November 1, 2016

Berkeley linguistics professor says going after Hillary for her email is a "bitch hunt" — happening only because Hillary is a woman.

I'm reading this thing — "Hillary Clinton’s Emailgate Is an Attack on Women," by Robin Lakoff, published in Time — and I'm waiting for the linguistics analysis, but it's just a series of unsupported assertions in the manner of a Facebook rant.
The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man? Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere. There is so much of that going around....

If the candidate were male, there would be no scolding and no “scandal.” Those very ideas would be absurd. Men have a nearly absolute right to freedom of speech. In theory, so do women, but that, as the creationists like to say, is only a theory....
It’s not about emails; it’s about public communication by a woman in general...

(How to tell the genders apart: men are truthful; women are liars. Now you know.)...
This is so embarrassing, I wouldn't talk about it except that Lakoff is a professor associated with a prominent university and promising special insight through linguistics. So I'm afraid we need to stare straight at what would normally cause decent people to avert our eyes.

As for freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that you're not responsible for the things you say and do with speech. And if you undertake to protect the security of the American people by handling classified information, you get access to speech that you must keep restricted. If you are extremely careless in protecting that information, you richly deserve criticism, and — male or female — "freedom of speech" is no defense.

By the way, the first paragraph of Lakoff's piece reads like a children's book — an insane children's book:
I am mad. I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.
Yeah, I'm mad too. I'm mad because a woman who is purportedly concerned that women's speech is treated as less worthy is putting out such a ludicrously unworthy exemplar of speech by a woman.

120 comments:

AJ Lynch said...

Wasn't there a guy named George Lakoff who used to say Repubs only won because they were better at the word framing games of politics. I guess the Lakoffs family business is linguistics B.S.

rich hahn said...

George Lakoff (rhymes with ... (courtesy Rush)), her former husband, has been advising the DNC for years. He is responsible for "You didn't build that" and many other phrases that Democrats have used.

Jason said...

As a former reporter for the Time, Inc organization, I'm embarrassed for the magazine, too.

David Begley said...

We will see in the fullness of time that Hillary's illegal private email server was for way more than looking at top secret documents. There will be emails that will make it clear - even to the NYT - that Hillary took bribes for official acts. Worse than Watergate.

Skipper said...

Just one more example of someone making good money doing nothing. Does anyone do useful work anymore?

Bob Ellison said...

No male human has ever in his life been required to take care of his speech about female humans.

Lyssa said...

Yeah, I'm mad too. I'm mad because a woman who is purportedly concerned that women's speech is treated as less worthy is putting out such a ludicrously unworthy exemplar of speech by a woman.

Yes.

Laslo Spatula said...

Althouse nailed it: a Facebook rant.

Was there not an Editor to step in and try to get it on the rails?

Two possibilities:

The Editor is a Male: knows it's crap, but he ain't gonna go there.

The Editor is a Female: thinks the piece is marvelous as-is.

I am Laslo.

mezzrow said...

A week to go.

Even worse to come.

Henry said...

Can you imagine this happening to a man?

Rhetorical questions are a bitch.

Sydney said...

I'm mad, too. I'm so mad words can't express the degree of my anger. I'm mad because the government restricts my speech with my patients to the point that I have to purchase expensive software to communicate with them electronically. When they ask me, "Can you just email it to me?" or "Can I just text you a picture of my rash?" I have to say, "No, the government doesn't allow that. It isn't secure enough." And every doctor knows this. If they claim they don't know it, and use an unsecure method of electronic communication, the government doesn't believe them and will prosecute them to the full extent of the law. There is no way in heaven, hell, or earth you can convince me that Hillary or anyone on her staff did not know it was illegal to set up her own server and to communicate classified information so carelessly. They knew it was illegal and they did it anyway. Because they were confidant they could get away with it. Pissed off!!!!

Sydney said...

And even better- the laws that make it so hard for me to communicate electronically with my patients were instituted by the Clinton Administration. Piss off, Hillary. And you feminist enablers.

TreeJoe said...

That's the type of example of speech that the good professor is free to make, and should be free to be put on probation over.

Terrible writing, no rationale, and complete mis-direction. I especially like the fact-like-statement that the e-mail scandal is about female communication.

Brando said...

Seems feminists have a blind spot when it comes to Hillary in that they cannot see the non-sexist reasons so many people have a problem with her. Sure, it's easy to write it off as sexism and go back to mocking the rubes, but with a little more insight they might have been able to see that Hillary has actual defects.

MayBee said...

"Women" as a political construct makes all of us women look ridiculous.

Henry said...

Meanwhile Charles Blow at the New York Times describes the email flap this way:

One scandal is about a man boasting of predation and the other is about a woman weary of people’s prying.

This in a column about false equivalence. The mind boggles.

Now the Times has gone all in on trashing Comey. The Eliot Ness of August is the J. Edgar Hoover of October. He must be destroyed.

The more I read Hillary's defenders, the harder it is to vote for her. But I've become used to ignoring them.


Fred Rawlings said...

We need to address this ' classified information' angle.
It's not just classified information that shouldn't be spread around.
As John Podesta will tell you, no group, nation, NGO, spy network... NOBODY should be reading the United States Secretary of State's emails period. Any of them, classified or not.
I just watched 'The Imitation Game', and WW2 codebreakers busted Enigma because Nazi emailer's (sorry) were breaking protocol by repeating passwords and typing Heil Hitler too often.
So let's let Hillary have a system where nothing is protected by a Government firewall and see what happens. Jeez.

Otto said...

Two adolescent- minded women fighting each other is never a pretty picture.

Henry said...

@Sydney. That's a fantastic comparative. You should write that up in full.

LakeLevel said...

The truth doesn't matter. Thus it has ever been with fascists, communists and the Democratic Party. Power is all that matters. I see it all the time with my Democrat friends. They are self blinded to the truth and that's OK with them. Me? I couldn't take it anymore and joined the other side.

Gusty Winds said...

As a man, I don't feel connected or obligated to defend or own any type of speech or opinion of other men. Many are full of shit.

Howard Dean and Harry Reid for example. Paul Ryan. Leonardo DiCaprio.

It must be frustrating as a woman, to have other women claim to represent and speak for the opinions of all women. But that's what left wing feminists created, so there you are.

tcrosse said...

I would suggest Prof. Lakoff check her privilege. But fish are unaware that they are wet.

Mike Sylwester said...

This is what happens when female Scientific Progressives are allowed to become professors.

Luke Lea said...

At this point I have a feeling Ann will not be voting for Hillary. Might she vote for Trump? Not inconceivable if Wisconsin is close.

robother said...

She bellyaches just like a woman
But she breaks just like a little girl.

Tank said...

Perfect example of Prager's rule that it takes a person with an advanced degree to be "that" stupid.

Also: One more reason women should not be allowed to vote.

JCCamp said...

Ms Lakoff wrote another piece for time, all about how we put words in Hillary's mouth, either because we're so excited to see a woman with power, or because we're scummy males who want to control what she says.

Not surprisingly, Ms lakoff is apparently a fan of the esteemed Chomsky, he of the now-discredited theories of linguistics.

That noise you hear is Henry Luce, spinning like a top in his final resting place.

rhhardin said...

I go with Vicki Hearne (Adam's Task, Bandit, Animal Happiness, read in that order) for women worth reading for a woman's take, mostly on science and male-dominated philosophy.

She takes no prisoners but is nice about it.

She's a lefty (she's a woman after all, what else would she be) who winds up writing on the right.

Sort of rare.

The difference is mostly self-awareness as something to foreground.

Mike said...

Well the Clintons put a stake through the heart of feminism when they enlisted women activists to shill for her rapist husband with things like "one free grope" is cool, and "men always lie about sex, even under oath in a harassment suit" and the evergreen "there's not a power trip going on when the employee blows the boss if she wants to blow him." The War on Women began that year with general Hillary leading her troops into battle with the full tactical support of the MSM and the feminazi alliances.

Of course like all progressive democrat misadventures, they soon tried to blame the War on Women on subsequent Republican officeholders and officeseekers. Of course Donald was a democrat when he engaged in everything they are pretending to dislike during this campaign, so he never had to pay the price for boorish behavior or statements. Once he changed to an R after his name -- that was it.

I grow tired of academic absurdity like the crap emanating from this linguine professor. We get it. The entire Progressive-Academy-Media complex is in a tizzy because their walking dead candidate is being revealed as the cheating, lying, antiwoman, unamerican scum she is. The professor's premise is irredeemable. The bitch factor ain't got squat to do with Hillary's problems.

tim in vermont said...

Thus endeth the Enlightenment.

AprilApple said...

TIME magazine? LOL Wow - that is so embarrassing.

Hillary commits crimes like any man, but wants to be treated like a delicate old granny. Protected by her lady parts. TIME to the rescue.

rhhardin said...

The only reason the whole email flap has legs

The email flap is no snake.

Fernandinande said...

How to tell the genders apart:

Somebody could use a good pussy-grabbing.

Tim said...

The social "sciences" need to die. There is no rational use for them.

rhhardin said...

men are truthful; women are liars

Women are actresses and models.

DanTheMan said...

>>Can you imagine this happening to a man?

Let's ask General Patraeus....

Scott McGlasson said...

That such a vacuous person could become a professor at one of our "best" universities is saddening.

Mike Sylwester said...

For Scientific Progressives, any criticism of Barack Obama is a cause to make racism accusations.

For Scientific Progressives, any criticism of Hillary Clinton is a cause to make sexism accusations.

It's what they do.

Bob Boyd said...

"It’s not about emails; it’s about public communication by a woman in general..."

It's about Hillary's conspiracy to keep public communication from the public.

Michael P said...

Was General Petraeus available for comment on the allegation that men would not be criticized for mishandling classified information?

dreams said...

The women gave us political correctness, I blame them.

buwaya puti said...

And this is a professor with a GOOD reputation in the field and is not held to be an ultra-feminist nutcase.
Just a garden-variety example of the breed, the only difference from the common run of liberal arts professors is she published her opinion.

karlpoppersghost said...

A nice, concise explanation that even a biased and bitter White feminist should be able to understand.

Mansplaining below:

Hillary's emails matter: A retired CIA officer explains why

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael The Magnificent said...

Can you imagine this happening to a man?

At one point in my life I had a security clearance. And even though I am a man, it was explained to me in no uncertain terms the laws that would apply and the jail sentences I would likely endure should I take even one classified document out of the locked and guarded secure room I was employed in.

And for the record, not a one of those documents was marked with a classification; they were born classified.

This is just a variation on the old, "You oppose him only because he is black."

CWJ said...

"If the candidate were male, there would be no scolding and no 'scandal.'”

So true. There would be indictment, trial, and if guilty, jail instead.

rhhardin said...

Linguistics is great. Invest in the 2000-page _A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_ Quirk Greenbaum Leech and Svartvik for an amazing demonstration of the thousands of rules you use but can't articulate.

See? corner of my computer work table.

A summer's reading.

David Begley said...

Luke Lea

Wisconsin in play. Trump in Eau Claire today.

Nigel Tufnel said...

This is what Lakoff wrote in September in Time:

"This election, Hillary Clinton is functioning as a representative of all women, and in particular of all powerful women. There are those who are not comfortable seeing a woman playing that role, and are doing all they can to undercut her communicative options (and thus deny her full humanity).

When Clinton speaks, many hearers demand total control of her intentions, leaving her unable to claim control of her own meaning. Words are regularly put into her mouth. (This is the exact reverse of Trump’s situation.)"

So,

Hill is representative of all women.

Finding fault in a private server while SOS and then destroying evidence "undercuts her communicative options" AND denies her humanity.

And now we are putting things in her mouth - regularly.

Oh my.

Curious George said...

Well, at least she got the bitch part right. I know it was accidental, playing off "witch hunt", but correct nonetheless.

Michael The Magnificent said...

A week to go. Even worse to come.

Notice what hasn't yet come: There is no big Plan B attack being launched against Trump (Plan A being the 11th hour accusations of sexual assault that, for whatever strange reason, were never worth publishing prior to Trump winning the primary).

Clayton Hennesey said...

The history of linguistics professors using the presumed expertise of their specialty to anoint entirely unrelated political urges is nothing new.

Two words: Noam Chomsky.

I can only assume Ms. Lakoff is both a floor wax and a dessert topping.

TWW said...

How does one determine the sex of an email? I'm still having trouble with cats (although I don't look closely).

William Jamieson said...

Troubling to me, first, is the quality of the piece, or lack thereof. Whatever happened to making a logical argument? Present your position, and then support it with facts. Not screed, not ideology, not crazy hyperbole, but facts. Then, draw your conclusion, ask your audience why it's better for them that they agree with you, and last, ask your audience to agree with you. Where'd that type of persuasive speech go?

The 2nd troubling aspect of this article: what happened to the quality of our academics? This sophomoric bleat was written by a professor? Did that person not have to achieve at least a master's degree, or more likely, a PhD? Does that achievement not, unto itself, imply better-than-average intelligence, logical, critical thinking, and dispassionate, reasoned discourse? Maybe not.

I encounter this often: I read an article, find it mediocre at best, and then discover that the writer is a full-blown professor. Or vice versa. And then wonder what happened to the teaching of our teachers.

Perhaps it is as Instapundit says...these people are not degreed, but credentialed. Meaning, to me, no learning is going on. Boy howdy, are we in trouble.

Bill

Michael The Magnificent said...

It’s not about emails; it’s about public communication by a woman in general...

Reporters would love to interview her, or for her to hold a press conference.

The FBI would LOVE for Hillary to start talking rather than invoking the 5th, or claiming she has no memory of the event indicating an advanced stage of dementia.

The people telling Hillary to keep silent are confined to her lawyers and inner circle of political advisors.

Clyde said...

Speech is not the problem; illegal acts are the problem. Setting up an unsecured private server that held classified material is an illegal act, for men as well as women.

Roy Jacobsen said...

Reason, logic, and evidence are heteropatriarchical.

In other words, shut up, she explained.

Chuck said...

I love Professor Althouse.

I hope that I am beyond the jurisdictional reach of Madison and the University of Wisconsin for that potential microaggression that could be interpreted as a sexual aggression.

Pennoyer v. Neff.

Steven Wilson said...

Yeah, I'm mad too. I'm mad because a woman who is purportedly concerned that women's speech is treated as less worthy is putting out such a ludicrously unworthy exemplar of speech by a woman.

Perhaps I'm merely attempting to restate this, but I'd be more inclined to be angry whenever anyone who claims to belong to "my" group would assume they could speak for me. That it is nonsensical babbling is of course just icing.

Inevitably this is what happens when the only claim to legitimacy is identity politics.

Two days ago a friend/acquaintance of mine boasted that in casting his early vote he had voted for six women. Knowing John I know that he didn't vote for six women, he simply voted for six democrats who happened to have a high estrogen content. The amusing thing is this happened in West Virginia where for 70+ years the democrats had a stranglehold on us and delivered us to the point that our state motto "Mountaineers are always free" was too often accompanied by "and thank God for Mississippi".

So his progressive, enlightened votes were cast for those who are increasingly being shunted to the wayside. Those being democrats, not women.

And if anyone asks, I concede that Trump can be abominable, but Hillary is an abomination. If you can't differentiate between having the capacity for and epitomizing then you are beyond help. And that applies to the USA as well. The thought of Hillary as President brings the starting image of Thelma and Louise. I don't know who is whom, but just visualize that car going over the cliff with her as the driver and the country as the passenger.

Howard said...

If this and an expose of Trump legally avoiding taxes is their best defense of Clinton's email scandal, she's toast.

Levi Starks said...

Allow me to rephrase the premise.
The reason the flap has legs is that the flapper has legs.

Anglelyne said...

By the way, the first paragraph of Lakoff's piece reads like a children's book — an insane children's book...

And yet this is the caliber of mind that occupies tenured positions in our first-tier universities.

Yeah, I'm mad too. I'm mad because a woman who is purportedly concerned that women's speech is treated as less worthy is putting out such a ludicrously unworthy exemplar of speech by a woman.

Preach it, sister.

Modern feminism - the ideology that seeks to prove that women really are as mediocre of mind, self-absorbed, and irrational as misogynists down through the centuries always said they were.

(Though, to be fair, many male "scholars" and deep-thinkers who get media time are also craptastic mediocrities.)

virgil xenophon said...

Tank@8:10am/

Prager borrowed from Orwell who famously said in Parliament while an MP about some idiot leftist MPs quoting even more idiotic French intellectuals: "Only an intellectual could possibly believe in such things; no ordinary person could ever BE such a fool."

Laslo Spatula said...

"Ms. Meadows, Clinically Depressed Therapist"

Many of my female patients are quite depressed over the unfair treatment Hillary Clinton receives. They see their struggles represented in her, and realize that women will never be treated fairly in our culture...

I could try to nudge them to a breakthrough of this thinking, but why bother? They will always find something to be depressed and oppressed about: that's why they are seeing me. So I nod and murmur and then write them a handful of prescriptions and see them again in six weeks...

The truth is Women ARE treated unfairly. But then again, so is everybody: the Universe is a pitiless place, and to believe things could be different is the sign of the dysfunctional mind. I believe what I do for my patients is just a slow form of Assisted Suicide, and I am simply trying to make them reasonably comfortable for the process...

Some might say my drinking clouds my judgment and ability to perform my job: I say the Hangover is the truest way to understand the World. It is pain of your own doing, and you will still do it again: Real Life is just the Hangover of Ego. Of course, I tell my patients that they shouldn't drink so much, but that's OK: I know they do it, anyway..

I am very drunk, but I will drive to the Liquor Store to get more alcohol. It's OK, I make the drive drunk all the time...


I am Laslo.

Hunter said...

When Clinton speaks, many hearers demand total control of her intentions... Words are regularly put into her mouth. (This is the exact reverse of Trump’s situation.)

Wow. That's some impressive willful blindness.

Rick said...

Isn't it revealing how many radfem are supported only by assertion?

Martha said...

Feminism took another hit Friday when Vice President Biden in a CBS interview said of Hillary!—the most qualified competent person to ever run for President—

“I don’t think she understood the gravity of setting it up. She thought this was okay to do,”

She is a just a woman after all.....

chickelit said...

Lack of incite

bagoh20 said...

Maybe the position of Professor is what retards aspire to these days. You gotta admit the handicap is fully accommodated in the job now. I'm sure many professors are fine intelligent people who do important work, but over the last few years, it seems to me that no other profession has such a high concentration and affinity for the retarded. I don't see so many plumbers or accountants or doctors saying and writing such ridiculous and illogical things as do professors. The profession always had eccentrics, but this thing lately isn't eccentric - it's moronic and unfortunately not at all eccentric at the university.

Prosecutorial Indiscretion said...

If Hillary gets elected, expect four years of similar defenses whenever she is called out on the various inevitable acts of corruption and ineptitude. The worst possible outcome for academic feminism is Hillary winning. Her lack of character will lead all of its proponents to enthusiastically discredit themselves in the public sphere as they seek to prop up a woman whose career has relied entirely on who she married back in the 70s.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?

Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

Paul Snively said...

Dr. Lakoff is exhibit A for the thesis that the hard left literally believes in magic words—that there are modes of speech and the content there of that have efficacy apart from context, apart from the information the hearer has, apart from physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, and even politics.

A lot more of the hard left should be embarrassed than just Dr. Lakoff.

Biotrekker said...

We ARE talking about Berkeley here, after all.

Peter said...

"It's about Hillary's conspiracy to keep public communication from the public."

Part of the story is the absurdly lax security that could result in sensitive material ending up on Abedin/Weiner's lapotop, most likely not even encrypted nor subject to automatic deletion of old email. In a world where practically every corporation demands that Company laptops be encrypted and auto-deletes old email.

BUT the larger story remains: WHY go to so much trouble to keep all this private and secret, if not to hide quid pro quo involving the Clinton Foundation?


(As well as continuing hack-work which academics produce on science and technology that purports to analyze cultural signifiers in the sciences and technology, even though the authors remain astonishingly, aggressively ignorant in science and technology.)

damikesc said...

Remember, parents PAY lots of money to have their kids listen to this bullshit.

Bob Boyd said...

Lakoff's intellectual journey led her into a dismal swamp. She's only a stone's throw from where she started, but hopelessly lost.
Sometimes when the wind is right you can still hear her calling. Those who knew her say they recognize her voice but can't understand what she's saying. They used to call back to her, hoping she'd follow the sound of their voices, move in their direction and extricate herself, but it never worked. They don't even bother anymore.

chuck said...

Oh, *that* Lakoff. IIRC, she also wrote about to use language to manipulate people to the dark side, aka, the left. Just another academic with Gruber caliber morals.

Larry J said...

I suppose holding a woman to the same legal standards as a man is sexist, too. A Navy sailor took some photographs inside of a submarine and was sentenced to jail. Hillary carelessly handles dozens to hundreds of pieces of classified information and holding her accountable to the law is a "bitchhunt." Gotcha.

Howard said...

Bago- It takes a special type of mental defective to judge an entire profession based on what the government media complex chooses to publish.

Debbie Haag said...

"It’s not about emails; it’s about public communication by a woman in general..."

I don't think these emails were PUBLIC communications.

rhhardin said...

Cavell had a nice take on women and voice, back when insight was favored: QUOTE

Twice I remember asking my mother, "Why are operas always sad?" She tried no answer, but she was someone to whom I could direct such a perplexity. I would come to give myself various answers to the question -- based on questions having to do, for example, with what occasions people to sing, and what plots best allow for such occasions, questions which I would later come to feel assumed the question, not answered it. I do not know that it is the most searching question one might ask of opera, but the moret insteresting directions for an answer I have been given to it come from another woman, Catherine Clément in her book _Opera, or the Undoing of Women_, published in 1979, translated into English some ten years later, when I came across it. Her answer is, in effect, that opera is about the death of women, and about the singing of women, and can be seen to be about the fact that women die because they sing.


Achilles said...

I think we need to have this woman discuss the 19th amendment and her relationship with it.

Kirk Parker said...

Tim,

"The social 'sciences' need to die. There is no rational use for them."

Au contraire, they can be very useful if pursued correctly. (How to determine "correctly"? Basically look at what people like Lakoff are doing and do the opposite.) [Disclaimer: I was an actual working field linguist/anthropologist in a previous life.]


rhhardin,

Ooooh, "elecraft kx3". I've had my eye one one... how do you like it?

Karen said...

The truly horrendous thing is that young women of my daughter's age are reading this kind of stuff from "professors" and lapping it up. They haven't received a good enough education to discern the errors .

Real American said...

if Hillary wins, get ready for 4 more years of smearing all criticism of her as sexist. IT would be far more honest if they just stated "We have no rebuttal" and sat the fuck down.

rhhardin said...

Ooooh, "elecraft kx3". I've had my eye one one... how do you like it?

It's spectacular. Takes very little space, sits next to the mouse under the monitor, and requires only that you move the coffee cup to the other side of the desk.

I've been off the air for 53 years and receivers, in particular this one for example, have improved enormously. That the other guy has a great receiver too is what makes the low power work so well, and there you are. Beautiful filters. Runs on internal AA cells, though now I've patched in a battery from the basement to support it.

I bought all the options and find them all worthwhile.

Whether something cheaper is as good, I can't say.

Kirk Parker said...

OT with rhhardin:

"bought all the options" -- which filter(s)? And you can only install one at a time--what's it like to swap them?

rhhardin said...

"bought all the options" -- which filter(s)? And you can only install one at a time--what's it like to swap them?

It's automatic. When you reduce the bandwidth a couple of roofing filters (the options) kick in to elminate nearby superstrong stations, at the right point. Mostly it eliminates key clicks from them. I don't know what happens on SSB since I don't use it.

The only flaw was the contacts on the "precision paddles" that fit on the side came with dirty contacts, which needed an application of DeOxit brush to fit it. I don't know of the paddles are thought to be good or not (I notice hams are always buying new ones, so it must affect how hard it is to use but I've only tried this one). I manage with them, occasionally baffled by the iambic keyer because I have bug reflexes still.

wholelottasplainin' said...

"Scientific Progressive" is such a complete oxymoron.

These are the same people who jeer at conservatives for (supposedly) not accepting slam-dunk Darwinism, but AT THE SAME TIME seeking perfectibility in human nature and human institutions.

What an effed up bunch.

Ambrose said...

It's going to be a long 8 years if HRC wins. Imagine 2018: "Putin has only occupied Ukraine because he can't stand that the leader of the free world is a woman. Can you imagine Russia behaving like this if a man were in the Oval Office? Only male presidents are left along by world leaders to pursue their domestic agendas."

Todd said...

When Clinton speaks, many hearers demand total control of her intentions... Words are regularly put into her mouth. (This is the exact reverse of Trump’s situation.)


I am no "linguist" but that just sounds "off" to my mind's ear. Should that not have been written as: many who hear her demand or many of those that hear her demand?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...This is so embarrassing, I wouldn't talk about it except that Lakoff is a professor associated with a prominent university and promising special insight through linguistics. So I'm afraid we need to stare straight at what would normally cause decent people to avert our eyes.

Well said, Professor; it is embarrassing. Why would Time give this person such a prominent platform to publish such an embarrassing piece?

Just kidding, we all know why. Don't whine about it, though!

[Nearly 100 comments in and no one's made a "cunning" joke? I won't be the first.]

traditionalguy said...

Scott Adams would call that good Presuasion.

Everybody knows this election is actually about the women against that horrible Male-iarch who assaults the women.

Snark said...

Overwrought and ineffective, much like Michael Moore`s cri de cour on Real Time last week that Hillary Clinton has been the victim of decades of unjust attacks and he was simply TIRED OF IT! I actually laughed out loud, and I`m a lefty.

dbp said...

William Jamieson said...
Troubling to me, first, is the quality of the piece, or lack thereof. Whatever happened to making a logical argument? Present your position, and then support it with facts. Not screed, not ideology, not crazy hyperbole, but facts. Then, draw your conclusion, ask your audience why it's better for them that they agree with you, and last, ask your audience to agree with you. Where'd that type of persuasive speech go?

All of that is male-dominated phallocentric modes of reaching conclusions and finding truth. Women can find truth in other ways. We men just have to trust and believe them since the whole "logic" and "facts" modes won't work and cannot be trusted. We have had our time (all of human history, up until recently) and it is their turn. Defer to the women.

Anglelyne said...

HoodlumDoodlum: Well said, Professor; it is embarrassing. Why would Time give this person such a prominent platform to publish such an embarrassing piece?

Time magazine is one big embarrassment these days. So, no mystery on that point. It's what they do.

FullMoon said...

Howard said... [hush]​[hide comment]

If this and an expose of Trump legally avoiding taxes is their best defense of Clinton's email scandal, she's toast.


Yeah, where is the divorce declaration that Trump raped his wife? Or, mainstreaming of the assault of a minor? Latest rumor is of Trump sex tape. Is Hillary not going to use this stuff? The Trump/Russian "connection" seems weak. Are most people still afraid Russia is going to nuke us?

Todd said...

dbp said...

All of that is male-dominated phallocentric modes of reaching conclusions and finding truth. Women can find truth in other ways. We men just have to trust and believe them since the whole "logic" and "facts" modes won't work and cannot be trusted. We have had our time (all of human history, up until recently) and it is their turn. Defer to the women.

11/1/16, 11:57 AM


As part of demonstrating the uselessness of this old-model, patriarchy based "science and engineering" phase of human existence, I would encourage these wymen to design, build and then occupy their own high-rise (at least 10 stories) structure to show all of the rest of us "how it is done" in the new world order where facts depend on your individual perspective. I would appreciate if the entire thing could be documented from start to finish and converted into a reality TV show to help enlighten the rest of us.

hombre said...

Since it seems unlikely that any professor, even at Berkeley, could be this stupid, this must be another example of the shamelessness of Clintonistas.

What's the premise, that a crime committed by a woman isn't a crime or that a crime committed by a Clinton isn't a crime? Either is possible among the insane Democrats.

Szoszolo said...

Sydney, tell your patients of the risks and have them sign a release. See HIPAA Omnibus Final Rule, page 5634:

We clarify that covered entities are permitted to send individuals unencrypted emails if they have advised the individual of the risk, and the individual still prefers the unencrypted email. . . . If individuals are notified of the risks and still prefer unencrypted email, the individual has the right to receive protected health information in that way, and covered entities are not responsible for unauthorized access of protected health information while in transmission to the individual based on the individual’s request. Further, covered entities are not responsible for safeguarding information once delivered to the individual.

LarsPorsena said...

Is that THE Robin Lakoff as in 'rhymes with' Lakoff?

Paul from Minneapolis said...

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=356296

Robin Lakoff student ratings. The first one is current and based in part on this essay. But the other comments go back to 2008 and earlier and nearly without exception the professor is described as a. boring and b. a jerk. The second part coincides with something I noticed years ago, back in my hapless community organizer days: intense professional 'progressives' tend to be some of the most personally unpleasant people you'd ever want to meet.

mockturtle said...

Hillary has been treated gently because of her gender, Obama because of his race. A white man with similar records would have been excoriated long ago.

Leora said...

I don't remember this sort of complaint about people hacking Sarah Palin's personal email. I believe our chatterati class was pumped about the chance to attack an uppity woman.

RonF said...

"Can you imagine this happening to a man?"

Yes. Hell yes. Why would it not?

From a comment upthread:

"They knew it was illegal and they did it anyway. Because they were confidant they could get away with it."

No, they did it because she told them to and no one around her has the guts to say "No" to her. Which would lead to some epic disasters if she becomes President.

RonF said...

rhhardin:

"Why are operas always sad?"

They're not. I was in one called "Maskerade". It's Danish - it's the Danish national opera - and was written about 100 years ago. It's set in Denmark back in the 1720's. Boy meets girl at masquerade, loses track of her, tries to find her, both meet barriers because they are flouting social convention, eventually get together and everyone lives happily ever after. It's opera buffa and it is by no means sad.

Howard said...

she rates a 2.1/5.0 which is poor, which means she got a lot of 1.0 awful rankings

Howard said...

althouse rates a 2.5 (only 15 reviews over 11-years), so maybe it's more of a limited sample (Lickoff had 24 reviews stretched out over 11-years)

Althouse Rating

Paul from Minneapolis said...

Howard - my assumption would be that for Ann, many even the the majority of the highly negative comments are from misguided young progressives and etc., punishing her for her blog. But as you note, the numbers are small. And I assume sites like this are roundly despised by profs both good and bad.

Mark Jones said...

This is just a foretaste of the four (or eight, god help us) years to come if Hillary gets elected. Just as every criticism of Obama for the last eight years was dismissed as racist hatred with no possible basis in, you know, his POLITICS or his BEHAVIOR, so too will every criticism of Hillary be dismissed as sexism.

Very convenient for them, that is. Why bother behaving well, or even defending your behavior (however abominable or criminal), when you can just point and shriek "Racist! Sexist!" at your enemies like Donald Sutherland at the end of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.

Rick said...

Howard - my assumption would be that for Ann, many even the the majority of the highly negative comments are from misguided young progressives and etc., punishing her for her blog

I noticed almost all put "N/A" for "would take professor again". [Revealingly one called her an "out" conservative.] Most of the negative comments made no reference to anything in the class. Maybe they didn't take her class in the first place.

Jon Ericson said...

Tip Of My Tongue

Tip Of My Tongue
The Tubes/Snyder/M. White

You somehow knew we'd meet again.
Now I understand.
If I look surprised don't be alarmed,
I've got you, in my arms.
I can almost taste it, and when I can,
(I won't waste the chance).
Just a lick away,
(Oh so close)
and baby there's one thing I know...
My heart speaks but the words play
on the tip of my tongue...
and no matter
what my lips say, you are still the only one.
Never been too cunning, I'm no linguist,
but I can tell you this ---
Ever since I left you I've been lost,
I'm walking in a fog.
We can lick this problem;
we can work it out.
Don't be impatient, and don't you run,
'cause I want you on the tip of my...
I can't find the words.
My lips are on their own,
and my speech is slurred...
can't even talk on the telephone.
I'll take a tip from you.
You say my French is pretty good,
so that's what I'll use...
If I could

mockturtle said...

Sounds like something Laslo would write, Jon.

Fen said...

althouse rates a 2.5 (only 15 reviews over 11-years), so maybe it's more of a limited sample (Lickoff had 24 reviews stretched out over 11-years)

Her reviews are fake. Much of it is Feminist SJWs punishing her for her "heresy" in pointing out Jessica Valenti's hypocrisy of attending a Clinton White House function to fawn over the serial rapist Bill and his slut shaming wife Hillary.

Fen said...

btw Ann & Meade the latest Wikileaks dump has emails revealing Valenti was hire by the Clinton campaign to write attack pieces against Bernie Sanders sliming him as a misogynist. You should check that out.

Howard said...

Stealing the nomination by cheating with the DNC, dirty tricks, and the press is worse than Watergate and the private email,server because it reduces our nomination process to a Bannaner Repubic.

Jupiter said...

My theory is that the reason we have all these unserious people running around, is that life is pretty damned easy. You can get plenty to eat, and have a great house to live in, and good medical care, and a car and some computers and a whole bunch of other great stuff, without having clue one about how anything actually works in the real world. No one comes over the hill with a spear in his hand, kills most of your menfolk, and drags you off somewhere to die a slave. You can have as many idiotic and mutually contradictory misconceptions as you like, about every aspect of life, and all you really need to worry about is keeping track of the fact that cars *will* go off the road and kill you. But there's a bunch of smart guys working on that problem too, so pretty soon we'll get to hear about how oil changes are a tool of the patriarchy.

And I'm afraid that we're going to go have to go right on putting up with the likes of this insufferable idiot, and even paying her to be insufferable, right up to the moment that life gets hard again. I suppose I can wait.

Zach said...

This is ridiculous. The Clinton email thing won't go away because she flagrantly broke the law, and because the failure to prosecute stank to high heaven. And now it came up again because a trusted subordinate had a document stash on a computer she turned over to the FBI.

The thing that's hard to believe is why a Secretary of State would be that stupid. It's one step short of secretly taping yourself in the Oval Office.

Zach said...

Handling classified information is a job responsibility, not a free speech issue. Hillary was free to yack about yoga classes and wedding dresses on her private server to her heart's content, but her work emails belong to the government and have to be treated with a certain level of care by law.

Lots of women have security clearances and handle things like this just fine. If there's a problem, you go to the IT guy and ask them what to do. If you inadvertently break the rules, you self report and figure out a mitigation strategy. In Hillary's case, the security folks were telling her what she had to do, she just didn't do it.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Jupiter,

And I'm afraid that we're going to go have to go right on putting up with the likes of this insufferable idiot, and even paying her to be insufferable, right up to the moment that life gets hard again. I suppose I can wait.
11/1/16, 9:35 PM

Nil desperandum, Jove old boy. All you have to do to beat Hillary, is vote for Trump. If everybody who fears and loathes Hillary Clinton, votes for Donald Trump-even though he has orange hair, yes I know, and says big league so that it sounds like bigly, and once he kissed a girl, just like Katy Perry-Hillary will lose this election like nobody has ever lost an election before.

She's not inevitable! She just LOOKS inevitable. Less so every single day. That's been her entire argument-she's going to win, because she's going to win.

Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Stay on target. Stay the course. This is not the time to go wobbly.