After writing the last post, about a WaPo column by Alyssa Rosenberg, I clicked on my "Alyssa Rosenberg" tag. It only had 2 other posts. One, from a year ago, was to another WaPo column ("Hillary Clinton and I are done"), but the other was from 2009, about whether long novels are still worth reading. It was a clip from a Bloggingheads diavlog, Rosenberg with Matt Yglesias, and I needed to fix some code, so I clicked through to the Bloggingheads website. I saw that there was a new diavlog with Bob Wright and Christina Hoff Sommers. I'm interested in that, but it goes on for more than 2 hours, so I decided to click on one of the subtopics that jumped out, "Bob denies Christina’s charge of 'benevolent sexism.'" Here's the clip...
Hoff Sommers criticized Wright for "benevolent sexism" because of the way he'd diavlogged with a feminist philosopher. Instead of going at it with her, he babied the female philosopher with softball questions. Okay. Wright says he wants to defend himself and: "I've done dialogues with Ann Althouse that got so contentious that she accused me of being sexist in the other sense, of being too hard on her."
Bizarre. I'm just idly clicking around. I didn't expect to hear my own name. And now I feel called upon to correct the record. I didn't say it was sexist to be "too hard" or "contentious." I don't like that characterization, and now I feel sort of nauseated. Good lord, what all do people say about you when you're not around? Stumbling into one example, it makes me wonder! What a strange world!
Wright was referring to this diavlog with me from February 2017, which was the last time I talked with him. Watch this clip and you may see why I'm annoyed to be characterized as having called him sexist for being too hard on me. What's sexist is that he treats me differently and with far more hostility than he treats the men who engage vigorously and give him a hard time. He's never had me back on the show after this:
If you watch that clip, you'll see that I'm talking about how podcast listeners might not want to hear yelling. Wright volunteers that every time he talks to me he ends up yelling. "9 out of 10 of my podcast conversations do not involve this level of voice raising, however, all of the ones involving you do." That's what makes me want to do feminist analysis, which I introduce in the form of asking him "What's your analysis of that?" He says he doesn't know, so I tell him what my husband says: "He says that you should at least pretend to be enjoying speaking to me and that you should show appreciation for me and, whether you actually feel it or not, to make it feel like this is a fun, enjoyable conversation, this is a good place to be as opposed to an intense struggle."
I'm really talking about the aesthetics of radio at that point, the subjective experience of the brain between the earbuds, the listener. Wright repeats that he usually doesn't raise his voice, and I say, "but you do with me" and suggest again that it could be "analyzed." I remind him that I was the only woman on Bloggingheads in the early days. I say, "To some extent, I feel I'm being badgered and bullied because I'm a woman (and because you perceive me as conservative, even though I'm not)." I never use the word "sexism," but at 89:00, he tells me I've accused him of sexism.
Anyway, my objection wasn't to tough opposition and hardcore debate, it's about getting yelled at and treated with disrespect. Something about me triggers him, and he came right out and admitted it, but he resisted any sort of analysis of why. I think it's shallow (or repressive) not to want to consider whether there's a gender element to why another person is aggravating you so much. I'd go on the show — back when I got invited — and, as you can see, I'm smiling and really into the joys of conversation. Why is he yelling at me?!
January 9, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
78 comments:
“I feel I'm being badgered and bullied because I'm a woman”
Isn’t that a charge of sexism, whether by using the term or the behavior it describes?
He's a leftist so who knows what he believes.
I'd just point out that it's Althouse and it's her hot button thing, when one of those topics comes up.
It resembles dismissiveness but invites an argument that it's not just a hot button.
If it comes out that it's hot buttons all the way down, that is.
Women are all supposed to be good liberals that make liberal men feel good about themselves.
When you get them to raise their voice, you know you’ve won.
(Note the gender-neutral pronouns.)
Is it because he’s a pompous ass, maybe?
Bob Wright - Beta Male of the Century
To paraphrase EDH (who nails it), you're not a woman-woman, Ann.
The screenshot of Bob and Christina remind me of Chuck and Nan.
I don't like Wright's politics, but I like that he seems to honestly grapple with the issues and come to a sensible conclusion. I don't get that sense from many people. Especially people on the left.
"Isn’t that a charge of sexism, whether by using the term or the behavior it describes?"
I don't like it to seem as though I've used a particular epithet when I have not. I described subjectively how it felt to me, and that offered him an opportunity to say something about what seems to be happening from his point of view. I didn't accuse him of being a type of bad person (a "sexist") or being infected with a condition ("sexism"). I wanted to talk about a specific real-world experience and why it was happening. That's a very different kind of conversation. He gave no alternative to my guess that it's happening because I'm a woman. He didn't even attempt to say anything about me that is why I trigger him time and time again and he ends up yelling at me. I don't yell at him. I give calm responses, often smiling, after he yells at me. What's going on? He didn't even try to answer! To me, that leaves the explanation I offered just sitting there. And then he introduces the word "sexism." It's almost as though he's admitting it.
I find Wright unbearable even when he's not shouting.
If sexism or racism have any objective meaning apart from Progressive epithets, I would think that treating women or minorities with open anger or contempt because of their refusal to accept Progressive pieties perfectly embody that meaning.
Tangent: I'd never seen or heard the word 'diavlog' before this post. Maybe I have heard it but can't be sure because I can't figure out how to pronounce it.
If he's raising his voice it's most likely because whatever has been said upsets him; he doesn't believe the characterization of himself or his behavior and it feels like an attack against which he needs to defend himself, and he probably doesn't feel he's being understood. At least that's what I'm experiencing when I respond by raising my voice.
Were you a regular on BH before Megan McArdle? I haven't watched in a long long time, but I was an ardent follower and commenter when it first started (I read Kaus on Slate, found BH through him, and I think found your blog through your BH appearance!).
One of my favorite BH comment threads was back when people complained that there weren't more female guests and then complained when McArdle was booked too frequently. I pointed out the humor of that--of people calling for "more women" and then being upset when that particular woman was a guest (with the implication that non-liberal women can't be "real women") and was denounced as sexist. Pre-Obama BH was a fun and interesting forum--I read books by both Wright and Kaus and found a number of blogs from BH discussions. Wright got increasingly less polite and less interesting, though, as did the tone of the forum interactions generally and I found other places to spend my time.
Ah, memories.
Something about me triggers him
Yes and you seem to be stuck trying to figure out what exactly that is.
I feel I'm being badgered and bullied because I'm a woman
See, that's where you're stuck, unable to reach the real issue.
(and because you perceive me as conservative, even though I'm not)
Interesting parenthetical. Let's tease that out.
you perceive me as conservative is the operative phrase there and even though I'm not has never really penetrated the skulls of your progressive slanderers and misunderstandingers.
Once the conservative tag is on you, among them, it doesn't matter how you perceive or present yourself. You exhibit wrongthink in your conservative approach to some matters, such as having good manners. That's what triggers Bob. That's what triggers your fellow Madisonians. That's why you are consistently misreferred to as "right-wing blogress" or other somesuch sloppy label. They can't and won't ever relent once having labeled you. You came too close to calling Bob out last year and you are now among the uninvited.
It is so sad what having good manners can now do to one's "social" associations.
I thought Bob Wright spend WAY too much time talking about how he's been charged with sexism, but he really isn't, etc. He talks about it forever (where althouse is mentioned) and then an hour later brings the subject up again.
I'm assuming, that in Left-wing circles being accused of "Bad think" is incredibly damaging, so that's why Bob Wright so obsessive about it.
Ann I have no idea how you stay so calm during these exchanges. I salute you! Thank you for being a voice of calm and reason. I don't agree with about 40% of your views, but I appreciate your persistent and transparent desire for engagement!
At first I thought Jordan Peterson was looking pretty rough without his beard.
At least he remembered you.
"He says that you should at least pretend to be enjoying speaking to me"
Don't think about that too much.
Shorter: I didn't say he was sexist; I said was mean to me because I'm a woman. LOL
Bob Wright seems to calmed down a bit (maybe the Buddhism is helping) but before any DV with someone asserting a conservative position would get him worked up.
And like many liberals, having a woman assert something conservative (even if playing devils advocate) drove him extra-crazy.
H
"Were you a regular on BH before Megan McArdle?"
Yes.
IRC, Jonah Goldberg raised his voice at Althouse after the Libertarian "I'm surrounded by racists" flap.
It seems some guys just can't take a strong woman disagreeing with them.
Of course, it could be that Bob just can't handle blond women lawyers called Ann.
Sommers made some interesting points, but the DV wandered all over the place and ended up talking about Ben Shapiro, a black hole of dullness.
I just thought it was Bob's time of the month.
BW suffers from Althouse Derangement Syndrome.
Imagine Wright in Ann's class and her drilling down on him using the Socratic method. He couldn't handle it.
Holy hell, just searched the old forum and the second link Google bought up (from my many old comments) was chiding people for complaining about an Althouse BH ...in August of 2008! Man that was a while ago. I forgot the meme of people accusing Althouse of being frequently drunk--I think in one episode she had a glass of wine while talking and people made a huge thing of it for a long time afterwards.
A fun one from 8.26.08 was between Prof. Althouse and McArdle. During one of the segments they talk about why some commenters dislike them both. It really is funny to read the comments: Blogginghead Forums - The Diavlog
I much preferred the thread format of that old forum--I wish that had become standard everywhere. It let you respond to specific points and join specific conversations while ignoring others--that made it easy to prevent spam or trolls from taking over. That structure helped make it possible for a pretty diverse commenter group to get along pretty well, for a while anyway.
While I really didn't mind it when Bob Wright clips showed up on your blog years ago, I wasn't drawn to seek out more of him - to your points, Now, listening to it critically (as you invite), one thing that's unusual about the exchanges is that you have by far the more pleasant voice to listen to.
The other thing that really comes across is your body language. It's literally screaming. Look at you with the arms crossed and the head tilted the eyes always gazing up. He might be selling, but you're not buying.
stevew said...
Tangent: I'd never seen or heard the word 'diavlog' before this post. Maybe I have heard it but can't be sure because I can't figure out how to pronounce it.
It is pronounced like dialog, but with a 'v' blended into the start of the 'l'. Dia-vlog. A dialog in the form of a video ( vlog being short for video blog )
Tangent: I have the hardest time not reading it as diva-log. Bob Wright's involvement may be part of the reason.
I was always puzzled why you wasted your time with him. Maybe it was an exercise in turning the tables on Hardin, since Wright is just what Hardin says women are.
Wright does raise the volume of his voice but if he were speaking with me that way I wouldn't find it particularly vexing. He does interrupt and at times he's sensitive to avoiding the filibuster but in his heart when he knows he's right he does try to shut Ann down in a 'bullying' fashion. He hangs himself when he says the voice raising is unique to Ann. Also telling that he has no interest in analyzing why that might be so.
I'd have to watch some of his other vlogs to garner an opinion about the level of special treatment Ann gets but I'm not willing to invest. I suspect he prefers an echo chamber to a debate. Maybe Ann should just declare victory because she kind of owns him?
I find Ann's pitch and cadence rather soothing. Not NPR soothing, but certainly not triggering.
He looked dismissive and annoyed. Also he did not seem like he actually listened to what you were saying, as if he heard a part of it, then quickly turned his focus to what he was going to reply, while not hearing your complete statement. I think we all do a lot of that these days. Listening- actually hearing others talk to you- is a lost art in this era of responding instantly to Twitter, etc.
I know you did a few of those with him. I didn't watch them, though I know you did them. But now that I gave him a look and listen, I would not use my time to do so again. I am as dismissive toward him as he toward you. As they say: screw him. He doesn't merit your intellectual time.
I'm triggered by the fire hose of verbal spewage people try to pass off as conversation. Give me a southerner to talk to any day.
I think Mike is on to it. What jumped out at me is: "He didn't even attempt to say anything about me that is why I trigger him time and time again and he ends up yelling at me. I don't yell at him. I give calm responses, often smiling, after he yells at me. What's going on? He didn't even try to answer! "
The more you 'let him yell' without yelling back, the angrier he gets. He has no control over you. By not being triggered, you triggered him. Sometimes when you are losing, yelling is all you have left in the argument.
“I feel like you’re discriminating against me based on my race.”
“I am NOT being racist”
“I never said you were”
Women, amirite?
"I think in one episode she had a glass of wine while talking and people made a huge thing of it for a long time afterwards"
I never had an alcoholic drink in the diavlog. I would sometimes have pomegranate juice in a champagne flute just to be funny.
He did a semi-eye roll when accused of rolling his eyes. It was subtle enough to enable plausible denial, i.e. gaslighting.......He has a Jordan Peterson vibe, but Peterson, perhaps because of his experience as a clinical psychologist, presents himself as a more sympathetic listener..... In Wright's defense, that's about the gentlest form of bullying I've ever seen..
"The more you 'let him yell' without yelling back, the angrier he gets. He has no control over you. By not being triggered, you triggered him. Sometimes when you are losing, yelling is all you have left in the argument."
I'm not going to name any names, but this has been my experience with some important real-life relationships!
What's your analysis of that, Bob?
LoL as Althouse goes full metal HAL 9000 on Bob's ass.
And why do I instantly think of that dark haired Bangles chick whenever I hear the name Christina Hoff Sommers?
He knows why he raises his voice to Althouse. He doesn’t agree with Althouse but she is smart and attractive. He is simultaneously attracted and repulsed at his attraction. Hence the raised voice. It’s a symptom of self loathing.
I don't like it to seem as though I've used a particular epithet when I have not.
You didn't use the epithet but your intent was to communicate the meaning of the epithet. Looks like a distinction without a difference. Why do you see a distinction where others don't?
This is like a good scene from a 1930s screwball comedy.
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...And why do I instantly think of that dark haired Bangles chick whenever I hear the name Christina Hoff Sommers?
Because Susanna Hoffs is always worth thinking about. She's beautiful and talented.
Being cast in a false light is what happens to people in the public square who don't toe the line. Narrative uber alles.
Semi-eye-rolling, gaslighting, resembling Jordan Peterson, sympathetic listening, gentle bullying -- these are the nefarious tactics of the Radical Centrists!
Ann Althouse said...I never had an alcoholic drink in the diavlog. I would sometimes have pomegranate juice in a champagne flute just to be funny.
That makes it even funnier! Thanks for the memory jolt--hard to believe some of that stuff was 12 years ago now.
You may not consider yourself a conservative, but you still might be the most conservative person he's interacted with in this forum.
I remember that as the video with the huge tell that Althouse voted for Hillary Clinton. She didn’t come right out and say that, of course, just as she didn’t come right out and call the host a sexist.
Alinsky rules. He's pounding the table, for lack of argument.
Professor, i'd never heard your voice before; but it's pleasant, and i could listen for hours (which won't surprise people that know me)...
I've never heard that guy before, and i would very much like to NEVER hear his voice again.
Translation of segment:
Althouse: Treat me better under the justification of 'aesthetics'
Wright: No.
Calling him a sexist really raised his dander because that was a kick in his 'brand'.
On the one hand, too often women call anything they don't like sexist but is still a very toxic smear which men resent because there is very few effective defenses.
On the other hand, can you imagine Beta Bob's 'civility' to 'conservatives' these days? He is probably much worse.
That being said, he never seemed like a very agreeable person to me and he always seems to have some ire in him. What did you expect?
It is the self loathing of looking like he does and being who he is. Self disgust at not being a man but also not being a woman.
Haven't watched the whole two hours but does he ever end up yelling at Christina? That might be evidence! Always find her delightful.
I feel I'm being womaned because I'm a badger.
Well, Christina is more conservative than Althouse, so if he doesn't, he isn't yelling at Althouse because she is 'conservative'. In that case, it is likely personal or HOW she argues.
He’s yelling at you because Bob Wright is a girlie-man.
FIDO,
Althouse's sin is pretty obvious isn't it- she took a tour off the plantation.
I was wondering why you haven't been on BloggingHeads in a while.
Guess you got under Bob's skin.
You should go on Joe Rogan's show. He's a lot calmer that Wright. Although you'd probably have to endure him dropping F-bombs every few minutes.
Apparently you can blaze up a blunt in his studio too. Just ask Elon Musk.
Every time I hear Althouse's voice IRL, it is jarring. When I read her, I get a different voice.
I miss your appearances with Bob and otherwise on BH. He definitely should have you back.
I watched BH from when it was Micky and Wright. There was a lot of disagreement (like about Anne Coulter and 9/11 being a "blowback pitch") but Mickey was low key sort of charming. Wright is always shrill and obnoxious.
He does treat you differently, scornfully and I too believe it's because you take strong positions and don't back down. If you won't call it sexism I will.
Recently he did a meet with Marcy Wheeler about Russia-gate and Marcy Wheeler was slanting and making unsupportable arguments. He was uncharacteristically demure. Because he was not well informed on the topic. It was boring.
The couple of times when he was most congenial to you were when you talked sports.
@Althouse, It’s simple, really. One of the conceits of the left is that members of the identity groups that make up their coalition should think and vote pretty much alike. That seems to work for some identity groups — blacks, for instance — but not so much for others — Hispanics and whites women. When lefties stumble across someone from one of “their” identity groups who insists on thinking for himself or herself, their instinctive reaction is rage. Hence the treatment of Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas, the treatment of Milo Yiannopoulos, the treatment of Ben Shapiro, and a twerp yelling at a white woman who identifies as a feminist but insists on thinking for herself.
I find Wright more interesting to look at (a very strange looking specimen of a man) than to listen to and I had to agree that he doesn't have a pleasant podcast voice. However many talk radio hosts have abrasive voices, which actually make them more energetic and interesting. I took a quick listen to that recommended podcast, Stuff You Should Know, and found them a little boring and long winded. But that was only one short listen so I will reserve judgement.
I haven't been a fan of the BH with Wright and Althouse -- I noticed that he does get agitated when Ann pushes back and then pushes back some more. "The interrogator mode." Just on this clip with Sommers I noted she does not push back as forcefully. He's not used to getting flustered and that makes him appear awkward, more awkward, beyond his comfort zone.
I had to laugh...Bob knows he's a bully, he doesn't care enough to hide glazing over while you spoke. The pity is that he wins no hearts or minds with his weirdly passive-aggressive schtick, especially with women, as most people are fed up with the current tone and tune out.
What made Crossfire entertaining is that at the time most people were polite and watching the panel score points and squabble was unusual...and they were very, very good at it.
Now everyone is outraged all the time and quiet, informed conversation is exceptional.
I enjoyed the old BH, but like all things Internet, it's time has passed.
Please do resume podcasting!
I feel I'm being badgered and bullied because I'm a woman (and because you perceive me as conservative, even though I'm not)." I never use the word "sexism," but at 89:00, he tells me I've accused him of sexism.
--
AlbertAnonymous said...
“I feel like you’re discriminating against me based on my race.”
“I am NOT being racist”
“I never said you were”
Women, amirite?
--
I noticed that too.
Wow, a lot of Bob Wright hate among the commentators.
Bob, is actually pretty good at what he does, he just gets overly excited when his left-wing beliefs are challenged.
I hope Althouse and Bob do some more DV's.
J2 said
He does treat you differently, scornfully and I too believe it's because you take strong positions and don't back down. If you won't call it sexism I will.
I don't think it is sexism per se, but that he can't lead Althouse or predict her reponses. Althouse is too well versed in debate and presentation which keeps him on the back foot. So he overreacts, and you can see his annoyance when he realizes that he is no long the interrogator.
Look, let’s call it what it is: Althouse is from Mars; Wright is from Venus.
"He says that you should at least pretend to be enjoying speaking to me and that you should show appreciation for me and, whether you actually feel it or not, to make it feel like this is a fun, enjoyable conversation, this is a good place to be as opposed to an intense struggle."
Looks like he didn't appreciate my advice enough to take and apply it. Instead, he became defensive (plus took a shot at you behind your back!.) What a jerk move. I don't think it's a gender thing — people in general don't enjoy watching a host disrespect and yell at his guest whether the guest is male or female.
I hope he never disrespects and yells at his dog Milo that way. Using his own metric — ideology, perhaps Bob can reflect on and consider that his ideology might be part of his problem. If he's intellectually honest, he would.
Sorry, Ann -- look at min 47-49, and around there. There's a good amount of you talking more than Bob, then Bob starts trying to say something and you "add" something to what you had said, and Bob starts trying again and you interrupt again, adding more; while Bob's voice is getting a bit louder.
(Didn't watch the whole thing, don't like them so much, too long for too little insight; I prefer a transcript).
Then Bob is discussing Trump being "anti-Islam", where you are disagreeing with him and saying Trump is "anti-terrorist"; so Bob talks about 2 Christian preachers who have said "Islam is evil", proving that Trump is anti-Islam, but you are not convinced.
He's looking for easy agreeableness, and asks you calmly if that doesn't prove it, and you answer calmly that you're not convinced, and then he raises his voice and is trying to bully you into agreeing.
It's not so much that you're a woman, it's that he thinks you're intelligent BUT his proof is not convincing to you. (I don't quite believe his "proof", suspect you don't either. Bob claimed that: "Trump banned all Muslims" -- but this was media spin/ lie. Not what you, nor I, wanted the conversation to be about). The fact that you were not convinced is a little annoying to him, the fact that you don't want his "list of proofs" of his position is enraging him. "Can I get you on record? You do not want to hear the proof..."
You don't agree to be involved in a "Hate Trump-fest" based on media biased "proofs" / spin / lies. But that's what he wanted. He's having a Dem temper tantrum you don't join in the Trump-hate.
@Althouse, I've been reading this blog regularly for a long time (at least before 2008), and I did so initially because I read you as a "sensible liberal". I consider myself a sensible conservative, and I have some friends on the liberal side of the spectrum with whom I have had good, long-standing relationships, and with whom I can have productive discussions. We don't end up agreeing, but we end up understanding that where we disagree is not a reason for either of us to send the other to the firing squad. Your discussions with Wright supported my understanding of who you are.
Since your retirement you've been more out-of-the-closet conservative and even pro-Trump in your posts. I've interpreted this as being a challenge to the conventional wisdom. Frankly -- and this is just me -- I'd like to see a little more sensible liberalism from you. I understand that this is difficult, because so much of the criticism of Trump and his policies is of a knee-jerk nature and deserves rebuttal, but I would really like to see more of your cogent criticisms of Trump and his brainless supporters, along with criticism of his brainless critics.
"Why is he yelling t me?"
You're smarter than he is, Ann. I thought that was obvious.
I don't think it's fair of Ann to accuse Bob of reacting to her the way he does because she is a woman. It is not because she is a woman but because of the particular woman she happens to be: so attractive, so smart, so sensible, and yet so terribly wrong in his eyes when it came to the then new phenomenon of Trump. Bob seems to have calmed down a good bit sense then. He's gotten control of his Trump Derangement Syndrome, which, judging by personal experience with my family and friends, is a very real thing.
How much that derangement is a product of the establishment's being able to successfully "manufacturing consent" about who Trump is and what he stands for —a complete repudiation of decades of neoliberal trade and immigration policies with their supporting worldview—is a good question. To me the NYT and WP sound more like the way Pravda and Izvestia must have sounded to the people living behind the Iron Curtain towards the end of communism. But then I've always been wrong about politics and I may be alone.
What, no civility bullshit tag?
Luke, do you know any descendants of the Sewanee team?
Post a Comment