April 7, 2012

"I'd like to finish the week without Scott's dick in my ear, but until captain douche-nozzle is recalled..."

"I'll drink and stew and become more resolute in my hate directed at this prick."

A sample of the discourse over in the Isthmus forum, where Madisonians bemoan the newly signed Wisconsin law that repealed the 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act.

MEANWHILE: In the comments section of last night's post "The Democrats' War on Women," a couple commenters engage in sexist wordplay about Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch (who, like Walker, faces recall). A commenter referred to "Walker and his 'minions'" and chickenlittle quipped "What about all the filly minions like Kleefisch? Do you want to filet them too?" and leslyn said "How do you filet a filly??" This portrayal of a woman as meat called to mind the infamous Hustler magazine cover (showing a woman's body fed through a meat grinder). I said:
"How do you filet a filly??"

Said, about Rebecca Kleefisch, by a female commenter who probably regards herself as a feminist. That image is one of sexual violence.

You compare an adult woman to a juvenile animal. You refer to slicing into her dead (animal) body, prepping her for cooking.

But the woman you revile is conservative, so maybe you didn't notice.

If you think you are a feminist, you are a fake one, really a lefty or a Democrat, and your partisan politics comes first.

Go stand over there will Bill Clinton.
Leslyn defended herself this way:
Oh for goodness sake, Althouse, "how do you filet a filly" was A PLAY ON WORDS on CHICKENLITTLE'S comment. Which you'd have recognized were you not humorless.

And get off the "feminist" rant already. To use a METAPHOR, you jump both sides of the fence.
My response:
I saw the joke. That is was a joke is irrelevant to my point.

Would you like me to Google "sexist jokes" for you?

Try making racist jokes out in public and see how far "it was humor" gets you.

Picture a filleted young horse. Picture a woman in a similar condition. Picture a particular named woman in that condition.

Now, is that funny?

Remember when Rush Limbaugh portrayed Sandra Fluke as a prostitute and said we should have sex tapes of her on the internet?

How funny was that?

Now... go on with your explanations about why you are really not a hypocrite.

Alternatively, concede. It might be the better option.

Being a feminist is hard. You have to be consistent. Take the challenge.

79 comments:

edutcher said...

Considering they're so much smarter and more sophisticated and nuanced and educated than the rest of us, your average Lefty has worse language than most merchant seamen.

David said...

So whose dick would she like in her ear? Go to that man and be comforted.

walter said...

Perhaps Ann will post an interpretation of this change.

PatCA said...

Aw, poor women, the dears! No big laws to protect them any more! Well, at the Stat level.

It's cheaper to sue in State court than federal? Since when?

Econophile said...

Only absolute douche nozzles still use the term "captain douche nozzle" these days.

Palladian said...

Vulgarity is so authentic!

Synova said...

Sounds like I'm right.

Walker signed a bill to repeal something on the state level that was covered elsewhere. Seems like sound economics to me.

It sounds like typical "pat my back, I can prove I care by writing and passing this bill to prove I care" legislation.

And all those multitude of tax-funded proofs of piety are permanent, because who would ever dare to repeal them? It doesn't matter if they do anything or not, or if they are useful or not.

I note that Obama is hopping on the political opportunity to demand that Romney take a stand. No doubt he hopes that he can force Romney to support it so that it can be made to be a repeal of equal pay and protection instead of the repeal of a redundant measure of expensive state hand-holding of timid and vulnerable women.

But you never know. Some spine is an attractive thing, and Democrats may have blown their wad already on this effort to spin half the electorate as being in a war on women.

Get lied to enough and it stops working.

Maguro said...

Yeah, if there's one thing our sputtering economy really needs, it's more...pay discrimination lawsuits. That's the ticket.

Alex said...

garage is so YES!!!!

chickenlittle said...

...Scott's dick in my ear...

Aural sex sounds like sodomy to me.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Walker signed a bill to repeal something on the state level that was covered elsewhere. Seems like sound economics to me.

Yes. Me too.

Plus...WTF is all of this whining about women...boo hoo....women's health....boo hoo....women's wages.

Are ONLY women affected by this bill or repeal of the bill? The State and Federal bill covered everyone...not just women.


We are finally starting to see progress here in Wisconsin, yet like their counterparts across the country, Legislative Republicans want to turn back the clock on women’s rights in the workplace,

and

Economic security is a women’s health issue," she said. "The salary women are paid directly affects the type and frequency of health care services they are able to access. At a time when women’s health services are becoming more expensive and harder to obtain, financial stability is essential to maintain steady access."


Really???? Women's health services are hard to obtain? Harder than men's? children's? Really? Is your doctor going to turn you away because you are a woman.

Or....do you mean women's health services, like killing your unborn child?

What a bunch of weeners.

Palladian said...

All I can think of is a Scot named Dick sitting on an isthmus drinking stew through a douche nozzle inserted through a pricked ear.

Mixed metaphors!

walter said...

Here are some relevant links:

Scott Walker Quietly Repeals Wisconsin Equal Pay Law

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/scott-walker-wisconsin-equal-pay-law_n_1407329.html?1333728572

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb202
(not sure this is the final)

rhhardin said...

I found the classic Dilbert equal pay strip just yesterday, thanks to a good site searcher.

Synova said...

Also, the article at the link repeated as fact the "women make 77% on the dollar" baloney.

No one questions that, and there is no excuse that they don't. It's not as though anyone could be unaware that in the real world controlling for hours worked and interruptions in careers that the inequity disappears.

Everyone knows that. They just chose to ignore what is inconvenient.

ricpic said...

"Hey Scott, take your dick out of my ear and put it in my rear...ah, that's better."

rhhardin said...

I forget the Indian princess's name on Howdy Doody. Princess Summer Eve or something.

In real life she swore like a sailor.

rhhardin said...

Google turns up this Massengil commercial, which probably contributed its share to this decline of western civilization.

I threw out the TV before its time so I haven't been contaminated.

Ann Althouse said...

@walter You "helped" by posting a link that is already in the original post.

Lyssa said...

The article at the link for the new law says that, nationally, women make 77 cents on the dollar, but in Wisc., it's only 75 cents.

Wisc. is a purple to blue state with lots of good liberals. Plus, it had this equal pay law (I'll assume that at least most red states do not). Why on earth wouldn't it have been at least at if not above average?

Hmm, it's almost like feel-good politically correct laws make no difference whatsoever, and like liberals don't really practice what they preach!

chickenlittle said...

...couple commenters engage in sexist wordplay about Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch


I feel caught in a lefty feminist sandwich here. I apologize if I started something that got out of control. I can make it not happen again.

Rose said...

Bravo, Althouse.

Ann Althouse said...

I don't have an opinion on the law change. I looked at it, including walter's second link, before posting, and I didn't have a position. I'm not going to blather pro or con. It's a hell of a lot harder to generate opinion when you're not an ideologue.

It looks like there are some procedural changes, but I'm not sure what it amounts to. I don't do statutory employment discrimination law. It's pretty complex. This is about particular types of claims in the area, I believe.

I don't know how much this is about the idea of "equal pay for equal work" which I think is a bad area to be dealt with by individual litigants in court.

There might be good reasons to relieve businesses of this kind of litigation, which might be costly and unhelpful to the larger cause of more jobs and more equality for women.

If I wanted to spend a year of my life on this topic, maybe I could say something more concrete.

Unfortunately, that leaves you in the hands of the ideologues.

Ann Althouse said...

@chickenlittle "a lefty feminist sandwich here" and you are the meat. Put that on the cover of Hustler.

I just have 2 words for you, words of caution and warning: Numen Lumen!

Lyssa said...

I was having drinks with some fellow attorneys the other day, when a big law woman, who had been making a huge deal about what a "feminist" she is, told a story about how one of the partners had insisted that they be available on Saturdays, as he didn't have time to mentor them during the week. She said that, upon hearing this, all of the women gathered into the bathroom to talk about how ridiculous and awful this was.

I pointed out that the men probably just did it, and then the women all said "Men make more than me. This is so unfair!"

It's a wonder that I don't have more "feminist" friends.

rhhardin said...

Re: update

Women as meat is a metaphor for a man's point of view, that in a time of need any vagina will do.

The further into actual meat you take it, the further from the point. The guy is not seeing meat.

Women don't get that.

Take Carol Adams (I'll have to find the right name...) The Sexual Politics of Meat, where it's worked into a book-length allegory.

The guy just wants to ejaculate so he's not bothered by an obsession for a while. Some hormone rush takes care of it. It's his brain bothering him, not his penis.

Synova said...

Well, I think that's being a little bit hard on Leslyn, but I wasn't bent out of sorts over Limbaugh either.

AllieOop said...

Hey, I was not the other piece of bread, I didn't say a word about the filet comment, at the time it was made. Sorry that was an open face sandwich.

chickenlittle said...

I just have 2 words for you, words of caution and warning: Numen Lumen!

Message received!

Synova said...

"I pointed out that the men probably just did it,"

They probably did.

Men do stuff like that. IME men (generally, stereotypically) are often abused and taken advantage of in the workplace. As a group they seem incapable of saying no to bosses. And it makes sense, I suppose, because they are more often the primary bread-winner and the consequences of making waves at work are far more dire for someone who has to pay the mortgage than for the person contributing extra to make the family comfortable. Discomfort is less of a disaster than homelessness, after all.

Also, men seem more inclined (as a general sort of thing) to take their feeling of worth and self from their occupation.

In any case, I spent a great many years trying to convince my husband that 14 hour days and 6 day weeks on a set salary wasn't acceptable. "They aren't going to tell you to go home!" took an awful long time to soak in.

But most certainly, if you jump when the boss says jump, and you're available and you're always willing... you probably do end up getting paid more and promoted more.

AllieOop said...

Or was Althouse the other piece of bread? In that case, carry on.

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lyssa said...

Synova, you're probably right about men taking more abuse (and the demand there is certainly why biglaw has such a bad rap). Among my peers, I very often hear statements like "women are more willing to call BS on demands; they won't put up with insane work schedules." And I don't have a problem with that, per se.

I do have a problem with acting as if there are no tradeoffs associated with it. It's right back to the "you can't have it all" argument - women (some women) think that you should be able to have a great, fullfilling, fun, easy hours job and still earn as much as a person who breaks his or her back and goes nuts at it. It's just not going to happen.

walter said...

"It looks like there are some procedural changes, but I'm not sure what it amounts to. I don't do statutory employment discrimination law. It's pretty complex."

That's very important, I think. As others have suggested, when a Huffpo writer defines the content of the law and circulates that.. it seems wise to get some more legal interpretation. Maybe you have colleagues that could help.

Lem said...

This is why I stick to commenting on safe issues.. like abortion.

Feminism is too hard.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

This is why I stick to commenting on safe issues.. like abortion.

Feminism is too hard.


Especially since everyone seems to have a different definition of and sense of what feminism is.

One person's feminism is another person's whining.

Synova said...

"Among my peers, I very often hear statements like "women are more willing to call BS on demands; they won't put up with insane work schedules." And I don't have a problem with that, per se.

I do have a problem with acting as if there are no tradeoffs associated with it.
"

Which is where the "women make less money than men for the same work" baloney becomes so irritating.

And brings it back to my original complaint that the article linked uncritically cites the supposed 70-whatever cents for every dollar, as if it were truth.

Lem said...

Bravo, Althouse.

I wouldn't say that if I was in a classroom..

But I would text it.

EDH said...

Did this bill really eliminate all state remedies?

From the AP report on the prior Althouse bill signing post.

Discrimination damages

Walker also signed a bill that prohibits workers from collecting damages in employment discrimination cases.

Under current state law, employees who prevail in discrimination lawsuits can collect between $50,000 and $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

The Republican bill blocks anyone from collecting such damages in employment discrimination suits.
The state Department of Workforce Development could still award an employee back pay, costs and attorney fees, however.

Democrats say the bill hurts women who might suffer discrimination in the workplace.


What actual damages are there in a wage dispute beside "back pay, costs and attorney fees"?

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William said...

A true sexist would try to bone and not filet a filly.

edutcher said...

You are a class act, Madame.

The Lefties love to play the double standard because they control the media and the academic establishment and they can get the upper hand (or used to) with the PC game. This, of course, is classic Uncle Saul.

Tables are turning, but, as has been noted, a lot of Conservatives thought Rush was out of line.

We're still waiting to hear from the Lefties on Maher, Letterman, Bernhard, Ubermoronn, etc.

Jay said...

Scott Walker Quietly Repeals Wisconsin Equal Pay Law

Oh gasp!

The horror!

Never mind there is no evidence anywhere at all that women don't receive "equal pay" in Wisconsin or anywhere else, or that this issue was so urgent it was addressed in 2009.

The left pretends that the Internet and facts don't exist.

Good luck with that, leftists.

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
G Joubert said...

If you think you are a feminist, you are a fake one, really a lefty or a Democrat, and your partisan politics comes first.

I figured out sometime between about 1975 and 1980 that the official "women's movement" was just almost exclusively a device dedicated to advancing Democrat politicians, and oftentimes men politicians at that.

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

"That's very important, I think. As others have suggested, when a Huffpo writer defines the content of the law and circulates that.. it seems wise to get some more legal interpretation. Maybe you have colleagues that could help."

I agree. But you know who should be getting the explanation for the new law out there. The Wisconsin GOP!

They do things that make some people really mad, and they don't explain it.

Here's Walker facing recall, and he signs something that can be used in an inflammatory way and puts nothing out to justify it.

He and his people look truly inept. How is he going to win the recall acting like that.

He handed his opponents this issue. Why?

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

I don't have an opinion on the law change. I looked at it, including walter's second link, before posting, and I didn't have a position. I'm not going to blather pro or con. It's a hell of a lot harder to generate opinion when you're not an ideologue,

Of course you don't have an opinion. You don't really have any opinions at all on right wing social engineering. The only thing you're interested in is the left's reaction to it. That's in contrast to your coverage of the ACA debate, which is quite good. And you don't consider yourself an ideologue on that debate I don't think.

Ann Althouse said...

Here's some material defending the change (in the MJS):

"Democrats in 2009 changed the law to allow employees or the department after that process to sue an employer in circuit court for compensatory and punitive damages. Wronged employees could receive up to $300,000, depending on the seriousness of the claims and the size of the businesses. The law Walker approved takes away the ability to go to court for compensatory and punitive damages, though people still have the ability to seek back pay....

"Tom O'Day, a lawyer who represents businesses of all sizes in employment cases, said the 2009 law led to businesses paying out larger settlements to employees in cases where they did not believe they had done anything wrong because of the risk of having to pay large awards. Walker's action will free up money so employers invest in their companies and create jobs, he said.

""More than anything, this is a jobs bill," he said.

"Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), who sponsored the measure, said it puts Wisconsin in line with neighboring states.

""The old law made Wisconsin not competitive from a business perspective," he said. "To give $300,000 in punitive damages when the actual damages might be four or five thousand dollars causes Wisconsin business to pay out additional money to deal with frivolous claims.""

Phil 3:14 said...

so its not a "war on women" but a

war among women

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Canuck said...

I was taken aback by all the talk about women voting, female emotionality, and basically what Chip Ahoy talked about in the other thread.

Also wondered if people were being mobys.

Agree with his comments.

Happy Easter and Passover. Peace and joy to all.

Hagar said...

Remember when Rush Limbaugh portrayed Sandra Fluke as a prostitute and said we should have sex tapes of her on the internet?

As I remember it, Limbaugh was riffing on her absurd claims for what contraception was costing her, etc., and said that if we were going to have to pay her that kind of money, etc., then ...

So he was essentially calling her a silly goose, rather than seriously calling her a prostitute and demanding pictures. Poor taste and poor judgment, but not how you summarized it here, Professor.

walter said...

I don't know, Hagar..heard an ad by (non partisan) Media Matters and by the sound of it Rush all but demanded to stick his dick in her ear. There is no joking allowed regarding such serious testimony.

J said...

I call Civility Bullshit on Althouse.

It's obviously a play on words...only sick people (like Althouse) are actually picturing someone getting filleted.

You need to loosen up. This is why many men do not like self-labeled Feminists. They tend to be less fun and extra bitchy.

It's a way to go through life...though not one I recommend.

J said...

"Maybe believing in Jesus is like having a Platinum subscription."

I call complete hypocritical bullshit on Althouse.

You'll write that and yet get on your high-filly and criticize word-play between 'fillet' and 'filly'?

You beclown yourself.

walter said...

Leslyn,
So Ann's excerpts from the MJS don't resonate with you?

Seven Machos said...

I feel bad for stupid the occasional stupid people who come here and Althouse decides to ream. I really do. I mean, they were just driving by, most of them, expecting to be catty and shallow, and Althouse calls them out arbitrarily for their utter lack of self-awareness and cohesiveness, and just shakes their sad, sorry asses down.

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
walter said...

Leslyn,
Try to work with ideas, concepts and policy as opposed to personas.

walter said...

(otherwise you risk being lumped into the emotional female category so despised)

SGT Ted said...

Princess Summer Eve...

Summers Eve is a douche.


No, really. It's a douche!

SGT Ted said...

If businesses could hire women at 77 cents to the dollar, while getting the same amount of work out of them, men wouldn't have office jobs.

I bet the GOP explained it properly to the press, who then ignored the facts to run "GOP War on Women" Propaganda bullshit for the Democrat Party, instead of reporting the news. Its pretty much how they operate.

SGT Ted said...

One person's feminism is another person's whining.

No, Modern Feminism IS whining.

There are no equal access issues in todays civilian society for women. In fact, women have rigged the game the other way. Passive-agrressive whining is what dissatisfied women DO to get their way, because it WORKS.

The tip off is their utter silence on men who REALLY oppress women in the Muslim world. Instead of addressing any of that, they would rather use their pussy-whip on Democrats and squishy Republicans to buy shit for them out of the Treasury, or to obligate some other group of strangers to pick up the tab instead.

Like some gold digging floozy nagging her Trophy Husband for a bigger ring, they think they are entitled to it because they possess what men want: a vagina.

I'm really not impressed by feminists. They have stayed at the level of a self centered 16 year old girl who's emotions are the most important thing in her life.

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
walter said...

leslyn,
I was talking about your reflexive dismissal of anything Growthman.

"Leslyn,
So Ann's excerpts from the MJS don't resonate with you?"

"Glenn Grothman doesn't resonant with me."

Just seemed like a duck of the question.

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SukieTawdry said...

Women earn 77 cents for every dollar that men make.

Was there ever a more meaningless statistic?

"At a time when women’s health services are becoming more expensive and harder to obtain, financial stability is essential to maintain steady access."

It is true that in many parts of the country, it's getting more and more difficult to find an OB/GYN (I switched over to a nurse practitioner some time ago). But that has nothing to do with a "war on women" or a "war on women's health." That, my liberal friends, you can lay at the feet of personal injury litigators like John Edwards and Democrats who refuse to confront the trial lawyers' lobby. OB/GYN specialists generally leave the field because they can no longer afford to practice. (However, I understand that Planned Parenthood, for all its pissing and moaning, is doing quite well.)

limey said...

Women definitely earn less than men!

Spinning the repeal of "equal pay" as war on women is the prob not the best characterization of the motives of Gov Scott Walker. But it is important to note, more than a few people on this blog seem to think that if you control for hours worked,and career interruptions the inequity in womens wages disappears. That is factually wrong.
1) the 77% estimate was based on women who worked upwards of 35 hours a week
2) Women earn less in female dominated industries (female secretary earns 86.5% of what male secretary earns). And less in male-dominated industries.

Takeaway: The gap definitely reduces once you control for factors Synova mentioned, and how much the gap decreases probably depends on your political worldview. However, there are still a stubborn few percentage points that remain. How you explain that away i suppose is also a product of your world-view, (discrimination conscious or unconscious). Just thought it was important that all the good commentary wasn't hurt by this one nonfactual assertion. The wage gap is a real phenomenon.

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ndspinelli said...

I thought Rickey Henderson was the greatest leadoff man. But, I now believe edutcher, president of ASS[Althouse Sycophant Society], has assumed that role.

How do you filet an ASS?

First, you have to pull their head and torso from the rectum of their leader.

Peter said...

Ann Althouse said, “I don't know how much this is about the idea of "equal pay for equal work"

IMHO the reason many of us don’t get exited about this is that although we support the concept of “equal pay for equal work” we also know how difficult it is to define “equal work.”

And after seeing that “Women make xx cents for every dollar a man makes” statistic endlessly abused over the years, we have little confidence that we’re dealing with honest people who are making a good-faith effort to solve real problems.

And so we remain suspicious that demands for “equal pay for equal work” will inevitably morph into “equal pay for equivalent work,” with “equivalent” being defined in an increasingly expansive manner as employers seek ever-more-elusive safe harbors.

Plus the “Cui bono?” aspect- a deep suspicion that trial lawyers’ organizations are not entirely unhappy when statute and precedent law result in a situation in which there are no safe harbors to be found- only choices offering different (yet difficult to assess) degrees of risk.

Finally, these laws may have unintended consequences. Sor of ike laws that try to protect single mothers in the rental housing market: the intentions may be good, yet the result is likely to be that single mothers will find it more difficult to find rental housing (because landlords don’t want to take the risk of renting to a ‘protected’ tenant).