"To prove that she’s not a wimpy feminist? Got that right, sister!"
If sisterhood were powerful, sister, you might have pointed out that comment to me and asked me if I would delete it, and maybe waited to see if I would take it down — or if I would not, why I would not — before writing a blog post in the Chronicle of Higher Education insulting me for things people have written in my comments that you don't even know whether I've read, which, in fact, I had not.
But I take down things like that when I find out about them, and now that I've taken it down, it can only be read in your blog post.
Sister.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
205 comments:
1 – 200 of 205 Newer› Newest»I suppose one might comprehend her writing once a few hundred of her blog posts had been read, to get the flow of things and be able to follow the meandering.
But that is a task beyond mere mortals, or leastwise this one.
Speaking of comment sections, the one over there seems to be a hotbed of Soviet psychiatry. A couple of different people have already been diagnosed with ideological insanity, and urged to seek counseling for their disagreement.
She only responded to comments written by men.
:(
That's me emoting. I am trying to communicate in post-empirical methodology language.
I see I got a whole paragraph from Claire. I've had lots of practice pissing off my two feminist sisters. Interestinly, my lesbian sister is much more tolerable and not nearly as strident.
Seems Claire hates it when men are better an anything. In her mind, women are better, because they're women. And, Claire's at least partially right, if you don't have good intentions, you "you won’t want to meet [me] in a dark alley." I generally avoid dark alleys though.
About literary feuds, Hitchens noted in an email to the New York Times: "A really first-rate bust-up must transcend the limits of 'an entertaining side show' and involve playing for high moral and intellectual stakes."
The Althouse-Potter spat might qualify as a dust-up but certainly not as a bust-up. The moral and intellectual stakes are microscopic. A side show, yes. But entertaining? No.
I like how you have been branded as an anti-feminist for disagreeing with her.
Apparently loving the free exchange of ideas, no matter how insulting, more than protecting the right person's feelings is anthema.
Freeman - I frequently find you quite quotable.
We still need feminism because someone was mean to her.
Uh...ok.
Breaking: Feminist discovers trolls on internets. Responds.
I'm just mad she didn't frontpage mine:
"If women are truly equal, how is it that they've been dominated by men for the last 100,000 years?"
Freeman - I frequently find you quite quotable.
Thanks. A bigger compliment than you know.
Potter is right. The patriarchy still reigns. Even in her own blog posts! Truly diabolical.
wasn't clear, but I wasn't speaking of Althouse in reference to "someone being mean to her".
I was referring to her complaint about some objectionable post by a commenter that showed, all by its lonesome "why we still need feminism". Apparently we will only be rid of feminism when everyone is always nice and never disagrees, ever and ever and ever.
It doesn't have anything to do with feminism, but this person is a twit.
"but this commenter is fantasizing out loud about taking a money shot in my face"
No. He's saying the money shot might be the only redeeming instance in a reltionship with you.
Ann: But I take down things like that when I find out about them, and now that I've taken it down
Wow. On Dec 19th 2011, Ann goes all wobbly on free speech.
So who was the commenter that posted the "money shot" comment?
Generally being happy with your life can be offensive to some people.
But if she did that, how could she write a self-righteous blog post condemning you?
Is it OK if I say Claire sounds like she goes around with a chip on her shoulder?
When I read that post, I felt like I was back in middle school.
I was so hoping that one of my comments might have made the cut. But, alas, my femininess limits me from her consideration.
Reading the article, though, I'm struck by how much violent imagery she ascribes to people who use words and words alone. Althouse's post (which Ms. Potter herself said she didn't understand whether was positive or negative) was twice described as a "gunshot." Someone as nice as DADvocate was someone you wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley.
Seems like we could just discuss our differences like adults, and ignore the stupid jokes.
Fen: No. He's saying the money shot might be the only redeeming instance in a reltionship with you.
It was crude and ineffective, but I understood that to be the point of the comment, as well. Best to ignore it, though, either way. People post that sort of thing because they want attention.
IMO Feminism is a new social construct that tries to institutionalize the protection men always gave to their wives/women from other man kidnapping them (the rape is incidental here) and getting away with it.
It is needed since the social rules giving the protection to another man's woman from kidnapping have been eliminated when the old construct was replaced. Another reason we need Gay Marriage, incidentally.
I'm still trying to determine which Ryan is really the "hottest."
Priceless:
Claire: "I find comments about forcing sexual acts on women... outside the scope of disagreeable and offensive. ...what is the point of such remarks as intellectual or cultural dialogue?"
But then...
Claire: "where we were planning on roping, tying and branding a few menz. You know, just a casual feminist afternoon activity to pass the time before final papers come in. But as I was coming round the canyon wall I ran into a few conservative bloggers rustling the herd."
Shorter Claire: Its disagreeable and offensive, unless I'm the one doing it.
Someone as nice as DADvocate...
At least someone thinks I'm nice.
I'm not sure if this hasn't been noticed, but the comments section here is not exactly a Mecca of high thinking. The purpose of my visits more often than not is to see how low the discussion can actually sink. I am rarely disappointed. I guess I'm just a masochist that way.
Oh, and I also got a kick out of how the linked blogger also takes aim at AA's new A-mooch-zon practice. I too would like to know what expenses clickers are helping with.
I'd have taken the comment as characterizing the commenter, but that's just normal reading practice.
I never practiced PC feminism though.
Why not let anything be said and ignore what doesn't stimulate your interest?
That's death to trolls right there.
Straw person was my takeaway. Why not straw woman? Probably bad associations, as if she's insubstantial. But that's what strawmen are, why they're strawmen.
Is it fear that women are in fact insubstantial, so you don't want to suggest it? PC is a hard protocol.
That post has actually generated an interesting commentary. Looks like getting linked by Althouse helped her after all.
I got a kick out of commenter Claire's definition of "mansplaination":
A mansplanation can be factually correct while still being objectionable as a toxic derailment or example of exactly what we're talking about when we talk about the patriarchy.
"What we're talking about when we talk about the patriarchy" has a Raymond Carver ring. One of his famous stories is "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love."
Like the path through Carver's stories, you get the weary feeling that in the tenured world every idea is subjective and every argument is circular.
But wait, some Althousian commenters are stirring things up over there. Suddenly it's lively.
Fen, someone in the comments pointed that she's been using that double standard, and her "intellectual" response was, I quote "Blah, blah."
These people are honest to god embarassing.
"Wow. On Dec 19th 2011, Ann goes all wobbly on free speech."
No - Ann is free to take such posts down on her blog. She also respects your right to make a fool of yourself through free speech on your own blog.
This also ought to get the "sudden Althouse" keyword, for the general Althouse taking unexpected offense topics.
"I too would like to know what expenses clickers are helping with."
Is Althouse forcing you to click, jimbo? Unless so, you have no right to any information about the good professor's personal finances.
Do you have a blog? Put an Amazon link there yourself. Encourage people to click on it. Get some $ in your pocket instead of perfecting your bitchy high school cheerleader impression.
I donated to the althouse blog not because of the money but because of the althouse perspective on blogging and the world in general which is quite different
@Cornroaster -- Well said.
Nobody's used the line yet?
"You, a law professor!"
VW: polite (really)
As Yoda might say about the Tenured Radical--the cliche is strong about this one, mmmm?
Grad school kills half the brain and all of the soul.
the comments section here is not exactly a Mecca of high thinking.
I've yet to see one that is. Scientific, technical blogs get into their subject matter pretty deep sometimes, but otherwise...
I like the humor, and occasional wisdom here. And, generally, wisdom isn't all that deep. If fact, the oddest thing about wisdom is that we missed the point without being told.
Too often the deep thinking is obfuscation for bad ideas. Talk enough circles and all sorts of evil and wrong somehow become justifiable.
Jim: I'm not sure if this hasn't been noticed, but the comments section here is not exactly a Mecca of high thinking.
Its because liberals can't hang in a venue that allows for feedback. Witness the number of liberal sockpuppets - liberal commenters who have so discredited and embarrassed themselves that they now have to operate under a new handle.
As for "high thinking", Claire is upset that her fantasy of herding men and *branding* them was interrupted by someome talking about cuming on her face. As a "high-thinker" yourself, I'm sure you noticed the hypocrisy.
Right?
Oh. I see. Nevermind. Please continue your I'm Smart! rant.
I'm Smart! rant.
I find it pretty dull and droll when some overly offended person on the internet tries to sue or yell against a blog based on commenters in the blog. did they every think to response to the commenter they are offended by, most of the time that does the trick.
Althouse is pretty liberal with her tolerance of blog posters and their ideas.
50 percent the internet is trolls, 50 percent of the internet are people with mental health issues. Sometimes expressed through feminist blogs. But in this case she just seems overly pretentious and lacking a lot of wisdom.
I do wonder why the post in question and other posts with female targets generate such a subset of misogynistic comments. Vitriol can be creative, and the hyperbolic explosion is a long-used tool of our professional comics, but most amateur vitriol is useless. It's not funny. It's just vile. Cut it out.
"Althouse seems to have a dedicated following of people you won’t want to meet in a dark alley."
I got a kick out of that one. We're a scary bunch.
I'm totally bummed that my reply to the original untarnished veritas comment didn't make it on to her whiny blog post. It was much more violent in imagery, if implied.
jimspice
You're trolling by hindsight. doesn't seem sincere.
Seems like we could just discuss our differences like adults, and ignore the stupid jokes.
Such a practice would be the end of my meager contributions.
...but the comments section here is not exactly a Mecca of high thinking. The purpose of my visits more often than not is to see how low the discussion can actually sink.
Jim Spice's role in the world is not to participate and contribute to "high thinking."
His job is to complain about others. It's a very important role and someone has to do it. Thanks Jim.
Sister!?!
This is the most offensive part of this Claire bitches post.
The presumption that just because you share similar genitalia, have the same plumbing, that somehow you are obligated to be her 'sister'.
The idea that if you don't share the same ideas and agree with her 100% of the time means that you are somehow betraying some sort of mythological 'sisterhood' is offensive and frankly juvenile.
Childish reasoning.
The deconstruction of Claire seems to be essentially a totalitarian personality in hysterics. Not a good representation of blogging or women of any inclination. I'd suggest she drop her liberal studies education and reformulate her thinking via a regular job. yes there are a lot of problem in the world of women that can benefit from wise assistance. But isn't Claire really just a level of background noise working to be an irritating squeaky wheel?
Don't worry Scott; I greatly appreciate your stupid jokes.
"the comments section here is not exactly a Mecca of high thinking"
“Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.”
I don't think Mecca is a Mecca of high thinking.
* * *
Erratum: Upstream I ascribed a comment to "Claire" that was really by "yoAdrienne".
Sister!?!
I think it would have been more fun it she had said ‘girlfriend’ ala Suze Orman.
She's kind of a drama queen. Unless someone starts talking about your street address or lives in your town, I wouldn't find any of these internet comments scary.
my overall take on the althouse blog is that it is essentially a polite intellectual blog about the flow of human thought to the world through the internet. I like the presentation and the observations.
Yes some of the commenters are obscene and jerks and juvenile and trollish. But there are quite a few intelligent ones. that seems to represent the world at large and not an echo chamber.
I can't believe that after decades of feminist influence in our culture that such a comment is possible. Someone at the speech and mind control center was sleeping on the job. It is scary out there for us girls - dark alley or not.
Retitle the blog. Teh Althouse gang. Chain smoking leather clad 'never do wells' who law by day and blog by night, running terror across the halls of feminism.
Someone at the speech and mind control center was sleeping on the job.
How can you be sure it was just some veritas in the controller's eye? She needs lovin' too, you know.
Lord knows, my scholarship has gone downhill since I started reading Althouse. Good thing I work with my hands.
I read it and it just came off as a cliche projecting more cliches. The tedious writing is like Camille Paglia after the lobotomy..
And she actually used the term "straw people."
The stereotypes invent themselves.
Gynosaurs.
A mansplanation can be factually correct while still being objectionable as a toxic derailment or example of exactly what we're talking about when we talk about the patriarchy. An illogical argument may or may not be mansplaining, a mansplainer may or may not be deluded as to facts (though in the view of the responder who labels the mansplanation he is certainly deluded wrt his privilege). When a comment on a blog is dismissed as "mansplaining" that's a statement that that form of discourse isn't welcome in that particular space. The mansplaining statement may also be challenged on its merits of course, which addresses your concerns, but often feminists like other people choose to pick our battles and expend energy where it may do some good rather than on seemingly hopeless mansplainers.
Can someone translate this into English for me?
Being a woman who, if I understand the definition, 'mansplains' all the time, I just don't get it.
"jimspice said...
I'm not sure if this hasn't been noticed, but the comments section here is not exactly a Mecca of high thinking. The purpose of my visits more often than not is to see how low the discussion can actually sink. I am rarely disappointed. I guess I'm just a masochist that way."
As usual, we just found it. Nowhere to go but up now Althousians!
The straw people are the poorer of the village people.
"Can someone translate this into English for me?"
I think she's dissing men. But what do I know?
Apparently Ms Potter is OK with commenters here saying whatever they like about Ann, Conservatives, Republicans, and other commenters.
She thinks she should be off bounds because she is a feminist sister and all feminist sisters should be off bounds.
Riiiight.
"Althouse seems to have a dedicated following of people you won’t want to meet in a dark alley".
Maybe because we consider her a friend and you stand by your friends.
Jimspice:
Mensa of high thinking is what you probably meant to say.
You say tomato ...
It always amuses me to see the prattling and petty posturing of someone like Claire, The Tenured Radical (for God's sake, what a preening, narcissistic moniker to characterize oneself as), a feminist lesbian (is there any other kind? Do lipstick lesbians qualify?) try to 'educate' the lesser masses about how insulting it is for her and those she writes for that we here at Althouse (people she or her readers would never want to meet in a dark alley because we are so violent and seething with hatred) are such meany heads because some people who comment here think men, in certain things in life are vastly better at them than women are. This is both shocking and at the same to head-shaking worthy that we as a society even still utter such obviousness for it to be worthy of our time.
Clearly Claire is waiting for that one special woman to break a one minute mile, but yet ignores other accomplishments that women have undertaken elsewhere besides sports. It's just silly and Claire has made us less sympathetic for it.
I tell you love, sister, it's just a kiss away, it's just a kiss away!
DBQ: I will translate.
It says that the writer is poorly educated and has learned a special vocabulary to disguise her inability to write in English. Many others, she explains, are in the same boat. They make up words (mansplaining) and parrot others (patriarchy)and string them together in what they believe are coherent sentences. The writer is a student trying to suck up (can that be written?) to the teacher who uses these meaningless words and phrases constantly.
Sister
Mmm, no AJL, I mean Mecca.
Can someone translate this into English for me?
If a man says it, she doesn’t care whether or not it’s correct, she’s just dismissing it? I guess. IDK. (in all seriousness, I’m guessing she’s trying to get at disliking the condescension that some people occasionally display (which is certainly not limited to men!), but she is assuming condescension from all people who explain anything or disagree with her while being male.)
As for why she rambles in a big ole circle, I assume it's because she thinks more words make her sound smart.
I am quite appreciative of ‘mansplaining’ when it is both correct and helpful, like my brother telling me which tool to buy to fix something. I am even more appreciative when he actually came over and fixed it for me! Maybe I’m not this lady’s audience.
Once again a feminist gets the vapors.
A mansplanation can be factually correct while still being objectionable as a toxic derailment or example of exactly what we're talking about when we talk about the patriarchy.
Sorry, but nothing that is factually correct can be objectionable. 2+2=4 or it doesn't. There's no value judgement there.
A straw person is a stick person drawn with a Pilot Hi-Tec-C 0.25mm.
"Ew. Eeek. That prole looked at me," quoth Claire the Delicate Trembling Flower.
Oh, and "radical"? Puhleeze. She's prosaic and provincial and tedious. There is nothing radical about her. She never ventures outside her own little mind.
Can someone translate this into English for me?
I thought her dyksplaination of mansplaining was perfectly clear.
Is there a blog equivalent of a fainting couch for fair Claire and her friends? Fainting so often follows the vapors.
Can someone translate this into English for me?
Sure. Comments by men, no matter how reasoned or insightful, are not welcome if they cause emotional distress to "sisters"
Hey, Feminism has to protect its broken ideology somehow.
Guys, plese stop "raping" Claire.
She's had enough pretend violence for one day.
Claire Potter looks like a dude. Read her blog - pure crap.
/buys Jason Van Steenwyk a drink
nicely done, you "mansplainer" you.
Claire makes a wonderful argument for doing away with tenure.
Violence inferred through metaphor and hyperbole? Veritas will set you free, indeed. Her kind employed the same tactic with Palin in order to obfuscate their corrosive influence of the contemplative cuckoo.
Progressive Corruption continues, but not without conscientious dissent.
The purpose of my visits more often than not is to see how low the discussion can actually sink.
On his other visits, jim just reads the comments.
On his other visits, jim just reads the comments.
ZIIIIIING
Monkeyboy said...
"I like how you have been branded as an anti-feminist for disagreeing with her."
She's been branded as an anti-feminist because other people said things and she failed to get appropriately angry about them.
@ Michael
Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought; but what the Hell do I know.
I spend all my time stumbling around in dark alleys, armed with knitting needles and a Lady Wesson just hoping to be able to commit mayhem upon an unsuspecting feminist (bonus points for lesbian feminists) in order to further perpetuate the patriarchy.....or something like that.
To further contribute to the patriarchy and betray my feminist sisters....Solidarity!!!.
Putting on my very best Donna Reed apron, tasteful strand of pearls and sensible pumps: for dinner tonight, I'm making oven bbq'ed baby back ribs, roasted garlic mashed new potatoes drenched in butter or maybe roasted garlic, cheese polenta (haven't decided yet), and a Cesar salad. Also, as long as I am caving in to the patriarchy....sorry sisters, a Mamie Eisenhower style Sweet Potato Chiffon pie.
Maybe some whiskey sours before dinner. Maker's Mark ftw!
I do wonder why the post in question and other posts with female targets generate such a subset of misogynistic comments.
Because such idiocy deserves to be mocked, not simply ignored. She wants to marginalize free speech by another gender ("mansplaining").
Love how you reach for the M-word, btw.
I kinda like the regular commenters here. If you want to meet up in a dark alley, let me know.
I'll bring sandwiches and soft drinks.
I referenced Tenured Radical several weeks ago on this blog, and now I see the Althouse fans are reading her--my, my.
Cat Fight?
I can only add fuel to the fire.
A straw person is a stick person drawn with a Pilot Hi-Tec-C 0.25mm
A straw person is a stick person made hollow by the narcissistic stick lifestyle.
Claire: "I find comments about forcing sexual acts on women... "
Notice how she has to rachet the offense up to rape to justify her "outrage" ?
There was nothing in the original comment that implied "forced sexual acts"
Of course, we can't confirm that now because Althouse folded like a limp noodle.
A Mad Clammy Butch Blogging Lesbo
A Blab-Blob of Unkneaded BreadDough
Plants a Jihadic Rant
In Dyke-Gorian Chant
That Althouse Should Jump Cuz She Says So.
sounds like you got bit by your comment policy.
"..Of course, we can't confirm that now because Althouse folded like a limp noodle."
Yep.
and now I see the Althouse fans are reading her
We're such an open minded, but scary, bunch.
We're such an open minded, but scary, bunch.
"We're an admittedly small but dedicated fringe element who cannot be counted on to do the sensible thing."
Ann should restore the comment now that its become relevant evidence of Claire lying.
I referenced Tenured Radical several weeks ago on this blog, and now I see the Althouse fans are reading her--my, my.
Congrats, RV. You seem to be surpassed only by Crack in the self-regard department.
"Althouse seems to have a dedicated following of people you won’t want to meet in a dark alley."
Of course it wouldn't occur to Ms. Potter that what was written/what she read is tinged with anonymous bluster.
And (gulp) a little veritas too.
I'm with Shanna, the chick is wound tight and should eschew the extra latte's.
I'm with Shanna, the chick is wound tight and should eschew the extra latte's.
Imaginary rape violence warning!
Professor Potter nicely frames the offending comment with "trigger warning". "Trigger warning" is a feminist mashup of "Applause" with a Spade, a nice signpost that a trumping outrage occurs here.
Fen, email me if you want an explanation.
I specialize in United States political history, queer studies, and the history of gender, sex and feminism.
Doesn't same sex marriage and the repeal of DADT make "queer studies" .. I don't know.. kinda obsolete?
Or is it too soon to say..
Move on.. dot org
She's been branded as an anti-feminist because other people said things and she failed to get appropriately angry about them.
Feminism is hard.
@Fen -- The comment that Ms. Tenure hunted down and that Althouse deleted is vile. Similar comments about appearance or sexual predilections may be relatively less vile, but no less idiotic. What kind of mind reacts to ideological stupidity by inventing personalized sex fantasies?
There's an art to invective. This wasn't it.
If you want to read some effective pushback, read Jason Van Steenwyk's comments at the link. A nice combination of logical argument and outright mockery.
Henry: The comment that Ms. Tenure hunted down and that Althouse deleted is vile.
Are we talking about the same comment? The one I quoted is tame.
There's an art to invective. This wasn't it.
Riiiight. Invective will not be allowed to stand unless Henry judges it "artful"
The #1 rule of Lem commenting.
As my comments pile up, a song approaches.
Another Somebody Done Somebody Wrong Song..
The fur is flying.
Its a blog catfight.
DBQ I just read your dinner menu. Sounds fabulous.
Sensible pumps?
The comment is very mild. I read it as: I'd have sex with her and then tell her the unvarnished truth: That I'm only with you for the sex.
That is quite far what Claire is implying he said, and it's sad that Althouse removed it. Especially compared to what is left standing here.
Claire lied, and Althouse caved to it without cause. Very uncharacteristic of Ann.
Rape is not to be take lightly. That being said several years ago in an online conversation feminists commenters on another blog, asserted my husband rapes me because of my 'patri'achial views on 'matri'mony. Ahem...
Henry: What kind of mind reacts to ideological stupidity by inventing personalized sex fantasies?
You mean like Claire's fantasy of herding, tying up and branding men?
BTW, the comment wasn't a personalized sex fantasy. He was saying that having to deal with the likes of Claire on a day-to-day basis could only be offset by the perk of ejaculating on her face.
I'm beginning to think that reading compresion has been moved out of the Liberal Arts curriculum.
And again, Minitruth Meade at work. We can't defend the remark against Claire's lies because Althouse/Meade keep deleting it.
Even though it remains frontpaged at Claire's.
Sad.
Sensible pumps?
*ahem*
Meade?
Claire lied, and Althouse caved to it without cause.
I'm not sure if it applies but professional courtesy.. professor to professor?
I'm just guessing.
But hey, good to know that if another blog lies about what we said here, Meade will be there to delete any evidence we could use in our defense.
Classy. I think I'm outta here. What's the point? Free speech was the primary reason I read this blog.
Goodbye.
Althouse wrote, "...insulting me for things people have written in my comments that you don't even know whether I've read, which, in fact, I had not."
But that would be requiring "nasty empiricism" of Potter (as a commenter on another of her posts said), on which she commented in a rather koan-like way: "But how can you require anything of me?" As Insty would say, indeed. I think.
"...now that I've taken it down, it can only be read in your blog post.
Sister."
Ouch! That could very well leave a mark.
wv: gibetbal
One of the louder You, a Law Professor shouts I've seen in a while.
He clearly did not say ejaculating on her. He said: "... The solution is to wait for the full and complete BJ then give her the unvarnished veritas..."
Unless her feminizing of men includes endowing us with the ability for multiple orgasm and then further assuming she would induce said ecstasy, he meant telling her the truth afterward.
I bet tenure has a lot less comments to plow thru than Althouse.
Easy for her to make demands.
"I'm not sure if it applies but professional courtesy.. professor to professor?"
Well, then the elites have a funny custom where you can lie about me and others first hand, but I'll protect you and your lying by squelching free speech when I can.
It must be a college thing like hazing.
Wow, she is a tenured prof?! She sounded like your average belligerent blog post writer in that rebuttal.
"...now that I've taken it down, it can only be read in your blog post.
Hee--I'm sure she thanks you for the extra clicks from here.
But seriously, Ann was right to delete the post. Fantasizing about BJs from a woman who looks like Bill Gates--ewwww, nobody wants to read stuff like that.
I for one would not take a BJ from Juan Cole. I also wouldn't have him for a friend. You can take that however you want.
Which best explains the lie and the reaction of these professors?
Fake. They're just doing what they're forced to do.
Real. They're doing what they've been conditioned to do.
This culture is so far gone that real and fake are basically the same thing.
This culture is so alien to us that out of humility we should not judge.
I'm not sure she's right about what a money shot is, but I may be decades behind the porn industry now.
R-V said: "I referenced Tenured Radical several weeks ago on this blog, and now I see the Althouse fans are reading her--my, my."
After the shellacking she took from Jason Van Steenwyk in the comments and her utterly inadequate and juvenile response that begins "Blah, blah, blah...", I'm glad to know she's a waste of time.
If you want to read some effective pushback, read Jason Van Steenwyk's comments at the link. A nice combination of logical argument and outright mockery.
I'd like to thank the Academy.
Academia, not so much. But definitely the Acadamy! :-)
Actually, the utter lack of intellectual honesty and outright hostility to anything resembling critical reasoning skills on Claire Potter's blog (I refuse to give her the honorific "professor," because she is an embarrassment to the profession) is not at all unusual among feminist bloggers.
I've been a participant at various times on Feministing, and Feministe, a couple of others whose names escape me now, and they're all the same way.
The moderators at Feministe started deleting posts. I mentioned some argument was "retarded" and the moderator disappeared the post and chided me for using "ableist language."
They're truly beyond parody.
The feminist blogosphere is like a little intellectual North Korea - so insular and inbred and dysfunctional that no outsider could possibly understand it. It's like a funhouse mirror house of discourse.
It would be funny, except that these "professors" are part and parcel of a corrupt educational cult that is ruining the minds of a lot of young women.
Hell, I've seen child molesters that have done less permanent psychological damage than these professors that make a mockery out of intellectual processes, logic, reason, empiricism and critical argument.
I don't get it. It's one thing to have one or two oddball profs on campus, just for the educational value. But how is it kids can graduate from these programs with BAs and then go on to MA programs and Ph.D.s without having had their chains yanked?
Don't they have to take electives outside the women's studies or queer studies department? How is it that they can write a coherent research paper, with logic like what you see on The Tenured Radical?
If it were just the Tenured Radical, that would be one thing. But their nonsense has replicated itself, and has reached a critical enough mass to support full-time tenured professors to create more of these little cretins.
Where are the right thinking professors? Why are they enabling this crap? They're not doing these girls any favors. These kids entering their college years now and going through these programs are going to be well-nigh unemployable.
Her blog would get more traffic if she renamed it Potterville.
Also, the "wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley" is a cliche.
She should have written: "The Althouse Commentariat: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Well Jason, you did a masterful job exposing her. She would have been better off just not responding than to spout off that 'blah blah' response.
Nobody's used the line yet?
"You, a law professor!"
VW: polite (really)
"Used the line yet?"
Ugghh. Feels like I just got gut-shot.
Althouse shouldn't be so concerned about what she said. Unusual for Althouse to be so sensitive and defensive.
bagho20 wrote:
Unless her feminizing of men includes endowing us with the ability for multiple orgasm and then further assuming she would induce said ecstasy, he meant telling her the truth afterward.
Bingo! Gave that man a cigar! As the author of the "offending" quote I was hoping someone else would clarify things for Claire. (She must have been christened Claire more in faith than in certainty. Her name ought to Nebula.)
Nowhere in the universe (except maybe the Planet of the Dykes) is veritas a synonym for ejaculate.
Quaestor's got nuttin' on J for vile and despicable commentary.
You have to understand that she is tenured at Wesleyan (my alma mater), which has become a self absorbed, pride dripping lefty echo chamber. The highest value at Wesleyan is to have an appropriate social consciousness. Thought has been overwhelmed by belief.
Sadly also, Wesleyan has become a hotbed or rape. No woman is safe, according to the purveyors of male crudity, and there are likely numerous rapes every month of the year. (Nearly all unreported, of course.)
Wesleyan was once a great school.
No more.
DBQ I just read your dinner menu. Sounds fabulous.
Sensible pumps?
I'm channeling Donna Reed for dinner in order to annoy the feminist purists. Hence the sensible pumps. I might even hum a few bars of Stand By Your Man.
Later, I'm putting on my stilettos and channeling Madonna.
"Ann should restore the comment now that its become relevant evidence of Claire lying."
I think she has the comment over there. I took it out because it has a transgressive sexual image directed at a particular individual. I understand that it is figurative, but it's upsetting to the target in a way that makes it unacceptable.
Reminds me of
this
Link text
bagoh20
Good point. People are probably biasing their reading and understanding of the paragraph. Me, it all flew right over my head and I saw nothing. lol. What I like about althouse are all the thinkers who think in different ways and all the flies they attract.
EMD wrote:
Quaestor's got nuttin' on J for vile and despicable commentary.
Come from you I'll take that as a compliment.
Personally, I regret nothing. I am not responsible for Claire Potter's thin skin and other defects of character. Anyone who reads "unvarnished vertias" and thinks "money shot" is either loony or ignorant.
The incident remind me of the old joke about the psychoanalyst who give his newest patient a Rorschach test. After showing the first inkblot an inkblot to his patient the analyst asks "What do yo see?"
"Sex!" replies the man on the couch.
He's shown another. "Sex!" says the patient. Inkblot after inkblot produces the reaction. "Sex!" "Sex!" "Sex!"
Having reached the end of his stack of inkblots the analyst says "Well, we haven't yet identified the core of your neurosis, but I must say at this point you appear to be totally preoccupied with sex."
"I'm preoccupied with sex?" shouts the patient in outrage. "You're the one with all the dirty pictures!"
wv: conslat - the place you go to when you have problems with your bassboat.
I just can't believe she's a lesbian, what with the photo of the pretty boy.
Anyone who reads "unvarnished veritas" and thinks "money shot" is either loony or ignorant.
A money shot would obviously be varnished veritas.
transgressive sexual image
As I have never taken Womyn's Studies, can someone explain this phrase to me?
Please include an explanation of who defines the boundaries.
@ Nichevo
Leave it to an engineer to take all the spontaneity out of a BJ by reverse engineering the whole process, with graphs and statistical analysis.
:-)
Nichevo wrote:
Yeah, I hope this is quite clear...
Waxing lyrical there, Nichevo. And I thought Nabokov was dead.
But for some reason one mustn't call women pussies, so I don't.
Women, pussies... a bit of a tautology is it not?
@ Nichevo
T.M.I.
And I never understood the popularity of the money shot. That always seemed to me to be a bit anticlimactic, a missed opportunity so to speak.
I agree that Claire's "confusion" may stem from a lack of experience. Maybe a course in Men's Studies is in order. Besides, don't lesbians already know Women's Studies pretty well without the schooling?
It's partly economics. Porn actresses charge more for, ahem, "internals."
WV: "puther."
Puther in her place!!!!
@ Freeman Hunt:
Your follow-up comment (12/19/11 1:31 PM) completely cracked me up. However, my problem is this:
By choice, I'm so disconnected from the world Professor Potter inhabits that I have no idea whether "post-empirical methodology language" is you satirizing her or, rather, a term that is genuinely accepted with a common meaning (God knows what) in the academic community with which Professor Potter identifies.
It also cracks me up to see the libs obsess over how "conservative" our host supposedly is. I suppose if you live in a world where everything is grey, the notion that someone might be red or pink on one day, and blue or purple on another, doesn't compute.
Maybe it's my deeply romantic sensibility, but I'd prefer a faked "internal" to a real external.
mccullough wrote:
The Althouse Commentariat: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
I have the death sentence on twelve systems. And my friend doesn't like Potter either!
On the 12th day of Christmas my true love gave to me:
Unvarnished Veritas, and a partridge in a Pear tree.
A straw man is a scarecrow.
Set up there on a pole above the corn with his arms stuck out. Who thinks he needs a heart when he already has one. Set up to take the blame for an imagined situation. A fantasy object created to accept a projection. Maybe to use as an example for something that could be real.
Scarecrows are introduced with something so obvious it cannot do anything but announce the intention: "Now, I hear some people say ... "
Back in the field, straw men are not effective. Unless your scarecrow flaps its arms, flings pie pans like Oddjob, shoots lasers out its eyes, raises and aims a rifle, then it's not going to scare many birds. Seems to me a better scarecrow would be a crow's natural enemy, like an owl or a hawk. Then you'll say,
"Crows mob their enemies until they're driven off."
Then the keeper of the corn could make the scarecrow owl spin and have its wings flip up while spinning whenever a crow lands on it. Then you'll say,
"But man is the crow's number one enemy."
So we're back to straw men.
Phew. I just finished reading through this torturous thread. I hoped for a happy ending.
I remember this is exactly what Potter attempted to do to Prof. Johnson when he and commenters called her out (no pun intented, but I imagine Potter will be offended anyhow) for her gross inaccuracies regarding the lacrosse hoax.
When it was apparent that her post-modernist claptrap would not protect her from her major false assertions...:
1) The charges against the players were droped. (No, they were declared "innocent" as a matter of public and legal record by the state's AG). In response Potter whined that the wording was irrelevant and overdramatic.
2) Kim Curtis purposely failed Kyle Dowd and the other lacrosse player. (Since Duke settled with the Dowd family, there no one can say unofficially one way or the other, except that several other academics who have reviewed the work, even with the most draconian scale, would hardly be in any postition to offer a failing grade sans pure spite. However, the OTHER player (who does not get as much fame as Dowd) was in no position at all to receive a failing grade unless Curtis engineered it so).
...Potter's modus operandi when facts elude her was to attack the bloggers commenters. Indeed, she went even so far as to falsely accuse Prof Johnson without any proof that all the commenters were his sock puppets(!!!). Don't be intimidated by this creature, Prof. Althouse.
BTW, for the record since Potter will accuse me at some point , I am NOT a sockpuppet for Prof. Althouse.
And I'm sure Meade will back me up.
I hoped for a happy ending.
That's an extra fifty bucks,and don't tell anyone. You're not a cop, are you?
I hoped for a happy ending.
This comment is right on the money.
Chip Ahoy wrote:
A straw man is a scarecrow. Set up there on a pole above the corn with his arms stuck out. Who thinks he needs a heart when he already has one.
Wasn't it the Tin Woodman thought he needed a heart when he already had one? I don't know... if I only had a brain...
When it was apparent that her post-modernist claptrap
Actually, lesbians have a very low incidence of STDs.
This is Wesleyan we're taking about here. It is a 'little ivy' bastion of liberalism and soft liberal art degrees. 25 years of PC claptrap and tenured clowns like Potter are the norm there not the exception.
Wesleyan still sells the myth that 'Wesleyan' on the sheepskin continues to mean excellence and will guarantee you post-graduate success. Plenty of suckers fork over 60k a year buying into it.
The reality is a faculty full of Potters producing the sort of confused and wayward jackasses that are the face of OWS.
I didn't know lesbians got gold stars!
who is more humorless than a feminist lesbian ?
"Althouse seems to have a dedicated following of people you won’t want to meet in a dark alley."
Pogo and traditionalguy fer sure.
Chip Ahoy.
Bart the Farmer
Freeman -- yeah right. She and DBQ pack. Sister.
rh might have his dog with him in an alley.
edutcher -- wouldn't want to meet him. (Much less The Blonde.)
Lem might have a baseball bat?
Palladian ...
Shall I go on?
Bad bad place, Althouse. Bad bad commenters.
Scary.
MadisonMan wrote:
As I have never taken Womyn's Studies, can someone explain this phrase to me? Please include an explanation of who defines the boundaries.
It's a woman's prerogative to establish the boundaries and to not define them, to expand and contract them for any reason, as a consequence of any number of hormonal subtleties, or just because.
el polacko wrote:
[W]ho is more humorless than a feminist lesbian?
Even Oliver Cromwell would crack a joke now and then.
Seriously, there's nothing a Claire Potter's dreary, pointless life to sustain a healthy sense of humor. The Amazons used to slice off a bosom to make way for the bowstring. Lesbian feminist strangle humor in the crib to make way for perpetual victim-hood. If they didn't the absurdity would kill them.
I understand that it is figurative, but it's upsetting to the target in a way that makes it unacceptable.
The mildest, blandest criticism is going to be upsetting to that particular target. She's a professional feminist - without umbrage what would she be?
Yeah, it's one thing if you think the comment was simply intrinsically offensive, under the "reasonable person" standard, for example.
But why give someone like Potter veto-power over comments on your blog? These shrinking violets will feign outrage just to shut someone up. You play into their hands.
Even at my age, I am still amazed that "feminist" women can earn a living by fabricating things to be outraged and dismayed about.
You'd think there were millions of women who are buying the drivel, but we all know it's only a handful of masculine femmes who still push the agenda.
Ann Althouse said...
"Ann should restore the comment now that its become relevant evidence of Claire lying."
I think she has the comment over there. I took it out because it has a transgressive sexual image directed at a particular individual. I understand that it is figurative, but it's upsetting to the target in a way that makes it unacceptable.
12/19/11 7:24 PM
Fuckin lame althouse, fuckin lame.
"50 percent the internet is trolls, 50 percent of the internet are people with mental health issues. Sometimes expressed through feminist blogs. But in this case she just seems overly pretentious and lacking a lot of wisdom."
the other Patrick wrote that, but I wish I had.
I understand the idea expressed in Quaestor's deleted post, but the form of the expression really did present a problem, even when you understand it. I would say that I appreciate it, because it was artfully composed, but the bad, in my view, outweighed the good. Depicting yourself having sex with a specific woman on the theory that sex is all she's good for... that goes over the line toward suggesting violence. It's disturbing to the target, a specific person, even though you meant it as a metaphor.
"'transgressive sexual image'.. As I have never taken Womyn's Studies, can someone explain this phrase to me?"
Thanks for noticing that I appropriated one of their buzz words.
LOL @ "sister". Back in the day (my day, yeah, i am old) men hating females were referred to as old maids. Today, they teach this nonsense in college and offer degrees in old maidism. I suspect the only people who profit by this are the folks who teach this crapola.
Even at my age, I am still amazed that "feminist" women can earn a living by fabricating things to be outraged and dismayed about.
The fabrication's the thing, though. All of these people pretending that it's valid to ignore a logical argument simply because of the gender or race or sexual orientation of the persona making the argument - they know they're dishonest, and they know that everyone else in their little club is also dishonest. That seems enormously self-destructive.
That seems enormously self-destructive.
There's no "seems" about it.
WV - "troness" - A quality describing one's prowess at lightcycles and disc combat in general.
Like the good little neo-bolshevik she is, Ms. Potter has disappeared the last 24 hours worth of my my comments, and banned me from making new posts.
There's a real commitment to the free exchange of ideas. Way to go, Wesleyan!!!!
There's a real commitment to the free exchange of ideas. Way to go, Wesleyan!!!!
Can't you sockpuppet?
@Jason,
Professor Claire Potter has banned me from making new comments at her site as well. I posted under my usual Disqus name of "Display Name", which linked back to 27183.myopenid.com and as you might see my comments there were serious, mostly well-constructed, and not spam, link whoring, defamatory, or offensive.
I am pretty sure she also deleted and banned comments from keshii, who I interepreted as a woman who was mostly, but not totally supportive of Professor Potter.
Heh. She deleted my comment in which I said, roughly, "mansplaining" is a term used at feminist blogs to alert the readers to pile on to a commenter. It is often hoped, but not necessary that the mansplainer will somehow act out, allowing the blog owner to ban the commenter, often without alerting the readers who continue to pile on to the targeted commenter who now seems to have run away (the coward.)
Oh, and I did say, you can ask Professor Potter to confirm this, I am certain she has seen this behavior at most of the important feminist blogs.
Anyway, that vanished into the memory hole, but I guess in her own unique manner, Professor Potter did indeed verify my statement.
It's a clitoredactomy!
How about a clitocracy?
Cens-her-ship!!
Ok, I didn't really "sockpuppet," because I didn't try to hide my identity. I will, however, post one of the comments here, for preservation against her --ahem -- titalitarianist proclivities.
Hello, everyone! Just wanted to say thanks to Ms. Potter - for confirming all the worst stereotypes of gender studies professors by disappearing a number of posts and banning me from making new comments.
I know you and your ilk in days past were more into kidnapping dissidents to silence them. Fortunately, better people than you have rendered you powerless to do that. But congratulations on finding the 21st century technical means of doing so.
Thanks for showing the world, in the most vivid way possible on a blog, that your commitment to the free exchange of ideas runs only so long as you can run an echo chamber.
And thanks for confirming the most negative stereotypes anyone has of the beneficiaries of the gender studies racket as anti-intellectual hothouse flowers unable to defend their ideas on the merits.
And way to make Wesleyan look good! I'm sure you'll have no trouble attracting more of America's dumbest college girls, with people like you representing the brand.
A serious question for you, Ms. Potter... if some satirist who detested you, millie, and historianne, and wanted to create a series of posts using your names deliberately crafted to parody you or make you look like the shrieking, hysterical characitures of the worst elements of political correctness, un-self-aware man-hating bigotry and shameless hypocrisy now infesting feminist academia, and deliberately set out to do his best to discredit you...
...just how, precisely, would one be able to tell the difference?
Oh the irony of Althouse stooges talkin' about censorship as posts disappear daily this blog ...
'nuf said!
Oh the irony of Althouse stooges talkin' about censorship as posts disappear daily this blog
The least funny stooge, shiloh, says that without the least sense of irony, denoting a complete lack of what's been going on in regards to deleted posts around here.
shiloh wrote:
Oh the irony of Althouse stooges talkin' about censorship...
Yeah, 'nuf said. Enough to reveal you haven't an inkling of what this thread whole conversation is about. Jason's complaint against Potter is offered partly as a critique of Ann.
And as for stooges on Althouse, the list is a short one, and the commenter known as shiloh is near the top.
Scott M. wrote:
I'm totally bummed that my reply to the original untarnished veritas comment didn't make it on to her whiny blog post. It was much more violent in imagery, if implied.
Wasn't it "unvarnished veritas"? At least I think it was. Since the deletion I can't check.
Wasn't it "unvarnished veritas"? At least I think it was. Since the deletion I can't check.
I believe you're right. My reference to a paving stone, on the other hand, was far less ambiguous and frankly more graphic even though most of that effort happens in the reader's mind, not with my words.
No, it was not my intent to raise a critique of Professor Althouse.
Althouse, as far as I know, does not censor comments for the purposes of quashing an idea.
I don't know for certain, because I don't know what she does delete. But I, too, would delete things that are hopelessly off-topic, spam, libelous or inciting to violence.
However, I've had at least one comment disappeared by Prof. Althouse, myself.
ndspinelli was short and to the point on the comment thread, which is now closed. :shock:
Meade, Can I sum it up w/plain language, "I'm in charge and if I delete you it means you pissed me off."
The truth shall set you free ...
btw Jason, please define hopelessly off-topic? :-P
Shiloh,
Re me being an althouse stooge
Sadly one of my comments that Potter deleted before banning me, was one where I said I found much of Althouse nonsensical, but some of it funny and insightful. If you look around here elsewhere you will see where I come down on Althouse vs. Krugman.
I think any deletion of comments for reasons other than defamation, spamming, fraud, blogwhoring, or extreme obscenity in certain cases is almost certainly bogus, and no blogger should be doing that.
But I do give props to all bloggers that accept comments even from anonymous assholes, they are usually thicker skinned than I.
What is definitely wrong are bloggers who silently delete and silently ban users without making an announcement of it, especially in threads in which they've invited others to pile onto the targeted, and now banned, commenter.
Just when you think the crappier neighborhoods of feminism can't get any crappier, you discover someone's coined a word like ‘mansplaining.'
And that the meme is being repeated all over the parts of the internet that value such wisdom as might be contained in the word ‘mansplaining.'
Surely, coinage such as this says more about the speaker than about the spoken-about?
"What is definitely wrong are bloggers who silently delete"
True, but it's a great time saver, eh.
Interesting the comment thread now appears to be open after Meade said yesterday:
Read quick! This O/T discussion will probably be deleted soon too.
12/19/11 3:56 PM
and so it goes ...
"Hopelessly off topic" would mean that something is so uncoupled from the chain of discussion as no reasonable person, including anyone opposing the host blogger in anything close to good faith, would consider the comment in question to have been the result of anything like a linear thought process.
Titus's bowel movements, for example.
Where is Titus, anyway?
Jason wrote:
Where is Titus, anyway?
I've heard of cases of a person have a stroke or fatal hemorrhage brought on by trying to pass a particularly large and densely packed stool...
Quick! Check the bathroom! Call 911!
wv: ovexega - what a wonderfully melodic nonsense word, it would make a good name for a TB filly.
Speaking of WVs --
This one is: femiess
Surely would have some meaning for Claire POtter.
To the tune of Long Tall Sally:
I saw Uncle Meade
With Long Tall Annie,
They saw Aunt Potter coming
And they ducked into the alley...
Ann Althouse said...
I understand the idea expressed in Quaestor's deleted post, but the form of the expression really did present a problem, even when you understand it. I would say that I appreciate it, because it was artfully composed, but the bad, in my view, outweighed the good. Depicting yourself having sex with a specific woman on the theory that sex is all she's good for... that goes over the line toward suggesting violence. It's disturbing to the target, a specific person, even though you meant it as a metaphor.
_____________
What absolute nonsense! Suggesting violence? Are you mad? Just listening to you saying something that stupid makes me want to smack you.
It is a commonplace to suggest that certain people are undesirable except as sexual partners. Women as often do it to men - e.g. boytoys like Fabio or Ashton Kutcher or Hugh Grant or the eternal poolboy - as men to women - e.g. Pamela Anderson, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton or the classic "town pump."
Illustrate the possible linkage towards violence. It can't be done. Unless you are talking of some rarefied scenario such as a pirate ship plundering wenches then cutting their throats or making them walk the plank. SRSLY?
You've already censored me once, which I have to regard as a badge of honor. I'm unsure why, and would like an explanation, but if the above is an example of your thinking then perhaps I won't hold my breath waiting for a sensible answer.
"It's disturbing to the target?" What kind of moron are you? Half the posts on this site are calculated to be disturbing to the target!
I suggested a while back, Althouse, that you were a dumb bunny who sucked and fucked your way to the top of your class at NYU, and all you said in reply was that it would have been difficult because of some double-blind grading scheme. IOW a non-denial denial, but anyway no outrage, no squealing, and AFAIK the post is still up. If you didn't get disturbed at that, what would offend you enough to censor, let alone directed a person who is not your friend? How thin is this Potter's skin? Thin enough to see through? Well, now that I think of it, she's pretty transparent.
To DBQ: I'm sure you would require no such instruction, but i have found that tenured professors are often quite ignorant and useless outside their fields. The detailed and indeed tedious instruction seemed necessary. I tried to dress it up in the sort of pseudo-intellectual verbiage that she would see as, coming from her, au courant, and from me mansplaining.
Quaestor: It's kinda like you may call men "cocksuckers" as an insult but not women, because you don't want to make them feel like they are bad for doing it or otherwise discourage them.
Shiloh: valueless as usual. Eh? (BTW if you are American enough to enlist in the USN, why do you make Canadian affectations?) It seems you literally don't understand what you read. But that's OK, no one expects better from you. Carry on.
Suggesting violence? Are you mad? Just listening to you saying something that stupid makes me want to smack you.
Ummmm...
Sorry Jason would you feel better if I added a smiley? I'm sure Althouse gets it (whether she admits it or chooses to take offense is another thing entirely, but I'm sure she's not that actively dumb).
Post a Comment