Bloggingheads!
It's me and Garance Franke-Ruta.
Topics and times:
ADDED: There's an interesting discussion in the first segment about the ways of the journalist. Garance says, "I'm used to sitting quietly and using awkward silences to learn things." This makes me ask her if this is "a sort of a trick."
MORE: There's a lot of discussion about how angry I get in that one segment. Some folks think I should pull my punches and adopt some sort of mentoring role. Ridiculous! Garance is an adult. She's over 30 years old and a senior editor at a major newsmagazine. Either I am in a debate with her or it's a mismatch.
UPDATE: Here's a neutral starting point if you want to peruse the evidence that this episode has gone viral. I hope Bob Wright is happy!
ANOTHER UPDATE: So a huge swarm of lefty bloggers in unison declared me to be an absolute witch for getting angry for one minute when Garance -- the woman who began the dialogue by owning up to the technique of "seeming like you don't know what you're doing" -- sprang a touchy old subject on me. What does it all mean? I think either: 1. ordinary human emotion frightens bloggers out of their wits or 2. the lefty bloggers are demonstrating my point that they are vicious and nasty. Of course, I think it's #2. I really find it too hard to believe that they are so numb or robotic that anger seems bizarre and insane. I could be wrong, but I think that's terribly sad. Or are you thinking: Ooh! Sadness! How crazy! No, no, you guys are just boring politicos -- still ready to do anything to defend your man Bill Clinton and to say whatever you must to deny that he set feminism back 20 years.
Topics and times:
Do women like looking at women? (07:41)
'Momoirs' and third-wave feminists (10:23)
Polygamy in NYC, wife-beating in Germany (09:25)
Too much Gore in 'An Inconvenient Truth'? (09:30)
Candidates and their wives and husband (08:20)
Is Ann a conservative? We don't know, but she gets really mad here (10:36)
Whew, that's over. Let's talk about things guys write on the web about women (17:01)
ADDED: There's an interesting discussion in the first segment about the ways of the journalist. Garance says, "I'm used to sitting quietly and using awkward silences to learn things." This makes me ask her if this is "a sort of a trick."
GARANCE: It's one of the ways that people report. It's a reporting technique. Being incredibly awkward. It's a reporting technique. There's also: seeming like you don't know what you're doing.Althouse thought: So is this what you're going to try to do to me in this diavlog?
ANN: Oh! So it's a scam?
GARANCE: Well, I mean, that was the whole book: "The Journalist and the Murderer." Right? I mean...
ANN: Yeah, I read that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
GARANCE: I mean, there's this idea that a journalist is inherently a somewhat... I mean, you're forging a bond in which it's very instrumental. It's a very instrumental bond.
ANN: But it's interesting that there's a pretense of ineptitude. It does remind me of sort of like a stereotypical male-female dating where the woman acts sort of helpless and is actually really thinking about everything that's going on and trying to control the situation by appearing helpless.Althouse thought: Does this make me the boy here?
GARANCE: Right! Right.
ANN: You think there's like a gender relationship in journalism?
GARANCE: Maybe. I mean, maybe only because you're in the questioning role, and you're sort of putting yourself in that subservient questioning role.
MORE: There's a lot of discussion about how angry I get in that one segment. Some folks think I should pull my punches and adopt some sort of mentoring role. Ridiculous! Garance is an adult. She's over 30 years old and a senior editor at a major newsmagazine. Either I am in a debate with her or it's a mismatch.
UPDATE: Here's a neutral starting point if you want to peruse the evidence that this episode has gone viral. I hope Bob Wright is happy!
ANOTHER UPDATE: So a huge swarm of lefty bloggers in unison declared me to be an absolute witch for getting angry for one minute when Garance -- the woman who began the dialogue by owning up to the technique of "seeming like you don't know what you're doing" -- sprang a touchy old subject on me. What does it all mean? I think either: 1. ordinary human emotion frightens bloggers out of their wits or 2. the lefty bloggers are demonstrating my point that they are vicious and nasty. Of course, I think it's #2. I really find it too hard to believe that they are so numb or robotic that anger seems bizarre and insane. I could be wrong, but I think that's terribly sad. Or are you thinking: Ooh! Sadness! How crazy! No, no, you guys are just boring politicos -- still ready to do anything to defend your man Bill Clinton and to say whatever you must to deny that he set feminism back 20 years.
Labels: Bloggingheads, feminism, Germany, journalism, video
Stumble It! Facebook DiggIt! Del.icio.us
posted by Ann Althouse at 4:04 PM
265 Comments:
It's the second official divalog. ;)
Is it actually depressing to you that conservatives like you better than liberals do? :p
Yikes. Garance looks like she's being disemboweled during the, ahem, exchange. Pwned.
You know, men are aware of women playing up those stereotypes to their advantage. Women never fail to underestimate the intelligence of men. Yeah, I'll fix that right away. :)
Yikes. Garance looks like she's being disemboweled during the, ahem, exchange. Pwned
Heh. To be fair, I think Garance truly was ignorant that she was using Valenti spin to broach the subject.
Ann, were you already irritated with her before the Valenti comment? I was very annoyed at the way Garance was equivocating about the vitriol of the "progressive" blogosphere. Just wondering if you went off on her as a result of her being such a weasel on the topic.
And yes, the "tolerant" Left hates you because you talk to us "brownshirts".
You know, men are aware of women playing up those stereotypes to their advantage
Eventually. You should see my learning curve on that one. Ouch.
I know that when women enter a bar they tend to check out the other women, because stiff competition usually indicates there are desirable men around. But why would they be interested in "checking out" women on the tele? Fashion and carriage?
Wow. That was unbelievable.
(I skipped straight to the screaming part.)
Fen,
"Heh. To be fair, I think Garance truly was ignorant that she was using Valenti spin to broach the subject."
Oh yeah. Totally - look at her body language. She has the stunned look of someone who picked up what looks like a large metal green olive, pulled out the pin-like thing, and suddenly has no left hand.
But lookit: Garance clearly knew enough about the controversy to disinter it in the first place. So you really have to think about what was her mindset in bringing it up before concluding that she didn't get what she deserved. I get the impression that she was aware of the story, but all she knew was what the people on one side of it - Valenti's - were saying, and she had the glib dismissiveness in her voice of someone who so totally accepts one version of events that she isn't even aware there's more to the story. But if you're going to go on BHTV with the person on the other side of that, doesn't it behoove you to find out what the other side is before you bring it up?
To me, watching after the fact, it seems like something of an overreaction to hang, draw and quarter her on camera. There are other ways to interpret (or at least rationalize) her remark than as an attack, but I wasn't there in that moment, and most of all, I've not been on the receiving end of the catty crap over that incident that Ann was, some of which was quite unbelievably out of line, so I defer to her conclusion as to what response the situation merited.
I'll add (I'm skipping back to the substance now) that I can't overstate how much The Beauty Myth impacted my thinking, and although I guess it's a valid criticism that other people had made similar points before Wolfe did, the book came out when I was 11 and I didn't read it until I was, I guess 15 or so, so it was new material to me. So that's a book that's meant a lot to me, whatever criticisms there might be against it, and it seems counterproductive to fight a turf war over who had what idea first as long as the idea's being communicated. The smartest thing that any President's ever said was said by Harry Truman: it's amazing what you can get accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit. Feminists who have beef with Wolfe should keep that in mind.
Ann
You seem to get angry at women much younger than you, no?
I won't claim to know the ins and outs of what happened with the Valenti affair. But when I google TAPPED for "Althouse," as the Professor suggests in the segment, I only get a smattering of hits.
One is a post by TAPPED contributor Mark Schmitt joining Professor Althouse's criticisms of a Linda Hirschman op-ed. Another, written by non-contributor Linda Hirschman but posted by contributor Anne Freidman, is a rebuttal. The last post I see dealing with Professor Althouse is by Scott Lemieux. While he implies that he does not respect her (hardly polite), he goes on to agree with her on a point about the historical legacy of civil rights legislation.
Honest question: what am I missing here?
Simon: But lookit: Garance clearly knew enough about the controversy to disinter it in the first place... I get the impression that she was aware of the story, but all she knew was what the people on one side of it - Valenti's - were saying, and she had the glib dismissiveness in her voice of someone who so totally accepts one version of events that she isn't even aware there's more to the story... doesn't it behoove you to find out what the other side is before you bring it up
Very true, and I don't think she was treated unfairly. In fact, your points hit their mark thoughout that clip: she's ignorant about the right-wing blogosphere [hell, even I read FDL], she doesn't understand why the Left doesn't have a talk radio [a journalist unaware that AM talk radio started because conservatives were driven out of the MSM?], she claims to have followed the Valenti mess but never thought [again, journalist?] to check out the other side, etc.
That might be whats behind her talk radio is more vicious tu quoque fallacy. Alot of lefties bounce around in their own echo chambers, get completely misinformed, then try to challenge someone like Rush or Hannity on the air. So of course they feel ambushed. Like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Honest question: what am I missing here?
Short version: Ann was criticizing feminists like Valenti who suck up to Clinton, cluelessly affect Monica-like poses with him for PR pics, and pepper their weblogs with sexual imagery. Valenti et al responded with the "why do you hate my breasts" card. They've been distorting the exchange ever since, because they don't want to face up to what Ann was really getting at.
You seem to get angry at women much younger than you, no?
Hmmm... Mickey Kaus is the same way (Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias).
Fenn "Ann, were you already irritated with her before the Valenti comment? I was very annoyed at the way Garance was equivocating about the vitriol of the "progressive" blogosphere. Just wondering if you went off on her as a result of her being such a weasel on the topic."
I wasn't lying in wait. I was genuinely offended, as I said, by her dredging up the old subject in those terms. I was put in a dilemma where I could either defend myself and bore ordinary bloggingheads listeners or I would have to try to squelch it and seem repressive and weak. I did not like being put in that position. But I wasn't otherwise averse to what was going on, except to the extent that I was disappointed that she didn't cotton to my idea, expressed early on, that we should change the subject a lot and be free form.
I think your reaction to Garance was really unfair. You said you didn't understand why liberal bloggers treat you badly, and in response she said she only really knew about that Valenti-breasts controversy. She was not trying to attack you. She was trying to explain what seems like an unavoidable topic given your question. And her reference to and very brief description of it was not character assassination.
Joseph: I think it may be true that she wasn't intending to attack me. (But she may have been. Look at who's on Tapped, and think about what they said to her as she prepared to confront me. This isn't an innocent young woman. This is a 35 year old woman who graduated with honors from Harvard. Your protective instinct is bullshit.) But she reflected her environment on Tapped, and she shows what the atmosphere there is, and I called her on it. I'm not happy that I got as mad as I did, but I think her routine of looking think the wounded lamb was just that, a routine. Listen to the revelations at the beginning about the guile of the journalist.
My protective instinct is bullshit?
Jeez. I'm not being protective. I'm being reasonable. You seemed eager to engage on the topic of why liberals hate Althouse. How can that topic be discussed fairly without reference to that controversy? I was surprised it took so long in that segment for it to come up. If you decided ahead of time that that was off limits, then I'd be sympathetic, but it seemed to me like you were really the one pressing the issue and then when she said the obvious, you blew up at her.
Joseph Hovsep said...
"You seemed eager to engage on the topic of why liberals hate Althouse. How can that topic be discussed fairly without reference to that controversy?"
That point might carry some weight were it true that liberals only started demonstrating brutal hostility for Althouse after "that controversy." But that isn't the case, is it, Joseph?
Well, Joseph, I hope you watched the beginning, where Garance talked about her journalistic techniques. Your interest in defending her is in fact bullshit and -- sorry to shock you -- sexist. This is an adult woman, who is in her 30s and a senior editor at a prominent newsmagazine. She's not a little girl in need of your protection. If you see her appear to cringe and look hurt and you feel protective, you are being played. Listen to the first section and use your brain. You imagine that I'm immensely powerful and she's a fragile flower. That is absolute bullshit.
Joseph: My protective instinct is bullshit?
Men tend to go all chivalric over a damsel in "distress". I seen men defend behavior from women that they would not tolerate from another man. Thats how it can be sexist.
Joseph: How can that topic be discussed fairly without reference to that controversy?
For starters, you broach the subject fairly, without validating the distorions of one side. For example, if I were to discuss Bush's incompetence, referring to him Chimpy would not be fair.
And Ann has a valid point. Garance admitted to the deceptive practices of her field - establish a relationship with your subject that usually ends in betrayal for the scoop. She also dropped the I didn't realize you were so sensitive card a few too many times for my taste. Deliberate? Who knows. But its not unreasonable to wonder if she was being deceptive. Women tend to engage in a much more nuanced attack than men.
Wow. I can own up to some things about me that are probably sexist, but I'm just calling it like it is here. I have nothing invested in Garance and am not interested defending a "fragile flower." I thought her reaction was natural and predictable and yours surprising. That's just my honest and fair reading of the exchange. Your assumption and accusation that I'd only defend her because I think she's some helpless little girl is what's sexist.
The way you respond to my good faith response to the exchange by telling me I'm peddling sexist bullshit is an example of why some people may react more harshly to you than you may like.
I wouldn't say it's necessarily bullshit on Joseph's part. It's certainly likely that you're right about what she was up to, but it's possible that she was just naive, that she really just wasn't thinking about it, that she really wasjust trying to respond -- however inartfully, however weakly -- to your question. Even with the benefit of emotional distance and instant replay, I think it's still a judgment call (I'm no judge of body language, but if she was faking, she should get a Daytime Emmies nomination). Which isn't to say that you reacted inappropriately in that moment, because you have to evaluate it in the moment with the information to hand and the impressiona available. But from a viewer's perspective, it's not a total slam-dunk case in hindsight.
And you shouldn't confine the context just to her comments at "the beginning, where Garance talked about her journalistic techniques" - consider also her remarks going into the "is Ann a conservative" section: "I don't get this from your blog, per se, but I understand that you're apparently a conservative?" C'mon, Joseph. Are you kidding? If you saw that line, Garance couldn't be more clearly on a fishing expedition if she'd held up bait, tackle and a rod to the camera. So I'm inclined to think that Ann was right, even in hindsight, and even if that weren't so, it was far from an unreasonable reaction in the context of the moment.
Joesph, at least recognize that the way Garace framed the Valenti issue boxed Ann in. What would you do? Waste time responding to the distorion or allow the misrepresentation to stand? Perhaps it was accidental, but do you really believe a Harvard grad/journalist has never employed this tactic before?
Jeez, just because Ann may have a legitimate beef with Garance's comment does not, in any way, justify her rather frightening explosion.
Intellectualize it all you want - Ann looks unhinged. If this is how she deals with a barb or provocation, then she obviously belongs on that liberal side of the blogosphere she deems to be so nasty and vitriolic.
Garace: There's also: seeming like you don't know what you're doing.
Or pretending you don't see what the complaints are about: Vitriol? Us? Oh heavans, I think they only hate you because you hate them for hating you. Like totally.
I only watched the noted exchange [so far]. Althouse, Dooooood, you so totally ROCKED. She was tweaking you and you could tell it over the phone. [Look at Althouse's half-smile and glint in the eye. She's loaded for bear.] And you smashed her down. Well done! And you never restated her description, thus leaving no video with you saying the name and the body part.
And that non-apology apology of hers? Pathetic. [It was the only controversy I heard of...I followed it...which was it?]
To say any more would be over the top.
I'm just 2 minutes, 19 seconds into That Section and I'm stopped dead at this sentence:
"It's about partisanship; it's not about positions."
Word.
Sad.
I'm trying to get to the part of the diavlog that everyone is commenting on, but I find that Garance's voice grates on me so much that I have to pause frequently. She has the speech patterns of someone who watches too much "Gilmore Girls" while trying to sound slightly bored and model-UN about everything.
I'm not whacking Garance for saying that, by the way. I think what she said had a great deal of truth, and for people on both sides of the spectrum.
Just to be clear.
Now, I'll go back and attempt to watch the rest (we're in prime time around here, with homework & piano & baths & dinner; sometimes it's so comforting to know that life just goes rolling along).
Hmmm. I certainly think there are parts of the Right, and the right blogosphere that also seeks to enforce conformity.
---
You know, I think I'd better close this tab, lest I end up liveblogging the divalog here.
Consider this "Spring Is Here" gift to you all.
Ann,
I'm not a regular poster here, but I am a regular reader, so I'm not just floating around here looking to attack you.
But your reactions both to Garance and to Joseph in the comments were as aggressive and vitriolic as anything I see you get from respected members of the blogosphere.
You didn't even respond to the meat of Joseph's post, you simply called him a sexist, cursed at him and dismissed him.
And you criticize Garance for playing a "fragile flower." Maybe she was a bit shocked by the fact that in the midst of a seemingly pleasant conversation you exploded with little to no provocation. She clearly doesn't follow inter-blog controversy very closely, and brought up the most prominent example that involved you. And her description of it (the Valenti-breasts controversy) was in no way, shape, or form biased against you. YOU attacked HER with no provocation, and are now acting like she's playing a damsel in distress by not yelling back. Maybe...she was just showing the politeness and courtesy that you failed to show?
Garance comes across as someone so steeped in her own privileged, biased, incestuous, insular, and narrow bubble that she's not aware that she's surrounded by a tiny bubble, incapable of perceiving anything outside of that bubble without grave distortions, and that this bubble she floats in is easily pierced from the outside.
But that's OK, cause she's part of a "MOVEMENT".
(no BM jokes, please)
And folks in the legacy media wonder why their influence wanes (which American Prospect can be considered a part of).
As far as the blowup, basically Garance was offering a version of, "It's been widely reported that you are a wife beater, would you care to comment?"
Anger would seem to be a reasonable response.
Also, I haaaate long voooowel talkers, and question talkers, and Garance does both.
Shouldn't an editor for The American Prospect know more about the conservative blogosphere?
Most conservatives will read the other guys (I do myself), but "progressives" seem incapable of doing so.
Why is that?
The whole thing is unreal, and I find it amazing that Ann or any commenter would attempt to defend it, rather than immediately apologize. It started when Ann attacked Garance's place of employment and her co-workers. Garance then simply said, "I wasn't aware of anything until the Jessica Valenti breast controversy...
And that was it. That simple statement caused Ann to explode with rage and hurl baseless accusations.
I think it's funny how Ann, Fen, Simon, et al., are using their self-proclaimed mind-reading abilities to justify Ann's behavior. They contend that Ann's outburst was justified because of what Garance was secretly doing to provoke Ann. If you watched Garance and didn't see her "nasty" "character assassination" and "insults" "in a way that makes [Ann] look bad" and "is an assault on [her]" and "undermining and against the whole context of trying to have a conversation," then you obviously can't read minds as well as Ann, Fen and Simon.
But bullshit excuses aside, Joseph is right: Garance made a totally innocent, offhand comment about a very notorious part of Ann's history, and Ann instantly went into an hysterical fit, screaming with rage and hurling baseless accusations. It was absolutely mind blowing.
I'm confident that just about everyone sees it the same way that Joseph does.
Ann should apologize, because she made a number of accusations that simply cannot be defended.
ASX: Since I do apologize in the video, what are you saying? I'm not happy that I got as angry as I did, but that was a genuine response, and Ruth Anne is basically right in her characterization. Garance snipes at me and then plays the lamb.
Once again: Brunette vs Blonde
Why does it always come down to that?
How cliche!
My only complaint is Brunette's irritating name. Why can't she adopt something easier that rolls off the tips of the tongue like, say....Linda Jones, or Debbie Sue Smith ???
Something easy. All the good Brunettes have simple names: Barbi Benton. Liz Taylor etc..
Other than that there's nothing about Brunette I can point to. Her attire is appropriate.
In fact this time Brunette outdoes Althouse in apparel. I thought Althouse looked too dark in black, and it's now Spring. The Black isn't "Spring-y" enough.
I liked Brunette's hair, somewhat. It looks like Brunette did a little something with it. There's a slight bend, well, maybe not a full-on shampoo/n/set but there did look to be some sort of styling.
Dr. Helen's limp split-ends are still very much a worry of mine.
Peace, Maxine
If Garance was a man would everyone be leaping to defend "him" against Ann? I think not. So why all of the sexist chivalry?
This isn't an innocent young woman. This is a 35 year old woman who graduated with honors from Harvard.
Yes, but she certainly had a naive liberal viewpoint on the polygamy/multiculturalism point. She really struggled with the idea that there might be tension between multiculturalism and promoting equality, as if pluralism and egalitarianism necessarily go together. If you force egalitarianism on people, they don't. She also seemed to think that it's okay for the state to promote her conception of liberal feminism by disrupting the harmless cultural practices of ethnic and religious minorities in the privacy of their own homes, but yet thought that an enlightened woman has such a right to privacy that she is justified in filing a bogus intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim to abuse court process just to chill a man's public speech about whether she looks pretty. So: The state can invade the privacy of the home when there's no harm justifying the invasion and thought control of men is okay so long as it protects a woman's vanity. She didn't even seem to get your point that people can just be cohabitating and having sex and think they are bonded spiritually without that having anything to do with patriarchy. She may not be innocent, but she didn't make any coherent or consistent arguments and I do think the casual Valenti throwaway was meant to tickle the tummies of her cohorts she knew would be watching. I thought it was out of line, too, and I thought your response was substantively on point. And, you are so hot angry.
Brian:
"[Garance's] description of it (the Valenti-breasts controversy) was in no way, shape, or form biased against [Ann]."
The mere choice of terminology is clearly leading. To take an extreme example (I hesitate to use this, but no better alternative springs to mind), if you refer to "the so-called 'holocaust'" when talking about world war 2, that is not a value-neutral choice of words. Clearly you mean to frame the debate, to telegraph your opinion. Likewise, Garance sees - and wants to frame the debate - in terms that reflect Valenti's spin on that controversy.
Thanks, Mortimer. That was apt, in my view.
Oh, and a bazillion-gazillion times smarter than her.
Simon,
I do understand that Ann was suggesting that. But I don't understand how the phrase "Valenti-breasts controversy" frames it in a pro-Valenti light. Is your point that only Valenti supporters think that the controversy was about her breasts, while Althouse supporters would suggest it was about being a Clinton sycophant?
I guess I could see your point there, but I don't think the bias is so strong that it reflects malicious intent on Garance's part. If she had said something like the "Valenti-having-breasts controversy" I'd see your point, but it seems clear to me that this was a completely innocent "mistake" (if it was that" on the part of Garance.
I'm glad we agree that you are so hot angry, Ann. What say you, Simon?
She may not be innocent, but she didn't make any coherent or consistent arguments and I do think the casual Valenti throwaway was meant to tickle the tummies of her cohorts she knew would be watching.
After a refrigeration and back again for leftovers, I'm noticing that too. She's punching above her weightclass on alot of topics, esp the "they hate you because you hate them for hating you" dodge. This is a harvard-trained mind?
And after watching it again, I don't think the breast line was for the Valenti crowd. If you watch again you'll notice Ann is hemming her in with regard to the vitriol of the lefty blogs: Garance cannot defend, her evasions sound sloppy and illogical, so she tries to push back with a cheap shot.
I guess I could see your point there, but I don't think the bias is so strong that it reflects malicious intent on Garance's part.
I don't think it was vicious but I do think it was intentional. I think it was an attempt to subtly toss red meat to her viewers without triggering a response from Ann. But it didn't fly under the radar. It got taken down by Ann's missile defense shield.
Fen,
Maybe that's a better explanation, just a cheap shot because she was losing. But I don't think it was intended to anger Ann. I think it was intended to sit there on the record, unnoticed by Ann, but picked up on the particular frequency that Tapped readers hear.
If you watch again you'll notice Ann is hemming her in with regard to the vitriol of the lefty blogs: Garance cannot defend, her evasions sound sloppy and illogical
Fen,
That's only what it looked like if you go into it thinking like Ann does. From my perspective (I'd say that the left and right blogospheres are about equally nasty), it looked like Ann just kept repeating a statement with no particular backup and Garance simply did not agree. Ann just repeated her own anecdotal experience and treated that as if it were confirmed fact. yeah, most conservatives in the blogosphere think the left is nastier. but guess what?! liberals think the same thing about the right! amazing, huh?!
I hope some of you who see my side of this will participate in the comments over at Bloggingheads.
Oh no! I'm officially one of Ann's minions.
"The mere choice of terminology is clearly leading.".
I don't see this. In September 2006 Althouse made a point of objecting to Jessica Valenti's "pose" in the Clinton photograph, and indirectly accused her of adopting a "breast-enhancing pose" here. ("Anyway, I don't agree that objecting to a woman adopting a breast-enhancing pose in front of Clinton is ad hominem. It is a general type of behavior.").
Moreover, in her follow-up blog
entry, Althouse accuses Valenti of "breast-blog[ging]" because of the mud-flap girls (or whatever they're called) that are part of the Feministing logo.
I don't see how anyone can see the phrase "Valenti-breast conspiracy" as anything but a pithy description of what happened back in September 2006. I am puzzled why Althouse took such umbrage at Franke-Ruta.
This post has been removed by the author.
I hope some of you who see my side of this will participate in the comments over at Bloggingheads.
Ann,
That's just the point. The people who see your side of this are the ones who read your blog and have loyalty to you as a blogger. Objective viewers simply did not see it your way, cause what you did was largely indefensible.
I'd also like to note the considerable irony in the fact that this whole thing stemmed from you thinking Jessica was fawning over Clinton, and when you do something bad you take refuge in your little army of sycophantic commenters (Mortimer, Fen, Simon).
"OMG, Ann you're teh hawtz!"
"Wow, Ann. You were sooooo kickass in that diavlog!!"
"LOL, Garance was pwnz0red!"
Ann,
I missed your apology, so I apologize for suggesting otherwise.
I must say, however, that it looked to me like you and Garance were having a very pleasant conversation. I do not agree that she was trying to needle or provoke you at all.
Ann, you completely lost it in that exchange. You were ranting, and she was behaving like any normal person would react in such a situation, with her mouth agape and hoping the whole situation would end. If Garance went off on you like that when you criticized the American Prospect (she had that opportunity), I would say that she lost it. But she didn't do that, and you did.
The commenters who are saying that you won that exchange are either deluding themselves or trying to spin the result.
ASX: Most of the conversation was pleasant. The friction was about 2 minutes in a conversation of well over an hour. But much as I regret having friction, I didn't say anything I didn't mean. I've rewatched what I said several times and I don't consider myself to have misspoke.
Ann, I love your blog, but I don't really see the offence. It seemed like you got carried away by your emotions. I hate it when that happens to me. I'm rather alarmed by the folks who seem to think you should be proud of the outburst. I'm glad you apologized.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the objected-to phrase was the "whatshername breast controversy." Ann, you seem to think that this phrase itself stacks the deck against you and what you were trying to say in the most mean-spirited way possible. I just don't get it. I never the things other writers at Tapped wrote, but I'm willing to entertain the notion that they were dismissive, nasty, brutish and evasive of your real concerns.
That said, this was a controversy about breasts, right? The girl was displaying hers prominantly in the picture and displaying images of them on her blog. This bugged you, right?
Maybe Garance was playing dumb and was more informed about the whole dust-up than she let on. It still looked like you were yelling at her because of things that other writers for Tapped said. You also were asking her why her friends were so nasty to you. How should she have responded?
Would you have reacted with more reserve had she said something like, "Well, as you know, a lot of my co-bloggers disagreed with you vehemently about that whole thing with the photo of the "progressive" [man does it bug me when someone uses that word as much as Garance] bloggers with Bill Clinton. How the leap is then made to over-the-top personal nastiness, I'm not so sure..."?
What's the appropriate way to bring up the whole thing? It is, as has been noted above, bound to come up in a discussion of your notoriety in the liberal blogosphere. Even if folks were nasty before all that, it is the paradigmatic case of anti-althouse nastiness.
Your die-hard fans and the folks who would never let themselves agree with someone from tapped or a similar source seem to think that your explosion was justified. Some, somewhat disturbingly I think, seem to think it totally rocked. I wish you had shown that you owned the controversy a little more. I could tell that you were very upset, but I really couldn't see why. I wish you had said,
"I object to your calling it the 'Whatshername Breast Controversy' for this and such reason. I was really thinking more broadly about women and their relationship with power [or something] than just breasts. I would call it..."
What?
From my perspective (I'd say that the left and right blogospheres are about equally nasty), it looked like Ann just kept repeating a statement with no particular backup and Garance simply did not agree. Ann just repeated her own anecdotal experience and treated that as if it were confirmed fact. yeah, most conservatives in the blogosphere think the left is nastier. but guess what?! liberals think the same thing about the right amazing, huh?!
Not amazing, just human nature. But watch the vid again - Garance raises your point and Ann bashes it down: if both sides are just as nasty, how is it the Right disagrees with Ann so warmly while the Left disagrees so hatefully?. The examples are right here on this very blog. We disagree with Ann with reasoned discourse, the Lefties here [with a few exceptions] disagree by calling her nasty names.
I would also add that when the Left says "both sides do it", they mean it as a justification for their nasty behavior. The Valenti incident illustrates this perfectly - they distorted Ann's comments to make them appear nasty, to justify their nasty responses to her.
The "Valenti incident" was, in my view, about lefties trying desperately to put up a smokescreen so they wouldn't have to talk about Bill Clinton and sexual harassment. My point was then and is now -- and I probably should have stated it in the diavlog -- that feminists sold out to support the Democratic Party and that Bill Clinton destroyed years of work that feminists had done on the issue of sexual harassment. The bloggers posing proudly in front of Bill Clinton enraged me for that reason and every time Democratic party saps criticize me for what I said, they simply reinforce what I believe: that feminism sold out to Democratic partisan interests. I thought this long before I started blogging, I should emphasize. My personal experiences simply make me feel more strongly about it.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
That's just the point. The people who see your side of this are the ones who read your blog and have loyalty to you as a blogger.
Not all of the regular commenters here agree with Ann.
Objective viewers simply did not see it your way
By objective, you mean Garance, Valenti, Marcotte and their crowd?
Hmm. I think Ann got too (visibly) angry. But she was still right. And what was probably infuriating about it was that Garance insisted on denying what she did. I hate when people try to slip stuff like that in. I would have gotten angry, too.
There is virtue in getting angry at the right time. If you believe Aristotle.
Oh my goodness. Ann. You. Go. Girl.
The examples are right here on this very blog. We disagree with Ann with reasoned discourse, the Lefties here [with a few exceptions] disagree by calling her nasty names.
Fen,
Here's my theory. If someone labels themselves as being on your side, and then agrees with the other team,javascript:void(0)
Preview it's frustrating, cause it suggests that your arguments aren't logical, or that your ideas are losing in the marketplace.
On the other hand, if someone labels themselves as being on the opposite team, but then agrees with you, it's like a validation of your ideas. The sheer logic of your ideas has overwhelmed partisanship and tradition and brought this person to your side of the debate. That's satisfying.
That's why you see the left embrace Chuck Hagel and revile Joe Lieberman. Is Chuck more liberal than Joe as you go down the list of liberal issues. Nope. Not even close. But his divergence from Bush on Iraq sort of validates the opinions of the left, while Joe's divergence from the Democrats undermines it.
Ann is a Joe Lieberman figure in this analogy. This is why conservatives embrace her and progressives tend to dislike her.
By objective, you mean Garance, Valenti, Marcotte and their crowd?
Not unless you think EVERYONE over at the BH.tv comments is a left-wing automaton.
Not unless you think EVERYONE over at the BH.tv comments is a left-wing automaton
Well, I just got back from reading the comments: most are from previous Althouse-haters who either distort the exchange or make judgements that reveal they haven't been exposed to both sides of the issue. That sounds like the Valenti-Marcotte crowd to me.
Not nearly as interesting or, to me, substantive, as the Reynolds talk-event a few weeks ago.
How amusing it was for a Harvard-educated senior editor at a prestigious "think" mag to acknowledge that she knew nothing of the blogosphere flamewar that irked you. Clearly, she had not done her homework. Would you, as a lawyer, go on TV to talk about Issue X knowing nothing about it? I doubt it. The journalist you spoke with was unprepared, and like most journalists was expert at sounding as though she's an expert on everything when in reality she's just...good with words. Unpleasant to see you angered, but you made her look like a poseur.
You asked rhetorically why the left-side of the blogosphere is so angry at you. My reaction? When people at both ends of the political spectrum are allowed to make anonymous comments, some number of them will behave thuggishly. On your blog, you should shut down anyone who uses any kind of insulting language. Lock them out. I mean, CBS doesn't let people off the street stand by Katie Couric's newsdesk and spit at her while she reads the news.
Anyway why not just interview the low-impact guy or some expert on polygamy? Do what a good reporter/editor does--think of interesting people to interview and do it. You've got the cache to talk with anyone...
Why interview a "journalist," particularly one from an obscure think-mag? I put "journalist" in quotes because I never heard her comment on any subject she'd actually reported on. Just a lot of fancy talk about "modernity" "proto-memoirs" "the rise of Protestantism" "hot medium" and "resurgent progressive partisanship" Please. You'd get more common sense from an Indiana farmer's wife.
PS--Don't let on that people get your goat. It only makes them try harder.
Brian,
The Hagel/Lieberman analogy is a great one. I think part of the reason that Giuliani is doing so much better than McCain is that, even though Giuliani is clearly the more liberal candidate, he never spoke out against certain conservatives the way McCain did in 2000 and in the early years of the Bush presidency.
Contrarians are never appreciated by the side they "should" belong to, and always appreciated by the side that believes it can convert them. Everyone seeks converts, and everyone hates heretics.
Brian - You mistake respect and affection for sycophancy. When I disagree with her, I will and have criticized her views no less sharply than I've gone after anyone else.
Mort - No, I don't disagree on any particular point; I think your 8:05 PM comment basically nailed it. Again, I'd go back to the fishing expedition Garance announced at the beginning of the segment, noted in my 7:03 PM comment. If it weren't for that, I might be a little more inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, but since she was clearly fishing for a reaction, I'm inclined to the less charitable reading.
Brian said...
"Not unless you think EVERYONE over at the BH.tv comments is a left-wing automaton."
Shocking that a videoblog operated by a liberal and a neoliberal and featuring in the vast majority of diavlogs left-of-center characters might garner a predominantly liberal following.
See how nice Ann looks when she puts makeup?
Ann has better skin.
..and an easier name.
I like one-syllable names.
Someone needs rhinoplasty and it isn't Ann.
Nose jobs have really come down in price, nowadays, and Brunette could be stunning with one of those cute retrousse noses.
If she works as an editor at a major news magazine, she must have money. Maybe her parents, or publisher, would give her one as a gift.
She dresses well though. I like Brunette's blouse.
Peace, Maxine
Ann is a Joe Lieberman figure in this analogy. This is why conservatives embrace her and progressives tend to dislike her.
No, the Lieberman analogy fails. Ann criticizes the Left because she is a Democrat who wants her party to improve.
And conservatives don't embrace Ann because she's someone from the other side who validates our opinions. We like Ann because she's someone from the Left who is sane, someone we can have a civil conversation with, someone we can bounce our ideas and philosophy off of. For example, Ann and her lefty commenters have done more to moderate my opinion of gay marriage than any other set of Democrats.
So I think you've misread this one. We like Ann because we disagree with most her positions but can still learn and grow from the exchange of ideas.
And the hard left wants to shut this blog down because they despertately need to demonize people like me, and they don't want me to have contact with people like Ann who might serve as a character witness, ie Fen's political philosphy is kinda loony, but he would never round us Lefties into concentration camps. In fact, he'd risk his life to prevent it
Someone needs rhinoplasty and it isn't Ann.
Nose jobs have really come down in price, nowadays, and Brunette could be stunning with one of those cute retrousse noses.
If she works as an editor at a major news magazine, she must have money. Maybe her parents, or publisher, would give her one as a gift.
She dresses well though. I like Brunette's blouse.
Oh, wow. So much better than my vanity point.
On second thought, Ann, I don't think GFR meant that comment to be derisive. I think your anger is justified at those who attack you, but GFR does not represent those people.
The vast majority of women are bisexual. They just choose to act straight because of our culture.
There's a name for this phenomenon, "LFU" (Lesbian For Undergrad)
Maxine said:
"I liked Brunette's hair, somewhat. It looks like Brunette did a little something with it."
It looked kinda... I dunno. It was very Jackie O, don't you think? IT had a kind of forced wannabe 60s vibe.
Jeff said...
"If Garance was a man would everyone be leaping to defend "him" against Ann? I think not. So why all of the sexist chivalry?"
Because I'm chivalrous, damnit. Sometimes my chivalry overwhelms my sense of reason and I hit "publish comment" despite my better judgment screaming "you're going to regret that." And I don't like deleting comments having commited to them, although tehre are occaisions when I've done so.
ASX said...
"They contend that Ann's outburst was justified because of what Garance was secretly doing to provoke Ann."
It wasn't that much of a secret. It was pretty obvious watching the video and listening to what she said that she was looking to provoke.
I think Tom Maguire captures something interesting about American Prospect in general and Garance Franke-Ruta's style in particular.
There's a serious lack of self awareness going on over there.
(and an excess of self seriousness)
In the diavlog, her advocacy for a non-anonymous, more tightly controlled internet is telling, though.
"Progressives" always seem prepared to limit free speech for the good of the downtrodden.
Whether it be through new laws, frivilous lawsuits (as Franke-Ruta seemed to suggest as a remedy for the AutoAdmit crap), harrassing comments (as happened here), or burying opposing views at presumptively open forums like Digg, or something like the Kaplan mess, "progressives" have an odd notion of what progress means when it comes to speech.
Now that I think about it, I disliked Garance's little riff on how Ann is weird because she voted for Gore in 2000, but Bush in 2004 after being affected by 9/11 and being unable to trust Kerry with stewardship of the war. Given how many Democrats hold the same position (and given Kerry had to flip-flop because a third of his party supported the war), this isn't weird at all. I didn't vote in 2000 because I preferred Bradley and found Gore cold. And I voted for Dean in the primary and Bush in the general because I didn't trust Kerry in 2004. I can't recall any of my Democratic friends having any rationale to support Kerry's candidacy other than that he might win. A number of prominent Democrats criticized Kerry's incoherence on the war, including his own advisers and consultants. And most swing voters voted on the basis of Iraq/War on Terror and Bush carried them because of Kerry's incoherence. I fail to see what is weird about that. We all saw it.
Brian: your little army of sycophantic commenters (Mortimer, Fen, Simon).
BTW Brian, if you would like to keep our conversation here civil, leave the ad homs at the door. Do you intend to be the example that proves Ann's point?
See? I could have easily flamed you back. Both sides DO NOT do it.
John said...
"I suspect that in the heat of the argument her pantlegs get hiked way up so that a wide band of white leg shows above each sock."
Dang, that's hot.
There's a name for this phenomenon, "LFU" (Lesbian For Undergrad)
No, they are LUGs.
Lesbians Until Graduation.
I disliked Garance's little riff on how Ann is weird because she voted for Gore in 2000, but Bush in 2004 after being affected by 9/11 and being unable to trust Kerry with stewardship of the war. Given how many Democrats hold the same position (and given Kerry had to flip-flop because a third of his party supported the war), this isn't weird at all
Garance: "I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon"
Doyle, every time Ann does a diavlog, the comments section at BHTV lights up like a christmas tree with people whining about her return. I'd be willing to bet that you won't find a single critic there who hasn't previously criticized her and made up their mind to do so every time she's featured.
Yes yes yes, a definite Jackie O vibe.
Or, well a Jewish Jackie O, with that nose.
There are places, medical students/schools do plastic surgery on the cheap; and a nose job is a basic procedure--nothing complicated.
Nose job and change of name---and that's easy too, all you do is fill out the form and file it.
...and Brunette would really be stunning.
I love doing makeovers on the Althouse Blog!
Peace, Maxine