't want another bride. He wanted the woman he loved.

B. An Asian American college student feels he has just won the respect and esteem of his peers only to overhear a dorm room conversation between his white male roommates joking about the fact that he "probably has a tiny penis," "smells funny" and make several jokes about his physical size. Later in the semester he gets beat up when he tries to assert yourself and everyone tells him to "get over it" because they were just "joking around." His black eye, though, says different.

C. You are a sailor in the US Navy when you are awakened one night by your senior officer as he tries to force himself sexually on you. When you rebuff his advances he makes your life a living hell, reassigning you to the most demeaning of duty. You try to tell people what happened, but it falls on deaf ears. No one cares.

D. You are a 75-year-old black man and you, along with your 68-year-old brother are moving some furniture for an employer when a pair of white police offers pull you over. The officers are young enough to be your grandchildren, yet they ask "What you BOYS doing stealing this stuff?" You are angry, but you can't act on it. They're police officers and you're in a small, Southern town. You explain yourself, but eventually, the wealthy white woman who hired you to move her things has to call in and vouche for you.

E. You are an Sunni Arab, minding your own business, when your country is invaded and you are "rounded up" as a terrorist threat when you haven't done anything wrong. Soldiers burst into your house in the middle of the night, terrifying your family. You are dragged out in your underwear in front of your screaming wife and children and dragged off to a prison facility where sadist military members make you pose in sexually explicit positions with other inmates. They photograph you and laugh, mocking your innocence and your misery. You are later released, but never receive an apology or retribution for the pain you endured.

F. You are a wealthy politician running for President who is cheating on your cancer-stricken wife with a much younger woman. When your wife learns of the affair she goes ballistic. You tell your mistress that you might have to "cool things down for a while until this blows over," then turn around and renew your wedding vows with your dying wife and continue your pursuit of the presidency. You even convince one of your aides to say the mistress is really HIS mistress when she becomes pregnant. As she winds up living with the aide and his family the mistress is upset by this, but chooses to say nothing for fear of "emasculating" him.

If you thought A through E sounded like someone's manhood was being ripped from them and they were told they were no longer human, did not have a right to their feelings and that they should just shut up and take the abuse then YES, you're right! Those are examples of "emasculation." As a black woman who studied black history I grew up learning ALL ABOUT how black men and women were denied their humanity and what resulted was an emasculation of men and a dehumanization of women. Stories about how black women were just "asking" for it because we were so wonton and wicked and how black men "ain't shit." THAT'S emasculation. Being a young Japanese American man during WWII who found his only way out of being stuck in a detention camp was to join a segregated military unit is a form of emasculation. Being a Chinese immigrant during the turn of the century, who came to build the railroads, but being told your wife couldn't come over to live in the US with you is a form of emasculation. What the U.S. government did to Sitting Bull was a form of emasculation. There are LOTS of documented instances of where a ruling class has decided that someone "lower" or different isn't really "a man." There's a reason why during Civil Rights protest black men carried placards that said "I AM A MAN." Because, you know? They weren't treasted as humans. They were denied their rights, and whatnot. THAT'S emasculation.

Cheating on your wife and her being RABID DOG PISSED ABOUT IT is NOT emasculation! No one is denying John Edwards his "rights." No one is saying John Edwards is not a human being who deserves the right to choose his own destiny. Who chose to schtupp someone who wasn't his wife. So Rielle Hunter/Lisa Druck can justify her affair with the former presidential candiate anyway she wants, but being mad at someone for something they did that was wrong is NOT emasculation. Please stop completely misunderstanding a term that should only be applied to men who have actually seen their rights, dreams and other issues be infringed upon, stripped away then thrown back in their faces.

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (33)

you know, i love how people want to compare their issues to someone elses to insinuate that that other person's issues are meaningless or without merit.

i.e. my pain is worse than yours, so you shouldn't be complaining

March 15, 2010 | Unregistered Commentersome huh

remember when mistresses used to have class?

March 15, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterthelady

You go Snob!! I ready excerpts from this article earlier today and got really mad but could not quite put my finger on why... well you did thanks!

March 15, 2010 | Unregistered Commentercathy

bravo Snob.


just tell it.

March 15, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterrikyrah

SNOB, you betta WORK.

This is one of the best responses to any public outcry of stupidity that I have read yet. My faith in you has always been strong and will continue to be. Some tricks are just downright simple and from the pictures and the soundbite that you just provided, you just proved that she is one of the simpler ones.

March 15, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterLuna

This chick is a macadamia. But who knows what went on in that marriage? Maybe Elizabeth is hell in heels, maybe John made it up to gain sympathy to draw his side-ho in. I agree with the gross misunderstanding of what the word "emasculation" means, but I think she was referring to the nature of John's relationship with Elizabeth from what he told her aside from finding out about the affair. Others have come forward and said similar things.

I honestly wouldn't doubt Elizabeth is a handfull, I've seen it pop out a few times before in interviews. She's dying and her husband is a ho who makes sex flicks with knocked up jump-offs, if ever there was a reason to be a bit bitchy....

March 15, 2010 | Unregistered Commenternova nova

Damn, went IN!

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterKhalilah

I know what emasculation is. When you go to work everyday and hang your cojones at the door, and let your female boss "dominate" you all day long. That's emasculation!

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterDavid Wise

amazing post. thank you.

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered Commentermaira

@ some huh

I'm sorry. I'm sure it is "emasculating" for your mistress to speak out about you being a poonhound before you had a chance to talk about it first. Good thing she didn't do that. And it was probably "emasculating" how she chose to have the baby, instead of have an abortion as he initially wanted to do. And it's "emasculating" to tell your lover that it hurts your feelings when he renews his wedding vows with his wife AFTER he gets you knocked up. That all sounds REALLLLL emasculating. As that was what Rielle was referring to, hence why I complained she didn't seem to know the definition of the word, therefore I gave different examples of situations that are actually EMASCULATING.

This is not a case of my blues is worse than yours. This is a case of Rielle Hunter not knowing the meaning of words. If she had stuck to "Elizabeth Edwards is a giant bitch who emasculates her husband by being mean to him" I wouldn't have gone in on her in this manner. I would have questioned her tact of blaming the wife when she CLEARLY knew John Edwards was married and pursued him anyway, but at least she would have half-assed been using the term correctly. I just don't think it's "emasculating" for a woman to say when she feels hurt or that it's emasculating if a woman gets upset. That's stupid. You're allowed to have hurt feelings or get upset. If you read the whole interview Rielle gives the impression that you're just supposed to be a giant doormat for the one you love. Hence she also has a pretty messed up definition of love as well.

March 16, 2010 | Registered CommenterDanielle Belton

You go Danielle... I think you have a whole other article on here Idea of "love"..

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered Commentercathy

Awesome. I've always said the use of creative license when it comes to semantics is the death of our country.

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterdivalive

I'm also aghast at her 'crying' over the photos chosen for the magazine. If you don't want photos of you without your pants on printed, don't take them off during the shoot. And don't pose laying down on a bed exposing your midriff. In fact, why (All text that is shown in strikethrough also has a red background, newly added text has a green background)

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterAntonio

I agree with everything you had to say except:

This woman is completely delusional. And in the worst, mind-numbing, Narcissistic way. She posing with NO PANTS ON while sitting with her legs apart on her daughters bed surrounded by Barney, Kermit, Dora the Explorer and one petrified looking pink pillow with googly eyes. But she didn't know those pictures without her pants on would come across as SO TACKY! She had no clue, y'all! Even though it was for GQ and SHE DIDN'T HAVE ON PANTS!!!

It really comes across as slut shaming. What about that image is so inherently damaging that everyone feels the need to attack her for it? So what if she didn't have on any pants? So what if her legs were spread? Even if we assume that the picture is sexual what is inherently wrong with a woman being sexual?

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRenee

@ Renee

I think the issue here is that Hunter wanted to be taken seriously, but the imagery plays on tired stereotypes of a woman provoking a combination of sexuality mixed with a inherent childishness. Kind of like those ancient Love's Baby Soft ads that had grown women pose sexually while dressed as little girls with the tagline "innocence is sexy." So there is nothing wrong with a woman being sexual. That's great. My issue is with the actual context of the photo. The presentation seems odd and in poor taste. It doesn't seem to represent any form of maturity. It doesn't even come across as art. It comes across as patently sexist (women are child-like/whores) and borderline inappropriate considering the mix of children's toys and the fact that she is posing sexually on a child's bed. On top of that, I was annoyed by Rielle's response to it where she appeared to be naive that people would interpret photographs of her half naked with her daughter's toys as offensive when she participated in the creation of that photo.

Long story short -- people are attacking the photo because it's creepy and invokes uncomfortable thoughts about "children" and "sex" when you should not thinking about a child in that context. If she had posed that way in her own bed (as she does in another shot) without the toys, it would have been less inflammatory.

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterDanielle Belton

She didn't think GQ would publish her cooch in their magazine? It's GQ honey, not the Sears photo department. Quick question, why would your pants be off anyway if you didn't want half of America to see "the business"? Aren't you too old to be this slutty?

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCourt

I guess we are going to have to disagree with this one. I don't see the photo as necessarily sexually suggestive. She is sitting knees bent with legs slightly ajar. It is hardly an invitation to have sex. I think the problem is the context which is being read into the photo rather than the photos itself. That said, as aforementioned I agree and support everything else you had to say in this post.

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRenee

I'm at a loss as to what the fuss is about. How do we know that she wasn't wearing boxer shorts, that were covered by her shirt? I can imagine the GQ photographer saying: "Pull your shirt down, just enough to cover your shorts."

Remember GQ is in the business of selling magazines. If they wanted her to appear "hot" (aka slutty), they would have shown her crotch -- you know, an upskirt shot!

Like all media photos, this one was intended to get attention. Think about it: They show us a sweet, innocent looking, blonde "maiden", whom a big bad wolf had sullied. Note that the baby was no where in sight, only Barney and friends.

Doesn't that strike you as a media setup? Don't blame her; with GQ waving enough greenbacks in front of her face, she found it hard to resist.

And, as in every media "event", she may have been coached -- not only how to pose, but exactly what to say as well.

Things are not always what they seem!!


March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSeph

Per the lovely Rielle she didn't receive a dime for the interview. It really doesn't matter what she had on under the shirt. The appearance of a mans shirt and a white pearl necklace says post coital bliss. Reille could have said no to the photos without pants on her kids bed. GQ wanted that interview and they would have gone along with whatever she said. If she had said I want to wear a business suit and sit in a wingback chair with no pix of my kid they would have not stopped the interview. Hunter had all the power in that interview and her dumb ass gave it away.

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMichele

@ Seph

Rielle is a grown, media savvy woman who has worked in the fields of entertainment and film for a good portion of her adult life. She's a former actress and she is more than 40 years old. I'm simply not buying the "babe in the woods" routine here.

Also, the video GQ released of the shoot doesn't help her case either.

I believe she was conscious of her choice, expected it to be received in a different way, (I think she initially though the pictures would be received as being interesting and sensual by people -- classy, even) but when people found it tacky -- or worse "creepy" -- she pointed blame on everyone but herself -- much like she has done with the whole Edwards debacle. Where everything is everyone else's fault and it was just "true love" for her. Edwards chased her. Elizabeth is a harpy. She was in loooooove. But Rielle Hunter is a human being, an adult, and is just as terribly flawed and complex as John and Elizabeth. She is also just as savvy.

Rielle had choices in this photo shoot. In the end, she chose to pose that way. Now she has to deal with the fallout. She is not some wide-eyed innocent who got "carried away" no matter how she'd like to paint it. She wanted John Edwards, when she saw he was game, she went for him. She got pregnant and she chose to keep her baby. She wanted to keep Edwards so she played along with a lot of crazy pants stuff -- like moving in with creepy Andrew Young and his wife and staying silent for a very long time. She happily cashed the checks sent to her and drove the BMW she thought were "gifts." I can believe a lot of things about Rielle Hunter, but I refuse to believe she's "stupid." Unbalanced, maybe. But far from naive. I don't know how you make it through New York, Hollywood and the political trail and to the age of 40 and still have the "What? Who me?" cluelessness of a 15 year old. I'm just not buying it.

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterDanielle Belton

Renee is joking right? Nothing sexual about those pics? She has no pants on, she is posing with her mid riff bare holding her child and she is seating on a bed with barney and other stuffed animals. These pictures are meant to be sexy! Danielle's point is she(Rielle) should not act all innocent about the intent. Like we really believe she didn't know people were gonna be creeped out by her sexualizing a child's toy. Is she really surprised about people's reactions?
Oh pls!

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterElle Woods

Lets not forget who this woman is and why she would get this type of backlash. She slept with a married man whose wife had cancer. She has no moral compass or she is completely deluded based on the article. And she has the nerve to blame it all on the Wrath of Elizabeth Edwards? Really? I'm a feminist too but this is bull. This is not a love story, this is disgusting and she should hide her head in shame.

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterElle Woods

Who gives a rat's ass!

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered Commenter1x1000

Something about that woman with no pants on, in the same picture with Barney and Kermit, makes my stomach turn. I've finally gotten used to Andrew Young not being the former Ambassador to the UN, and former mayor of Atlanta, and I am really sick of hearing about John Edwards.

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSarah

I must say that I am disappointed in this post. I know she used the wrong word, but I can't get mad at Rielle Hunter/Lisa Druck. She could have made this a billion times worse and she didn't. I know its because she believes that John Edwards loves her, but I would like to thank her for not subjecting me to the reality show nightmare that this could have been (still could be if John drops her). There is a special corner in hell for her for sleeping with a cancer-stricken woman's husband, but what does it say about their "marriage" that he could fall for a line like "You're so hot" . Elizabeth Edwards knew that her husband was going to attract groupies. And YES he was gonna sleep with a few of them. Hell, she knew that he was gonna get hit by a paternity suit or two. This is the life of a politician's wife. Take it like a man...or even Hillary. Don't lash out at the dumb groupie!! I must say that I am just amazed that dude is not gay. Its the hair and the unattractive wife. I know...its a special corner in hell for me too. LOL

March 16, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterkb
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.