I saw this the other day because my Google Desktop is for some reason obsessed with Ann Althouse. Waaah! Why won't feminists speak up for me!!! wahhh!My question is why Atrios assumes I haven't been a feminist all along? Did he read enough of my work to make this assumption? It's quite wrong and offensive. I'd like him to prove to me now that it isn't the case that he's an example of the sort of person on the left who thinks that women who don't hew to liberal dogma deserve sexual harassment. These are the people who sold out feminism to protect Bill Clinton not so long ago. People of the left ought to see the need to prove to people like me that they actually care about feminism, as opposed to partisan politics, which, for Democrats, is concurrent with feminism often enough that they may imagine that their lack of real interest in feminism won't show. In my case, I don't care about partisan politics, but I do care about feminism, and I have a long record of writing to prove it.
The underlying issue is, of course, a real one. Critics across the political spectrum (and of both genders) are quick to jump to use sexist and sexual language when criticizing women. Still, the "I can ignore it until it happens to me" game is annoying.
Atrios, who doesn't deign to link to my blog as he discusses me, sets off a spate of comments that is now over 800. Let's see how his folks respond, and perhaps we can get a sense of how the left really processes feminism:
Feminism is OK in its place.Well, I'm not one eighth of the way into Atrios's comments, and no one has shown up to beat back this sexist crap. Atrios managed to summon up worse misogynists than Charles Johnson did. I hope he's proud of his people.
Feminism is OK in its place.
in the kitchen.
Feminism is OK in its place.
in the kitchen.
Hey, yeah! Fetch me an eclair!
"Remember back last February when Kevin Drum wrote about why there are so few women in political blogging?"
Because mainly ugly chicks and dudes are interested in politics. Pasty greasy faced (I saw the picture here and shivered in revulsion) fish belly white thighs and guts are not attractive.
That is why Pam Anderson can play a ditz and ROLL in cash.
Plus most Democrat women are real bow wows. One thing the Republicans have is a whole stable of hot blonde white women they can roll out for tv.
Who really wants to f**k her for her mind anyway?
But as an old black buddy of mine told me " Put a flag over her head and f**k her for old glory!
That's patriotism!
Hey, yeah! Fetch me an eclair!
You have to remove your pants first before I entertain that command.
Feminism is OK in its place.
So are Negroes. Once either gets uppity there's gotta be hell to pay.
but she looks like a man
It's pretty f**king awful to be a feminist, actually. You get called names by Rush Limbaugh and friends, you get to be ridiculed in the mainstream media and if the wingnut sources are anything to come by you are responsible for white women disappearing in Aruba, for the falling birthrate, for every divorce that has taken place and the demise of the Western civilization. You are even responsible for increased alcohol use among young women and male depression. In fact, you are pretty goddamnawful.
Yeah, but Echidne, every so often you get to use the Courts to beat the sons of bitches senseless and make them give you large amounts of money for having screwed you over. And that counts too.....
Democrats have a long, long way to go to convince me that they care at all about feminism.
UPDATE: Atrios has now linked to this post, but he doesn't answer my questions and doesn't correct his false assumption that I have only recently adopted feminism and only to serve my personal interests. He doesn't condemn his despicable commenters. He just says I'm missing the "irony." Yes, yes, I lack an appropriate sense of humor. Sexist jokes galore, and I ought to just learn to laugh about it. He seems to lack a shred of sensibility about how pathetically retro-male chauvinist that is. I'll say it again: Democrats have a long, long way to go to convince me that they care at all about feminism.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Atrios (AKA Duncan Black) adds some more material his post that links to me:
...to answer Althouse's question, the reason I assumed that she hadn't "been a feminist all along" was because she wrote:That's a weak attempt at a close reading argument. If that were true, if I wrote "Doesn't anyone care?" it would mean that I didn't care. Both Edchidne and Black didn't pick up the allusion in the title of my post. "Can I get a feminist?" was meant to invoke "Can I get a witness?" Those who say "Can I get a witness?" are themselves also witnesses.Are there any feminists around to see when it's happening and say a little something?Meaning, quite clearly, that feminists are other people. Had she written, "as a feminist, I think it's important to point these things out" or something similar taking ownership of the label I (and proud feminist Echidne) wouldn't have responded the way I did.
More from Black:
I of course haven't devoted my life to reading the entirety of Althouse's body of work, on her blog and elsewhere, though I certainly am no stranger to it. If Althouse would like to point me to something she's written which, for example, happened "say a little something" when it wasn't directed at her I'll happily make the correction.I could send him three law review articles. Or I could spend three hours going back over the blog to put together the argument that I've consistently and frequently taken feminist positions on this blog. Or I could get affidavits from people who know me personally avowing to the fact that Althouse has been openly feminist as long as they've known her. What is this, discovery?
The point is that Black chose to make an assumption about me and assert something about me without checking it. I could shout triumphantly: Duncan Black doesn't fact check!
Or I could return his treatment in kind and assert: Duncan Black is an anti-feminist! Because I, of course, haven't devoted my life to reading the entirety of Duncan Black's body of work, on his blog and elsewhere, though I certainly am no stranger to it, but if Duncan Black would like to point me to something he's written which proves that he isn't an anti-feminist, I'll be glad to issue a correction.
Is that how we're doing assertions of fact about individuals now?
Black adds something that substitutes for chiding his commenters:
I agree that it's understandable if people find ironic jokes about racism or sexism genuinely inappropriate or offensive. Sometimes those jokes are almost indistinguishable from genuine racism and sexism, no matter the intent of the person making them, and I'm not going to tell people what should or shouldn't offend them.That's the old sorry-if-you-were-offended faux apology. I'd like to ask Black to do one more thing. Compare the comments made after he did his post calling attention to me for crying about something with the comments made on the post he made one day earlier laughing at a Roger L. Simon for crying about something. I called attention to that post of his:
Atrios has unleashed the commenters on Roger. I can almost empathize. It's actually a good opportunity to compare the behavior of lefty and righty commenters. The lefties, in this sample, are all over the place, in "open thread" mode, despite the assigned topic.The righty commenters referred to were those at Little Green Footballs, who were extremely viciously toward me in blatant sexual language. Now, we can see how the Atrios commenters acted in two similar situations, with the difference being the sex of the two chosen targets. Look at the difference, Duncan and all those of you who think the left adheres to feminist values.
I repeat: Democrats have a long, long way to go to convince me that they care about feminism.
IN THE COMMENTS: Commenters strain to distance Atrios from his vile comment thread: "Atrios can only do to his comments what Haloscan allows him to do. And when he has a dayjob and a blog and a family, there is only so much he can do when he is regularly gets 300+ comments to a post."
I answer:
You and others are missing the point. I am asking him to condemn the sexist comments, not monitor or censor everything. I'm asking him to show that he cares, that he is some sort of feminist. I'm just sick and tired of liberals and lefties who assume it's taken for granted that they care about feminism. Atrios is a channel for putrid sexist invective. It's irrelevant that the commenters had a smile on their face when they wrote it or think they are cute when they say it. Try living in the real world and speaking like that. It doesn't work. The fact is Atrios and his defenders are more interested in getting him off the hook than in looking to the infection of bigotry in their own house. Why is he not appalled that this is the "community" he's nurturing on his blog? My theory is he doesn't care about feminism, only his side of partisan politics. I'm calling him on that, and he and his defenders have yet to respond to that. The lack of response is in itself instructive. He doesn't care! Feminists, disaggregate yourself from these folks. Why don't you?
পোস্টগুলি
২১৭টি মন্তব্য:
217 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»I don't have much of anything to say about your personal Feminist credentials but will toss in 2 comments:
1. That site and those 890 comments are a cesspool of mental cases.
2. There are too many FEMINISTS (large F types) who can't dis-connect democratic politics and what is good for women. For example, it seems to me that the fact that Afghanistan elections that elected more women than the floor (25%) should be a real success story. Same with all the girls in school, but because if one were to call them successes, it might reflect well on the US and the current administration, those stories don't appear or are denigrated by the AP or CNN.
Ann,
Off handed sexism is alive and well among liberal men. So is incredibly insesitive comments related to gays and lesbians. In fact, the only group they really seem to be mostly politically correct about are African Americans.
What does that say about the actual state of affairs in this country?
In the Glenbridge book, "Male Code" the author rips the "sensitive liberal man" a new one on the topic of sex, using as his model the TV character Hawkeye Pierce from MASH, who mainly uses his "caring, sensitive nature" as an inducement to get nurses to drop their khakis...
It's an outgrowth of power politics in my opinion.
Democrats, Liberal activists and the like view all non-whites and all non-heterosexuals and all non-males as their natural voting base.
Any person who exhibits traits from any of the above categories who doesn't also embrace every aspect of 'correct' liberal democratic thought must be censured and upbraided in the strongest, vilest terms.
There are just too many emotionally stunted folks who find the anonymity of the 'net too intoxicating not to unload all the yellow bile and invective they can muster given that they haven't the courage to be so choleric face to face.
(but by now that should surprise no one)
Feminism isn't about furthering equal rights for all women, it's only about liberal women. Just as the civil rights movement isn't about equal rights for all Blacks, but about liberal Blacks.
Rush ridicules feminazis and poverty pimps, not women and Blacks. You really can't believe what the media say about Rush. It's no truer than what they say about anything from the right side of the political spectrum.
Duncan Black, aka Atrios, is to me a shining example of the danger of confusing cynical nihilism with liberalism. His site is generally a mean-spirited, angry and poorly punctuated cesspit that has the unique ability to make the more extreme commenters at Little Green Footballs seem rather mild-mannered and adult by comparison.
The difference you'll often find between leftists and conservatives is that leftists have no ideals (notice I am speaking of leftists, not liberals); their entire philosophy is based on negation, which includes the negation of all sense of respect for fellow humans who go against their whims. This social and moral negation shaves away at the fragile barrier that reason has placed over the horrible savagery that is our primitive nature. And in my experience, the closer this primitivism is to the surface, the easier it is to reach for when attacking your opponents. This is of course not the sole province of leftists, but for the purposes of this post, I'm confining my generalization to them. Those with a more developed personal morality and philosophy, including classical passionate liberals and intellectual conservatives, tend to better understand the value of respect and reason in dealing with their intellectual opponents.
In other words, nihilism is easy; therefore it attracts actual and metaphorical adolescents. Given their limited arsenal, they tend to reach for the grunting caveman's club, which despite many years of civilization and so-called liberal values, is sadly always at the ready.
I've experienced this first hand many times in my life as a gay man, especially when I used to travel in more superficially "liberal" circles; the same insults in modified form, but all along the same masculine/virile feminine/weak lines.
AA --
What is a "feminist" or "feminism"?
(I mean the question seriously)
Conservative??? I would not call Ann conservative. Libertarian, maybe, definitely centrist with a left lean and definitely a Feminist type that I grew up with. I can remember at the Junior cast (74) party discussing with the Feminist who played winnie the pooh and the big argument was not barefoot and pregnant, but whether or not she should pick up a gun and join the army and fight in the ditches ( I was against because she was like 5'2 and weighed like 140) and I thought that though her intentions were good, she would not be able to match the physical requirements. The rest of the world was fair game, and I even told her that if we were to marry I would be glad to stay home and take care of the house.
True feminsism is about choices, her choices and stay out of her way.
Ann, get off the internet. You obviously don't have what it takes. Notice how Atrios got 800 comments. That's because he's a better blogger than you and people actually care about what he writes and what he says. You are just a dorky law professor. The last thing the internet needs is more dorky law professor. You can still browse, I suppose, and use your word processor, but please, for all our sakes, stop blogging.
What an absolutely ridiculous post. As Atrios noted, Ann, you very recently wrote a post asking "Are there any feminists around to see when it's happening and say a little something?"
That pretty clearly implies you see Feminists as some sort of "other."
And cutting & pasting unregulated comment sections is truly absurd. I've very, very rarely seen Atrios participate in or acknowledge what goes on in the comments. I know of very few readers who actually read the comments. There is no way of knowing whether "genuine leftists" wrote those comments or they were put there by moronic wingnuts in the hope that someone as foolish as you would declare these anonymously posted internet ramblings representative of "The Left."
wildaboutharrie --
her suit was laughed out of court repeatedly.
A settlement is not an admission of guilt. that Clinton paid a small amount of money to end her ceaseless & meritless appeals does not equate to guilt.
Sorry.
Lakema: I have several law review articles, scholarly articles, dealing with feminist themes, and I have taught law school seminars on feminist themes. Women's issues have been a regular subject throughout the history of this blog. My first post on a political theme was about feminism. Here's a post about Andrea Dworkin. Here's a post about Muktaran Mai. There are many, many more.
Hey, I voted for Clinton too, both times, and I'm one of the lawprofs who signed the letter against impeachment.
Atrios, like Charles Johnson, relies comments to beef up the traffic. Often all Atrios does is declare an open thread.
wildaboutharrie ---
wrong. the judges who kept booting the suit felt similarly. have you actually read any of those opinions? I find that very doubtful.
Btw Procrastinus -- love to hear what you think about our lovely president choosing to replace our nation's first female Supreme Court Justice with a man who proudly touted his association to a group of Princton alumni who adadamantly opposed coeducation & opening the exclusive dining clubs to women...
just lovely...George W could scarcely give America, and Women, a bigger F-U if he got on national TV & danced around with one of those big, inflated foam hands seen at sports events (with, obviously, the middle finger turned up rather than the index finger).
given the times & frequency with which those open threads appear, i believe there is some sort of automated posting producing open threads at Atrios...
Going back to your original post, what do you mean by "sexual harassment."
"Sexual harassment" is a term of art that is used to refer to one of two situations. The first is demanding sexual favors in exchange for favorable treatment in employment, education, housing, etc. The second is using explicitly sexual conduct to intimidate people. Are you suggesting that your fellow bloggers are engaging in sexual threats or demands? Or are they just bullying you because you're a woman? Because that's not sexual harassment.
Of course, as a lawyer and a feminist and an educator, you understand the importance of clarity, particularly in an area as highly charged as sexual harassment. You wouldn't want to throw around such a label so carelessly and create confusion.
Gross. It seems that some of Atrios' ugliness has started to seep over here. Even mentioning the name stinks up the place.
I think I'll go to a nicer thread, maybe Madonna!
It's almost like this was Cape Cod, or Nantucket, and now it's summer, and it's getting crowded, and dirtier than normal.
My comments are on haloscan and aren't in any way linked to my sitemeter. Some users like the comment section so posting open threads when threads get too long is a way of pleasing the crowd but people can play all day in the comments threads without it affecting my traffic levels as measured by blogads or sitemeter or whatever.
Or, APF, you could (like the vast majority of users) simply ignore the silly open threads & read the blog for its useful aggregation of daily links & commentary...
Anna Marshall: We have free speech on the web, so my use of the words "sexual harassment" cannot refer to the sort of legal claim one might have in the workplace, but I do mean to refer to the concept used in the workplace, specifically the notion of a "hostile environment." I think there is a real attempt to intimidate women with sexual abuse, to make the web an especially difficult place for women. It's been very widely noted that there are many more male bloggers than female, especially writing about politics. That's something I care a lot about, and I am trying to do something against the abuse for that reason. It's not that I need help or I'm intimidated, but I think I'm in a good position to point out what's going on and to shame the people involved. I'm trying to get others, males and females to care, but it's damned hard. Asking for them to care has mostly only led to further attacks on me personally.
Perhaps the reaction is less to do with feminism and more to do with the internet in general.
As Penny-Arcade put it:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Lakema: I disagree with the notion that one must adopt liberal political positions to be a feminist. As to supporting nominees, an important aspect of that is the recognition that the president has the appointment power. I also dislike mediocre and compromise judges. I support the right to abortion however and have said so many times on this blog. Your discounting of the three posts I went to the trouble of linking doesn't make me want to go find three more for you to disqualify, but there are probably hundreds of posts that represent feminists values (which I'm not going to let you be the one to define, of course).
GJ: "one of those passive feminist types who rely on the progress created by the fights their mothers fought"
Well, you clearly aren't very familiar with my blog. How old do you think I am? If you knew, you'd realize how nonsensical that comment is. In fact, I've spoken many times of the discrimination I personally faced, which was quite bad for the first 30 years of my life. I did not have the advantage of any progress made by others, unfortunately, because it hadn't taken place yet. Get a clue before making assumptions about me.
Well APF, I don't actually read LGF, b/c when I occasionally glanced at it in the past, the front page contained more than enough septic trash & bile for me to comfortably dismiss it as the rantings of a depraved & hateful lunatic.
I also once, almost 3 years ago, tried to argue & reason with some folks in a thread before Mr Johnson banned my IP (it was actually a friend's PC). I never once used any foul language or ad hominem attacks -- it was pure intolerance for differing views.
That was about all I needed to see of LGF to permanently cast it aside.
Hey, Ms. Althouse:
If you want to tell yourself Democrats don't care about feminism, you're free to go over to the other side of the aisle. When you come running back 20 minutes later gasping for breath, we'll be sure to hold the door open for you. Unless you want to open it yourself, of course. We believe in free choice.
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't despise Katherine Harris or Linda Tripp for their lack of makeup skills, but for their conduct. Neither woman has the honor of a snake.
I've encountered plenty of dense men on the left, and misogyny amongst them, but some of the quotes from Atrios' commenters strike me as ironic--poorly done, and arrogant, but an attempt at irony all the same.
I registered as an Independent about 10 years ago, out of frustration with my vote being taken for granted as a woman, and as a lesbian. The party has a lot of work to do on both counts. But Ann, as right as I think you are about the pass feminists gave to Clinton, I see nothing, not a damn thing, to recommend the Republican party as an alternative. It's depressing to have to acknowledge that neither major party meets my needs fully, but what Democrats do in practice is better for my interests than the crap spewed on a blog indicates. Atrios isn't running for office.
And because the question keeps being asked--yes, the restrictions on women in Afhganistan and other Muslim countries are bad, evil, awful. What has that got to do with talking about feminism and our political parties?
When I read Atrios' comment about Ann's feminist blog entry the other day, I thought it was asinine. I went to post to the Comments, saw it was at 800 and counting, and full of irrelevent and irreverent bull, and decided to skip it. He clearly missed Ann's point, and just enjoyed taking a potshot at her. The women's movement in part was a reaction to the sexual politics of the anti-war and civil rights movements (boys did the strategizing and expected girls to make the coffee), and we're still fighting that fight, generation after generation. I'm glad Ann is doing that in the blogosphere (why do I hate that word?)
Ann,
You've mentioned in the past how off-putting you find the leftist bile and invective aimed at you whenever one of the lefty blogmasters sics his slavering hounds on you :)
You mention how, as a middle of the road left of center moderate, you feel a natural revulsion to being mindlessly attacked by these cretins. Go figure!
I'm just wondering, is it starting to affect the way you think about specific political issues? Is there any thought that if these people represent leftism, maybe I should reexamine what leftist tendencies remain in my thinking? For example, has your thinking on immigration, welfare, national security or even a hot button like abortion changed at all since you began this blog experiment?
Does anyone else in the "I voted for Bill twice, but..." crowd have any thoughts on this? Ever read a Kos posting or the Atrios comments and just thought "maybe these people are so hateful because there is something twisted in their/my ideology or worldview?"
I'm just curious as a lifelong conservative who's been hissed at/spat on a time or two... Funny, it didn't result in my changing my opinions to match the spitters, and I doubt it impacted favorably on the impartial bystanders either. Yet more votes lost to th Dems :(
he doesn't answer my questions
Yes, he did.
My question is why Atrios assumes I haven't been a feminist all along?
"because she wrote:
Are there any feminists around to see when it's happening and say a little something?"
Did he read enough of my work to make this assumption?
"I of course haven't devoted my life to reading the entirety of Althouse's body of work, on her blog and elsewhere, though I certainly am no stranger to it."
[He] doesn't correct his false assumption that I have only recently adopted feminism and only to serve my personal interests.
"If Althouse would like to point me to something she's written which, for example, happened "say a little something" when it wasn't directed at her I'll happily make the correction."
He doesn't condemn his despicable commenters.
"I'm not going to tell people what should or shouldn't offend them."
No blogger has "their" commenters. A blog does not own its commenters. If apologies had to be issued for every dumb comment, there would be nothing left to do.
Democrats have a long, long way to go to convince me that they care at all about feminism.
Its unfortunate Ann thinks one blogger, Atrios, or other individual Democrats represents the Democratic party. It is the policy decisions the party would implement that are important, not blog discussions. Any large political group will have pleanty of rude people.
To claim that the Republican party would implement more pro-gender equality policies than Democrats strains believability.
As a Democrat and a liberal, I would like to say that while I won't excuse a mysogynist on either side (and there are plenty on the right, while we are at it-- and if you want to condemn Clinton, do you reserve the same condemnation for Bill O'Reilly?) I am happy to put the policies of the left up against the policies of the right anytime.
Ideas from the left that are now reality: Legal abortions, FMLA, state support for childcare, and pushing to end discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans (up to 10% of the population, both male and female).
And every one of these policies has been opposed by the right.
Also, since households headed by women are those most likely to be in poverty, I would submit that anti-poverty programs are also programs which benefit women.
eli blake: As a former Democrat and a "classical" liberal, I am happy to put the statist policies of both the left and the right up for mockery anytime.
I think it's sort of insulting to assume that your soft-socialism is somehow inherently feminist, and that the idea of making taxpayers pay for childcare and other "anti-poverty" programs (i.e. wealth redistribution) somehow counts as beneficial to women and feminist. Perhaps this arrogant conflation of manifestly failed socialist policy with the philosophical ideals of female equality is what has driven many women (and men) away from your party. I can't speak for women, not being one, but I can speak as a gay man that the idea that I should have to sacrifice all of my other ideals (about personal liberty, taxes, national defense, etc.) in order to vote for the Democrats because of their "support for gay rights" is quite repugnant. I'm not self-absorbed enough to believe that nominal support for personal issues is justification for anti-democratically forcing those issues on 90% of the population. Irony of ironies, but Clinton did far more to hurt gay equality (by his betrayal of his promise to end discrimination against openly gay people serving in the military) than George W. Bush has done, base-pandering rhetoric from the party notwithstanding.
Perhaps I'm not the ideal subject, as I don't consider my "gay identity" to be anything particularly special or important to my basic character, but it might be that both feminists and gay people have gotten tired of the left's assumption that they'll always be on the plantation and have searched elsewhere for political ideas.
C&D: You're quoting material that Atrios added later, after I'd written what I'd written. But it's still not at all satisfying. He's excusing himself for making an untrue assertion about me, by saying, what?, that he didn't want to bother to find out what was true. And the same old stuff about humor and not being responsible for the comments.
Ann, get off the internet. You obviously don't have what it takes. Notice how Atrios got 800 comments. That's because he's a better blogger than you and people actually care about what he writes and what he says. You are just a dorky law professor. The last thing the internet needs is more dorky law professor. You can still browse, I suppose, and use your word processor, but please, for all our sakes, stop blogging.
What a disgruntled troll.
If you have a problem with a poster, you say your peace, and leave the blog.
Should you wish to carry on the conversation, you email the person. If they don't reply, it's probably because you were so trenchantly rude, they are bored with anything you have to say.
But above all, you don't come to a person's blog just to insult and whine.
Push off, troll boy.
Ann, it was the Echidne blog that Atrios got the story from.
And THAT blog is the one I referred to in the BlogAds thread.
They're bad news because they're childish and coarse to the nth degree.
Cheers,
Victoria
So much heat and so little light in these comments! Like someone above said, Atrios' animus has spread to this post.
I also notice a pattern - the comments lose focus if they number more than about 40 in a post. Beyond this, the liklihood that you'll encounter off-topic nonsense from people who don't understand the tone of the site increases dramatically.
Ann, your post is a little odd. Since when does Atrios represent or speak for "Democrats" or the Democratic platform? Isn't it just an individual blog with its own unique personality collecting its own unique band of commentators? You won't find this sort of commentary on those "intelligent liberal blogs" you posted recently.
Further, since when is sexism just a problem among Democrats? If you really care about sexism, feminism, why pick on such an obviously limited target?
Do you prefer a party which openly shows its lack of support of women's rights as opposed to a party which alleges to serving women's rights (and is just as flawed in its effectiveness as is the other party)? Are you saying in a way this problem is similar to the South's out-in-the-open segregation of races versus the North's under-the-covers racism?
Which by the way was all bad - racism is racism, sexism is sexism.
Don't use sexism/feminism as a further means to attack a party you don't respect - you trivialize a very serious problem and reduce it to a shallow talking-point in yet more blog-bickering.
Why are Democrats singled out, as opposed to Independents or Republicans or Libertarians or even Socialists? I don't understand why this discussion has become about a single political party and feminism. I thought your original comments addressed the blogosphere and women writers.
This is because the Democratic party has always advertised itself as the party for feminists - something Republicans, Libertarians, and Socialists have never stressed as much. Democrats have long listed women as part of their Grand Coalition. Its part of that party's identity. This is why Republicans (rightly) get more grief for fiscal irresponsibility than do Democrats - they long made it a selling point that they're the party of fiscal accountability.
Hey, I thought this was the "anti-PC" wing of the blogosphere...
Whether by accident or on purpose Althouse is completely unfair to the Eschaton commenters, and indeed probably owes an apology the people whose posts she has taken out of context. (Though not to the right-wing troll who provides one of her examples.)
Her examples at any rate do not come anywhere near to proving her thesis.
Evidence here.
Send a link to Michelle Malkin so she can include it in her next book :)
As one of the posters whose comment was taken COMPLETELY out of context, I'd like to add to Thersites' reply:
Ms. Althouse, cherry-picking quotes from an exceedingly long "conversation" to prove your very weak thesis is, in the words of certain prominent political figures, "dishonest and reprehensible."
How snarky an asshole to I have to be to get my snide ass comments to be anti-feminist?!
Dammit, stop being a douchebag Ann and single me out!
If a blogger whines about Atrios' using comment to generate up ad rates what does it say about Ms. Althouse that she is gleefully going back and forth with Atrios?
My classic anti-feminist feminist banana warmer thong and spiked pumps must know!
How snarky an asshole to I have to be to get my snide ass comments to be anti-feminist?!
Apparently, you need to s-p-e-l-l it out for the sarcasm-impaired.
Apparently, you need to s-p-e-l-l it out for the sarcasm-impaired
I'm dragging my knuckles with one hand and holding my porn with the other.
And I voted for Kerry!
That's Attaturk with three "T's"
Victoria, I checked the profile of the person to whom you refer as "troll boy" just to confirm my suspicion as to his age. Yep. Sure enough.
He's one apparently one of those young 'uns (and NO, I'm not speaking of ALL young people, but rather a particular subset--so don't go there, anybody) who think they're just so hip about the Brave New World of technology.
LOL. I was posting on my first board when he was in diapers, if not yet born, even. Sorry if I don't take his "deep insights" into how others don't understand the Internet.
Puh-lease.
And I voted for Kerry!
None of the candidates was enough of a feminist for me, so I wrote in Andrea Dworkin, even though she's dead.
(attn, readers: this is snark.)
I show my feminism everyday by not shaving my legs.
Wow, Ann, I was going to ask why the hell you challenged Atrios to link to you --- the quality of the discussion has been, um, affected.
Now I see that you have very well demonstrated your point.
Any response to metacomments yet? Talk about a serious ass-kicking.
wildaboutharrie, thank you for your comments.
His comment should have been reported and deleted, or at least there should have been more of a reaction.
Atrios attracts far too many trolls to make deleting every such post practicable. As for reacting, well, the post is pretty bizarre and confusing, though, so most people probably just skipped over it. And most of the people on the thread at that point were of the "ignore trolls" school.
I don't doubt that there were posters being nasty about Dowd. I have seen her defended over there, though, at least from the misogynist language.
Classic Ann Althouse. I'm independent (not Republican), but the Left is so very mean to me that force me into the welcoming arms of the Republicans.
1. Why do you conflate Duncan Black's site with all Democrats? Atrios' site is admittedly out there, it may not be your taste. Two weeks ago, you had a polling of your readers of "good, okay" sites that would be safe for your eyes. Duncan's site was not there, and for a reason. So why do you conflate Duncan Black's site with all Democrats?
Would you take offense if I claimed FreeRepublic spoke for all Republicans?
Or if I said that Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Reynolds spoke for all con law prof bloggers?
So you're being illogical and as a con law prof I would expect that you know this. And have done this on purpose.
2. You are a feminist? Just like you are a moderate. Not. You don't think that Plame is a big deal, 80% of America disagrees with you (a poll I linked to previously). You don't worry about habeas, you don't worry about civil rights. You are not a moderate. But you claim to be a moderate. Just as empty as your claims to be a feminist.
3. As Duncan Black wrote himself, reading your own words on that post, how would anyone know you are a feminist? You want Duncan Black to read all of your prior posts not just online but your law articles? Why on earth would he want to do that? Are you paying him to do that? Why should he do that? That was the entirety of your response to me when I asked you to read more about Libby and Plame. No one was paying you to do that, so you wouldn't do that, period. And that was for National Security.
4. Eschaton gets hundreds of comments for each post. He endorses almost none of them. Any endorsement up or down is left primarily to his regular commenters. Now there appear to be several ways to do comments. None, ala Glenn Reynolds. Closed Registration ala LGF. Open Registration Required and editing and banning ala Althouse. Open to all including Anonymous rants ala Eschaton.
As a law prof, understanding how the FCC ruled about common carrier protection, and just using comment sense, which of these systems indicates the owner of the blog endorses the comments within? And which is the opposite? Yes Ann, your editing and moderation indicates that you endorse the comments within your site. Duncan Black's handsoff indicates that you cannot construe those comments as containing his endorsement.
Now as a busy prof, which system takes the most time of the owner, and which does not?
And then as a website owner, which of those system most permits a lively dialogue and which does not?
And as a free speech defender, what is the cure for free speech? More free speech.
So your own choice of moderating comments yourself is a mostly well-intentioned, bad implementation thing.
5. For further comments and the commenters and your not understanding their context, see Watertiger's take down:
http://metacomments.blogspot.com/2005/11/watertiger-gwpda-misogynists-yup.html
6. Why would anyone on the left consider you an ally? You are like Kaus, Simon, Totten, and Jarvis in claiming that you are a moderate but whining they don't help you. As I said above, you haven't written about habeas, you haven't written about Plame, you haven't written about Iraq, you haven't written about Torture, you haven't written about women's rights in pre and post war Iraq, or women's rights in pre and post Afghanistan, or women's rights in Saudi Arabia, and you have almost never bloggerd about women's rights in the USA, you are violently pro-Alito and have not blogged on why you think that Alito contrary to his history and statements would not overturn Roe, you haven't blogged on how overturning Row would be a good thing for women's rights, you haven't blogged about VAWA pro-or-con, you spit about leftys but then say that is the Madison way, just how would anyone reading your blog know you are a moderate?
6. Why are you looking to Duncan Black? Isn't your gripe first with Amanda Marcotte, Trish Wilson, or other known and popular bloggers more well known for their feminism? Why don't you write to those feminists specifically? It seems the answer is because you don't know who the feminists on the net are.
7. You don't blog about feminism on the net, Amanda Marcotte's version vs. Lindsay's version vs. watertiger vs. vs vs. and how you agree or disagree with them. And you haven't joined their joint feminist blogging projects on the net. Are you lazy, busy, or just not a feminist on the net?
8. You don't use your constitutional law prof domain knowledge to inform the rest of us of how the constitution treats feminist issues. There was no suffrage originally, and women were some proportion of a man, or something like that. You are the originalist. Tell us how to get an ERA passed, or why it is not necessary. Tell us how to keep Roe safe, or why we shouldn't worry about Roe, or what to do when Roe is overturned.
Feminist? Not to the naked eye.
Seitz:
I was just over there. I actually thought some excellent points were made. I think that perhaps a bit too much in-group knowledge might have required to "get" what was going on in the referenced thread, but I thought the Meta poster did I good job of seeing how it could be interpreted from a different point of view.
But then it appeared the comments thread started to take a bit of a dive, which isn't my cup of tea.
Cathy Young's take of a day or so ago is an interesting read at her Y Files site. She parts company with Ann in an intelligent, respectful way.
Whoops, that's thersite's takedown.
Adriana Bliss: I have a special attack for Democrats because so many women's groups throw in their lot with them and the assumption is constantly made that they are the ones who will protect women's interests. That said, I attack everything from anybody I see as sexist. I don't align with any political party, and I don't trust any party to really reflect feminist values. I do align myself with feminism, which is a set of ideas and values. If there was something called The Feminist Party, however, I would criticize it. As I've said many times on this blog, I have an aversion to partisan politics.
Ann Althouse said...
Atrios, like Charles Johnson, relies comments to beef up the traffic. Often all Atrios does is declare an open thread.
That doesn't mean he endorses the comments. It just means he is satisfying market demand.
Marquis: "So, are we going to get an apology and retraction from Ms Althouse for accusing Atrios of 'relying on comments to beef up the traffic'? "
No. I realize the Haloscan page isn't tracked in Site Meer, but commenters initially go through the main page, and thus Eschaton is constantly racking up visitors who are coming by just to get onto the newest thread. He regularly puts up open threads with no original material of his and the visitors stream through to get to the comments. Thus, I see his high traffic as rather bogus. And it's bad for advertisers who rely on the number, because visitors aren't staying on the page with the ads, but going onto the comments window, which doesn't have ads.
qxxo,
That's Thersites' astute, concise breakdown of Ms. Althouse's weak argument.
If you don't have the law, pound the facts. If you don't have the facts, pound the podium.
I think that's what Ms. Althouse is doing here.
How about an apology from Althouse for her total misunderstanding, or deliberate misrepresentation, of the comment she culled? The embarrassing truth is spelled out completely in the link from Metacomments above.
Quxxo:
Now there appear to be several ways to do comments. None, ala Glenn Reynolds. Closed Registration ala LGF. Open Registration Required and editing and banning ala Althouse. Open to all including Anonymous rants ala Eschaton.
Well, I'm not a law professor.
Here's my shallow analogy:
I am having an "outside" party. Now, there are several ways to deal with unruly public displays with regards to my neighbors and others who may see into my yard.
1) Drink "alone"--a la Reynolds.
2) Invitation only--no unexpected guests, no crashers, barricades at the property line.
3) Bring your friends! But follow house rules, and if you step out of line, you'll be called on it--this is your basic yard party, not a bacchanalia.
4) Open Campus Party! Anyone can come to my party, and even though it's on my property, in full view of anyone passing by, I have no responsibility if the guests piss on my neighbor's lawn, flash cars as they drive by, cat-call at passing pedestrians, puke on parked cars, and so forth. Because I have adopted a hands-off policy. And the guests that turn up, the more this policy is justified.
Jeez, I think I'll throw one of the latter for the holidays. Think my hands-off policy will fly when the cops (official or unofficial--i.e., neighbors) stop by?
Baloney.
And, sigh, is it necessary to explain the difference between banning free speech (a constitutional issue) and expressing personal disapproval of how specific individuals choose to utilize that right?
Puh-leeze.
Should be:
"the MORE guests ...""
iam, the question is when is Ann or Duncan or BitchPhd responsible for the content of the comments on their sites.
One theory that is commonly used to think about this (and which may not be applicable at all) is the concept of being a "common carrier"
described here,
http://www.nyx.net/~board/privacy.txt
There is a long tradition in U.S. common law that a "common
carrier" is not responsible for the content of the material
passes through its service. Originally this concept applied to
carriage services, shipping services, and railroads. In more
recent times this concept has been applied to telephone services
and specifically incorporated in to regulations of the Federal
Communications Commissions. Thus if you say libelous things
about someone over the telephone or fax pages of a copyrighted
book to someone, the telephone company is not responsible for
your activities. In the same manner an ISP that is a common
carrier is not responsible for the content passed through its
service. ... FCC regulations do not define a "common carrier" but defer to
common law definitions. (Something that is not uncommon in U.S.
law.) Under common law there are seven basic requirements of a
common carrier: 1) the entity must provide services for hire;
2) the entity must be primarily engaged in the business in
question; 3) the service must be provided on a regular basis; 4)
the entity must be willing to serve all who apply; 5) the service
must be provided without discrimination; 6) the service must be
operated in the public interest; 7) the entity must not control
the content. A quick review of these requirements will easily
demonstrate that most commercial ISP's who choose not to censor
content qualify as "common carriers."
It is possible that when any blogger cancels posts or ban users for anything other than a violation of some policy, or if that policy is potentially discriminatory, they are leaving themselves open to this line of attack.
"Satisfying market demand" in a blog, that's great.
Uh, what's wrong with satisfying market demand? That's something both capitalists and communists were trying to do. Considering that Atrios is rumored to make six figures off of advertising on his blog, and that his commentators that view those ads and purchase those products like open threads that they can use as chat rooms, what is wrong with Atrios' providing his community with what they want?
And Atrios may own his words, but it is doubtful that he is the site admin. Blogspot owns and operates the machines that serves his words. Haloscan owns and operates the machines that serve the comments. Atrios can only do to his comments what Haloscan allows him to do. And when he has a dayjob and a blog and a family, there is only so much he can do when he is regularly gets 300+ comments to a post.
quxxo:
So, since you are apparently the final arbiter as to who is a feminist and who is not, tell us: What is a feminist, and is the main requirement that feminists must devote a majority (if not all) of their written work to the topic of feminism/identity politics?
You don't blog about feminism on the net, Amanda Marcotte's version vs. Lindsay's version vs. watertiger vs. vs vs. and how you agree or disagree with them. And you haven't joined their joint feminist blogging projects on the net. Are you lazy, busy, or just not a feminist on the net?>
Does this mean that one who doesn't do these things MUST NOT be a feminist?
HA!
Have a look around. Do you see anywhere that Ann has been a net-group-joiner (for lack of a better term)? There are such groups on the right, one of which I'm involved in, and Ann was invited because WE LIKE HER and her views, but she isn't a "joiner." I didn't take that as a dig against women or us personally. Would Amanda Marcotte or Trish Wilson? In the case of Trish, whom I like despite obvious political differences, I seriously doubt it--she also has other interests. So why is it such a big deal to you?
I guess if a woman doesn't go around shouting "I'm a feminist" at every perceived opportunity, she doesn't count as a feminist, does she?
What happened to the feminist idea that we women should be able to decide for ourselves how we live and work (or not work) without societal expectations?
You seem to be making a lot of demands on a total stranger based on her gender. How "feminist" is that?
Save it, quxxo. Your left-wing bias is showing. If someone isn't from the left, she isn't a feminist, right? If someone doesn't agree with YOUR views, she isn't a "moderate," either.
And you people on the left call yourselves "progressive." THAT is far more ironic than the (cough) "ironic" (cough) filth in the Atrios comments.
Yowza, Beth!
;)
Um no Beth, that point was mainly in the same vein as the points above it, though a bit vague. It is an example of things Ann might be doing if she wants to convey the impression that she is a feminist on the net.
I also disagree vehemently with Amanda Marcotte over what feminism is about, but she apparently is known as one of the big net feminists, and so when I write "and how you agree or disagree with them" I am suggesting that it would be very appropriate, reasonable, and good for all if Althouse were to blog her thoughts on what feminism on the net looks like.
Does she have to join? Of course not.
But if she never joins anyone else's efforts, why should she make a claim to their resources to defend her? As she herself has said, is she paying them, do they have nothing else to do with their own free time?
But thanks for playing though.
And you people on the left call yourselves "progressive." THAT is far more ironic than the (cough) "ironic" (cough) filth in the Atrios comments.
Beth, please read the link to my post.
Prof. Althouse has deliberately or by accident smeared or misrepresented the commenters whose words she posted on her blog.
She really does owe several people an apology. The evidence is there. What she has done is simply not right.
quxxo,
Um, no, dear. I don't talk about Amanda Marcotte or the others either (although I've linked to Trish Wilson, but not BECAUSE she's a feminist), because I don't read them, nor do I care to. And I suspect Ann doesn't waste time reading and writing about them for her own reasons.
For example, nobody would call me anti-feminist, but I do not and will not write about Marcotte or Bitch PhD (for example) because although I disagree with virtually everything they say, I don't waste my time. Maybe it's because when women single out other women on the net, it's called a "catfight," rather than a disagreement. Why set the stage for more stupid remarks?
But thanks for playing, hon'.
Arrogant asshat.
Prof. Althouse's latest updates are preposterous.
The righty commenters referred to were those at Little Green Footballs, who were extremely viciously toward me in blatant sexual language. Now, we can see how the Atrios commenters acted in two similar situations, with the difference being the sex of the two chosen targets. Look at the difference, Duncan and all those of you who think the left adheres to feminist values.
Nobody on that thread was "vicious towards her in blatant sexual language." Where is that in her examples -- except in the comment which was from a right wing troll? In the examples she's chosen, only the troll refers directly to her at all!
My argument does not rely merely on a "this is irony" line, though that's part of it -- mostly it is that her examples are taken completely out of context. See the example of GWPDA in particular, and tell me with a straight face that she's a "misogynist." Unbelievable.
Althouse's evidence in regards to the Eschaton comments thread is weak and she needs to admit that instead of continuing this shoddy line of attack against Atrios and his commenters.
Yeah, Ann has been having some big dick-fights (can I say that here?) with Armando of Kos and many very well known and well thought of big macher legal beagles that are not so fond of Alito.
I'm not saying she's right or wrong on this, just saying she's been violently pro-Alito.
And yet, you still spectacularly lost most of the important elections in the last 5 years, including having every one of the fifteen candidates Kos raised money for lose their elections.
Funny, that.
Dream on, JT.
Yes, violently pro-Alito.
Just the other day I saw Althouse smashing someone's knees for suggesting that there be some criticism of the man. Just another day in George Bush's America.
...
Speaking of mafia, the Atrios commenters are quite good at shouting others down in here and declaring victory. We win because there's more of us! We demand apologies for insulting our good names! ALTHOUSE LIED PEOPLE CRIED.
Surely those 800+ comments per Atrios post is better than this.
Michelle Malkin gets this sort of treatment all the time.
It's funny to see the Defenders of Atrios use "irony" as a serious excuse for indefensible comments.
"I was only joking" is a juvenile method of whitewashing an error and avoiding blame. Two-year-olds come naturally to it. They'll hit you and the say "I sorry." Because, of course, they didn't mean it. Now, this copout gets all gussied up when people become more verbal, and the harmful retort is meant to be understood ironically. That way, you get to have your cake and eat it, too (i.e. say something nasty, but disavow it).
The real irony is that, while claiming to be defenders of the weak and powerless, lefties are prone to abuse their constituency if they do not toe the line.
But I can't be held accountable for this post, because just maybe I'm being ironic.
Aren't you a little embarrassed to be airing your twisted erotic fantasies online, JT? Seriously, the way you express yourself has the unsettling combination of violence and power lust that I wish more voters could see, if only to scare them further away from what has become of your party, a party I once cared about.
By the way, you should read a little more broadly than Atrios and Paul Krugman. According to Krugman's employer:
"There was...a fourth recount, which would have gone to George W. Bush. In this case, the two stricter-standard recounts went to Mr. Bush. A later study, by a group that included The New York Times, used two methods to count ballots: relying on the judgment of a majority of those examining each ballot, or requiring unanimity. Mr. Gore lost one hypothetical recount on the unanimity basis."
and from the Washington Post:
"The study indicates, for example, that Bush had less to fear from the recounts underway than he thought. Under any standard used to judge the ballots in the four counties where Gore lawyers had sought a recount -- Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia -- Bush still ended up with more votes than Gore, according to the study. Bush also would have had more votes if the limited statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and then stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been carried through."
Maybe your party's problem is that it has decided to smolder over old losses rather than concentrate on future victories. Voters don't want candidates who have nothing to offer but negation of their opponent.
Lakema, I was referring to the examples from the Eschaton thread Althouse pulls her examples from, and to that Eschaton thread generally. Hope I wasn't unclear.
To Pogo and the others saying that "Atrios's defenders" are unfairly claiming "irony" as defense, you obviously haven't looked at the evidence in my blog post. You don't want to look at the facts, fine.
But let me give you a sample that doesn't require you to stir up the effort to click a link to show why Althouse's examples above are chosen carelessly. All you have to do is scroll up.
Observe: in those nine examples, the only one where there is an attack on Althouse personally also includes the line "Plus most Democrat women are real bow wows." This commenter is clearly not in the Democratic party.
No "irony" defense needed here! If Althouse wants to talk about what "Democrats" have to do, and is citing this comment, she's being absurd.
I have demonstrated at my blog that there are similar problems with all her other examples. She needs to explain herself. She is citing evidence in a shoddy fashion.
Quxxo: "Atrios can only do to his comments what Haloscan allows him to do. And when he has a dayjob and a blog and a family, there is only so much he can do when he is regularly gets 300+ comments to a post."
You and others are missing the point. I am asking him to condemn the sexist comments, not monitor or censor everything. I'm asking him to show that he cares, that he is some sort of feminist. I'm just sick and tired of liberals and lefties who assume it's taken for granted that they care about feminism. Atrios is a channel for putrid sexist invective. It's irrelevant that the commenters had a smile on their face when they wrote it or think they are cute when they say it. Try living in the real world and speaking like that. It doesn't work. The fact is Atrios and his defenders are more interested in getting him off the hook than in looking to the infection of bigotry in their own house. Why is he not appalled that this is the "community" he's nurturing on his blog? My theory is he doesn't care about feminism, only his side of partisan politics. I'm calling him on that, and he and his defenders have yet to respond to that. The lack of response is in itself instructive. He doesn't care! Feminists, disaggregate yourself from these folks. Why don't you?
The Jerk: Actually, I do love Madonna's new album! I think the quoted lyric is inane, but I like stuff like that.
The Jerk: For atonement, go buy "Confessions on a Dancefloor." Feel free to dance. Recommended dance: the jerk.
To all the people who want me to read posts on other websites and respond to them. I don't want to spend the time on this. I suppose you could methodically explain away each of the comments I selected to quote. That's obtuse and missing the point, and I can't spend my limited time engaging on that level. I'd be a fool to respond to everything negative people write about me. I'm not stepping into that quagmire. My overall point is that it's a very sexist thread over there and you folks who are so interested in protecting Duncan Black just don't give a damn. QED.
By the way, when is everyone that didn't get the allusion to "Can I Get a Witness?" going to admit they were dumb?
My theory is he doesn't care about feminism, only his side of partisan politics. I'm calling him on that, and he and his defenders have yet to respond to that. The lack of response is in itself instructive.
Ann, I'll add to the chorus of voices that is asking you to respond to Thersites' well-reasoned explanation of how you completely mischaracterized the Eschaton comments (whether intentionally or not).
What you call Atrios' "faux apology" was not an attempt at an apology at all, because he correctly does not feel that he has anything to apologize for. It seems quite clear that these comments were meant entirely in jest. Atrios acknowledged that some people might nonetheless be offended by the comments. The point is that while some people might be offended by those jokes, they were indeed jokes, yet in your post you characterized them (and continue to characterize them) as anti-feminist invective that Atrios is supposed to publicly admonish or delete from his site in order to prove his feminist cred to you.
What might have been an honest misinterpretation on your part in the beginning (due to your unfamiliarity with the culture of the commenters at Eschaton) is now starting to look like a deliberate mischaracterization. Your lack of response to Thersites' post is in itself instructive.
Re: "The Jerk said...
This is so stupid. When you mean the opposite of what you say, and expect your listener to understand that, that's an ironic joke. That's what the Atrios commenters were doing."
Yes, The Jerk, and hilarious, too! ROFL and all that. Gosh, that lefty humor is non-stop fun, I tell ya.
Really, Jerk, you must admit that namecalling followed by disavowal of the epithets hurled is perhaps the lamest form of irony, weakest stab at humor, and most childish type of argument practiced by anyone over 12 years of age.
"Yer a poopyhead," sez he, and it's funny, funny, funny cuz he means the exact opposite! Get it?? It's irony! Ha! See, Democrats luv feminists cuz we ironically call them names we don't really mean! Ha! Double ha!
Moreover, if a side requires scores of posts to prove that a comment was really ironic or sarcastic, is it safe to say the "joke" failed?
I also notice that, on the one hand, I hear about how big and bad Daily Kos is - its as big as the entire right-wing blog universe! - and on the other I hear its not representative of the side its representing.
Also, pay no attention to the insulting comments, fellow commenters -- no one reads those anyways!
Right?
To all the people who want me to read posts on other websites and respond to them. I don't want to spend the time on this.
Now that's rich. You started this whole discussion, which revolves entirely around the comments on another blog, but now you can't be bothered to click a link to another blog that responds to your post. Well that's convenient, isn't it? By the way, Thersites made some of her arguments right here in the comments of your very own blog, and you didn't respond to them here either, yet you found time to respond to other commenters.
My, you've got some huge balls.*
*100% genuine joke made by a 100% genuine feminist.
By the way, I feel the need to add that I'm not at all a part of the established commenting community at Eschaton, I'm just a regular reader of the blog (who only rarely dips my toes into the commenting pool), so I have no personal stake in defending anybody. I just had some time to kill at the office, and I hate to see someone trying to get away with crap that's so easy to argue against.
Well, at the end of the day, is it so hard for someone to say "Yeah, these folks got out of hand. I think they were just being ironic, but that said, there were some comments that just weren't cool. And I apologize for what was said when the comment thread started to veer off into the deep."
Or even simpler "Yep, I guess I do have some hamfisted fools in my comment thread. My apologies."
Thersites is male, BTW. And a feminist.
Prof Althouse, you are behaving disgracefully. You accused specific, real, live people of misogyny. That's a serious accusation.
You posted their words on your site. And now you are saying you don't want to take the "time" to read their defense! You've made an accusation about certain individuals' characters and you refuse to even look at evidence to the contrary.
That's just plain wrong.
Oops, sorry Thersites. For whatever reason (oh, because I'm a man-hating feminazi), I thought you were female.
Okay.
Thersite's post, this commanding, powerful, and devastating surgical strike of a counter-attack on Ms. Althouse, basically repeats the common argument in this comment thread: irony, irony, irony. Don't take us seriously! In no way does it reveal an unattractive, passive-aggressive, insulting mindset!
Going back to the original comment thread and reading it gives the same sewer-vibes I feel reading LGF's comments - not every comment is nasty, but many are unpleasant enough for me to remind myself why I don't bother with mammoth political blogs whose first comments are invariably "FIRST!" allowed by generic angry mini-rants about Bush or Islam.
Ironic or no, there's a deep unpleasantness to the entire Kos/Atrios/LGF commentary sections. It would be wise if those people were to step back and look at why no one's giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Really, Jerk, you must admit that namecalling followed by disavowal of the epithets hurled is perhaps the lamest form of irony
Look at Althouse's nine examples. She is called a name in ONE of them. And that's the one from a right-wing troll who also calls "Democrat women bow-wows." Including this troll post and claiming it's an example of the attitude of Atrios or his commenters is ridiculous.
The other instance of "name-calling" is "she looks like a man," which is in fact a reference to Daryn Kagan, not Althouse. And Althouse appears to have pasted that from a comment from a poster who was disapproving of its sexist tone. Thus making ridiculous Althouse's claim that nobody challenged the alleged sexism from the regular commenters.
Althouse is either very sloppy or very dishonest. Period.
Thersite's post, this commanding, powerful, and devastating surgical strike of a counter-attack on Ms. Althouse, basically repeats the common argument in this comment thread: irony, irony, irony.
No. My post basically says she took these posts out of context.
She accused certain individuals of misogyny and yet their actual posts very clearly do not support this conclusion when seen in context.
The total unwillingness of Althouse or her supporters to actually look critically at the "evidence" she herself cites hardly impresses me as to the ethical superiority of this site.
HaloJonesFan said...
Has it got his site's URL? Yes? Then he's responsible for it. He can put up any kind of disclaimer he wants, but he's responsible for encouraging and abetting the activities of those people.
No, he really isn't. He regularly get's 800 comments to a post. No one can keep up with them. A goodly portion are made by completely unknown people. He has made it perfectly clear that he will not monitor his comments. He will, if someone lets him know, delete and or ban commenters that are being clearly abusive to other commenters. Otherwise, he stays out of it.
Ann Althouse said...
Atrios, like Charles Johnson, relies comments to beef up the traffic. Often all Atrios does is declare an open thread.
and
I realize the Haloscan page isn't tracked in Site Meer, but commenters initially go through the main page, and thus Eschaton is constantly racking up visitors who are coming by just to get onto the newest thread. He regularly puts up open threads with no original material of his and the visitors stream through to get to the comments. Thus, I see his high traffic as rather bogus. And it's bad for advertisers who rely on the number, because visitors aren't staying on the page with the ads, but going onto the comments window, which doesn't have ads.
This is completely nonsensical. 1)The number of comments does not reflect the number of unique page views and unique page views says nothing about unique visitor counts. 2)The great majority of people who go to Eschaton don't or rarely wade into the comments. 3)Very many blog readers use RSS aggregators and will visit blogs many times a day as new content is posted resulting in a similar phenomenon without the posting of open threads. 5)People who do go into comments still have the main page open and unless they maximize all their windows, the blogads will usually still be visible while the comment window is open. Right now, Atrios is in my aggregator window and the ads are visible while I simultaneously compose this post in a notepad window while I cut and paste comments from your visible blog window. (and a post at Political Animal just showed up and I'm going to pop over for the second time today and see what's up).
Pogo said...
"I was only joking" is a juvenile method of whitewashing an error and avoiding blame. Two-year-olds come naturally to it. They'll hit you and the say "I sorry." Because, of course, they didn't mean it. Now, this copout gets all gussied up when people become more verbal, and the harmful retort is meant to be understood ironically. That way, you get to have your cake and eat it, too (i.e. say something nasty, but disavow it
Only one of the examples, made by a rightwing troll, was misogynistic and directed towards Althouse. None of the remaining examples were in any way misgynistic unless taken literally (thus the stuff about irony). And one could only take them literally without either misunderstanding or misconstruing the context in which they were made. This is nowhere in the realm of, for instance, making comments about Althouse's looks and then claiming "hey, I was only joking."
Ann Althouse said...
You and others are missing the point. I am asking him to condemn the sexist comments, not monitor or censor everything. I'm asking him to show that he cares, that he is some sort of feminist. I'm just sick and tired of liberals and lefties who assume it's taken for granted that they care about feminism. Atrios is a channel for putrid sexist invective. It's irrelevant that the commenters had a smile on their face when they wrote it or think they are cute when they say it.
No, I think you are missing the point. The examples (other than one by a rightwing troll) that you posted were taken out of context. You either mistakenly or purposely mischarachterized their nature (for instance claiming that someone who was talking about a sexual harrasment claim that they pursued and won is somehow being misogynistic). That is, the examples you give aren't worthy of condemnation. Further, you owe the commenters whose comments you mischaracterized an apology. It is also rather strange to find you demanding a consdemnation when Atrios already said in his original post "The underlying issue is, of course, a real one. Critics across the political spectrum (and of both genders) are quick to jump to use sexist and sexual language when criticizing women."
and
. I'm not stepping into that quagmire. My overall point is that it's a very sexist thread over there and you folks who are so interested in protecting Duncan Black just don't give a damn. QED.
Your overall point is based on a mischarachteriztion of what was said over there and by whom. The only thing that you have QED.d is your willingness to own up to that fact. I don't think we're the ones being obtuse.
wildaboutharrie said...
Thersites' post takes two minutes to read. She's very fair and spews no invective.
I think NYMary might be shocked to learn about Thersites' sex change :)
To all the people who want me to read posts on other websites and respond to them. I don't want to spend the time on this. I suppose you could methodically explain away each of the comments I selected to quote. That's obtuse and missing the point, and I can't spend my limited time engaging on that level. I'd be a fool to respond to everything negative people write about me. I'm not stepping into that quagmire. My overall point is that it's a very sexist thread over there and you folks who are so interested in protecting Duncan Black just don't give a damn. QED.
So wait. You're saying "I provided evidence of sexism which is directly refuted, yet I don't want to read the refutation because it's 'obtuse'. You should accept my point because I say so!" This is awesome! I've just learned that whenever there's a chance I may be proved wrong I can just stick my fingers in my ears and yell "I'm right you're wrong!" over and over and I win! This must be an instance of that "open discussion" the blogosphere makes possible.
Thersites said "Only one of the examples, made by a rightwing troll, was misogynistic and directed towards Althouse. None of the remaining examples were in any way misgynistic unless taken literally (thus the stuff about irony)."
As I said, it's a nice trick that hilarious irony stuff you keep claiming. It permits you to be vile, sexist, hurtful, mean, stupid, mysogynistic, and racist in your statements, but then claim to be the opposite. How cool is that!?!
Back in 6th grade, though, instead of irony we just said "that's what you said", and MAN was it funny!!!
Democrats rock!
Surely you're not basing your assumption on the fact that the original commenter wrote "Democrat women" instead of "Democratic women"?
In my admittedly anecdotal (experience, it is a pretty reliable indicator of righty inclinations when someone shows up on a comment thread at Atrios and starts talking about the Democrat Party or Democrat Women instead of using Democratic. Regardless, it was certainly a troll as it wasn't for any purpose other than to provoke a response.
Yes, the poster's being sarcastic (not ironic: let's not use those two words as synonyms, please), but it's still written in a way that makes less sense if one reads it your way.
While, as troll, the guy was certainly being a smartass, the way in which ironic is being used by Thersites isn't applicable to this post. And I don't really think he was being sarcastic as much as being intentionally nasty in order to provoke a response(more Andrew Dice Clay than Homer Simpson).
Ironic applies to remarks like "Feminism is OK in its place" and "So are Negroes. Once either gets uppity there's gotta be hell to pay." Neither of these were offered to express their literal meanings. In fact, they were intended to convey the opposite meaning and as such were ironic. They really aren't even offered sarcastically in my opinion since the posters were being silly as opposed to being cutting or withering.
As I said, it's a nice trick that hilarious irony stuff you keep claiming. It permits you to be vile, sexist, hurtful, mean, stupid, mysogynistic, and racist in your statements, but then claim to be the opposite. How cool is that!?!
Pogo it's one thing to call you a name involving your (for arguments sake) African heritage in order to be offensive and then try to somehow claim that I was being ironic about it after you take offense. It is quite another for a black man to make an ironic quip about "negroes" being "uppity."
reader_iam:
Well, you're entitled to your reading. But I think you're wrong.
The poster is not a regular at Eschaton; I'd never seen the name before. Also, if you are not a right-wing troll or have little experience of them at liberal blogs, yes, the "Democrat-no-ic" thing is a pretty obvious sign that the speaker is, to use the parlance, a "wingnut." That's why nobody who posts at liberal blogs ever, ever uses that formulation on a blog comments section, whatever usage they might use elsewhere.
At any rate I still insist that for Althouse to cite a comment that "Democrat women are bow-wows" as evidence of common Democratic attitudes is just plain silly.
Andrew Dice Clay? Andrew Dice Clay?!
Um, the Diceman is sarcastic--taken to the nth degree. Man, you're talkin' my general era, dude.
Oh and plus, Thersites, the use of 6th grade irony is also so cool cuz when people get mad at you for calling 'em names, you can get all outraged and huffy and stuff, and demand that they apologize to you.
I kid you not!!! Irony rules.
Rock on, Thersites! Gimme 12 more parapraphs!
Not distressed by the Diceman reference--actually just amused because I haven't thought of him in a donkey's age. Talk about being involved in major arguments over someone ... I remember a couple of break-ups over that guys stuff.
As I said, it's a nice trick that hilarious irony stuff you keep claiming. It permits you to be vile, sexist, hurtful, mean, stupid, mysogynistic, and racist in your statements, but then claim to be the opposite. How cool is that!?!
Back in 6th grade, though, instead of irony we just said "that's what you said", and MAN was it funny!!!
How thick are you?
Nobody's saying that quote is ironic. We're telling you flat out it was posted at Eschaton by a right-wing troll, NOT BY A DEMOCRAT.
Unreal.
Other people's break-ups, that is.
Um, the Diceman is sarcastic--taken to the nth degree. Man, you're talkin' my general era, dude.
Well, It was always my impression that the primary, ahem, thrust of his act was being purposely and overwhelmingly blue (damn those PC'ers). But admittedly, I didn't really follow him so I'll concede he was sarcastic.
How about 2-Live crew, then?
At any rate, I was just saying the troll, while being a smart-ass, wasn't really being sarcastic (in the sense of being withering and cutting with a remark while often being Ironic. "Nice sunglasses, Dork!") so much as just being intentionally offensive.
Thersites sed: "Nobody's saying that quote is ironic. We're telling you flat out it was posted at Eschaton by a right-wing troll, NOT BY A DEMOCRAT. "
Really, sport? We must be reading different sites, you and I. Lotsa vile spewing in Atrios's comments, by my view. You found otherwise. Go figure.
As I said, Democrats rock. Sincerely.
Carbasman:
Awwww, they're all pikers compared to the incomparable Lenny Bruce, a true blue (both meanings) genius at times, IMHO.
Back to the real world ... off to see the kid perform at our local Tree festival. Nothin' sarcastic OR ironic 'bout that.
"Moreover, if a side requires scores of posts to prove that a comment was really ironic or sarcastic, is it safe to say the "joke" failed? "
Only to those people who needed it explained to them, because they didn't understand it. This is the problem. Among the "regulars," many if not most of whom know each other, not just for their words but "in real life," the motivation was understood. You make fun of sexist attitudes by staking out a noxious one, and then posting it in a discussion about sexism.
Among people who know you well enough, it's clear you're -making fun of the sexism-, not promoting it. It's absolutely incredible that the quotes in this post are being presented by evidence of sexism, with the exception of the one that is in all likelihood a right-wing troll.
You can find sexism in the Democratic party, and among liberals and progressives. You won't find it from the people that wrote those quotes, whose purpose was the exact opposite of what's being alleged here - to MOCK sexist attitudes, not endorse them.
Althouse wandered into a conversation without any understanding of the context, or the participants, and drew the completely wrong conclusions.
Everyone taking the saracasm and irony line, please do me a little favor. Back away from your computer, set out into the real world, find a real-life black person and make a sarcastic wisecrack referring to his race. Then come back and tell me how that went.
Also, people telling me to go read another website that is attacking me? Just sum up the argument here if you want me to respond to it. Lots of people are always trying to get me to read their blog posts. What-his-face is not at the top of the list just because you goad me. I did glance at it and saw that it was long, that it was a point-by-point disqualification of the quotes I pulled from what was a long, long, ugly comments thread. Go over to that cesspool and explain all the other crap first. All 1000 of them. Basically, I saw your irony argument. If you've got anything else, sum it up here. I don't think you do or you would.
Re: "You won't find it from the people that wrote those quotes, whose purpose was the exact opposite of what's being alleged here - to MOCK sexist attitudes, not endorse them."
Waitaminnit.
You and Thersites need to get together and get your stories to jive better. He sez they weren't mocking anything. You say otherwise. Which is it?
As for Chris Rock, racist? Of course not. Everyone knows that blacks can't be racist! And calling Rock racist is racist, you dog.
Ann,
To sum up just one of thersite's comments, the comment about "Negroes" was made by an African-American.
6. The Philosopher King, and Embigulator, is Kent, of the rarely updated Codpiece Hagiography. He's black. That should make the irony in his statement clear, I should hope.
"You and Thersites need to get together and get your stories to jive better. He sez they weren't mocking anything. You say otherwise. Which is it?"
You're either deliberately mischaracterizing what he said, or not understanding it.
It's really not that hard to grasp, and I assume you're being deliberately obtuse because it's more comfortable for you think of Eschaton posters as sexist hypocrites.
What you have are, for the most part, feminist women writing these horrible sexist things. Since almost all of their audience knows that they would never believe such things, the readers know that they do not intend to promote sexist ideas - just the opposite. They're writing parodies of sexism.
The point is precisely that they do not believe these things. Obvious to anyone familiar with the context, or those without head wounds.
Also, people telling me to go read another website that is attacking me? Just sum up the argument here if you want me to respond to it.
It wasn't an attack, it was a rebuttal that offered evidence contradicting your hand-picked examples.
Lots of people are always trying to get me to read their blog posts. What-his-face is not at the top of the list just because you goad me.
But you'll wander over to a site with 1000 comments on a particular post in order to uncritically support you own prejudices? And then you'll gin up some personal outrage based on a clear misunderstanding of the facts and context? I thought only uptight liberals did that.
I did glance at it and saw that it was long, that it was a point-by-point disqualification of the quotes I pulled from what was a long, long, ugly comments thread. Go over to that cesspool and explain all the other crap first. All 1000 of them.
But if anyone were to write a post doing that it would be 111 times longer than Thersites' original post! Given that one of the reasons you said you didn't read the post was that it was "long", the odds on you reading and responding to something 111 times as long seem pretty low. Although by now this comment thread is probably 10 times as long as Thersites' post...
You picked those quotes as a representative sample. Are you worried that if your hand-picked representative sample turns out not be of any use that maybe your generalization is also ill-made?
The THREAD that wouldn't DIE!!!! (a classic 50s sci-fi/horror film starring, Vincent Price, Mamie Van Doren, and a very young Jack Nicholson as 'the troll')
Response to The Jerk: you are wrong about Swift, he loved the Irish, especially the Irish babies, especially Irish babies covered in worcestershire sauce with a side of potatos.
(and speaking of people not catching on to irony, he suffered through some of that after his modest proposal)
As far as the spew coming from commenters against Prof. Althouse, there is very little irony involved and a whole lot of anger.
Lefties get cross-eyed with rage anytime you suggest they aren't as sensitive and caring as they like to pretend that they are.
Re: "What you have are, for the most part, feminist women writing these horrible sexist things. Since almost all of their audience knows that they would never believe such things, the readers know that they do not intend to promote sexist ideas - just the opposite. They're writing parodies of sexism. The point is precisely that they do not believe these things. Obvious to anyone familiar with the context, or those without head wounds."
Oh, I get it! Female feminists who degrade other women are being all ironic and stuff, they don't mean any of the vicious bilethey're layin' down, somethin' us hillbilly types would get if we were down with the QT (or the 411, or the inside dope, or whatever).
Gosh, Thersites, and all Supercoool Atrios Defenders of the Democratic Feminist Realm, how can I ever thank you? I have been throughly educated.
From Cool Hand Luke,
Boss Paul: You got your mind right, Luke?
Luke: Yeah. I got it right. I got it right, boss. (He grips the ankles of the guard)
Boss Paul: Suppose you's back-slide on us?
Luke: Oh no I won't. I won't, boss.
Boss Paul: Suppose you's to back-sass?
Luke: No I won't. I won't. I got my mind right.
Boss Paul: You try to run again, we gonna kill ya.
Luke: I won't, I won't, boss.
When I grow up, I'll use irony like a machete, man. Democrats rule!
Me? A feminist? Hard to say.
If it means what Ann described, well, yeah. If it means I must support leftist social policies, well, no.
I'm not criticizing Thersites for not being feminist enough, I am criticizing him for being a cretinous eunuch.
(I was being ironic, of course. Get it? Ha! Funny, right? I'm learnin'!)
Everyone taking the saracasm and irony line, please do me a little favor. Back away from your computer, set out into the real world, find a real-life black person and make a sarcastic wisecrack referring to his race.
To paraphrase Roy at the excellent Alicublog, I hope you never rent "Blazing Saddles." It'd give you the vapors.
A couple of things in Ann's defense - though I don't think she needs one.
I have been reading her blog for quite awhile now, and, as far as I can tell, she is a feminist. How could she not be, being where she is now?
She also has a fairly good sense of humor. It just doesn't extend to juvenile sexual or racial language. That is one of the things that attracts regulars like me - her humorous take on so many subjects.
The attacks against her using sexual language, from either side, are not ironic. They are sexual harassment. If done in an office environment, they would be severly sanctioned. That the poster offered the "ironic" defense would be laughed out of court.
Indeed, I dare any of the posters of such "ironic" sexual epithets to fly to Madison and say them to her face, one on one. No one will do this, for obvious reasons. Rather, the group dynamic combined with the anonymity of the Internet is what gives people the courage to say this sort of thing about someone they don't actually know personally.
The attacks against her using sexual language, from either side, are not ironic. They are sexual harassment.
See ya in court, beyotch!
The reason that I hold liberals to a higher standard here is that they claim to speak for women and feminism. And Feminists on the left did their cause no good by giving Bill Clinton a pass on his sexual predations.
I have no problem with what two (or, arguably three in his case, since his wife knew of many of his infidelities) consenting adults do together. And, most of his affairs were consenting.
But that is the problem - not all of them were. Through the decades, there have been a few who did not consent - including Juanita Broderick and Paula Jones.
The same Feminists who still to this day condemn Clarence Thomas for allegedly (with little contemporaneous corrobration) speaking dirty to one woman, gave Bill Clinton a pass for predatory behavior with multiple women. Instead of condeming the behavior, as would be required by feminist ideology, the "feminists" personally attacked those who came forward and claimed (even with substantial corroboration) sexual predation by Mr. Clinton - despite his behavior appearing much worse than Justice Thomas' (IMHO, there is a big difference, for example, between Broderick's rape claim and Hill's claim of dirty language).
Maybe. Maybe not.
While I don't have time to read through all the comments posted here, let me turn your heading on its head and ask just what exactly it might be about Republicans that could convince anyone that they care about feminism. After all, isn't the phrase "feminazi" all the rage among many of your ilk? It seems to me that it's easy to criticze Democrats for perhaps being hypocritical on the issue of women's rights (and minority rights as well), but one would at least have to grant that at least in principle, Democrats support equal rights for women and minorities. Republicans aren't hypocritical on the issue because they are entirely absent on the issue. The next time I hear a Republican say something intelligent on the issue of women's rights or minority rights will be the first time.
Let me make it as simple as possible for Prof Althouse.
You made a generalization about a particular comments thread at Eschaton: that Eschaton posters are sexists. You cited certain posts as examples to prove your generalization is valid.
I can very easily and categorically prove that these examples do NOT support your generalization. Thus, your generalization is NOT valid.
Therefore, you have accused ACTUAL PEOPLE of something very serious: misogyny. They are innocent of this accusation, and you need to acknowledge that, having levelled the charge in a public fashion.
I am NOT relying entirely on the "irony defense." You took the comments out of context and very clearly mischaracterized them out of accident or design.
I'm not asking you for a goddamn link, which is why I'm sure most people ask you to read their blogs.
I'm telling you that I've proved you've very irresponsibly accused ACTUAL PEOPLE of being sexists without being able to provide any real evidence for the charge.
The attacks against her using sexual language, from either side, are not ironic. They are sexual harassment.
Go look at her own nine examples from Eschaton and show me the direct, personal attack on Prof Althouse that comes from the liberal "side."
This Jonathan Swift character has a long, long way to go to convince me that he cares about the Irish
My male friends on the left who make snarky, sarcastic comments that denigrate women, and want to argue that they're being "ironic" have a long way to go before they achieve the talent of Jonathan Swift. Ann's challenge to go do that face to face with a black person is a good one--as a woman, a leftist, and a lesbian, I don't buy your bullshit argument. I think these boys get a kick out of calling women cunts, then claiming it's all to mock REAL misogynists.
But I see, all those one-handed typists are REALLY little Swifts in the making. As if.
Re: "Well, Alito will deny women the right to control their own bodies, something which any feminist would find unacceptable, but which apparently you do not."
I get it! I get it!
You're being ironic, right?
Gawd, that's funny stuff, that Dem irony. Killer laffs, every time.
Thersites sed: "I'm telling you that I've proved you've very irresponsibly accused ACTUAL PEOPLE of being sexists without being able to provide any real evidence for the charge."
Aw Thersites, yer killin' me with this irony material.
"...without any real evidence..."??
Man, zzzing that, Althooose,huh?
Thersites, you da man, you are.
So what is the ironic opposite you indended there, huh? I'm a little lost. Can't ya make it simple for me, too?
Eunuch. [/irony]
"But I see, all those one-handed typists are REALLY little Swifts in the making. As if."
It's already been pointed out that a majority of the quoted posts were made by women. Out of the 9, at least 5 were by women. 1 was from a right wing troll, gender unknown.
You honestly believe that self-identified progressive feminist women think that feminism "belongs in the kitchen?" They aren't boys who secretly get a thrill out of calling women epithets. If you don't believe it, by all means go lurk at Eschaton for a few weeks until you get to actually know the people in question...
harrie said: "And Pogo has turned insane."
Sorry to disappoint, wildabout, but I'm jes' yankin' yer chain a bit. Thersites sounds like the usual leftist wanker sinking in a mire of pointless details, missing the forest for the trees. ("But I can PROVE it!!!!, he pleads.)
Is this about 'intellectual dishonesty'? Feh.
A few lefty feminists and their eunuchs tried to disparage Althouse, often in vile tones. Then they tried to claim "irony" as a defense.
Nuh-uh. Doesn't wash.
harrie, you've posted here alot before. You seem to be level-headed. Why do you bother supporting such boneheads? Or are you being ironic?
Starless, you're being ridiculous. So it doesn't matter what they actually say, you know already what "those people" say at "that place"? Please.
Althouse is upset that in her opinion she was told she was not a feminist. That takes her out of the context of her wider writings.
But she feels free to call other people "sexists" and then denies she has any responsibility whatsoever to back up the charge when challenged on "evidence" which is silly on its face.
That's hypocrisy.
Is it really wrong of me to yank on Annie's pigtails to get her attention? I just want to be loved, and since Malkin pays me no nevermind, I figured I might as well try for the lawyer chick.
Thersites sed: "That's hypocrisy."
And, as if Ann needed to be told, hypocrisy is of course the absolute worst sin to be guilty of in the leftist world.
Gawd I love you, man. I thought I would have to wait all freakin' night before you pulled out the sure-fire all-purpose lefty hypocrisy card. Thank you. I mean it.
Re: "I need an example, Pogo, I can't find one."
Glad to oblige:
'Cause your a moron Ann?
Feminism is OK in its place.
Because mainly ugly chicks and dudes are interested in politics. Pasty greasy faced ( I saw the picture here and shivered in revulsion) fish belly white thighs and guts are not attractive.
Could you drop downstairs from time to time and keep the fake lawyer busy?
A woman should be a lady in the
bedroom and a whore in the kitchen.
She comes in starting shit, but when we give it back, she doesn't like it.
A flamewar betweem Althouse and LGF is pretty hilarious, though. Like drunk midget dodgeball.
One thing the Republicans have is a whole stable of hot blonde white women they can roll out for tv.
but she looks like a man
most Democrat women are real bow wows.
Is that what you tell your twelve year old before sending her to bed with seventy year old men desiring to test their Celibacy?
________________________
Of course, all of that is ironic.
Is that what you tell your twelve year old before sending her to bed with seventy year old men desiring to test their Celibacy?
LOL! That was a troll attacking ME with a strawman for my admiring Gandhi.
Could you drop downstairs from time to time and keep the fake lawyer busy?
Oh, that was the female lawyer, Hecate, asking me to keep occupied another troll (Another Victory for Eschaton), who claimed to be a lawyer but couldn't spell 'law' if he were spotted the 'l', 'a', and 'w'.
most Democrat women are real bow wows.
And yet another troll using the 'Democrat' as an adjective epithet. To which I responded: Yeah, totally.
I'll leave the rest of your bullshit to the other ironic, witty and erudite Atriots.
Pogo is a clown.
1. Calling Althouse a "moron" isn't sexist. That's about it for direct insults of Althouse.
2. Joke, entirely unrelated to Althouse.
3. Right-wing troll.
4. Request for someone to go deal with a right wing troll on another thread; nothing to do with Althouse.
5. Old saying. Google it.
6. Don't know. Put on the time stamp.
7. Nasty. But not sexist, and you're proving it, anyway.
8. Rightwing troll.
9. Not Althouse, and challenged in the thread, contrary to Althouse's assertion.
10. Same right wing troll.
11. NTodd...?
You're just being ridiculous now.
8.
Thersites,
All of your disavowals are merely gussied-up versions of "It wasn't me."
The anti-female stuff was hurled at other women, started off by Atrios ("waaah"). You can certainly claim none of it was directly stating "Althouse is...", but I seem to remember a little lawsuit loved by the left, now a movie (North Country), which showed lots of generally sexually disparaging stuff in the workplace. The judge seemed to think it was directed at those women. I think this is similar.
Ironic or not, I have never understood feminists calling each other c*nt, or other epithets. I know they think it removes the word's power, but it doesn't. It remains degrading to everyone.
geoduck2 Re: "Pogo just used the word "Eunuch" to disparage feminists. Come on - that's using sexual language to insult someone. Ann's whole point was too condemn this type of commenting behavior."
Well, geoduck, you failed to use the patented Atrios Irony Decoder Ring. If you had used it, you would have seen I was being ironic, just like the commenters at Atrios, so I, too, can use vile and sexist language and disclaim it at the same time. Cool, huh?
As for "feminists must be lesbians", really now. Are you that unaware of that famous claim?
Bunch, Charlotte. "LESBIANS IN REVOLT"
The Furies: Lesbian/Feminist Monthly, vol.1 (January 1972), pp.8-9
"Lesbians must become feminists and fight against woman oppression, just as feminists must become Lesbians if they hope to end male supremacy."
Being a feminist doesn't make you a good person.
I think all wrong-thinking people are right.
No matter how much you try to wiggle around talking about "irony" and how such-and-such comment may be directed somewhere else, the comments as a whole are directed at the subject of the post.
My lightsabre is all tingly.
No matter how much you try to wiggle around talking about "irony" and how such-and-such comment may be directed somewhere else, the comments as a whole are directed at the subject of the post.
Uh, no they're not. That's absurd. Only a few of them are to do with Althouse at all.
You seem to believe you have some ESP-like ability to discern the "true intentions" of people beyond the direct evidence of what they actually say.
What you really have is the very common ability of having your preconceived ideas confirmed no matter what evidence is presented to you.
geoduck, your mother might have read a bit about the movement she adopted.
Some quotes:
"...liberal feminist Rene Denfeld's argument that feminism has become more a lesbian movement than one supporting gender equality: "...the feminist promotion of lesbianism is more prevalent today than it was in the mid-seventies through the eighties... It is difficult to argue that feminism can represent all women when leading activists make it clear that one must call oneself a lesbian to join the club."
Interview with Judith Butler, Berlin, May 2001: "I always hated this saying that feminism is the theory and lesbianism must be the practice."
"Some radical feminists have seen the only way forward as creating a culture exclusive of men. Sexual relationships, too, should only be entered into with other women, as summed up by the slogan attributed to to Grace Anderson: "Feminism is the theory: lesbianism is the practice" (quoted in Charvet, 1982, p.129)."
"Denfeld argues that the increasing prominence of lesbian issues and theory is at least partially responsible for the alienation of heterosexual women from the contemporary feminist movement. She argues that contemporary feminism has offered lesbianism as the only appropriate sexual choice for enlightened feminists and quotes the San Francisco NOW Times to demonstrate her point:
Embracing lesbianism, or lesbian-feminist theory, is pivotal to the feminist movement, which works to change society through the elimination of gender-defined roles ... heterosexism and male supremacy reinforce one another in maintaining our oppression. Both must be eliminated for any woman to be free. (12)"
pogo's right: the Feminist Movement is a Monolith, and requires all to be Lesbians. Yea verily, and it was good.
Do not dissent from the One True Feminist Faith. Do not taunt Happy Fun Dyke.
Marx & Engels: "The overthrow of mother right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children" (The Origin of the Family, 1884).
"A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism...the [housewife's] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable.... [W]oman's work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a 'career' for woman." ~ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949.
"[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry...not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self.... [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife." ~ Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 1963.
"[As long as the woman] is the primary caretaker of childhood, she is prevented from being a free human being." ~ Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, 1969.
"[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children...parasites." ~ Gloria Steinem, "What It Would Be Like If Women Win," Time, August 31, 1970.
"[The] housewife is a nobody, and [housework] is a dead-end job. It may actually have a deteriorating effect on her mind...rendering her incapable of prolonged concentration on any single task. [She] comes to seem dumb as well as dull. [B]eing a housewife makes women sick." ~ Sociologist Jessie Bernard in The Future of Marriage, 1982.
"Feminism was profoundly opposed to traditional conceptions of how families should be organized, [since] the very existence of full-time homemakers was incompatible with the women's movement.... [I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are very young.... If women disproportionately take time off from their careers to have children, or if they work less hard than men at their careers while their children are young, this will put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis men, particularly men whose wives do all the homemaking and child care.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole had reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." ~ Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, 1986.
Today on Ann Althouse, Ann demonstrated why I encourage all conservative law professors to take up blogging. Blogs will definitely keep law professors off the bench.
Sorry ntodd, I didn't mean to cause you so much difficulty reading all that darn feminist history and stuff. I mean, poeple like Friedan, Millett, and Steinem are so yesterday, man.
Leftism, the ideology that has no past.
Sorry ntodd, I didn't mean to cause you so much difficulty reading all that darn feminist history and stuff. I mean, poeple like Friedan, Millett, and Steinem are so yesterday, man.
Uh, they are. Why do you think a feminist today has to be a Marxist, of Steinemist? Do you not recognize the flow of time? Are you not of the ilk that tells us stupid libs to "get over it" and "move on" when we talk about 2000, or 2002, or 2004?
geoduck, You asked for evidence of feminists deriding housewives. I posted feminist luminaries doing just that. But apparently that's "too many quotes." The point is, housewives were seen as parasites by prominent feminists; the right didn't just invent that.
Same with the "feminists should be lesbian" theme. It's an old one, and common to feminist theory. It's somewhat surprising you never seem to have run across it.
I was in fact for the ERA. Now I see it would have been stupid.
Re: "Do you not recognize the flow of time? "
Awesome! You mean the left has finally dropped redistribution, affirmative action, national health care, progressive taxation, school integration, multiculturalism/diversity demands, and other standard liberal dogmas???
Have you really "moved on" to something else?
Look, I can post more recent anrcho-feminist-lesbian cant as well, but you're not really interested in the idea that liberalism has a very, very dark side to it. But no need, just flit on back to Atrios for a sample.
I was in fact for the ERA. Now I see it would have been stupid.
I wasn't for ERA. I thought it was redundant and unnecessary.
geoduck, I was not debating the wisdom of the quotes as separate items, but as a whole; pieces by famous feminists stating their hatred for housewives or being a housewife.
It was posted because you asked for that proof. And there you have it. It's not a debatable point.
The ERA was defeated (or more accurately, failed to be enacted). You might consider that the arguments in its favor were not vetted in any way akin to the rigorous debated engaged in the Bill of Rights.
And why do you suppose it failed?
Re: "Oh, but I am very interested. I am a liberal. And I have a dark side. A VERY DARK SIDE, motherfucker."
See? I was right.
Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.
Re:"Where do you stand? Are you a feminist? If not, why not? And do you have a problem with people who identify as feminists."
I am a conservative. I stand for the individual over against the group. This references especially the State, but includes race, ethnic, or gender identity groups. They are balkanizing influences. America needs more citizens, and fewer [insert group here].
Feminists fought for and won numerous rights, to the benefit of men and women. Leftist feminists are currently engaged in a power grab, not for the betterment of people in general, but for their favored group in particular.
Re: "Look, I don't understand your whole housewife argument."
First, it's not my housewife argument. You asked for proof that feminists disparaged housewives. Some of the most important figures in feminism wrote those things about housewives. Proof.
Your experiences to the contrary are not dispositive to this evidence.
"Why should I abandon my belief system if Betty Friedan wrote a quote about housewives that I don't agree with? "
You shouldn't. But you should begin to question it. If the most famous writers and thinkers supporting feminism said things that conflict with what you believe, maybe you have a different belief entirely.
ok - now I'm curious. Ntodd - what are you talking about?
Um...when?
ntodd wrote: "Project much? My dark side has to do with my perverted mind. I don't believe in violence. You are both stupid and, well, stupider."
Yes, I see. I would suspect many readers would see your phrasing of
"And I have a dark side. A VERY DARK SIDE, motherfucker."
and NOT see this as the writings of a genteel, nonviolent lover of people, albeit a pervert.
Instead, most people would suspect underlying violence, alcohol, or mental illness.
But what do I know? You're the liberal, all compassionate and stuff. Maybe the modern compassionate types call everyone motherfucker as a term of endearment, huh?
Yes, I see. I would suspect many readers would see your phrasing of
"And I have a dark side. A VERY DARK SIDE, motherfucker."
and NOT see this as the writings of a genteel, nonviolent lover of people, albeit a pervert.
Instead, most people would suspect underlying violence, alcohol, or mental illness.
Dark side. Yes, that only has one obvious connotation. Especially since there's no possible way you could do any recon to see what I'm about. You're right. I'm a violent psychpath, and I've traced your IP addy and will be hunting you down and gutting you as slowly and as painfully as I possibly can.
That's just the way we deranged Quakers are.
The perverted mind stuff. I was making a stupid joke.
What're ya doin' aftah?
This is the about the power structure within the "movement", not about whether you and your dad are feminists or not.
Hey, check out this cool monolith I found!
I think in all of this post and a few previous to it, Althouse is being seen as a gender traitor and is being attacked as such. The phrase "Can I get a Feminist?" was interpreted by the "true" feminists as a woman playing the "weaker sex" role--a role which they despise.
Wow, the mind boggles. The interpretation I've gotten from the "feminists" in the "movement" was that Althouse seems to not care about Alito's positions on a variety of issues that are important to a lot of women, then when somebody on her side gets their freak on, she wonders where the aforementioned "feminists" in the "movement" are. Seems like a Little Red Hen moment.
Now, since you're so good at reading people's minds, maybe you can tell me what Casey Sheehan would think of his mom, whether my dead cat is pissed I put her to sleep, and what I'm thinking right now.
Offensive things have been said by some feminists. But that does not negate the brilliant work done by many, many women.
No, see, that's wrong. For example, allegedly Gandhi slept with 12-year old girls to test his celibacy. Thus, Indian independence is illegit. Same goes for your "movement".
Ann,
You believe Duncan should have asked his commenters to tone their posts down. Since it is still a relatively obscure forum, and since they are primarily a semi-private community making in jokes, I am not sure why he would need or want to do that.
But in light of your request of Duncan, would you ask your groupies to keep down their gratuitous suckup posts of Ann love?
It's really squicking us out.
ntodd: You really appear to be language "declined." Is it that you're incapable of expressing yourself in a more serious way, or that you just prefer to act like a 5-year-old using dirty words as if he's the first to discover them? Or ... I got it ... is that your definition of "irony"?
(I've learned a lot today about how people use that word nowadays. It'll make a great post someday. Ironic vs. Sardonic vs. Sarcastic.)
Quxxo: Oh, come on. I think you're playin' to play. I actually more often than not enjoy your comments, even when they're off-the-wall or provocative (maybe especially) (I just got a kick out of you over on the Gore thread, for example). But really. I don't see much love anywhere on this thread, from either perspective.
Not in context of 300 posts! Which leads to the obvious: what on EARTH am I doing helping to perpetuate this thread?
Yeah, I'm crazy. Nevermind.
And yes, I've read every darned one of them. More evidence of insanity.
Good night.
What I find amazing is that after complaining about two comment threads at two different blog on how horrible it is that Ann was attacked using horrid sexist language, right here in this very thread, on her very blog, I have seen repeated accusations that feminist must be lesbian to be a true feminist (whatever the hell that is).
Since she is so big on blog owners controlling their comment section of horrible sexist language, I have to wonder why she would allow these accusations to stand...
Is it too much to expect a bit of constancy? One would think if Ann was so eager for feminist to stick up for her, the least she could do is stick up for them...
NTodd: "I'm a violent psychpath, and I've traced your IP addy and will be hunting you down and gutting you as slowly and as painfully as I possibly can."
Threats of violence against individuals are NOT acceptable humor here -- even in that context where you're saying it's only a joke. You know, you're having to say it's a joke so often, maybe you ought to rethink how you present your ideas. You say things that aren't true and aren't funny and then say it's a joke. It's not a good presentation. You need to work on your writing. A lot. Maybe you're a pretty young kid. I encourage you to engage in some serious thinking about yourself. Maybe over on the Eschaton comments board, you gotten a sense of affirmation and you've come to believe you're smart and funny. This is not equipping you well to live in the real world. Over here, you've got a chance to learn how to talk to people who don't agree with you. It's a real educational opportunity. If you're smart you'll take it. That's a little advice to a young person from a teacher.
If you're not a young person... Well, I just hope you are.
Re:"Though you seem disinclined to do research of any kind, I would recommend you read some of NTodd's writing before disparaging him. Thank you."
Charlotte, I was reading every word he said, and was disinclined to read further. I dunno about you, but once someone jokes about killing me, the fun seems to wear off, and I want to know sooo much less about them.
What makes you think his writings deserve more than disapproval?
Charlotte: That's ridiculous. He's come over here and is writing on my blog. I'm calling him on his inappropriate behavior here. Why are you defending it? I could have just deleted his comment, but I wanted to make a point about standards here, on a post that is critical of another blog's lack of standards for commenters.
(I'm guessing NTodd is not a young person!)
And I know I've criticized Atrios for not knowing more about my writing, but that was in the context of criticizing him for making an assumption about me. Here, I'm simply criticizing a written statement that is right in front of me.
Re: "Pogo -
Do you often respond to comments that aren't addressed to you?"
Wow, a quandary: do I respond to that? Heh.
Short answer? No.
Longer answer? But sometimes I do. Conversations (and blogs) are like that. Okay by you?
NTodd: "I'm a violent psychpath, and I've traced your IP addy and will be hunting you down and gutting you as slowly and as painfully as I possibly can."
Threats of violence against individuals are NOT acceptable humor here -- even in that context where you're saying it's only a joke.
Oh, puhleeeeeeeze! Don't get your panties in a twist, dearie.
I'm guessing NTodd is not a young person!
Depends on your definition of 'young'. I'm 36 whole years old. Outside. Some people accuse me of being a 13yo inside, but I take great umbrage at that: I'm a 9yo. Duh.
[yanks on Annie's pigtails, run away giggling]
ntodd: You really appear to be language "declined." Is it that you're incapable of expressing yourself in a more serious way
Oh, I get it, I have to take this stupid fucking kerfuffle SERIOUSLY! How could I have been so CHILDISH? So STUPID to not have gotten the SERIOUSNESS of this MAJOR ISSUE? Woe is me. 7 years of college down the drain...
or that you just prefer to act like a 5-year-old using dirty words as if he's the first to discover them?
You win the CEEEEEGAR!
Or ... I got it ... is that your definition of "irony"?
It's clearly not irony. It's absurdism. Duh.
Man, I feel so picked on now. I might have to post about that at my blog (which is right here at this here URL). In a serious fashion, of course. Deadly serious.
Prof Althouse, I cannot see how you have any standing whatsoever to lecture anyone on proper discourse. You are pulling rank by saying you are a teacher.
If you're an academic and an honest scholar, ACT LIKE ONE. You list nine examples which you allege prove sexism and insult you personally. In context, the only one that shows anything of the sort is the one from an obvious right-wing troll -- and the fact that you haven't acknowledged this is embarrassing to you.
Youe "evidence" is spectacularly weak. And you know it, which is why you keep ducking the issue with completely lame excuses.
You have slandered ACTUAL PEOPLE by calling them "sexists" in a public forum. And you refuse to look at the very strong evidence that you're wrong.
Grow up and retract.
Thersites said: "You have slandered ACTUAL PEOPLE by calling them "sexists" in a public forum."
Your characterization of their posts as benign is merely your opinion. Your read of the benignity of those posts, or errors therein, is not a fact, but a conjecture, regardless of how many times you say it, or how many times you post otherwise. It was a take specifically rejected by many readers, myself included.
Saying something repeatedly doesn't make it so.
Althouse is either very sloppy or very dishonest. Period
To this, I would add desperate for more attention.
Or, perhaps, lacking a capacity to understand clear sarcasm.
How dare Annie call me a sexist! I am a reformed neanderthal. With a twist of lemon.
This after I profess my undying love to her. I might have to rethink our entire relationship.
Oops, I'm actually an 'unreformed' neanderthal. I regret the error.
"Your read of the benignity of those posts, or errors therein, is not a fact, but a conjecture, regardless of how many times you say it, or how many times you post otherwise. It was a take specifically rejected by many readers, myself included."
It's true, the feminist women who post at Eschaton really do believe that feminism's place is in the kitchen. They said so themselves!
Their lame excuse that they're being tongue-in-cheek is clearly a post-hoc attempt to avoid responsibility for their own contempt for themselves.
Wait, so is somebody gonna fetch me an eclair or not?
Re: "Their lame excuse that they're being tongue-in-cheek is clearly a post-hoc attempt to avoid responsibility for their own contempt for themselves."
1. Their contempt was for women who disagree with them, not self-directed at all.
2. They did not claim to be saying things tongue-in-cheek. That's your opinion; it might indeed be accurate. Their contempt might be real, however. I suspect it is.
No kerfuffle this. Being called on bad behavior has rankled the left, and it hurts because it's true, not because it's false.
Ann is not going to ban you, which is what you clearly want her to do. I don't understand why. Perhaps there is some twisted feeling of validation you will get from being banned; over-interpreting it into "she banned me because she knew I was right!"
What is it with you fuckwits who think they can read minds? I don't give a rat's ass if Annie bans me. I'm bored and just having a lot of sick, twisted fun. Playing with friends, trying to goose up my traffic, etc.
Unlike the trolls who try to disrupt things at Eschaton, I'm not one to crow "hahaha, I was banned because Ann can't handle THE TRUTH!" So you can cut the projection crap anytime, sweetie.
Being called on bad behavior has rankled the left, and it hurts because it's true, not because it's false.
You cut us to the quick, sir! I mean, darling!
Are you following this?
No, hold on a sec: you're saying your a lesbian?
Damn my stubby fingers! You're. Your. There is a difference.
Re: "they can't be feminists because feminist make people become lesbians and hate housewives"
geoduck, you do recall that the statements regarding 'feminists must become lesbians' and 'housewives are parasite' were made by feminists themselves, and quite famous ones at that.
Don't be disingenuous.
I, for one, welcome our new lesbian overlords.
QUXXO: Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Ntodd! Oh, he is a naughty person, and he must pay the penalty -- and her in Castle Ann Althouse, we have but one punishment for setting alight the grail-shaped beacon. You must tie him down on a bed and spank him!
ATRIOTS: A spanking! A spanking!
QUXXO: You must spank him well. And after you have spanked him, you may deal with him as you like. And then, spank me.
VARIOUS ATRIOTS: And spank me. And me. And me.
QUXXO: Yes, yes, you must give us all a good spanking!
ATRIOTS: A spanking! A spanking!
QUXXO: And after the spanking, the oral sex.
ATRIOTS: Oral sex! Oral sex!
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন