A Plague of Pearl Clutching: How clutch the pearls became a lady blogosphere cliché.
Is it time to retire the phrase clutch the pearls?
Photograph by Inga Ivanova.
By Torie Bosch|Posted Friday, Jan. 20, 2012, at 11:26 AM ET
Unless you’re former First Lady Barbara Bush, pearls may not be in style. But accusing people of clutching them is.
The phrase pearl clutching, which means being shocked by something once-salacious that should now be seen as commonplace, like sex, is ubiquitous on blog posts, especially in media geared towards women. For instance, a recent post on Jezebel called Girl Land author Caitlin Flanagan a “professional pearl clutcher.” Less than two hours later, another Jezebel writer called a sexy Calvin Klein ad “sure to inspire pearl-clutch-y local news stories across the nation.” The feminist website Feministe used the phrase in a blog post about privilege and oppression; another feminist website, Tiger Beatdown, used it to deride a Wall Street Journal writer who was panicking about the subject matter of YA novels. But the phrase isn’t just used in the lady blogosophere: A Washington Post columnist wrote dismissively last week about the “pearl-clutching that hippies’ parents did in the 1960s.” Basically, a writer who discusses pearl-clutching is saying, “I’m too blasé and worldly to be shocked by this.”
“Clutch the pearls” first appeared on In Living Color in the show’s 1990 debut season in an April 15 “Men on Films” sketch. After Blaine Edwards (played by Damon Wayans) waxes about how “daring” producers were to cast a male actor as the “female” lead in Dangerous Liaisons, his sidekick Antoine Merriweather tells him that Glenn Close is actually a woman, prompting Blaine to gasp, “Clutch the pearls!” The sarcastic phrase and its many permutations existed prior to In Living Color, of course; for instance, “she clutches her pearls” appeared in a 1987 article in an Australian newspaper about ladies who lunch. But it was the “Men on …” sketches that brought the phrase into widespread, albeit sometimes too literal, use in the early ‘90s, appearing, for example, in a couple of Billboard album reviews as well as a Newsday piece about—who else?—Barbara Bush’s jewelry in 1993.
----------
The loss of novelty isn’t the only problem with the phrase. While the mental image is amusing, the use of the phrase has degenerated into accusatory shorthand, particularly in blog comments. People—particularly women—lob the charge at one another to accuse them of not being liberal, or feminist, or open-minded enough; not infrequently, it prompts tedious semantic debates about whether something is “pearl clutching” or a legitimate concern. And to that I say, mollusks.
More: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/pearl_clutching_how_the_phrase_became_a_feminist_blog_clich_.html
I for one, as a heterosexual male, find this turn of phrase, which has been the subject of much recent debate, to be distasteful in its misogynistic overtone as diminishing the concerns of women and others about social issues. I think it's a term society is better off without. What do you think? Is this loaded language that should be unacceptable for use? Have your impressions changed at all after reading this article? Why do you think it is becoming popular?
I couldn't find any prior linking to this article and am going to roll with the presumption that it has not been posted before.
= new reply since forum marked as read
It is a useful metaphor for the poutrage that infects the RW (and the beltway media) when someone reaches really really really deep to get offended.
I'll use my time as I please. Some people IMHO spend way to much time trying to denigrate the thoughts of others and then justifying it instead of contributing something positive. 
here time after time. 
"your point doesn't matter and if you'd just go calm down you'd see the error of your ways"
...you can indeed tell someone to "shut up" and get away with it; a lot is left up to the whim of the jury system.
You had to go open THAT can of worms?
Last edited Mon Jun 27, 2022, 02:35 PM - Edit history (7)
It's about outrage that is either fabricated or misplaced, then blown out of proportion.
For example, Gingrich clutched his pearls over Obama's apology for U.S.-led troops "accidentally" burning Korans in a prison. But was he REALLY outraged, or just grabbing an opportunity to bash Obama and advance his own ambitions? Put another way, can you imagine Gingrich praising Obama if he HADN'T apologized? No, he very likely would have tried to use it as proof that Obama is an unfit commander-in-chief. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are fabricating pearl clutchers, too.
As for Hyacinth Bucket, she once told her husband that all she wants is to ensure that his "life flows in a placid stream." As long as she's controlling that stream, of course -- so much so that HER pearl clutching was turbo-charged. A cracked teacup, a newsboy scratching his ear, someone brushing against her walls or talking loudly in the street, her sister's mini-skirts, her brother-in-law's right to bare arms: the tiniest deviation of her world order had her grasping at her throat, then blindly counterattacking. We laughed at Hyacinth hardest when she found herself stranded in the debris of her laid-to-waste planning.
That's why I'm comfortable with the term "pearl clutching": it's not just for prudes or homophobes anymore.
rocktivity
...doesn't it make sense to abstain from using it since it has different meanings and usages none of them positive?
If I'm going to be an asshole, I want to leave no doubt that as George Carlin would say I have a massive pathological hatred. 
A white female detective told a black man she was interrogating to tell his story without fear of saying something that might make her "clutch my pearls," as she was not a rookie and had probably heard it already. However, I knew EXACTLY what she meant!
rocktivity
