They do catch the eye, particularly because she is right in the middle and she is the only one who seems to be doing a professional "pose for the camera" type pose.
Yeah, they jump right out at you. She should probably wear a burka.
Huh. I looked at the picture and thought: "That looks like a bad Photoshop job with Clinton's head." I thought it was some stupid office party and a co-worker thought it would be funny to inject Clinton into the photo after the fact.
(And I know nothing about photo manipulation, but doesn't his face look redder than everybody else's? And not just the drinker's nose.)
Okay, I realize this is not why you brought it up.
man, that was an unpleasant read, especially all the digs at her about being an "intern" because she was a young woman and not ugly. i hate the world.
i think i'm going to have to stop following links like that, in the interests of personal sanity.
i mean, god. when you have breasts, you have breasts. unless you pull out the ace bandages, that's just how it's going to be. people have *bodies*. people are people.
i can't talk anymore.
Just because everyone else stands like a schlub doesn't mean she should. Also, I thought it was a photoshop or cardboard standup of BC.
Actually, her pose is the mirror of the woman three to her left, but I notice Althouse isn't slagging her. She does set the land speed record for vapidity.
That said, they were the first thing I noticed. But I'm me.
or, what blume said.
maybe she could just chop the offending appendages off, so you can't see them anymore, and then she'd look professional. just like a man. what's a little blood and mutilation. perfect profile for the office.
jesus. i'm going to stop reading now. bye.
Althouse has been demonstrating she's completely fucking insane for quite some time now. Whaddya gonna do?
Geezus fuck, sometimes blogs are like goddamn Peyton Place, with a bunch of old people gossiping over the fence at each other. Who hasn't been in a group photo where you didn't know quite what to do with yourself and ended up looking somehow weird or unlike everyone else? Doesn't Ann Althouse have something vaguely intellectual to talk about? Like the law, or politics, or something? If she wants to get on late-night teevee and do skits about photographs, then I'm sure Jon Stewart could use some more writers, given that everyone on his staff is leaving to start their own shows or be in the movies or both. The difference between jokes about Katherine Harris and Feministe in this case is that one is a joke, made in the context of a late-night joke program, and the other is an allegedly academic blogger writing a blog about the law and politics. If she wants to be funny, then she shouldn't write with all the dour seriousness of Cotton Mather getting ready to burn somebody when she looks at a photo of some blogger with Clinton. If the comment was made with a ha-ha, Monica Lewinsky strikes again, and laughed off as such, eh, who cares, you think it's funny or you don't. But here's Althouse passing this off like she's Sherlock Holmes and she's just found the headquarters of the League of Red-Headed Men or something. Sense of proportion, stat!
I had the same thought, Witt. He seems out of it. But we can never overestimate his capacity to induce allergic reactions on the right. There's a temptation, even though I'm not at all happy with him, for me to love him just because of it.
Three to her right, I guess. Left as you look at the picture.
Doesn't Ann Althouse have something vaguely intellectual to talk about
Haven't read much Althouse, I take it.
Ann Althouse is full of shit, and if we're playing what's feminist and what's not, posing for a camera and not draping yourself in sackcloth is way neutral compared to picking at other women for their appearance or the way they stand and hold themselves.
But I might as well call 'em like I see 'em. "Nasty old crone"? Intended ironically, I suppose, but doesn't come off well, to my ear, and just fuels the fire of women of different ages and degrees of conventional attractiveness picking at each other. If I were a man expressing an opinion on a dispute between a young woman and an older woman, and defending the young woman, I would choose different language.
If I were a man expressing an opinion on a dispute between a young woman and an older woman, and defending the young woman, I would choose different language.
Ditto, FWIW.
Actually, her pose is the mirror of the woman three to her left, but I notice Althouse isn't slagging her.
That woman appears to be repulsed by the presence of the camera, instead of looking right at it with a gleaming smile.
She does set the land speed record for vapidity.
Also true. If I looked at that picture with other people around me I'd probably point to her and say "SOMEONE is certainly enjoying this photo shoot, ha ha." But I certainly wouldn't defend that as a reasonably statement. What a waste of time.
That said, they were the first thing I noticed. But I'm me.
I am also you.
The reason you can see her body shape is that she's wearing a pale sweater, and not black like the woman next to her. I guess that's a slutty thing to do in Wisconsin or wherever Althouse lives. You can pretty well make out the shape of the shameless hussy second from the left, too, although her cardigan tones it down a bit. Phew!
What a tedious crank that Althouse is.
This picture also demonstrates what I believe was discussed on Unfogged earlier - that wearing black hides shadows (and is therefore slimming in certain circumstances). The woman right next to Feministe might also be wearing a Lana Turner-style sweater, but we'll never know because it is black instead of gray.
Why can't a woman/be more like some men? Say "nasty old crone"/and send cock photos to Ben?
But yes, I don't read Althouse much, except when she's being unpleasant. Which, judging from the links that signal her incidence of unpleasantry, is most of the time. Which I suppose means I read her a lot.
Fuck Althouse on general principle. I refuse to click through on the link, though I can guess what she says from Jessica's response. But we're all avoiding the important issue: who's the blonde?
Good lord. Is 27 really the age when negative reactions to political correctness (as they call it) set in? What can I expect in the coming months -- sudden, dearly held opinions about the estate tax? Maybe a newfound interest in handguns?
This sensation is a troubling first symptom, and yet totally undeniable.
Is 27 really the age when negative reactions to political correctness (as they call it) set in?
I don't know about that, but it was the age when really nasty hangovers set in for me.
Maybe a newfound interest in handguns?
You should be so lucky.
Who are all of them? I recognize Atrios, John Aravosis, Jeralyn Merritt, Chris Bowers, and I think the grey-headed guy is Stirling Newbery, but no idea who the rest are.
What's the guy on the far left doing with his pocket?
Arg...this kind of article by Althouse just makes me frustrated about how, in the name of feminism, some women can attack others on baseless and clearly irrelivant ideas. Or rather, ideas firmly placed in (what I hope is dated) sexist rhetoric. The idea that women might feel comfortable in their own skin and not try to hide their more feminine characteristics (ie: NOT try to adopt the uniform of the male business world by wearing a boxy power-suit) should really be recognized as something feminism celebrates NOT (a la Althouse) criticize. What an incredibly unprofessional and apalling article. Althouse needs a serious tutorial of what feminism actually is before trying to side herself with us.
And who's the poor sap whose face got completely blocked?
Isn't Jessica standing at the exact same angle as the person at the right end (our right) of the front row? So it's not standing at that angle that offends Althouse, it's doing so with boobies.
About feministing, in other discussions someone pointed out that the mudflap silhouette on their page is flipping the viewer off. That hadn't been apparent to me before.
I agreed with 13. Tom, 'political correctness' is a totally meaningless term, as evidenced by the fact that I actually don't know what you're reacting against.
What's the guy on the far left doing with his pocket?
Maybe a newfound interest in handguns?
You gotta feel a little sorry for Ann Althouse...she's *always* wrong. How sad.
I read both posts at Feministe before I came here. Why isn't Ogged reading Feministe?
First thing I noticed was the glass of wine. Second was Dave Johnson, cause beards and gray hair are just ultimate cool.
I guess that's a slutty thing to do in Wisconsin or wherever Althouse lives.
So, I'm pretty sure Madison is not noted for its conservative dress styles, when it's not freezing....
So Stirling Newbery is really Dave Johnson. That's so sneaky.
I'd seen this at LGM; Althouse is a shmeminist as well as a shmibertarian.
Stirling's picture is over at TPM if you want to see what he looks like. I think he has banned me from BOP.
There is a Feministe and a Feministing. The second blogname bothers me a little, I must confess. I must.
I agreed with 13.
Especially with the "intended ironically" part.
It's tempting to slag Althouse in crone/hag language when she seems to be channeling the Church Lady. (What a tone--a perfect mingling of huffy condescension, prudery and stupidity.) But that would be wrong.
37: Newberry looks nothing like the picture I had in my head. I wonder where I got my mental image.
who's the blonde?
Jane Hamsher.
Is the redhead Christy Hardin Smith?
Jane Hamsher was the producer for Natural Born Killers!?
Hamsher's a stud. Someone wrote that she has written a great book about making NBK, naming names and the rest.
Who's the guy with the Balki posture, three to the right of her? He looks like he's worried that the Secret Service is going to find the cocaine-filled condoms he's stuffed into his rectum.
Jane Hamsher was the producer for Natural Born Killers!?
And From Hell, which was written by Rafael Yglesias, father of Matt. That's some good bloggy connection action right there.
49: Damn. The things you learn.
Who's the guy with the Balki posture
I think he might be the other AmericaBlog guy.
47: SCMTim is correct. The book is "Killer Instinct."
Check it out: she worked with Saiselgy's dad on From Hell. And, unlike apparently everyone else on earth, I really liked Apt Pupil. And Permanent Midnight, too. In fact, NBK is the worst of her films, I think.
WTF? Why are we so Wire and VM dependent? Can't we just convince Saiselgy's dad and Hamsher to make some good TV shows?
Also, I think the guy on the far left, putting the phone in his pocket, is the fellow from LiberalOasis.
I like the new, rude Tim Burke, but if I seriously becoming permanently associated with receiving cock pictures even with the paradigm blogospheric Reasonable Man I'll probably be forced to shed a single tear.
w-lfs-n, if you really don't want to be associated with the reception of cock pictures, why would you tell us that? Our obligation is now clear.
There's a list of the people in attendance here.
Tim, why must you be such a little bitch?
Incidentally, the first page of a Google image search for "cock" includes these three pictures, all of which are safe for work. Also, the picture from this BBC article about the man who invented the cock-on-a-stick. He looks awfully happy about it.
"I like the new, rude Tim Burke"
Better, but still insufficiently partisan. The key fact about Althouse is that she is a Republican or conservative. All further sins and crimes flow inevitably.
"Remember, no one wants a badly shaped cock!"
Indeed.
"There's lots of double meanings."
I can only think of one. Two, if you really stretch it.
Hey, Apo just wandered into this other thread and let loose with a total non-sequitur, like he was stoned or something.
If only. End of the summer sucks down here.
Harsh toke. I'd send you a bouquet like the one I got when I changed my pseud, but I can't figure out how to link to comments in Safari. I trust you've seen it.
58: I'm full of 'em.
You mean drinks, right?
Also, on Althouse: what a complete tool. If she wants to harsh on the existence of teh b00byz, what's she doing picking on Jessica rather than the blonde two to Jessica's right whose neckline ends somewhere around her belly-button? Oh, that's right, it's not about teh b00bz0rz at all, it's that some conservatives will take any chance to remind us how bitter they are that Clinton didn't resign.
Not only did I notice the boobs at once in the picture; I didn't even realise Clinton was there till I read the comments. That's prosopagnosia in action. Also, what's with the man on the extreme left shoving something vibrating into his pocket with one hand and checking the effect with the other?
One person out of a group of Net-addicted shut-ins is adept at posing for a photograph. Ergo, she must be a hypocritically-anti-feminist whore, particularly because she has pictures on her site that show women about the ankle.
"Nasty old crone" is too kind. Fuck Althouse.
"about the ankle" s/b "above the ankle" obviously.
Also, I would like it if all blogging software could incorporate code such that "X nails it" would automatically be converted to "I strongly agree with X, but then I am a tool".
Jeez, Althouse is indefensible. The intern crack, the boob obsession, all of it.
Also, she failed to mention the biggest problem with the picture, which is the completely inelegant framing.
37 and 42: Stirling Newberry's picture on TPM cafe is his droopy, "I am a composer" face. In real life he has a mop of hair and shleps around in his corduroy jacket.
From the Althouse article, you'd expect F-cups, a come-hither expression, and a spandex tube top.
Jessica looks very nice. Althouse needs to find other things to do with her time because Jessica's only crime is wearing perfectly appropriate business casual clothing and looking young & attractive.
And dude, that is not a tight top nor are those aggressive boobs.
I like this take from Tracy Clark-Flores Salon. (Site pass etc. necessary.) And reading Althouse's comments, jeez, you might think that when a lot of people start chiming in "You're right, I'm not a feminist and this is exactly why I don't like feminists," she might reconsider whether she's really captured the feminist high ground.
I guess they'd have to be wielding pointy swords to garner this much attention. Or cone bras.
I was hoping for more of a sci-fi angle, like they're alien life forms that jump up and suffocate you or something.
Not when confined by a (WHOLLY CONSERVATIVE FOR DOG's SAKE) sweater. Wool stifles the aggressive instincts of the titties.
I've been thinking a lot about these issues of irony (&belief &power) lately. Let me take a different example for a second, and example I was using just in an email this past Monday. Twisty Faster is fond of calling people who are into BDSM "sex dorks" and the spectacle "unattractive." I don't particularly flatter myself that anyone would want to watch me have sex no matter what kind I'm having; I'm kind of dumpy; so, frequently, are my sex partners; things get awkward or go wrong, but I'm also pretty clear that the purpose of sex is not to look pretty or create a spectacle, and I'm also pretty sure that what argues that it is begins with "P," as Twisty would say. But maybe Twisty is ironically appropriating patriarchal language. But on the other hand, it's pretty clear, as one reads her blog, that Twisty actually believes the things she's saying ironically. It's great to be asexual, saves you some tsuris I'm sure, but it's not great to shame other people for what they're doing in bed. You shouldn't do this because it gives power to the patriarchy is a legitimate argument, although one with which I would ultimately disagree even though I accept a ton of its premises, but you shouldn't do this because it's not pretty is not, unless one of your hidden premises is Patriarchy, Patriarchy sis boom bah! It's not a huge deal, in that as an asexual she's speaking from a minority position, and not a powerful one, but when I, as a feminist, see other feminists essentially using the patriarchy's tools I think, "They shouldn't do that." And actually, it's a bigger deal than I'm saying if you care about how feminists are going to carve out their own thoughts about sex as a group, and make spaces for women to talk about it, as I in fact do. Twisty Faster used to be my superego; only the blow job post freed me. So in this case, the "irony", when you actually examine it, just flattens out into one layer of meaning that doesn't interestingly critique anything. Actually, I think the main point of this entire comment is going to be self-consciousness!=irony.
Here's another example, ironically from a Twisty Faster post (a good one): This woman defends the sports corset as "edgy ironic." (And says lots of other painfully stupid things.) But where, I ask, is the irony? You're wearing a corset to work out. No amount of self-consciousness about the problems with that make what you're doing ironic, because in the end, no matter how you try to poof it out, it flattens out to the exact same thing: I am pretty, please love me. I'm not even saying women shouldn't try to look hot at the gym if they have the urge; we all make our compromises; it's not like I never dress up to say, I am pretty, please love me. But I don't flatter myself that what I am doing is ironic because I am self-conscious about it.
I actually have serious trouble with the defense of BDSM as ironic, or not real. It's delimited, yes, but I think Twisty is right that in the end, you're still bound and gagged (or whatever you're up to), and you're subverting nothing through the sexual act. I think Twisty is wrong that that's the only thing that's happening; you're also, under the best circumstances, forming an intimate bond with your partner of a sort that you maybe couldn't get to without the power exchange, and that's important too; you are maybe, through reenactment and catharsis, getting some greater understanding of your own history and emotional life, though this is a best case scenario. And people have their desires that were yes at least partly socialized, but once they have them, I think it's ultimately less patriarchal to say, yes, have what you want (so long as its consensual); don't feel ashamed. Self-consciousness is a good thing here because it prevents you getting stuck in situations you don't want to be in, and because it helps you express yourself and be more than just an object, but it does not amount to irony.
The reason I was thinking of all this this week is precisely because on this blog it's not uncommon for actual misogyny to be draped in this cloak of irony. So with the highest degree of charity, assuming the best of intentions on the part of the speaker, where, really, is the irony of any interest or depth in a young man calling an older woman who's in a dispute with a younger one a "nasty old crone"? There's self consciousness, yes, but self-consciousness is not a get out of jail free card to say any sexist thing that comes to mind, even if you think you don't really mean it. It would be more interesting to say, "I had an impulse to call AA a 'nasty old crone; it just goes to show how dichotomous are our ideas of women," or something. Good intent does not absolve you of any criticism of the sexist effects of your language and actions; I believe that was covered in Guideline 3.
And if complaining that people who are trying to examine and criticize the implications of speech are being "politically correct" is not the lowest form of intellectual vacuity, I don't know what is.
When Althouse takes the "look at the shameless, big-breasted chippie" route, "nasty old crone" is an entirely appropriate response by way of turning the same sort of rhetoric back on itself. Saying "I had an impulse etc." isn't more interesting to me (YMMV, of course); it's painstakingly belaboring a point that is already blindingly apparent.
Nobody here has mentioned Althouse's age or appearance in response to any of her other breathtakingly silly arguments that have been linked here previously because we don't care.
When Rabbi Gellman takes the "cosmopolitan Jews are weak and bad etc." route, it's entirely appropriate for a non-Jew to say "That kike Rabbi Gellman" by way of turning the rhetoric back on itself. It wouldn't betray any latent anti-Semitism.
In the end, not in the mouth of a young man who makes a big project on his blog of celebrating attractive women. Part of it comes down to your position as speaker. It's not the place of men to call women "nasty old crones," and it doesn't turn the rhetoric back on itself, it participates in it.
Weiner pwned by Weiner. The one true Weiner pwn.
I just played the anti-Semitism analogy card on two threads! You are all Hitler!
Which means I should take the day off from political comments. I think I've made all my points as well as I could anyway.
I've made all my points as well as I could
For a Jew.
In the end, not in the mouth of a young man who makes a big project on his blog of celebrating attractive women.
Yeah, that's ogged's "big project", all right. It's, like, all he ever blogs about.
First time here, I was following the Althouse sillilness. One thing I did notice, you liberal guys and gals sure cuss a lot! You also name call a lot. I notice the folks on the right do that too, but your side wins the potty mouth award.
Also, is calling Ann an old crone that different than what she did? Isn't it still name calling?
Trey
Fine. That's one of ogged's big projects, all right, &c.
your side wins the potty mouth award
We're also better in bed.
is calling Ann an old crone that different than what she did
That's the point, Trey.
Note to trolls: You must arrive with baked goods. Today I'm placing an order for a light angelfood cake, with raspberry and dark chocolate dipping sauces.
And defending Althouse calling Valenti names but getting all in a tizzy about 'crone' is pretty retarded. Doing so without bringing cake is unconscionable.
I'm not sure this discussion tracks, because I don't think ogged's use of "old crone" was ironic. He meant to say something nasty about Althouse, he reached into the toolkit and found "old crone," checked by his own internal heuristic whether it was hadath (thanks again to your mom, Weiner), decided it wasn't, and used it to be hurtful. His heuristic might be wrong--though I remain skeptical about formal determinations of wrongness, especially as my own heuristic says the c-word is the big unmentionable, but its use is unobjectionable to many women here--but that wrongness doesn't make his use ironic.
Similarly, I don't think Apo's justification works, because I don't think such is (thought, to the extent he wants, ogged is obviously best placed to speak to this) intended or necessary.
your side wins the potty mouth award
Woohoo!
Potty mouth award, surely one of the best ideas ever to have almost been actually put into action.
The REAL problem is that people on the left have no freakin sense of humor. This is why they (you?)reapeatedly summon up so much absurdly misplaced, disproportionately furious outrage over trivial things--and it's why Air America is on its death bed, among other things.
Althouse writes these puff pieces to be entertaining. And they are entertaining (a nice break from serious legal issues)--but not nearly so entertaining as the overwrought, inane, outraged responses to her posts from the people whom she skewers and their defenders. The irony of these--indeed, the blatant hypocrisy--gets me giggling every time.
So I guess I should thank you for that.
87: I don't think it's cool coming out of ANY speaker's mouth (though it is marginally more distateful coming from a guy). Responding in kind is letting Althouse set the terms of the debate, rather than truly calling her on her own sexism.
people on the left have no freakin sense of humor
Clearly you ain't from around here, hoss.
So, um, let me see if i understand all of this. A breast-obsessed woman (look at Feministing for all of ten seconds, and you will figure that out), poses in front of a man famous for adultry, wearing an outfit that showed off HER breasts, in a pose clearly designed to accentuate the same.
So Althouse calls her out for it, and rightfully so. And then Jessica is mad for, let me get this straight, the fact that her looks were judged. Mmm, hmm.
And then in turn you attack Althouse for all of the above, calling her a "nasty old crone."
Mmm hmm.
Sorry, but all this shows me what i have believed for a long time: the democratic party has warped true feminism.
True feminists would have told Bill Clinton to take a hike years ago.
True feminists would have been unimpressed with Hillary Clinton--and if Hillary was a true feminist, she also would have told Bill to take a hike years ago.
True feminists are people like Althouse, not this Jessica twit.
I thought the pose was designed to be a typical picture taking 3/4 turn, and that a high necked sweater was a poor way to show off one's breasts.
But I have learned! When I wish to be extra-sexy, I will don even looser fitting clothing.
I see Instapundit has linked the post. Look folks, if you're going to troll, you have to bring baked goods. Them's the rules.
Also probably good to start with an understanding that the author of the post doesn't consider himself a feminist.
105: Right said!
107: Please enjoy the cinnamon rolls :)
Please enjoy the cinnamon rolls
Thank you. You can stay.
Wow. I am so confused. Would the trolls, in addition to leaving pastries, please enumerate the acceptable poses a young woman may assume when being photographed? Thanks.
I think that the maxim to folllow is that one's breasts may not be visible.
So we should all moon the camera.
Who the fuck cares what the trolls think? Jeebus. Is it likely that any explanations any provide for their support of Althouse in this is likely to convince any of us? Pretty much not, if only because we (or at least I) will doubt both the sincerity of the argument and the worldview that motivates it.
http://www.7floor.net/inside.php
Hmmmm. Ask these guys.
Heh.
Tim, it's possible you've mistaken my ironic disdain in 110 for earnestness.
Why does the rollover on the Instapundit link still read "this link in memory of Ogged"?
114
Ironic disdain?
As in: it's ironic disdain was in dis dress, counsellor.
Thank you! Tip the waitstaff!
The mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging left is frightened by an intelligent, independent woman like Althouse. The left prefers to have women fitting into their pre-conceived little molds. When confronted by an intelligent, independent woman, leftists show their true inner uglyness.
Those guys probably don't actually need to use image files for all the picture numbers. It just makes the site slower to load.
Also, these are some really unhealthy-looking bones whose name I don't actually know; I guess that's around the pelvis? I suspect they aren't supposed to jut out like that. (Also nsfw, visible bqqbies. I got there by a random click, honest.)
I saw the photo and, umhmm, it's a 'posed' photo, as in, Yearbooks? In fact, she is posed exactly as the man on the far right, except, he is sans breasts (apparently to avoid drawing comment).
I'm guessing Ann's photo albums are a dreary lot, what with all the women wearing baggy sweatshirts and jogging pants. (ahem)
I sense a definite lack of baked goods coming from this bunch.
Those are just the tops of the pelvic bones. Some people's jut more than others; it depends on where you keep your body fat.
Why does the rollover on the Instapundit link still read "this link in memory of Ogged"?
Because no one's changed it to something else.
Is this Kim Catrall? And is she wearing a coat of donuts and bran muffins?
Is this Kim Catrall? And is she wearing a coat of donuts and bran muffins?
I think it's a bunch of stitched-together guinea pigs.
121
Sheesh.
Alright already! Here's a casserole.
I'm heading back under the bridge to bake more goods. See, I've got three Keebler elves left, and it is the weekend and all.
"The immense tiresomeness is actually undermining my will to blog this morning."
w00t! My life has meaning.
Let's hear it for convenience. Nice Link. Ugly words. Wondering what the masculine equivalent of "nasty old crone" would be?
124
Actually, if you click through all of the pictures (or, uh, so I'm told...), you'll see several familiar faces. They seem to be uncredited, as far as I can tell.
From Althouse today: I don't mind an intense, verbal fight about ideas. . .
Oh, is that what she was aiming for?
Priceless.
If you look closely at the picture linked to here at unfogged its this picture:
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=243422784&size=o
But if you go to althouse's site the picture is this one:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/clintongroup2-761348.jpg
These are not the same picture with one being a blow up of the other. One easy way to spot it is to look at the man in the blue shirt on the far left. In the blowup his hands are apart, in the smaller jpg image his hands are held together. The reason I say this makes a difference is the pose of the lady in question is different in these photos. Look and see for yourselves. At the very least this arguement at this stage involves two different pictures and that should be recognized.
Here's how Althouse summarizes the Krissy Scalzi bar episode: A woman had lashed out with sudden, physical violence against a man who'd been trying to pick her up in a bar.
Man, she's starting to remind me of Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman, "Every word she says is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'."
Sure, the pictures aren't the same. But do they differ in any relevant respect?
Jessica's pose is different in these two photos. Its not a discussion if two sides are working from different data.
In the jpg is the "posed" look. In the full blow up I was unable to see the same body posture and it looks unposed to my eyes. That's just my opinion.
This difference might go to the heart of the posed/unposed arguement I read in the comments.
84:I actually thought a long while on what really nasty thing I could say about Althouse that would really hurt yet not be sexist or patriarchal. Calling her a "Republican" or "conservative" was pretty filthy to me, but somehow I didn't think Althouse would be sufficiently mortified or offended.
Still working on it.
In the picture posted here she's facing the camera a bit more and smiling. That's about it. Everything else is basically the same and I think it's pretty risible to claim that it's this difference (which, after all, it took a "CloseObserver" to point out) at the heart of the "posed/unposed" claims.
And who cares whether or not she's posing?
YoYo: Nice try, but neither coot nor curmudgeon refer to the reproductive abilities (a witch who has passed meopause or who is over 50-56 years old) or looks (an ugly, evil looking old woman) of the person named. Keep looking
Coot: An eccentric or crotchety person, especially an eccentric old man.
Works for me.
I had no idea that "crone" referred to reproductive abilities.
When I first looked at the picture my only impression was "wow, that woman in the center is very attractive." I don't think I noticed her breasts especially, any more than her pretty face, eyes, hair, etc.
I didn't even notice Clinton in the background there.
"Crone" has been used as recently as 1844 to refer to men, sez the OED.
(Not to say that if you used it that way now you wouldn't get looks; I just thought it was interesting.
Althouse is a fairly young nasty crone. I imagine someone has said this already. She has many nasty crone decades ahead of her, and if science continues to advance, she may continue to be a nasty crone until the end of time.
The guy on the left with the grey hair is Dave Johnson, my ex-partner at my ex-site Seeing the Forest, one of the sharpest and most underappreciated guys on the net. I learned a tremendous amount from him, and he's much more sensible and temperate than I am.
Amanda on Althouse
"On that note, I must have chatted with at least half a dozen other bloggers about the pics when they came out, mostly inane stuff you do when looking at pictures of people you consider friends. And not one person said anything about Jessica other than, “What’s she looking at?” In order for her to really stand out, you have to pretty much feel that young women don’t belong at such functions." ...Marcotte
It may not be true, but it is nasty & works with the "American Taliban" theme. I think we have to exaggerate the threat.
DoublePlus: Premature is the word I'd use regarding your decision on what "works for you". The word crone references reproductive inferiority as well as an unattractive, offputting, physical attributes. Eccentric and crotchety are not in the same category, but you did get the man-part right.
Premature is the word I'd use regarding your decision on what "works for you".
That's okay, I'm probably premature due to insufficient axe-grinding.
Hey, come on guys. All of the women are in front, because femmes are usually (like me) short. All of the women are posing, more or less, but you only notice the young one, because she's the cutest. (You might notice Hamsher). She could have been wearing the burka and it would be about the same.
Jesus McQ, go to my site, I have the R*** trivia discreetly posted toward the top.
What do you mean, McManus, "Johnson is much more temperate and sensible than Emerson"?
I can say that, not you. You bastard.
Not having an axe is no excuse for ignorance
crone [ kr?n ] (plural crones) noun
Definition:
1. offensive term: an offensive term that deliberately insults a woman's age, appearance, and temperament ( insult )
2. woman over 40: a woman aged over 40
( approving; used by one woman to another )
[14th century.
144: "Panties" was used to describe men's underwear, not women's, up until the early 20th century.
I almost had a serious use/mention problem with this comment.
Oh man. I read this on Althouse's yesterday and became totally sucked into watching the thing unfold. It was one of the most thoughtlessly cruel attacks I've seen on the web in a while. While I'd come to think of Althouse as a disingenuous enabler, I hadn't quite realized how vicious and unrepentant (and vain) she could be. Reading her applaud the most misgynist comments and proclaim her utter boredom with even substantive criticisms--well, it was just ugly.
Straying from the topic at hand, 151 is a good example of what ultimately made me stop reading Pandagon - Amanda Marcotte's proclivity for telling you what her targets are really thinking.
Althouse is a fairly young nasty crone
Keep in mind, however, that's measuring "young" on the Emersonian Youth Scale.
I almost had a serious use/mention problem with this comment.
You would also have had a number problem, in that case.
158: "crone" may refer to a woman's age, and older women may not be fertile, but that doesn't mean "crone" is about fertility.
161: but don't we all know someone like that?
Not having an axe is no excuse for ignorance
While having one is apparently sufficient excuse for thinking oneself quite clever and others ignorant.
161:Who is zadfrack?
Attributing the worst possible motives to your opposition is a good thing;also hyperbole and polemic. Gilliard & Marcotte & Wolcott are my role models.
BTW, there's a completely other discussion at Steve Gilliard about how the group was pretty much all white.
I may be complacent about all this, because after all, despite my reputation for insanity, I'm the one whose blog partner is in the picture.
But as blogging becomes big time, envy may possibly become a factor! You heard it hear first! John Emerson, futurologist!
Ann Althouse is 55. Young. More a twat than a crone.
163.---Actually, w-lfs-n, I'm pretty sure that back in the day "crone" did refer to post-menopausal women. I'm dimly recalling some commentary from my medieval lit course and don't feel like looking it up, but that's my distinct impression of the word's origins....
More a twat than a crone.
All this controversy could be avoided by simply calling her a prick.
Will no one spare a moment for "vicious enabler"?
I say call her a Reynolds. That should suffice.
Back in the day, schmack in the day. What the word's origins were matter not a whit.
166: Mostly a lurker. I've posted here occasionally using my real first name, but someone else here shares it now. (Damn him, that's my unusual first name!)
Oh, and I don't like hyperbole and polemic either. I especially don't like it when it's coming from my own side. I expect TexCons and shmibertarians to be intellectually dishonest, but we liberals should be above that.
You don't hear "whit" used much these days.
Double Plus: And your comment "works for me," was a flip brush off or something you felt we seriously needed to know?
I've posted here occasionally using my real first name, but someone else here shares it now. (Damn him, that's my unusual first name!)
Let me guess: Matt?
And your comment "works for me," was a flip brush off or something you felt we seriously needed to know?
Ah, it confused you. Let me explain:
Works - functions very well
for - in connection with
me - me
"Oh, and I don't like hyperbole and polemic either."
Hm.... I don't know what to say.... hyperbole is quite common here, and polemic is my first middle name (right before "Invective").
Note that this is not primarily a political site, much less a feminist site.
The word crone references reproductive inferiority
Huh? "Inferiority"? Third stage of life, [Maiden-Mother-Crone] but not "reproductive inferiority."
"Crone" actually derives from the vulgar Latin for "cantankerous". A stage of life that can be quite pleasant, but for the chronic knee problems and lack of good cronic. Would I call Althouse a crone? No, she doesn't deserve that stature; I'd call her a purblind idiot. Althouse is clearly, with that "intern" comment, projecting her hatred of Clinton onto the first available female with a smile on her face.
A tempest in a C-cup. Were Jessica trying to show off her breasts, her back would be arched. It isn't. She's posed the way most people pose in a group picture ["Get closer, turn sideways, squeeze in, you back-row people - Smile!"]
But Ogged should be ashamed of himself for denigrating the wise elder women of the tribe by associating them with Althouse. No pastries for Ogged until he grovels at the feet of the crones and apologises!
179: I know this is not a political site. I mostly come here for the cock jokes, which are sadly missing from this thread.
180: Bingo. You bastard.
The crazy left in action:
"I'd say "sour, nasty prude.""
"More a twat than a crone."
"All this controversy could be avoided by simply calling her a prick."
Sounds pretty hateful to me. Not very tolerant of diverse opinions.
I have friends who've had croning ceremonies.
"Now, be it known that Ann Althouse is nasty old crone. There's no excuse for a post like this."
And calling someone who disagrees with you a "twat", "prick," "prude;" or letting it "be known she is a nasty old crone" is in what way excusable? How is such behavior any different from the crudity and inappropriate focus you are objecting to and reviling ?
Being tolerant of diverse opinions doesn't mean being tolerant of sour old prudes' opinions, duh.
Lou, mamaM, have a good cry. The world has been overcome by mean, sexist, liberal bastards like me. There's no hope for innocents like yourselves.
I was wrong, wrong, wrong. Ann Althouse is a wonderful, caring person who only had Ms. Feministing's best interests at heart. what she said was in no way nasty, shallow, or catty. And if only we spoke reasonably to Ann, I'm sure that she would listen to us thoughtfully. But instead, we let down our side by being mean.
156: Thanks, JE, great story. I didn't realize you were a R***ite as well (incidentally, I was there in the mid-80s, so not quite so recently).
So, famous author, probably in his early 60s at this point? If I don't figure it before long, I may email you and beg for a hint.
Prude: a person excessively concerned about propriety and decorum
Why is not excusable to criticize AA for excessive concern with propriety and decorum (and, I'd add, sex)? She brought up propriety and decorum in a sour, nasty way.
I didn't even notice Clinton in the background there.
This, definitely. The guy looks different since he's been in office; wilted, somehow. Also, I imagine I don't have a Clinton fixation and a desperate need to find something wrong with a picture of Clinton. I know! The woman in front has dark brown hair and is young!
Intern! Hussy!
John: Points subtracted for resorting to sarcasm. If being thoughful, reasonable, or at the very least moderately respectful of each other no longer works in this country, what's next? What do you propose?
I propose a thorough airing and shaming of the Republican party and a return to the rational rule of law. You?
mamaM, Wait till D-Squared shows up. He uses the C-word.
"As for me, I'm outta here today."
Open yap, then run. Figures.
If being thoughful, reasonable, or at the very least moderately respectful of each other no longer works in this country, what's next?
What a strange defense of someone who looked at someone else's picture on the Internet, name-called, and then became upset when she was not responded to respectfully.
This could be fun. Weiner, I think you're a whore. Tia is a twat. Téo is a prick. Now, engage me! Don't call names! You must engage me!
194 reminds of this classic post.
Don't confuse me with the facts, you crone.
MamaM, I'm not trying to score points with you. Or with Althouse. And sarcasm can be a good thing. And your post was silly.
Civil discourse hasn't worked in this country since Gingrich became Speaker of the House in 1994. I can explain this in enormous detail -- Gingrich was a very nasty piece of work.
1994 is an arbitrary date, and probably late. There are a certain number of hapless fools wandering around in the middle even today, and I pity those fools, but there are a whole hell of a lot more concern trolls mincing around and trying to score points whenever our side seems to be playing by their rules (the ones they've been winning with).
I can explain this in enormous detail
Seriously, he can. Don't get him started.
194: Points subtracted for resorting to sarcasm.
You're going to have a rough time around these parts.
Open yap, then run. Figures.
Ooh, the "you aren't reading my criticisms simultaneous with my posting of them" attack. It's a classic.
Can't we just get back to fighting amonst ourselves?
We can do all three. We ae many-talented and multi-faceted.
In fact, the rule is that no one has an obligation to read/respond to your criticisms at all unless you bring pastry.
But not in a way that involves having noticeable female secondary sex characteristics or posing for pictures. Because that would be tawdry.
As a crone, I reject the knee-jerk association of Anne Althouse with myself and my cohort.
We would do better to focus on chimpeaching the chimperor.
But not in a way that involves having noticeable female secondary sex characteristics or posing for pictures. Because that would be tawdry.
All you guys be sure to wear the supportive bras now, y'hear?
Thank God she wasn't wearing a sleeveless top. There could have been... shoulders. And, I hear Monica Lewinsky has shoulders. And so does Clinton.
back to the beginning -- this really was disgusting, because Jessica is obviously not a sexpot or a tease or a fashion queen or a trophy-bride-to-be. She's just attractive and pleasant-looking in quite an unassuming way.
Althouse is on the list of less-crazy less-nasty Republicans, as Reynolds and his trophy bride used to be. (Yes, she does look like one, and a counseling psych PhD doens't make her a heavy hitter.) So really, as I've been saying, there's no there there anymore. We smash them, or they smash us.
And these people still believe "Clinton was disgraced forever -- and why doesn't everyone just admit it?"
Emerson, was Dr. Helen ("trophy bride" phweet! 10-yard penalty for Tiarule violation) ever on the list? Her archives go back only to Sept. 2005 and are batshit crazy from the beginning. See this gem from the second week.
In general, though, I agree with your point.
183: Oops, sorry man. If it makes you feel better, I never noticed you posting under that name until after I began posting with this name. Not saying you didn't, just that I never noticed it. (And ironically at the time I almost chastised you for trying to steal my name.)
If Brock is your authentic, honest-to-God real-life name, I feel a little bad for stealing it, since -- here's a confession -- it's not actually my real name. If you really want it back I'm willing to relinquish and change my handle. I could start posting as "Cock Landers", I suppose.
Are hapless, silly, naive, prudish, mincing trolls supposed to bring pastry too? The rules around here are sort of confusing.
Way upthread: So, I'm pretty sure Madison is not noted for its conservative dress styles, when it's not freezing....
Uh, no. No, it's not.
In fact, even when it is freezing the dress styles aren't always conservative. One of my favorite games to play when the temperature drops below freezing is to head outside in nice warm winter clothing and watch all the little freshman girls in miniskirts and tube tops shuddering outside the trendoid bars. Nothing prurient, I just like laughing at stupidity every now and then.
Wherein lies the confusion? All trolls, without exception, are required to bring pastry.
Wow, spend a day with the kids and miss all the fun on the internet.
For my introduction to this thread, I'm going to admit to something stupid. I opened the photo before reading anything else, looked at it a long while thinking about what the controversy might be *and never noticed Bill Clinton*.
I saw Jessica right away, saw that she stood out (ok, I noticed she was hot) and figured the debate would be like our previous debates over remarks made about Jessica Biel's apperance. I compared Jessica from Feministing to the other schlubs in the photo, but never noticed that one of the other schlubs used to be President.
"Nothing prurient"....
And why not? You may not really belong ATM.
216: *sob* I thought you would remember! It was the greatest night of my life!
I follow up 215: Dr. Helen began to post the week ogged finally gave up on Insty.
218: Mince pies, of course.
MamaM is giving being reasonable a bad name.
218: Yes, it is my honest-to-God real life name, but I'm enjoying my pseudonymity, so feel free to keep your pseudonym.
Believe it or not, I only just now realized that it's a Boogie Nights reference.
I'm surprised that so many people didn't notice Clinton when they first saw the picture. I noticed him first (then Jessica).
Re: pastry and aforementioned trolls
Are they invited to stay and partake with you or consigned to the floor to be tossed a few scraps? Or is there a seperate drinking fountain reserved for nasty crones and sillies?
Oops, Separate drinking fountains for trolls who can't spell might be a good place to start, then you could move on to refuse service those you deem unreasonable, no matter what flavor of pastry they bring.
84: self-consciousness!=irony.
I agree. I like the whole comment in fact. It says a lot about irony and Twisty, which are both more interesting topics than Althouse.
231: Then we could put them in camps! Come on, you know you want to say it.
233: Yes, but nice summer camps where they could have fun while learning the sarcastic values common to all decent folk.
Wow, some commentors sure are adept at missing the point.
The picture, the way she is dressed, her boobs... none of these things is the point.
The point is, the woman front and center in the picture is a self-described feminist who is cheerfully dining with a probable rapist, definite groper, and one who admitted to sexually harassing his employee.
Why is it that Bill Clinton isn't a pariah among feminists? Is it just because he appointed Ruth Ginsberg, so you can continue to have abortions on a whim? Does that give him a pass for groping women (apparently to Gloria Steinem it does), sexually harassing (Monica Lewinsky) them, and raping (Juanita Broaddrick) them?
"Insty just linked to this, because "nasty old crone" is convenient for him."
Actually, hypocrisy is why a lot of us left the left. It was not convenient, it was a symptom of dishonesty and moral (even logical) decay. I am not referring to the author of this blog, she just took a cheap shot and got caught. I missed the point of Ann's original post because I think the breast comments got in the way. (Really, I did not MEAN it to come out that way.)
But I would not get my picture taken with George Wallace or David Dukes because they are (or were in Wallace's case) racist morons. Same goes for Pat Buchanen whom I consider to be a mean spirited twit. It DOES look hypocritical for a person who self-labels as a feminist to have their picture take with a man who has been haunted by sexual misconduct in just the same way. For me, that is the point, not how someone looks or how they posed. I voted for Clinton, once. Then I thought better of it.
Trey (looking for a really good potty mouth award)
Is there any bit of troll-speak more tiresome than "I used to be a Democrat until ..."?
Oh, and you forgot to bring pastry, Trey.
she just took a cheap shot
They only took out part of Ogged's kidney; they didn't change his sex.
I'm sorry, but is someone manufacturing pretend outrage over being asked to bring along pretend pastry to the pretend Internet gathering she's trolling?
the author of this blog, she
Trey, I invite you to peruse the archives.
Minchau, Trey, most of us figured out what we thought about Clinton about 8 years ago, and most of us have gone on to other things. You haven't. Get a life, go to a steps group, suck on a pistol, I don't care. Life is hard for you, I know, but we have other people to care about. Lleave us alone.
Most of us have more or less mixed feelings about Clinton, but the stuff you're spouting is bullshit.
Trey, are you waiting for someone to beg you to return to the left? I'll be right over and beg. Just stay where you are. I love you, man!
235: You forgot the part about how he had Vince Foster murdered.
And you forgot the pastry.
223: Because hypothermia's not sexy?
Not in its preliminary stages, no, which is why you've got to encourage people until frostbite, which is sexy, sets in.
239: She may be pretending to find the "bring pastry" line sexist, not realizing that (a) it's a preexisting gender-neutral tradition (b) since she started posting as "mamaM," most of us probably assumed she was someone named "Mamam" going pseudonymous.
Could also be someone named M. who's a mama.
I think I'm more or less in the tank for Beyerstein. I suspect she and I would disagree about various parts of this whole kerfuffle, but I like this bit of hers:
"I agree that, initially, Ann wasn't judging Jessica by her looks. For the most part she and her commenters were just using her picture as fodder for cheap Clinton/Lewinsky laughs. But when Jessica confronted her, Ann felt compelled to justify her trash talking. After all, Ann Althouse doesn't engage in idle trash talk. No, she's a serious intellectual. There must be a principle at stake."Majikthise
Scott Lemieux is good on this also.
Has anyone every noticed that people who use "Dr [first name]" tend to be a bit whacked? Dr Laura, Dr Phil, Dr Bob, Dr Helen? And even Dr Ruth [does she really think grocery clerks think dirty thoughts when people buy cucumbers??]
Hover over "talking points memo" in the blogroll.
Dr. Ruth answered a sex question of mine once. She answered it badly. Taking her advice led to more awkwardness and frustration.
I may as well say that I unsurprisingly appreciate Matt's whistle in 215, and it's kind of a bizarre thing to say. Dr. Helen is attractive in a very grown up looking, natural way; the archetype doesn't even fit, and no, she's not an intellectual giant, but, uh, neither is her husband; they're obviously well matched ideologically; there is no reason to think it isn't a love match based on (misplaced) mutual respect.
I had no idea Dr. Ruth was still around. Or around recently.
Doesn't that blonde in the front row have a come-hither look in her eye?
260: Maybe she's only there when you need her, like Mary Poppins or the Tooth Fairy.
254: I note that "Dr Josh" doesn't call himself that on the blog, so he doesn't really qualify.
260: Dr Ruth has been re-engineered by aliens in order to stop Tia from having a decent sex life. You're next on her list.
260: She does have a blog, y'know.
Now you do. Doesn't that make you feel safe & warm & cosy? [No, come to think of it, that was the pizza oven.]
800 degrees with no safety lock doesn't sound very safe to me.
"Safe" is a relative term, Teo. There are those of us who use butane torches in our kitchens on a regular basis...
One thing that deserves notice: Clothing can be sexy or conservative by itself, but it can also be sexy or conservative in relation to the clothing of other people around you.
If Jessica were surrounded by bikini models, her outfit would be quite conservative. In the picture at issue, her outfit is the least conservative of anyone in the group, and it stands out for that reason.
Sexist? No. You could say the same thing about a guy who wears a T-shirt to flatter his ripped physique. Surrounded by guys in speedos? Conservative. By guys in dinner jackets? Risque.
Similarly, a 3/4 pose is approrpriate for the people on the sides, since the line of people is curving around. In the dead center, it tends to stand out and draw the eye.
Trey, if you're seriously looking to Ann Althouse as your solution to the problem of hypocrisy, double-standards and contradiction--and I feel for you on these things, really I do--I think your judgement is impaired in a very serious way.
There's a happy hunting ground of reasonable people out there somewhere, but you haven't found it yet. Keep looking. It might actually be at least partially somewhere within these threads, in between the cock jokes.
269: I wasn't when I left those comments, but I am now.
269: Her outfit wouldn't be out of place in most professional offices; not exactly a tube top & miniskirt.
And her pose is noticeable, but I don't think it's because she's strutting, but instead because she was uncertain where the center was (note, the woman next to her is curved inward, too.), which usually happens in badly-composed group shots. Her shirt is also much lighter colored than the rest of the immediate background.
This makes her stand out, but it doesn't explain the scorn heaped on by Althouse.
In the wonderfully titled post cited by Tim in 249, Lindsay Beyerstein quotes Jessica's explanation:
And as for my "pose," I moved to the side because I figured that people would be more interested in seeing Clinton than me standing directly in front of him.
Comments to one of the LGM posts suggest that the top is Ann Taylor, which is apparently not code for 'too sexy for work'.
Between pigs in heels, pastry-bearing trolls, and Ben w-lfs-n's apparent new cock photo collection, I certainly picked a good period to try dipping my toe in the posting waters here. This has been a particularly fecund month, right? It's not always like this?
At last, a question I can answer!
I really thinks that she stands out only because she's younger and hotter. Wearing a different outfit or posing differently wouldn't have helped. People were going to go after Clinton if there was any woman younger than 60 in the room; it would have been Hamsher otherwise. (There's all that shit out about some nice-looking Canadian lady too, because they were seen together once.)
One of the extremely annoying things about all this is that there's really nothing excessive about her at all. As I said, pleasant-looking, attractive, and unassuming, with no aspects of excess whatsoever. (Not that there would have been anything wrong with that.) In any group picture of people her own age, she still would have looked pleasant and attractive, but very moderate in every way.
Althouse really flamed out on this one when she came back harshly on Jessica. She succeeded in lowering my opinion of her, which was quite a feat.
Oh yeah, "trophy bride": Reynolds is a super-geeky-looking very successful guy, and his wife seems significantly younger and infinitely more attractive. And God forgive me, but "forensic psychologist" sounds to me like one of those people who come in toward the end of the movie explaining that the defendant [blah blah blah psychobabble psychobabble etc. etc.] Or the one who announces a perp profile at the beginning of an investigation which is used for promo if it's good, but forgotten if not.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Aren't "forensic psychologists" the people who testify in the penalty phases of capital-case trials, and always always favor the prosecution?
From Weiner's link, she probably specializes in getting kids executed.
A propos of nothing in particular, I would like to inform you all that Horror of the Blood Monsters is the finest film ever made. Have a good evening.
From 282, Emerson is exactly right about coming in toward the end of the movie. But so what? Reynolds is in his mid-40s (BA 1982), Smith doesn't seem that much younger—ah, BA 1983, she's three years younger—she's got two masters' and a PhD, he doesn't come across as any great brain, he may be farther along in his career but for some unknown and mysterious reason that seems to happen a lot in dual-career couples. And in any case there's no reason to assume that she's a trophy wife, however that's supposed to work as an insult here. Why not stick to the well confirmed, ungendered, and more devastating insult, that she's completely insane? That she freaking admires Ann Coulter? At the very least, if you did that you wouldn't have me bugging you about it.
At the very least, if you did that you wouldn't have me bugging you about it.
ATM
re. Why not stick to the well confirmed, ungendered, and more devastating insult, that she's completely insane? That she freaking admires Ann Coulter?
Because it feels neither as angry or as hurtful?
271: The blonde woman on the left in the black & white dress has a considerably lower neckline and more form-fitting dress, as well as a larger-looking bust. FTM, the young woman on the right in the beige suit has a top with as low a neckline, and the older woman in white on the left has a lower one. Jessica's outfit is far more conservative; her top is even somewhat baggy.
Well, I just used the term "trophy wife" to refer to someone much more attractive and much less famous than the husband. Also, I dislike forensic psychologists more than I dislike other psychologists, which is still quite a bit.
If Ms. Reynolds have been a guy, ceteris paribus, I would have said something just as hurtful.... hm, that excuse doesn't work....
"Killing a whole family of Jehovah Witnesses?" And the goldfish too? That's insane.
bugging s/b buggering. also THIS IS WHY I LEFT THE LEFT YOU HYPOCRITCLE BASTERDS! ooh, tone loc's wild thing just came up on iTunes! (gets up and dances around.) god, it's like from the dark ages of rap, when even actual rap songs sounded like the "rap" from a McGruff take a bite out of crime PSA.
Jane Hamsher may be chewing nails as we speak, simply because no one is making smutty remarks about her.
Emerson, did you ever see Apt Pupil?
One of the things that I love about this place is how well people manage to mock trolls. Regulars and semi-regulars manage to derail our threads, but trolls shall never hijack them!
I am totally Becks-style right now, which may be why I'm regretting the poor showing by our trolls. C'mon, guys!
294 posted before I saw 293, but: awesome juxtaposition.
"Killing a whole family of Jehovah Witnesses?" And the goldfish too? That's insane.
The ones I grew up next to never gave out Halloween candy. Just sayin'.
It does look like a fun movie.
When I worked at a college bookstore awhile back, I found that the Administration of Justice class used a book about psychopaths which used fictional psychopaths as data and case studies.
298: It's a really good movie, I think, but no one else seems to like it. I've never understood why.
I don't know if Insty's wife does it, but as far as I am concerned the shrinks who specialize in testifying for the prosecution in death-penalty cases are the lowest of the low, Dr Mengele types.
Texas had one of the very best, Dr Death
Pays good money, though.
With the torture thing, I am just in a Godwin kind of mood.
Oh, darn, I missed out on a whole big trolly thread by going to watch Roller Derby (feminist? or ultra-feminist?).
poses in front of a man famous for adultry
Yes, I have to agree he's famous for adultry. He did absolutely nothing notable during childry.
Also, 275 is fucking hysterical. So is tempest in a C-cup. (You catch that, Trey? FUCKIN' hysterical, like, so FUCKIN' FUNNY they PENETRATED ME. Goddamn!)
You know, in all seriousness, it's cockfaced dweebs like the occasional trolls that make me not want to participate in The Great Unfogged Cocks Showcase Showdown. Y'all? Pfft, whatever, I was in a fraternity, my dick probably qualifies for a Creative Commons license (visually, anyway - hi, sweetie!), but these people? They are undeserving, and you just know sooner or later one of them is going to roll up on the archives and be like ZOMG tehy make teh pr0n w/ each ohter and then some right-wing ass-hat with a mail-order fishing license is going to expound on how this proves Clinton shot JFK just like they've suspected ever since their ouija board gave them strong indications in that direction and Vince Foster had to be silenced because he and Scott Bakula traveled back in time to discover the truth.
Seriously, though, they need to bring their A-game next time. From "you people cuss too much and aren't nice" to "Clinton's a rapist and you've betrayed your own code by not condemning him with us, shoulder-to-shoulder" in barely more than 300 comments? Jeez.
Maybe I shouldn't go watch violent sports and then stay up way too late reading troll threads while listening to queer punkpop. It has an effect on me.
284: I'm not convinced. Is it in Esperanto? Is Bill Shatner in it?
301: I haven't read Different Seasons for a little over ten years, but I remember liking it.
301: seems to be a very complicated overlay of elements which doesn't come to any neat resolution, even for people who like black humor and gothic plots.
The question is not why don't other people share your love of Apt Pupil, Tim, but why are you obsessed with it.
Also, is there really anything controversial about saying that Ogged makes provocative and memorable pronouncements about female beauty?
damn, that really was pretty weak trolling. still, at least someone brought pastry...(wanders off eating cinnamon rolls.)
Treyf also presents the peak of self deluded fools: The Republican who lectures others on hypocrisy. It is to laugh.
309: I think people are jumping on Trey a little unfairly. A justification for switching one's support from Democrats to Republicans that relies on Clinton's behavior strikes me as untenable: the Bush Administration is intent on destroying long-held notions of fairness and due process in this country, and if you don't know that's a substantially bigger sin than anything Clinton might have done, you don't deserve to be an American.
That said, lots of people, men and women, have told me that they found the reaction of many women's groups to the Lewinsky scandal to be telling. The "sophisticated" explanation for their support of Clinton that I remember is that his Presidency was good for women generally, and that overrode any personal sins. That seems like a good, practical reason for their behavior, but--for reasons I don't quite understand--pragmatic justifications seem to undercut moral authority. Perhaps it's that pragmatic justifications are so evidently contingent, and we like to think of moral prinicples as absolute. In any case, I don't think Trey's reaction to the Lewinsky matter is uncommon or incomprehensible.
Oh for criminy's sake. Forensic psychologists do a lot of things, including working in prisons and mental health facilities for people who've committed crimes and actually, you know, treating people. I'm sure much of the time the treatment's not great, but psychologists, as much as they may be invested in their patients, have to work in the same criminal justice system as everyone else. They also do research in on the root causes of crime we liberals love to talk about so much; then they may go on to advocate for social policies like a universal right to a visit from a social worker in three times in the first year of life to prevent the as yet untreatable condition psychopathy. They try to figure out kids' actual best interests in child custody disputes. I'm not sure the people who do this are forensic psychologists, per se, as opposed to cognitive and social psychologists who work on forensic questions, but forensic psychology encompasses people who study eyewitness reliability, identification line ups, and witness interview techniques in part to prevent people from being wrongly accused.
SCTM, sure, plenty of people hate liberals, including people who formerly thought of themselves as liberal. But what the hell, you are outraged because feminists don't consider Bill Clinton the Antichrist, and you also consider Ann Althouse a feminist? There's something deeper going on here. It's not uncommon or incomprehensible -- our current President is George W. Bush -- but it's profoundly, profoundly stupid, and deserves and demands mockery and ridicule.
Mrs. Insta doesn't seem like one of those fine people. She looks like someone who testifies for the prosecution and makes bad movies.
I think that forensic psychology is pretty specialized and doesn't do all the things you said, mostly helping in crime investigations and testifying in court.
My beef with psychology is that if all you know about something is that they have a psychology PhD, you really don't know anything about them. The profession really need better quality control. One of the psych PhDs I know got suckered by the child-abduction and Satanic-abuse scam, and the other wrote silly selfhelp books.
I'm not a huge Clinton fan; the guy's voice makes my skin crawl. But it's not just a pragmatic argument that feminists have about Clinton, for one; with the Lewinsky affair, it seems to be consensual and Lewinsky-initiated. Not good to cheat on your wife, but not sexual harassment or rape.
And second, I don't buy it as a justification. "I used to be very feminist and liberal and then Bill cheated and Hillary didn't divorce him, and I realized they didn't support my feminist values, so I joined the party that could probably sell ending suffrage to women to half of its base, and now I'm supporting a so-called feminist whose contribution to the discussion is to make fun of another woman for having breasts."
John, it actually does do all those things. I'm currently in a class called Psychology of Violence being taught by a forensic psychologist, and I just the other day had the opportunity to chat with a guest lecturer, another forensic psychologist. They both talked about their profession, and had been involved both in treatment of criminals and just the kind of advocacy I described. They are both quite left-wing.
Roller Derby (feminist? or ultra-feminist?)
Well, McManlyPants, Commandante Twisty says neither and that you're just helping entrench the "ideology of the pornocracy."
Of course, she says that about everything, so you probably shouldn't take it personally. The real "fun" is in the comments, as usual.
I don't see anything objectionable/crazy/counterintuitive about Twisty's Roller Derby post.
Tia does do psychology, people. She knows of what she speaks when it comes to what forensic psychologists do.
John, that's true of most professions, isn't it? In any case, the reason Dr. Helen doesn't strike me as an intellectual heavyweight is due to her writing, not due to the picture on the page.
This discussion is beginning to worry me. It's a good thing I'm a balding 47-year-old man, or else I'd be worried that if I wear something short of a burqa and fail to dye my hair a mousy non-descript color, no one will take me seriously because I have boobs and everyone else will shrug.
Here's some testimony from Smith to a legislature about school shootings. The policy recommendations don't strike me as particularly evil. I assume that by changing the number you can find other of her writings, if you're even more committed to wasting time than I am.
But what 318 said; her blog writing is the target-rich environment.
Emerson, you bastard, you just made me try to be fair to Dr. Helen. I won't forget this.
I don't see anything objectionable/crazy/counterintuitive about Twisty's Roller Derby post.
"The real 'fun' is in the comments, as usual."
Well, if Tia's going to get all huffy and self-righteous with her "actual first hand knowledge" of "the facts" of what "forensic psychologists actually do", I guess I'll have to be called away from the computer by important business elsewhere for a bit. I don't have time to deconstruct her version of co-called "reality".
I'll watch a few more true crime movies and get back to y'all with my report.
No, actually, a lot of professions do have a standard baseline of knowledge, but psychology is all over the map. As I understand they keep splitting into experimental, counseling, and clinical psychology, and so on. The counseling psychologists seem to have the most wack.
Stay a 47-year-old balding man, Cala. And you know, wingers who accuse lefties of hypocrisy on issues of sexism sometimes have a germ of a point. It's ridiculous considering their own position, and who they themselves are supporting, but Insty already latched on to "nasty old crone," and I've already argued that I basically agree that sucked, and I'm *sure* if Insty bothered to read this thread he'd be gleeful about "trophy wife." Watching a bunch of people point over to those threads on Althouse and say, "Look at that sexism over there!" (and indeed, the sexism over there is appalling), and then watching people (not saying this is all or even most of you) over here doing something very similar (it is as bizarre and unjustified to call Dr. Helen a trophy wife as it is to say that JV was doing anything to emphasize her breasts other than having them), one is very, very tempted to say, "I have someone I'd like to introduce you to."
"The real 'fun' is in the comments, as usual."
Nutpicking, apo?
JE, I actually did some googling, and it turns out there's debate within the forensic psychology profession about what should be considered forensic psychology, and some people define it as narrowly as you did. However, based on learning that someone calls themselves a forensic psychologist, you can't make assumptions about the scope of their career activities or what their focus or politics are.
323: I'd argue that that could be said of most of the humanities and soft sciences, and might include medicine and law if I were in a particularly cantankerous mood. I'd agree that being a psychologist doesn't tell whether one is terribly bright or conscientious, but that applies to lots of fields. (Philosophers get that sort of claim pretty often; "hey, man, don't you just smoke pot and think about the meaning of life....")
325: Nutpicking is, as far as I know, citing a random commenter as support for the claim that many people believe what that commenter said. It is not, and cannot reasonably be streched to describe, citing a comment (or comments) for the fact that it (or they) exist(s).
might include... law if I were in a particularly cantankerous mood
We're talking about the wife of Glenn Reynolds. And Hugh Hewitt is a law professor.
Sometimes (maybe oftentimes), one person's "hypocrisy" is another person's "disagreement about the application of the rule." (I'm not taking a position on the use of "trophy wife" here; in general, I dislike dragging new people, and particularly family, into an argument in which they would not otherwise be. Eh, I take that back--"trophy wife" doesn't seem to fit, and it is weird to use it.) Which, I suspect, is why people look at broader commitments and place the women's movement on the left.
328: I took the context:
Of course, she says that about everything, so you probably shouldn't take it personally. The real "fun" is in the comments, as usual.
to mean that the character of the comments reflected the character of the blogger.
forensic- adjective:
1. pertaining to, connected with, or used in courts of law or public discussion and debate.
2. adapted or suited to argumentation; rhetorical.
3. a medical, legal or other professional whose conclusions, opinions and findings are based on the identity of the party paying their fee.
331: That wasn't my intent. I can generally detect the irony and humor in her main posts (when they exist). In her rah-rah chorus, not so much.
333: Is there an actual objection to Twisty's critique of Roller Derby's contribution to the pornocracy, then?
If someone looks at the pattern of my comments, I think that it is clear that I am not representative of Ogged, of the left or of anyone else. But if Reynolds is reading this: I've got Szekely Unitarian-Particularists on the way to whip your sorry Conservatarian ass. These guys make the Cossacks look fey.
330:The woman's movement is on the left. There is also plenty of sexism on the left.
And one person's "disagreement about the application of the rule" can easily slide into, "it applies whenever I won't have to critique or alter my own behavior." Or, "the commitment is convenient when it affirms my own ingroup affiliation and opposition to, say, fundies, but when it threatens my ingroup, I don't like it so much." This is another big thing I notice not just on blogs, but in life--ingroup liberalism. My aunt is a big example of this. She sure hates Bush, but whenever she has to seriously consider interests opposed to her own, Palestinians, non-Whites, striking transit workers, her previous rules seem all of a sudden not to apply.
Mme. Reynolds entered the argument as an independent variable when she took it on herself to slag on Mme. Scalzi. She's a player.
RMP posed a question, I linked to the one post I'd read addressing the question. If it's important to you that I lodge an actual objection, then: She's reading too much into it.
Also, Valerie Wilson was fair game.
RMP posed a question, I linked to the one post I'd read addressing the question.
That was more of a non-sequitur than a question. And isn't the "you're reading too much into it" objection the exact same objection used to respond to feminists in the ass-ogling thread (and the threads it spawned)?
Last night, I went to see Too Much Light Makes The Baby Go Blind, and there was a bit that made me think about this dicussion. Someone was talking about cocks (as they are wont to do, it's a bit like this blog), and there was some statement like "I bet you have a big cock, but I bet it's not as big as Ann Coulter's." This is of a piece with 336, but it really, really annoys me when liberals use blatantly sexist and degrading talk to take down women on the right. That's what is happening to Dr. Helen now, where the fact that she's attractive is being used against her. I think it sucks that almost any time right-wing women are despised, their appearance and sexuality tend to get dragged into it. I am reminded of this horrific piece on Ann Coulter, which I saw linked approvingly by some liberals I thought I respected. It's really disgusting, and even Ann Coulter, who I'm sure I don't have to convince you I despise, doesn't deserve this, or any of the scorn heaped on her appearance.
It's just not relevant.
And one person's "disagreement about the application of the rule" can easily slide into, "it applies whenever I won't have to critique or alter my own behavior."
Right. But even in that scenario, it's sometimes "now that I have a case in front of me where I have personal experience, I'm less clear about the rule's application." That seems like a normal process of rule refinement. There's little doubt that bad faith and bias often motivate attempts at refinement; I'm not sure there's a mechanical way to remove the possibility that they play a role.
341: Yes, and I repeated it purposefully. Seriously, lighten up.
The Pornocracy? Strasmangelo, I usually appreciate your profeminist comments, but this just sounds like gibberish. I'm fine with a lot of what Twisty says about patriarchy, and she is often hilarious, but this whole rollerblade brouhaha is just a tedious buzzkill. If women in a woman-run league choose to mock the femme-fatal names and attire of their predecessors, how is that different from Jessica having the bird-flipping mudflap silhouette on her site? Are we supposed to wait for the patriarchy to fall before we have any fun?
Yes, and I repeated it purposefully. Seriously, lighten up.
I'm not the one that brought it up. It just seemed odd that in the middle of this thread there's a random comment about how Humorlist Feminist Says Humorless Feminist Thing, Ha Ha Humorless Feminists Are Crazy! I'll drop it if it's bothering you, but it still seems kind of weird.
And isn't the "you're reading too much into it" objection the exact same objection used to respond to feminists in the ass-ogling thread (and the threads it spawned)?
I don't think you can say that because a criticism can be or is misused, it cannot be properly used. Maybe I'm reading too much into your comment.
OK, as far as I know I'm the only one who brought Mme. Reynolds' appearance into this. Pretty much everyone else has either been silent or has protested. So this isn't a 300-post sexist rant, just one post and me making excuses.
I don't think that I have to make any excuses for dragging Mme. Reynolds into this because, as I said, she's a player and seems to be quite an obnoxious one.
Perhaps "sauce for the goose" isn't the right way to play this, but Mme. Reynolds was quite obnoxiously sexist when she spoke of Mme. Scalzi, and her beloved spouse weighed in as an obnoxious sexist on the Jessica's-boobs issue, and yet Mme. Reynolds' pose on her site is boob-featuring.
Mr. Reynolds! The Left has divorced Mr. John Emerson! It is not responsible for any debts incurred by him!
And m. leblanc is right that Coulter's and Dr. Whatshername's looks are utterly beside the point. What's the cost of leaving their looks out of the argument? All you have to do is quote them to make them look like the vicious loonies they are.
Okay, mcmc makes a good point re: Roller Derby, and I am chastened.
Mme. Reynolds' pose on her site is boob-featuring.
See, I personally didn't have any problem with Atrios mentioning this, the point being that Althouse reserves her scorn against 'breastblogging' for people who aren't her ideological allies, when in fact there's nothing wrong with a woman wearing a T-shirt. But that doesn't play into sexist tropes the way 'trophy wife' does.
RE: 323
John, you're really not making any sense here and might want to use something other than movies as your datapoints :)
The phrase "keeps splitting into experimental, counseling..." isn't even wrong. Psychology has an experimental half (think Biology), and a clinical half (think Medical Doctors). To say that its problematic to have subfield within each of those is, well, strange.
The nugget of truth to what you're saying is that a lot of people can call themselves "therapists" or "counselors" with a vast array of degrees, many of which aren't too rigourous.
I just don't think 'trophy wife' is a good description of a Ph.D. holder married to a law prof at a state school, even if she is working in psychology. 'Vapid tool' seems to work, but that's just a combination of her inane prose and that, really, if you have a Ph.D., you shouldn't go around calling yourself Dr., and if you insist on it, don't pair it with your first name.
348: I don't mean to pick on you, just to keep talking about it, but I think you did the same sort of thing ogged did in the posts: 'Look, nasty mean woman said something sexist. What the hell, fair game, here's some sexism right backatcha!' Which is a reasonable reaction, goose, gander and all that, but still a bad idea, because it reinforces the sexism -- if a man had been obnoxious about someone's tits, you wouldn't have made fun of him for being a man, you would have made fun of him for being a sexist.
I do sympathize, though -- it's an easy pattern to fall into. When I read the post, I mentally riffled through and rejected the first three or four nasty things I wanted to say about Althouse because they were all misogynistic in precisely the way Ogged's post was.
351: Huh. I think I would have ordered the two acts differently as regards harm. We know that women bloggers get a lot of creepy e-mails, and I suspect that women with posted pictures get more. I'm not sure how all of this works out, but it just seems wrong to put out a picture of a woman, call it a sexualized picture of a woman, and point her political enemies to her, particularly when she hasn't joined this fray, particularly to post it on a high traffic site, and particularly when she's not a peculiarly powerful person in this arena. But, again, it just strikes me as not a good idea; I couldn't really say precisely why that bothered me particularly.
particularly when she hasn't joined this fray
Huh? She most certainly had. I also think it makes a difference that the picture was one that (I believe) Dr. Helen had put up herself, and that Atrios didn't directly link to her, so he wasn't likely to cause a wave of harassing comments on her site. This seems to me like appropriate sauce for the goose.
Basically, I hear a lot of total crap from people with PhDs in psychology. The splitting into fields was something of an unfinished thought, which is that the worst seem to be in counseling psychology.
Most of the humanities and social sciences have similiar problems, but psychologists often claim exceptional authority in various areas such as education and law.
Having read that post and her followup, Dr. Helen really is her husband's intellectual match. Must wash my brain.
Too bad I missed all the fun. I'm away again today, but just for the record, of course "nasty old crone" was ironic. I figured that introducing it with the anachronistic "be it known" and then having a goofy internal rhyme would clue people in, but clearly there's still a need for an /irony tag. And, in case there was any confusion, it's "nasty" as in "mean," and not as in "fugly." I deny that it's the least bit misogynistic or sexist. It's analagous to (though not the same as) saying "Don't make fun of people based on how they look, you ugly motherfucker." If that doesn't put a smile on your face, I guess the "nasty old crone" thing isn't going to be your cup of tea. It's to say "I will now demonstrate to you the unpleasantness of your rhetoric, while disavowing its legitimacy." You can not get that that's what I'm doiing, in which case you should own up, or you can deny that it's possible to disavow, in which case I think you're humorless, or you can claim that my sexist heart is so black that I must mean it seriously, even if it looks like a joke, in which case, I dunno, I guess I'll eat your babies.
I am simultaneously bummed and thrilled that I don't get to hang out to hash this out further. Adios!
The image in my head when I used the word "trophy wife" was Reynolds' face. I was thinking something envious and lame about "How did a uber-homely guy like that get so lucky"? Thinking is strictly shallow terms based on physical appearance.
When I think of Saul Bellow it seems that all of his wives were trophy wives because that's how he worked. Even the math PhD. They were all younger and better looking than him, except probably the first, and for him they provided some kind of validation. It's really more about him than them.
334: Yes, there is an actual objection. Several, in fact. I've never been to a Texas Rollergirls bout, so maybe that's what their bouts are like, but I will say that I am never, ever going to tell any of the Carolina Rollergirls about having read Twisty's post because I think the only way to describe any of their potential responses is "berzerker rage."
The skaters here in NC tend to view what they are doing as a very serious sport first and, if they consider a political message or subtext or theme, a sort of warning shot fired across the bow of any sexists who might be around. There are definitely skaters who see what they are doing as the utterly legal and in many additional ways similarly smarter equivalent of extremely violent protest in favor of sex and gender equality.
For that matter, the whole, ahem, "raunchy lumps of lower-class hetero feminine fun" thing is just painfully inaccurate. I think Twisty - of whom I know nothing, including gender, so I will call em 'e' - must have decided to go to one purely to look for a reason to hate it if those are the impressions e came away with.
Yes, there are skaters on the teams here who started out with the whole "look, I'm a sex kitten" theme, but (a) I thought sexual power and awareness was supposed to be a part of a healthy expression of equality as long as it's empowering, and in Derby the skaters set the tone and the crowd follows, not the other way around, and (b) if they try the "virgin/whore dichotomy" as a personal theme they really don't hang onto it for very long because a skater who just tries to roll around looking good gets knocked around until she's playing the game. Also, the Carolina team has about as diverse a collection of body styles as you're going to find in any sport, but they're all damn good at their jobs and they're all respected for their skills. I have never, ever heard anyone at a bout say "They should put in X more because she's hott" or "They should take out Y because she isn't."
I'm not sure what life under the pornocracy looks like (though I'm sure the music sucks - ha ha, "sucks") but I'd be surprised if it's derby. Twisty suggests that it's a bunch of trailer-park GAP models getting dolled up to be ogled by rednecks for money. No one (to my knowledge - certainly no one in NC) actually gets paid to skate. It is entirely something they do for their own pleasure. The crowd is equally diverse. Yes, there are rednecks there - it's NC, you'd be hard-pressed finding someplace without a couple of them - but there are also parents & grandparents of skaters, children of skaters, bikers, goths, thugs, chavs, yuppies, Bible-beaters, drag monarchs and sports writers. [/jameswatt] It's not a bunch of drooling misogynists with one hand down their collective pants. If it were, I'd be awfully surprised by the participation of my skater friends who see what they're doing as making a public and very fun statement of empowerment. And, yes, there's a lot of class and educational diversity among skaters - some never finished high school, some have Master's degrees - but none of them are dumb (the game requires too much of both strategy and tactics, too quick a mind, for any good player to qualify as "dumb") and any element that makes them "raunchy" or "lower-class" is either purely ironic or entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Oh, and while I'm at it, like I said, I've never been to a Texas bout, but they tend to kick the shit out of everyone, everywhere else, every time they play an interleague or invitational bout. So I doubt any of those elements are the focus of their game, either, because they're too busy being really, really good at derby.
Damn, pwned (and well) by mcmc.
No, it's cool, he's Mexican, remember?
Yes, there are skaters on the teams here who started out with the whole "look, I'm a sex kitten" theme, but (a) I thought sexual power and awareness was supposed to be a part of a healthy expression of equality as long as it's empowering
I don't have any quarrel with most of that comment, Pants, but this is at least questionable, and the second paragraph of my 84 addresses it, as does the good Twisty post I link to. It's basically impossible (and undesirable) to come up with a rule for how women can be sexual in a healthy way, but there is an entire campaign/industry out there that's equating any degree of awareness of one's sexuality with "empowerment," even though in the end, any "power" you're getting from dolling yourself up is still granted by men. It's not like Scarlett O'Hara, as she cinches her corset to 17 inches, isn't aware of her sexual power, but that's not the same thing as being empowered, whatever that really means anyway.
My assumption, and perhaps it is incorrect, is that it is empowering when it is the woman's choice and the woman is free to step out of that chosen role at any time without being punished in some form or fashion - when it is truly a freely made choice, made without any pressure and without any threat. But hey, I'm stupid.
or you can deny that it's possible to disavow, in which case I think you're humorless,
Humorless here. What kills it for me its that it doesn't work, as irony or any other way, unless Althouse really is older and less attractive than Jessica, and on some level you aren't kidding, in that you do really think (which I agree with) that Althouse deserved to be attacked for what she said. So you've got a real attack, taking the form of misogynist language, in a situation where a real misogynist would have said exactly the same thing. The only thing that makes it ironic is that we know you couldn't possibly have meant it the wrong way, and, dude, there's a real limit in how far that takes you when you're writing out in public.
If you want to use misogynist language like this 'ironically', you've got to use it in a fashion where it wouldn't work, taken straight. Call me an envious crone if I say something rude about a younger woman - that's fine, under the assumption that the attack isn't sincere. Call one young pretty woman a nasty old crone in a disagreement with another? Probably fine, although difficult to pull off.
But if your words work as straight misogynist abuse, the purity of your intent doesn't make it irony.
(None of this changes the fact that Althouse is a real piece of work. As is Dr. Helen.)
I don't think that's a wrong assumption. The issue that there is a lot of pressure and punishment that pushes women into sex kitten roles. And then ironically, once you've assumed the role, a lot of punishment for being a sex kitten. Or even punishment for being a sex kitten when you're not anything close to a sex kitten! I wasn't saying anything you said was dumb.
Can I just jump in and say that I love the expression "so and so is a real piece of work"? I love it lots.
Thank you for your time,
I don't know if this is a more charitable reading than LB's, but you may simply be trying to finesse something that you are not that good at finessing. Sometimes these experiments of yours fail, because you have a competing "project" of dealing out harsh truths, or of accepting the truth underlying stereotypes, cultural tropes, &c. These work against one another, the harsh truth agenda coloring the purity of intent. Is that fair?
(I realize he's gone, but he'll see it eventually.)
I don't at all disagree with you about the sex kitten role in society at large, I simply don't think it's like that in derby. I was more thinking along the lines of various feminists I've known who've said they felt sex and sex roles of all sorts could and should be celebrated in a way that empowered women by respecting the choices they make for themselves and this is ultimately how I view what sexual expression there is in derby. I should say that I'm neither so blind nor so gay to have failed utterly to realize that for some skaters there is an element of sexual play to it, but it's not something expected or demanded of the skaters, individual skaters set their own standards of behavior for it, and when it happens it's so far down the list of their main priorities that I think it's silly for Twisty to prosecute any of them for it. It's definitely not why most people are buying tickets to the bout.
Again, this is all local to any bouts I, personally, have seen. (I've watched Carolina play a million times, and seen Minnesota and Las Vegas play them in interleague bouts).
And no, you didn't say I was stupid and I never got the impression you did - I tend to self-deprecate early and often.
I agree with LB and ac, and I don't think they're saying something different. Note that in my original objection, I said that I could grasp the intent but it simply did not come off well, and was fire fueling. And honestly, if AA read it, it's not unlikely she'd experience it as a slap not just, or even primarily, to her rhetoric, but to her sexual, physical self. This is one of those "you probably don't understand" things.
If you're not good at pulling off certain kinds of irony, and wind up using language that's experienced by large segments of your feminist audience as sexist, if you care about combatting sexism, you might consider surrendering the language.
Beyond ideas, it's the little cultural things that are serve as indicators of whether you're a liberal or a* conservative.
from Insty:
On a related note, I find it appalling that anyone would find it acceptable to dine with a former President in clothes as casual as those in the picture. To paraphrase Kos “would it kill you to wear a jacket?”...I agree with Kos on that. [LATER: I'm not the only one:
Really. What dweebs.
*notice that parrallel construction, Ogged?? In your face!
But if your words work [in context] as straight misogynist abuse, the purity of your intent doesn't make it irony.
Gosh, LB is smart. This is really the crux of it, and why "you're reading too much into it" is sometimes funny, sometimes not. It's peculiar, because apostropher in particular, in a lot of these discussions, says usually-sexist things as jokes, and sometimes they're pretty funny, and sometimes really annoying.
It's a hard line to walk, but hey, someone's gotta do it.
I provide this link (it's an update to the previous Insty post) so no one else has to suffer the pain of looking at Insty's front page.
*notice that parrallel construction, Ogged?? In your face!
Sigh.
305: I am duly chastened. When they dub Horror of the Blood Monsters into Esperanto, though, I'm convinced I shall have the last laugh.
More on-topic: I'm curious what some of Ogged's interlocutors thought of the whole Steve Gilliard-Michael Steele flap.
378: If you look at the comments to Gilliard's post with the blackface picture, I'm not too far down the thread saying something along the lines of "Geez, could you put it behind a jump or something? It's as NSFW as a nude would be." But that doesn't really answer your question.
I think it was a bad idea, for pretty much the reason I think Ogged's post was a bad idea. I am much less ready to condemn it, for a couple of reasons. First, while there are a lot of commonalities between sexism and racism, there are differences as well.
One of those ways is that , while I wouldn't argue that sexism has more impact than racism or is a more significant problem than racism, I do think it's more ubiquitous. One black man who spends a fair amount of time talking about and opposing racism calling another black man a minstrel, or however you'd put that picture into words? I find it completely easy to believe that this is making a satirical point completely unconnected to Gilliard harboring actual feelings of anti-black racism. A man (or a woman would come off the same way) attacking a woman for her sexist attack on another woman by calling her old (and by implication ugly and unattractive)? I'd have to know the person really, really well to be certain that he (or she) wasn't expressing some genuine misogyny. (And even if I did know them really well, the fact that that sort of personal knowledge was necessary to get the meaning straight would, as it did here, make me think the rhetoric was still out of line.) So it's easier for me to accept someone as an obvious non-racist who's allowed to use racist tropes satirically than an obvious non-sexist. Gilliard seems to me to be an obvious non-racist.
Second, I feel like I understand misogyny and sexism and how they work. My understanding of racism is less clear. Therefore, when someone whose knowledge is better than mine and whose judgment I generally trust thinks something is okay, I have a hard time criticizing.
But you do make a good point, and I think it's a pretty fair analogy.
But you do make a good point, and I think it's a pretty fair analogy.
I don't think it's a fair analogy. The fair analogy to Gillard's post would be something like Twisty calling other women who behave certain ways "sex dolls" or something. (I don't know that she's ever done that; I use her only because her site seems to be women oriented and a place where there have been spirited disagreements about things.)
Is the photo in Dr. Slack's link the one you're talking about? because it looks like a straight photo of Steele superimposed on a wad of money. If that's the image everyone was complaining about, I don't get it.
Don't want to break wi' t3h sist4h00d, but...
Althouse really didn't have any substance behind her complaints about Valenti at all. There's no, 'hmmm, I can see where you're coming from' or 'I disagree, but that's a fair point.' She called out an attractive young woman for the crime of Posing While Breasted. And while it's not generally good to dismiss someone's opinion because she's a nasty crone, when her opinion stems from nothing, so near as I can tell, but nasty old crone-ness with a side of Clinton fixation, it seems an appropriate insult.
I think part of why I'm ambivalent on whether it's a sexist insult is that I've never heard it used that way before. It seems very archaic.
381: It's not the original picture -- it used to be photoshopped to look as if Steele were in blackface.
382: Sure, she absolutely deserved to be attacked for being horribly nasty and sexist. Being old(er? I haven't the faintest how old Althouse is or what she looks like), has very little to do with what she did that was wrong. And attacking unattractive women for expressing opinions while unattractive is a standard sexist trope -- condemn the opinions, not the ugliness of the speaker.
And attacking unattractive women for expressing opinions while unattractive is a standard sexist trope -- condemn the opinions, not the ugliness of the speaker.
It's a standard mode of attack ("Michael Moore is fat"), though it may have an unwarranted edge when used against women.
But think of the aesthetic loss to langauge that comes from removing all these suspect vituperative words! We can never now call someone who does what Althouse did a "strumpeting harridan".
I actually don't think the situations are quite analogous anyway. One huge difference is that ogged is a man, although I don't think I could really get away with "nasty old crone," either, since I'm a young woman, and I'm supposed to be at odds with older women. If a woman over 50 wants to say, "Ann Althouse gives nasty old crones a bad name," *that* might be funny. Also, though like LB I feel like I have a much deeper understanding of gender issues than racial ones, and I don't really feel comfortable declaiming on what black people should or should not say about other blacks to fight racism, my understanding of Gilliard using "sambo" in that context is that it means, "someone who makes himself a useful idiot for the benefit of people in power." (I'm trying to google for more context about the history of "simple sambo" and all I'm getting are discussions of Steve Gilliard.) Anyway, I think it comes from blackface, and weren't blackface entertainers frequently black men who painted their faces white then black again? I think the rough analog would be if I, young woman, called Random Bird, whose post I linked to in 84, "big boobed sex kitten," with ironic intent. I wouldn't do that, because I don't think it's a constructive way to talk to other women who are used to being patronized for their gender (and for that matter I think these kind of tactics provide fodder for the right and are just fire fueling in terms of the resentment that builds up in all quarters), but I think it's very different from what ogged said. Gilliard was criticizing someone for purposely embodying a stereotype in a way that hurt his group, for sucking up to power, whereas ogged, member of the powerful class, was using the language that the powerful class regularly uses to criticize members of the subordinate class for not sufficiently sucking up to power. Whether or not it's okay for black people to call other black people Sambos, it's wildly inappropriate for white people to. This is neither an endorsement nor a criticism of G., just an elaboration of differences. I can say that I would not do the analog of what G did, for gender, i.e., call Random Bird a "big boobed sex kitten."
Weiner pwned by SCMT. Though this is not the one true Weiner pwn.
It's a standard mode of attack ("Michael Moore is fat"), though it may have an unwarranted edge when used against women.
While it is sometimes used against men, it's used significantly more often and more harshly against women. (At least it seems so to me.)
And when used against women is supported by and supporting the larger apparatus that teaches women that their value as person rests primarily on how they look. This apparatus does not exist for men in the same way.
I do not understand why people read Althouse. She is wrong on this post, as she is virtually all of the time. She is a political hack.
And surely "strumpeting harridan" is an epithet more punchily and amusingly aimed at a guy, a la "little bitch." That's the thing, reinforcing cultural tropes is just so tiresome on top of everything else.
it's used significantly more often
Maybe that's right, though there are plenty of instances of it being deployed against men: Jonah Goldberg is a "doughy pantload," Dukakis is a "midget," Tony Blankley is "Jabba the Hut." Part of it might be the general belief that there is much more narrowness about what makes a man attractive, itself a possible result of sexism.
and more harshly against women.
That seems right; I think the effect may be noticeably harsher when addressed to women, which may be a function of the way attractiveness is weighted in judging women or may be a function of the actual intent.
365, 391: I've actually never seen 'strumpet' as a verb. Was that intentional, w-lfs-n?
Speaking as someone a year younger than Althouse, I don't enjoy the "ugly old crones are just jealous of nubile young things" stereotype. I also didn't take Ogged seriously. But.
If I call Althouse an ugly old crone, it might seem like the equivalent of Gilliard calling Steele "Sambo", but I don't think it is. There is a patriarchal tradition of using older women to enforce patriarchal strictures on younger women, and thus deflecting the rage of the oppressed younger woman away from her male (okay, patriarchal) oppressors and onto the crone. Women are still playing that role today--I see it around me in my daily life.
I think it's important for women of every age, and particularly mine, to do what they can to highlight the unnaturalness of this role of older women as patriarchal enforcers, and so I consider it more politic to attack Althouse for acting as a mouthpiece for an oppressive, anti-woman worldview, and not for being what she is, a middle-aged to oldish woman.
For one black man to call another "Sambo" is not an attack on him for being black, but on the subservient role he is accused of playing.
So (I'm still thinking this out, so forgive me if I'm obvious or repetitive), to call Althouse a crone is to suggest that her views are natural for crones, to call Steele "Sambo" is to emphasize what Gilliard perceived as an unnatural performance for a black man.
It's very rude, but Gilliard doesn't mind being rude. It's open to misinterpretation, so maybe it's impolitic. I'd stick with "sell-out", myself.
393: It was. I was shocked to see it listed as a verb in the OED (I looked it up just to be sure that I had remembered the meaning right), and it fits: "To repute as a strumpet; to debase (a woman's fame, name, virtue) to that of a strumpet.". Though I especially like "to strumpet it"—man, you shoulda seen me strumpeting it around last night, it was crazy.
392: You know, it does get used against men more than I was thinking. Tia's right in 389, but I'm working on coming up with more about 'why it's different' and getting stuck.
393- Presumably it's like "prostituting."
I think it's important for women of every age, and particularly mine, to do what they can to highlight the unnaturalness of this role of older women as patriarchal enforcers, and so I consider it more politic to attack Althouse for acting as a mouthpiece for an oppressive, anti-woman worldview, and not for being what she is, a middle-aged to oldish woman.
Absolutely, and not obvious. I was groping toward it -- I put in and took out a couple of sentences about how the problem with ogged's language is that it accused Althouse of jealousy of Jessica's beauty -- but couldn't quite phrase what was wrong with that.
Except I was using "strumpeting", as explained, to mean "slander someone else as being a strumpet", not "to engage in strumpet-like activities".
Just that it appears you can turn several words for fallen women into verbs, though different things happen to them at that point. "Prostituting" would tend to be used with "yourself," "tarting" with "up," &c.
Hey, mid-day break from guest entertaining...
I don't think the purity of my motives matters here. That's why I used the "don't criticize people for their looks, you ugly motherfucker" analogy. There's no way to take that "straight." It's obviously something else.
The rule seems to be "a guy should never call a middle-aged woman a crone, period." I can see the thinking behind that, but obviously it's too much fun for me to ever give it up.
I always want to throw everything available at the opponent, and PC has been a real trial to me. There's some point at which you won't be able to use any invective at all, and at that point I will wither and die. I could not survive as a high-minded Gandhian; my friends would have to leave me behind at the side of the road, as they made their own way toward the City of God.
The whole 'irretrivably pissing a lot of people you generally seem to agree with and support off' part of that is probably going to suck for you. The 'making people who really like you and because of their personal feelings for you give you a pass, wince and feel ashamed of themselves for not calling you out sooner everytime someone else does' bit probably won't have as much impact, given that it's quieter.
405: Oh, you can still be horrible to people. Honest you can.
Emerson can do whatever he wants to people, 'cause who's going to stop him? He's John fuckin' Emerson.
407: I'm sympathetic to Emerson's point, and I think part of the reason for the disagreement here (it's not clear to me there is much disagreement) is that people are approaching the issue differently. I take you to be looking for something like a "neutral" rule to behavior that can be broadly applied, while I think I tend to do a rough balance check to see (a) how horrible the insult, and (b) how powerful the insultee. Part (b) ignores the effect of the comment to the class as a whole, which is addressed--though perhaps not well-- by part (a).
It seems like the proposed rule here is, "Don't be mean to people whom you're trying to insult in such a way as to reinforce an evil belief system." I'm not clear on why one should always follow such a maxim, and in particular why a case like this one where the person you're insulting is making bad faith appeals to the opposing belief system and really deserves to be seriously insulted for utterly unmotivated malice don't present good reasons for making an exception to the proposed rule.
409: I'd never noticed before this moment that 'John Emerson' can be substituted for 'George Washington' rather neatly.
It seems like the proposed rule here is, "Don't be mean to people whom you're trying to insult in such a way as to reinforce an evil belief system."
Well stated.
I'm not clear on why one should always follow such a maxim, and in particular why a case like this one where the person you're insulting is making bad faith appeals to the opposing belief system and really deserves to be seriously insulted for utterly unmotivated malice don't present good reasons for making an exception to the proposed rule.
Because the evilness of the belief-system is a big serious deal, and you don't want to feed it. Powerful evil belief systems are very useful when they happen to be pointed in the right direction -- Althouse deserved to be vigorously excoriated, and societal misogyny is a wonderful way to hit a woman hard without putting out a lot of effort. But every time you use it because it's useful, you end up endorsing the whole thing and making it stronger.
Use a weaker insult, or work harder at coming up with one that doesn't support an evil system.
Don't be mean to people whom you're trying to insult in such a way as to reinforce an evil belief system.
That's such a gay rule.
412: He'll save children, but not right-wing children.
413 is right, and I think the real analogy with the Gilliard flap is if some white guy took offense at Gilliard and decided to turn it back on Gilliard by using a bunch of racist insults.
Also, I don't think Althouse is ugly unless the vast majority of women in their 50s are ipso facto ugly. So that's another aspect of the evilness of the insult, it reinforces the idea that older women are worthless and to be dismissed on that grounds alone.
I went on record saying that Althouse is neither old nor ugly. She's older than I thought, but I thought she was younger mostly because some of her pictures look pretty good.
BTW, how are law school profs selected? Are they especially sharp lawyers, or are they people who just don't want the stress of law practice? Althouse and Reynolds are not at all impressive, even regarding law -- people catch them with legal boners fairly often.
Ogged, you punk! Don't let me catch you on my lawn!
It's just a matter of time before the motherfucking and shiteating lobbies get their identities declared protected. The what will I do?
Dan Savage is with me on the shiteating question, at least.
I'm not clear on why one should always follow such a maxim
Doesn't it become clearer when you think of it with other groups? As pointed out above, the same people arguing this point would never in a million years use an anti-semitic slur against a Jewish Republican. Or bring in Jim Crow language to insult a black Republican. Why not start thinking of it in the same way?
I concede the main point. I've always been pretty scrupulous about avoiding racial invective (except sometimes when initiated by, e.g., Jews themselves), and I suppose that I should also be scrupulous in avoiding sex- and gender-identity invective. But the cupboard is getting bare.
Wouldn't it be pretty hard to avoid typing "mean old Aunt Jemima" if the opportunity presented itself? It would.
416: They're supposed to be especially sharp as measured by law-school grades: you get to be an academic by having very high grades at a good law school, being on Law Review (which comes from the good grades), having a prestigious clerkship (hiring is based on grades, and being on Law Review) and writing some scholarly articles. But by far the biggest influence on whether you end up as an academic is your law school grades.
Lots of law professors don't ever practice, or practice for a very short time, so they're likely to be ignorant of some of the things that practitioners think of as pretty elementary. That doesn't make them stupid -- they're mostly very very sharp people -- but they aren't necessarily terribly skilled lawyers.
Have you seen Althouse on bloggingheads? Genuinely dumb seeming. (I didn't link to it in the post because I didn't want to give people an excuse to reinforce sexist tropes. True story.)
You think you are so cute. Fie on you. Fie!
There have been examples of law professors who had "written themselves" onto law review, i.e., were not there simply on the basis of their grades, but on the basis of pieces they had written, in competition, to be on law review in spite of their grades — not bad, just usually not good enough. I've even heard of some who come out of nowhere to be offered positions on the basis of excellent articles they had submitted and had had published, who themselves had never actually been on law review. But those cases are rare; the overwhelming majority are just as LB describes
421: After pouring glue on a caterpillar? I can't even buy Aunt Jemima products (if someone provides evidence that the company is owned by black people, I will get over this).
423: I also understand (Leiter keeps complaining about this) that there isn't much a quality control in tenure reviews -- it's pretty much automatic.
424 is, like I say, a true story. As I was writing the post, I went to bloggingheads and found her chat with Yglesias, almost linked to it, but thought, "Nah, that's going to become a big thread of people genuinely slagging Althouse for how she looks."
I wouldn't call myself cute, exactly.
Doesn't it become clearer when you think of it with other groups? As pointed out above, the same people arguing this point would never in a million years use an anti-semitic slur against a Jewish Republican. Or bring in Jim Crow language to insult a black Republican. Why not start thinking of it in the same way?
I'm not quite sure that's an entirely apposite analogy. Sexism's weird for a bunch of reasons. A big one is that, for example, women are a significant part of the electoral majority: if all women strongly want X, they have a pretty good chance of getting X. The size also means that there are now many more women in the workforce in positions from which they can protect or vindicate women's rights. Also, more or less everyone, male or female, has affiliations to women. So you see studies indicating that the number of daughters that a legislator has correlates with his votes of women's issues, but you don't see the same sort of study of having a black kid, because you more or less know ahead of time whether you're going to have a black kid, and it isn't going to change the way you perceive things. (OTOH, this, I think, gives extra inventives for pounding the hell out of women: men interact with women daily, and cannot simply limit their exposure to them by segregation.)
Also, at least in this case, it's not clear to me what the relevant insult to a Jewish person or Black person would be. "Old crone" doesn't strike me as peculiarly harsh and, to be honest, I never thought of it as anything other than the female analogue of "dirty old man" or the like; that is, I didn't think it derived its power from its gender. (Ogged had a different position, I think.)
Finally, for various reasons, we treat African-Americans and Jewish people as special cases. Sad as it is, I'm sure I'd be much more comfortable insulting someone Hispanic on those grounds or Asians on those grounds. I'd probably feel bad, but nowhere near as bad.
(At this point, I'm more just drawing out my sense of the issue; I'm not trying to say it's OK to be sexist. But, then again, "old crone" as proscribed would never have occured to me.)
413:Does this mean I was very wrong over at LGM to refer to the Widow Reagan as "Deepthroat Nancy?"
I knew it was wrong. However many dozens of producers. directors, studio execcutives, and even writers (Nancy was also dumb) she may have serviced in pursuit of her pathetic acting career, it was certainly no reflection on her as a person.
I am not sure as to the feminist issue here though. I will have to think on it.
I can't instill a sense of the vast injustices perpetrated on women throughout history in one comment, but just think about it. They were thought of as property, not fully human, until a century ago. It's not like being Asian, or Hispanic, it is the first, the original oppression, it is being defined as Other throughout all time, in all societies, forever. Controlled and demonized in all societies, forever. And you might consider the fact that sexism is weird because it is still so pervasive, because that mist is still nearly impenetrable, because it's still so reflexive, so automatic.
Aha! Cleaning bathrooms is good for this mother. Haven't got around to the baking yet, so no pastry with this visit. Am closing in on my search for the masculine equivalent of "nasty old crone."
How about: Filthy ex-alpha male?
424, 428: Yeah, exactly. You rejected the link because it would have been too appealing to someone who wanted to be straightforwardly, rather than ironically, misogynist. I'm just thinking that 'crone' was a little too close to the same line.
429: Anti-black racism and anti-Semitism are also weird in that the harshest expressions of it are simple identifications of the object as black or Jewish. The denotation of the worst anti-black slur is just 'black person' -- all the hate is in the connotation, and the connotation isn't much more than 'you're black and I hate you for it.' For anti-Semitism, one of the seriously hot-button words is just 'Jew', a neutrally correct way to refer to someone Jewish, but in the mouth of an anti-Semite, meaning pretty much the same thing: 'you're Jewish and I hate you for it.' (Which leads to weird contortions of language -- Jews use 'Jew' reasonably freely, but Gentiles get all edgy and avoidant around it, even where it would make sense. Sally just got some chocolate coins in a birthday goody bag, and recognized them as Hanukkah gelt, and was asking about what kind of traditions Jews have that explain the chocolate coins. After a couple of minutes of discussion, Buck told her that she either had to say 'Jewish people' rather than 'Jews' or at least say 'Jews' more quietly. Which, you know, silly, but normal.)
I don't really have a point here -- just that there isn't a very strong parallelism between sexist tropes and racist ones. All sorts of things don't map neatly.
"Filthy ex-alpha male?" I've never been successfully alpha, and I'm not always filthy, but I'll cop to the general drift of that.
431: I'm not sure I disagree with any of that. At some level, I think Twisty's right: it's patriarchy all the way down. But that means it ends up being really hard to extricate from the culture, and imposes costs--for men, but also sometimes for women--on a daily basis. And, as I said, we can't address it by simply having men move to the suburbs, or to a nicer neighborhood, as we do with race.
Generally, I'm suspicious of our ability to plan our way out of these sorts of things (gender, race, sexuality) by rule. To me, the only really effective solution is to have sufficient numbers of women (a) in positions from which they can protect women's rights as they see them, and (b) (I'm starting to think) who think in different ways (unrelated to gender issues) that various men can see something that is something like a female version of themselves at work, and simply take certain arguments that they don't understand on faith.
(b) (I'm starting to think) who think in different ways (unrelated to gender issues) that various men can see something that is something like a female version of themselves at work,
I don't understand what this means. Would you like to clarify?
416: Quite right. Take a look at the PhotoShopped pic I link to at 261 - my point in doing it was to show that a) Althouse isn't unattractive, and b) she poses for photos with a far more - what? - "playing to the camera" expression that Jessica did.
I still hold by my statement that Ogged blackened the name of crones everywhere by his epithet. It would have been fairer to say that Althouse is a sexist sow who seems to be unable to view attractive young women in proximity to Bill Clinton as anything but dumb bimbos because of her insane obsession with the man.
"Know it now/Ann's a sexist sow" - that rhymes...
in positions from which they can protect women's rights as they see them
See, in a very tiny and unimportant way, I think that's what's happening here. To take Unfogged as a microcosm of society, we've got a pleasant little community here with a bunch of women who are respected members. And so when something like this comes up, half the argument is "This is just wrong for the reasons stated, and you shouldn't do it because the argument is convincing." But the other half of the argument is that Tia, and M. Leblanc, and ac, and mcmc, and any other women who've spoken up on it are, while certainly not the whole of this place, a big piece of it. And so there's a fair argument that things that we find unpleasant or embarassing to be associated with don't belong here.
(This is an argument that I'm not entirely comfortable making. I don't mean to suggest that every commenter has veto power over everything anyone says. But there's something to the idea that community standards are set by the community members, and there's a sizable portion of the community here working on setting some of those standards.)
The high 300s convinced me of the error of my ways, especially in tarring all forensic psychologists by association with the likes of Dr Insty's wife. Oops.
Shit. When is the intellectual left gonna learn that the Truth (cue trumpets & choir) will not set them free, that accuracy and fairness is really really weak against the barbarian screaming lies and war chants at the top of his lungs. Dialectic against a cudgel gets bopped on the noggin (cue singing tweety-birds).
Oh. This weekend I read a lot of anarchists and syndicalists attacking Lenin. Decided I preferred Lenin. A lot of people probably already knew that about me.
436: I'm not sure I can explain precisely what I mean, but I'll give it a shot.
None of us wants to be sexist (or racist or yada yada). To the extent that we behave in such a way, it's because we don't think of it as sexist. When people argue that it is, they either convince us--which, for various backgrounds, may be harder, because we already know the arguments--or we take the result on faith. It's easier for me to take the result on faith when that person responds to the world generally--outside of gender issues, to the extent possible--the way I would. It's easier to imagine that, but for some lack of mine, I would have worked things out the same way. This isn't about the quality of any argument, but the relative congeniality of the general worldview of that person to my general world view.
See, in a very tiny and unimportant way, I think that's what's happening here.
I agree. But we still have to have the fights.
Hey, I tarred Mme. Reynolds with a preexisting prejudice against forensic psychologists.
It's easier to imagine that, but for some lack of mine, I would have worked things out the same way. This isn't about the quality of any argument, but the relative congeniality of the general worldview of that person to my general world view.
Exactly. This is a much less fascist sounding version of what I was trying to say in 438 -- when we have these arguments about sexism, from my point of view I'm having them with people who I find generally congenial and easy to communicate with. On the assumption that the feeling is mutual, I figure that there's a shot that the women and men who object to something as sexist should get credit for their objections purely on the basis of 'Trust us.'
I figure that there's a shot that the women and men who object to something as sexist should get credit for their objections purely on the basis of 'Trust us.'
On the basis of both principle and life experience, I'm am wildly uncomfortable with substituted judgment, for and from anyone. I suspect I'm requiring more of "congenial minds" than you are. But, though it may happen less frequently than you'd like, it happens.
What McManus is criticizing is not forensic psychology but forensic psychiatry. There are a lot of settings in which forensic psychiatrist are employed, but the most common is in criminal cases. They are usually expert witnesses who testify as to the sanity of a defendant. Insanity is a defense which relates to whether a defendant had the intend required for a particular crime. For that reason, most forensic psychiatrists testify during the guilt phase, not the penalty phase.
Park Dietz is a very well-known forensic psychiatrist who testified in the Hinckley case and the Andrea Yates case. He almost always testifies for the prosecution. There's another guy named Philip Resnick who is a professor in the forensic psychiatry department at Case Western Reserve (probably the best such program in the country) who testified for the defense in the Andrea Yates case. He fairly consistently testifies for the defense. Dietz and Resnick are friends and worked together on the Dahmer case, but they often go head to head.
Forensic psychiatrists testify any time there's a need for expert testimony relating to the diagnosis of a specific disorder. They are also called on in competency hearings and involuntary treatment. They frequently testify in psychiatric malpractive cases or in other tort cases where psychic injury is alleged.
Here's the blurb from Case Western's post-residency forensic psychiatry fellowship program describing the substantive knowledge that a fellow is expected to master after one year.
Okay, I can't make that work, since I'm not allowed to cut and pasted from a pdf. Here's the link to the Case Western fellowship page, and you all can read the program description.
Also I think that I agree with ogged on this one. I don't completely agree with ogged, but I am closer to his point of view than I am to Tia's.
Emerson. I am so easily forgotten.
**sniff**
I figure that there's a shot that the women and men who object to something as sexist should get credit for their objections purely on the basis of 'Trust us.'
Should that even be necessary? I thought various people explained their objections pretty reasonably. What's coming back is "too fucking bad."
I figure that there's a shot that the women and men who object to something as sexist should get credit for their objections purely on the basis of 'Trust us.'
Why should that even be necessary? I thought various people explained their objections pretty clearly. The response is "too fucking bad."
Oops. Anyway, I'm out of here. I hate this thread.
LB, I think you make a number of good points in 379, especially about context-dependence of humour. There seems like a bit of a potential disconnect between saying in 379 that you have trouble extending the benefit of the doubt in many contexts, though, and your saying in 444 that you feels entitled to the benefit of the doubt in this context. I'm hoping you can tease that out a little if you feel so inclined.
448: I thought various people explained their objections pretty reasonably.
I think people on pretty much all sides of the discussion have been pretty reasonable about explaining their arguments and counter-arguments. This:
What's coming back is "too fucking bad."
Completely mystifies me. Who do you see as having said "too fucking bad"?
But 404 also provides a (capsule) argument for why, it's not just "I'm doing it, so fuck off."
Nice rack, great smile. What's the problem?
Possibly I am misreading SCMT. I'm pretty sure of the last paragraph in 404. Anyway, I'm hungry, and I actually don't like arguing.
The response is "too fucking bad."
Yep. I mean, the bottom of it is, if you want credit for giving even a tiny bit of a shit about sexism, there has to be someplace, somewhere, you're willing to change. I have had to change; it's not like I was born recognizing misogynistic tendencies or language in myself, or born with the impulse to tell a bunch of men what dicks they were being. Rather the opposite. It's not like it's incredibly easy for me to confront sexism here; it gets as tiresome for me as it does for you all. it's only a personal commitment to be constantly becoming the best feminist I can be that keeps me doing it; actually, I'm really happy about my time here because I think it's radicalized me--wrong word, maybe, since I think I'm a liberal feminist--maybe hardened my politics and infused them with--jesus, I can't believe this is turning into an erection metaphor. It's a clitoral erection! Anyway. I've also made efforts to change with respect to racism, although probably not sufficient ones. When I say something about race politics sometimes I contradict myself as soon as it comes out of my mouth because I recognize it's been bullshit; when I feel a defensive reaction arising to something some non-white person said, I think to myself, "Remember what this looks like from the other side, Tia. What are the odds that it is you who is in fact full of shit?" And then I squash it down. If you don't want to be sexist or racist, you have to look hard at yourself and change some things because all your life you've been taught that your sexism or racism, whether inwardly or outwardly directed, is natural and right. Things that seem neutral to you aren't. Self-satisfaction, or an allegiance to personal freedom above all else, elevating what you *can* do above what you *should* do, amounts to sexism and racism. No one can make you be other than you are, but you've made yourself The Man, and shouldn't flatter yourself into thinking you're anything but.
On preview, I'm mystified by Dr. Slack. The argument was "it's too much fun."
447: Emerson, I saw all your comments, but I was specifically responfing to mcmanus's 302.
Re: 404, seems to me the "fun" being referred to stemmed from the contention in the previous paragraph that the statement was structurally not-X. But I see where mcmc weas coming from, now, and I'm not going to go into a lengthy defense of it. Ogged can if he wants to.
Perhaps I'll come back to this later.
"Because the evilness of the belief-system is a big serious deal, and you don't want to feed it. Powerful evil belief systems are very useful when they happen to be pointed in the right direction -- Althouse deserved to be vigorously excoriated, and societal misogyny is a wonderful way to hit a woman hard without putting out a lot of effort. But every time you use it because it's useful, you end up endorsing the whole thing and making it stronger.
Use a weaker insult, or work harder at coming up with one that doesn't support an evil system."
This is right, I think. Althouse certainly deserves unyielding contempt delivered in creative ways, but the English language offers many options for doing so that don't reinforcing sexism (while also offering the bad-faith phony invokers of feminism wahserdreyer correctly calls out the ability to use said language to dodge substantive criticisms.)
I would put it this way: would what La Althouse said be an iota less rephrehensible if she were young and as attractive as Jessica? I think the answer is obviously "no," which further demonstrates that calling attention to her age and appearance is unjustified.
However, if you want to make a personal assault on Althouse, rather than merely shame her for being terribly wrong on one point, you need all the resources you can get.
You're at risk of eventually just ending up speaking truth and radiating love for all humankind all the time, and that's boring.
"radiating love for all humankind all the time"
I doubt anyone who reads my stuff has this impression about me...
I read "nasty, old" as referring to the nastiness of her personality. The "old" part is a bit problematic, but I think I'd write the same thing about a man. E.g., "Glenn Reynolds is a nasty, old fart."
Didn't somebody once call Insty a nasty pig, or somesuch?
Sweet Mary what has happened?
I greatly resent feeling forced to write comments like 431. Greatly! Resent! It! It's like there's this polite fiction that this stuff isn't all-encompassing and thoroughly pervasive, we like to flatter ourselves that we're all past it now, and it's very annoying to have people not recognize the fictional nature of that, and have to break out of the script or break out of frame to point it out.
(I'm trying to form some metaphor about wearing lots of layers, a scarf and a sweater long johns and things, not just the outer fictional layer of coat, but it's not coming together. I'm too tired, and I've been packing all day.)
Lemme know if you need some help, ac. I guess I could say this in email, but then my generous nature would not be on display to all the blog.
Oh no, I think I've given up, and am merely gesturing in the direction of the metaphor.
ac, your 431 was very much appreciated by me, someone you don't even need to convince, if that helps any, because I couldn't and can't have said it as well as you did.
But the resentment is that I have the appearance of breaking the polite fiction, or harmony, when I think it's the other parties' failure to really treat it as a fiction that breaks it first.
463: BG, it's generally the case that you can say the exact same thing about a woman and a man, but they function differently contextually. Insulting a woman's age or appearance is worse than doing the same thing to a man. And ogged actually intended a sexist insult, so I don't think there's use arguing it wasn't that. The issue is whether his ironic intent makes the language okay. I (and others) say no: 1) irony that functions perfectly as sincerity is poor irony. 2) ogged, because of various facets of his identity, isn't in a position to successfully employ that kind of irony, in the way I couldn't call a black man a sambo, no matter how much I thought he was selling out the black community.
ac, I'm not sure if you're being incredibly funny or have misunderstood me. I meant, let me know if you need help packing.
Oh good. You're funny and I'm clear. Win-win!
Someone in the vicinity of this discussion linked to this [non-ideal scanned copy], which is basically a great piece. (I remember having a dispute or two with it but I forget what they were.)
I interpreted you the way ac did, Tia, but then, I didn't know she was packing.
479: She said she was packing. Why do men never listen?
I think I'd write the same thing about a man
I don't mean to heap on you, BG, but this is one of my pet peeves. That a particular thing can be said about, or done to, or suffered by a man, doesn't mean it's not sexist. Every time I tell my boyfriend that something that he or someone else has said or something that we've mutually experienced is sexist, his response is "but people say/do those kinds of things to/about men, too!" Saying "Michael Moore is fat" does not have the same effect as saying "Oprah Winfrey is fat." This is why the "women get judged by their looks, but men get judged on their wallets, so nyah!" argument drives me batty.
And the answer as to why is in 431.
480: Huh. That's what skimming'll get you, I guess.
I read to fly, to swim.
I do not read to skim.
I can't really recommend this, but those who can't resist Grade-A, gold-plated wingnuttery should fast-forward to about halfway thorugh La Althouse's podcast. Not only does she weave her elaborate consipracy theories about how people were placed inf the front row not because they're shorter but because they're hawt, she claims that the "simplest explantation" for why NARAL's house blogger was invited to the meeting is because Clinton wanted to be set-up. I can't wait for her next post about who he wanted Jessica to dig up Vince Foster so he could once again kill him with his penis.
Pre-comment caveat: I'm loaded on red wine and Percoset to combat the godawful sore throat and splitting headache I've had all day, so I am disavowing any typos. Also, I'm decidedly less inhibited than normal (as improbable as that may seem), but this is where we seem to be now. I'll probably regret having posted this tomorrow morning, and it was almost certainbly written before the 30 or 40 comments that immediately precede it.
apostropher in particular, in a lot of these discussions, says usually-sexist things as jokes, and sometimes they're pretty funny, and sometimes really annoying.
Sorry to respond to this so late in the discussion, but it's Sunday, so, y'know, football. And Terrell Owens is really letting me down. Seriously, 19 yards? I spent a third round pick on you, asshole.
Yes, I can be annoying, and rest assured, often times it is entirely on purpose. As I've said to Ogged in email, an awful lot of the threads here recently have spawned an urge to be a dick on principle. Let's say every time a buttsex joke was made, McManlyPants were to stand up and go, "Hey, that shit isn't funny." And every time we called Ogged a Mexican, this or that Hispanic commenter were to stand up and say, "Hey that shit isn't funny." And every time something untoward was said about conservatives, baa were to stand up and say, "Hey, that shit isn't funny." And every time somebody made some remark about General Sherman, I got up and went, "Hey, that motherfucker killed several of my ancestors. That shit isn't funny."
And really, if I were to go back and catalog the subtextually homophobic language coming from the very folks patrolling the subtextually misogynistic language here, we could all sit down and have a serious discussion about who is the biggest oppressor and who ought to wear the hairshirt the longest, but it would be boring and stupid and result in precisely nothing except bad feelings.
I've been commenting here for longer than pretty much anybody else precisely because it's a place where we're all basically on the same side (including all the conservatives and all the feminists), and we are all irreverent, and we're all smartasses, and we can all assume good intentions, and yadda yadda yadda. Longevity gives me no special dispensation, and I claim nothing of the sort, but I've watched this community evolve longer than anybody except the original three posters and Farber, so I think I have some useful perspective to offer. YMMV.
Look, you'll get no argument from me that sexism is a problem and that racism is a problem and homophobia is a problem and that anti-Semitism is a problem and that Islamophobia is a problem and straight on down the list, but Jesus Haploid Christ, people. If we can't speak irreverently, humorously (yes, yes "IT'S NOT FUNNY," but 1. you're wrong and 2. every joke isn't funny to someone), and impolitically here, of all places, we can't do it anywhere. Except my blog, I guess, where we can all go mock women and rednecks and Christians and Asians and the mentally handicapped. You're all invited. Unless you're fat.
Of course Ogged's use of "nasty old crone" was ironic. Holy shit, people. Have we really moved to the point that only I can recognize it? C'mon, that one wasn't even difficult. We're skating on very thin ice here, people. Any time we convene the Unfogged Cultural Studies Department, we can find something potentially offensive in 95% of all the threads archived here. Maybe that's your thing, and if it is, then I guess go knock yourself out. It's a free country and a free blog. But don't get indignant when some of us won't take you seriously. It's a few dozen people on blog, not the Senate floor.
This overreaction to insignificant conversations has been brought to you by the good people at Endo Labs and Chateau de Segries Winery. The opinions expressed here are those of the author only and do not represent the views of unfogged.com, nor of its other front page bloggers. Offer may be void in Guam.
I tend to stay out of the big sex threads, but I couldn't disagree more with LB's 438. Certainly there are community standards that are set or enforced by longstanding members of the community. But this is subtext, and LB's comment has the effect of establishing it as text. If I'm reading her correctly (and recalling correctly), she's of the mind that men need to accept as valid women's claims of sexism even when men are extremely suspicious of the claim—okay, I'm phrasing that problematically, but you know the thread(s). It's, of course, still highly debatable. Four thirty-eight reads to me like policy, but it's misinformed: Men commenters notwithstanding, tthere may well be other women readers (and commenters and lurkers) beyond Tia, M. Leblanc, ac, and mcmc—praise be upon them!—who don't hold their views. At a point not too long ago, wasn't it the case that Dr. B was offending many commenters' sensibilities—or whatever; I'll definitely misconstrue that situation, since I just came onto the scene when that was going on—and didn't that turn out to be problematic?
I'm going to cut short my thoughts for this comment and say very briefly that while I agree very strongly with ac and Tia about so many points that they bring up in these threads, you know, there's a tone that is indissolvable from the notion that Unfogged is an appropriate space for doing the work to rehabilitate the rhetoric can be done and while I wouldn't call it preachy, it interrupts the divertisement. Divertisement, definitely less important than the work described, but also what got me reading this blog.
but I've watched this community evolve longer than anybody except the original three posters and Farber, so I think I have some useful perspective to offer. YMMV.
Actually I think we're roughly contemporaneous.
Strike "can be done" from the above, which suffered from some in situ revisions.
487: And w-lfs-n. And Michael. And probably some other worthy people as well.
The last paragraph of 486 is really interesting, and I think I agree, though I'm having trouble explaining.
I remember trying to check who had left an earlier comment, w-lfs-n or Apo, the day that ogged "quit," but can't remember the result.
ogged, because of various facets of his identity, isn't in a position to successfully employ that kind of irony
Mexicans are bad at irony.
And Michael
How is that possible? I've met him. He's Harry Potter's age.
Unfogged is an appropriate space for doing the work to rehabilitate the rhetoric
As far as I'm concerned, it is. Seriously, there's no other space on the internet that I've found that is as helpful to me in talking about this stuff. Sometimes, you need smart people to argue against in order to make your arguments. I love Twisty's and B's blogs, but the comment sections just don't have the same level of clarity that they do here. Inasmuch as your comment as "I don't want that stuff here," I kind of resent that. A lot.
I am on public record as enjoying a good buttfuck so I get to make all the buttsex jokes I want. Until the rest of you prudes confess, they're *all mine.*
I'm still seeing the ratio of tedious threads to non-tedious threads as pretty low and still not really getting the ire.
494: I said I was having trouble explaining my agreement with 486, but you've just helped. I read his comment as saying that "Unfogged is an appropriate space for doing the work to rehabilitate the rhetoric" because it's simultaneously acceptable to be irreverent in taboo ways and to criticize people for being irreverent in those ways. But that's an incredibly precarious dynamic, and insofar as it exists (which is certainly a contestable claim), it's one that can be damaged simply by being discussed explicitly.
The first rule of Unfogged is, Don't Talk About Unfogged.
it interrupts the divertisement
I don't agree: I actually find it makes the divertisement better. But then I mostly lurk.
I did agree with everything else in 486.
Let's all read and take to heart comment 498, and devote this and all other comment threads to innocent merriment, cock jokes, the classics, and, if m. leblanc wants, rehabilitation of all the rhetoric under the sun.
497: If that's indeed what 'Smasher meant, then I am a very poor reader indeed. I interpreted "wouldn't call it preachy, but it interrupts the divertissement... which is what brought me to this blog" as an expression of wistful "back-in-the-good-old-days"-ness. But hey, I could be wrong.
And I don't think sexism is the only fucked ism that's ever gone on on this blog. *I* was saying in email this week that the real spark of revelation for me about Unfogged was at the end of the gay thread, but it wasn't about gender, it was about race, and it came in a little exchange between eb and ogged about Asian driver jokes. It made me actually feel kind of sick to realize that they had been serious, when I thought everything that was going on on this blog in that regard was a kind of theater. I wheeled through comments on this blog, trying to figure out if I had made an Asian driver joke, and thinking I might have, and all of a sudden I realized I had been implicated in something I didn't understand I was participating in. I don't even know how to drive. The problem is there's real misogyny around here, and as soon as that becomes clear, a lot of the jokes do become a lot less funny. If it were all *just* theater, it would be less of a problem.
I disagree that we are all on the same side. I think some people here are not on my side in important ways. Of course, I have a lot of sides, at different times. It's nice that I can count on you (generic you) to vote for a pro-choice candidate, but that's not all there is.
Seriously, if someone wants to call me out on my homophobia, I'll listen. I would be surprised if this were sincerely felt by anyone, but I am open to hearing it. As soon as it became clear to me that the deprecation of non-masculine men was serious, I was the single loudest person shouting it down, and it wasn't *just* for the sake of women that I was doing it (although that was a big part).
m. leblanc, I think you made the comment before on another thread that you find apo's nonseqs interruptive—and if I'm correct that it was you, that you considered it to be soft sexism (I paraphrase). This I think is another instance of the subtext becoming the text—that threads are about doing this sort of feminist work, rather than feminist rhetoric being a subject that comes up in threads. Because threads are, in fact, about cock jokes.
I was going to make a joke about changing the rollover text, but I see that, hilariously, this has already been done.
503 not in response to your last comment, m. leblanc. No, I'm not saying I don't want that here. I just don't like the talk about regulating this particular topic—it was LB's comment that irked me. The talking about the talking that makes me nostalgic for days when we didn't do that, and it seems to me that the most metatalk concerns the feminist threads.
485:You're all invited. Unless you're fat.
Damn.
"The talking about the talking that makes me nostalgic" s/b "The talking about the talking makes me nostalgic".
Bedtime for bonzo.
Well, some threads are about doing feminist work, like say, the Tia's rules post and thread. But most of them aren't, and it's just something that comes up. And then sometimes not at all. It was me who mentioned apo, yeah, and the reason I said it was just a way to elaborate on LB's point about irony, not to try and censor apo (no desire or standing to do so). But the "we can't be funny anymore" complaint doesn't really hold much sway with me. I don't think anyone expects the sexism to disappear from this blog. You just can't say shit with impunity anymore. Some people are going to think what you've said is funny. Some people might think you're an asshole. You (generic you) say "deal" with sexist remarks being said for comic effect? I say "deal" with the fact that some people are going to object. In writing.
Okay, I'm going grocery shopping now.
Actually that rollover text has been around for a while.
I believe that this is the thread Tia's talking about in 502.
Okay, I'm going grocery shopping now.
What?
What?
Questioning the experience of women is sexist.
You (generic you) say "deal" with sexist remarks being said for comic effect? I say "deal" with the fact that some people are going to object. In writing.
WOOT!
Oh, nothing, it's just pretty late, is all; it took me until after I had already posted to re-realize that there are such things as 24-hour grocery stores.
Incidentally, Bitch's comment 399 in the thread ben linked sounds a lot like apo's long comment above:
But since O. asked the question, the answer is, yes: using "gay" derisively is objectionable and misogynist, just like making fun of Muslims is. We do it *on purpose* to be objectionable, in a joshing way, *because* doing so signals "we're friends here, so we can give each other shit." If the term weren't inherently shit-giving, one wouldn't be able to use it in that ironic in-group way to show that we're the kind of friends who can hassle one another without hurting each other's feelings.
Hmm.
The "Hmm" in 516 was supposed to be not part of the blockquote.
I love 24-hour grocery-stores, because I get to avoid all the mouthbreathers, but it is kind of annoying shopping this late because the deli closes at 9.
509: That's weird, then. The comment of apo's that she's referring to looks pretty much like sarcasm to me.
518: I'm not referring to apo's comment. Later in the thread, too tired to link, from memory, ogged says Asians are shitty drivers, totally seriously. For that matter, ogged is waving the banner of his deprecation of feminine men high throughout that thread, though I can't remember to what extent he walked back at the end.
Here is ogged's comment about Asian drivers. Scroll down a bit for some back-and-forth between him and eb.
Actually, what he says is that lots of Asian people are good drivers, but there's a particular manner of bad driving that's peculiar to Asian bad drivers, and eb says he's ok with that formulation.
Looking through that old thread, I was struck with the following idea:
It's not a new thing to have threads about how ogged is a sexist. No, it's rather traditional, and traditionally, ogged never seemed to intend that the threads go that way, and yet it worked out fine.
ogged has had a time of absence, and things have changed, so perhaps it is fitting that we should have threads about how many more of us are sexists. Anyway, it's only sporting to allow for that. I'm a bastard in any number of ways, am not always very funny, spill food on my shirt, etc. So let's point it out when we're all sexist bastards, yes.
But here's the thing: can't we do it with a little more pizazz?
Okay, I see what you mean. Would've read that as sarcasm too, but maybe I'm mistaken.
text, could it not be that your comparative absence, rather than being caused by the lack of pizzazz, has itself been the cause?
"Pizazz" is going to be my new word for semen.
Do you regularly talk about your semen, or for that matter, to it?
Nothing can replace "thick southern drawl".
Remember when B used to call unfogged the frathaus?
eb can be fine with the formulation all he wants, but I don't want to be associated with making driver jokes that I don't understand are serious, because of course everything that goes on on this blog is all funnin', when I don't know how to drive and seriously do not have an opinion on the comparative ability of the socially constructed races at motor vehicle operation.
Pizazz-Ware. "Add a splash of pizazz to your table."
Tia, if your worry is being associated by other people with sincerely believing negative things about the skills of Asian drivers, you can avoid this by saying, "I don't know how to drive and seriously do not have an opinion on the comparative ability of the socially constructed races at motor vehicle operation." Saying it in the same comment in which you make such a joke can ruin the taboo-violation of the joke and make it less funny, but saying it slightly later avoids this problem.
If your worry isn't about how other people may read what you're saying, then I'm confused, because the fact that eb and ogged were being serious (I haven't gone back and looked at the thread, but I'm fine granting that it's a fact for now) shouldn't, I don't think, otherwise change your willingness to make such jokes. I guess there's a worry about providing cover, but think it's a manageable one.
Ugh. I think I'd rather add semen.
Especially if you use the Chunky Salad Tossers.
w/d, I'm tired, and not totally coherent. The original Asian driver thing was a problem for me just because I didn't know it had ever been serious till that exchange, and didn't know I had to disclaim if I were going to do it. My main point, which I'm not making that well, is basically this: I think it's totally fun to go see The Producers (the musical), an equal opportunity offender with lots of jokes about nebbishy accountants and swishy interior decorators or what have you. (Although significantly, the fact that Jews and gays, the main forces behind musical theater, are the main targets there tells you something. Them and Nazis, whom everyone agrees we get to joke about.) The problem is that when you start to realize that in significant ways people are actually not on your side, as I did for the first time in the gay thread, their jokes at your expense become less funny. Once again, I do appreciate the votes for pro-choice candidates, but there's something a through-and-through commitment to sexual equality looks like, and AFAIC it's not everyone here.
I think I'd rather add semen.
I'm pleased to tell you, w-lfs-n, that you can order Pizazz frozen boar semen from swinegenetics.com. Chester White, Lot 424.
Bon appetit, mon ami.
The "About Us" page is fantastic. Love that fortune telling.
Pizazz-Ware
Add a Splash of Pizzazz to your Table
Make up your minds, people!
Actually, that site kind of depresses me. Here I sit at a soul sucking corporate job, and likely these people are making more money gluing fucking beads onto utensils.
538: So are the people jerking off pigs, but probably best not to think about it too much.
people jerking off pigs
Kudos for doing your part to bring that particular Google search to Unfogged.
The onomastics of boar semen are pretty impressive, I have to say. "Wideload," "Zeke," "Patriot," "Sambo III," "Rifleman" and "Columbo," all in one place. Damn.
So, what's up? Did everyone go to sleep or something?
540: Oh yes, for the garden variety boar semen consumer, 524. I, of course, get the 100-point Frequent Customer discount. Sorry for the confusion.
Nah, we're still here. Now we're discussing boar semen.
I went to the grocery store and got an item of junk food which I wanted last Sunday, never got, and now finally have cooking in the oven: Nestle's Toll House break and bake chocolate chip cookies. Also milk.
There's boar semen in Nestle Toll House? Gross.
I started reading Stone Age Economics.
540: teo, you win the award for making me do the most amount EVAR of clicking, downloading, and back-clicking for a simple "snicker."
Plus it occurred to me that I could get semen on my table without waiting for any dang mail order, so, you know.
526: Shit. That sounds good. I was too lazy to get dressed and go grocery shopping, so I made do with a sandwich assembled on a bagel 'cause I am out of bread.
How much boar semen does it contain?
There's boar semen in Nestle Toll House? Gross.
No, it's in Nestle Squick.
542: I am convinced that apo frequently, while waiting for the right moment, sits around googling "thing we're talking about" and "penis" or "semen" or "testicles" or "cock".
Well, that's how he would do it if he were using Westlaw, anyway. Google should be way more boolean. Way!
556: I take that to mean "a shit ton," but was it a "metric shit ton?"
Hey, "Crapping Christ" is funny.
Actually, you can use boolean operators with google, they just don't like telling you about it.
The real question is, what's the conversion between metric assloads and imperial arseloads?
I was thinking about why Google might not want you to get all Boolean, and then thinking about how the way they search is different from strict inclusion-exclusion kinds of searches, and so I was playing with Google, and I was going to search for "Why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock" but before I could type it all out (I was at "why do all the") the automatic result thingy came up with "why do all the black kids sit together in the cafeteria".
Poignant.
Oh, it's a book title. That's lame, then.
I'll keep this thread going all night if I have to.
563: Even on pills and wine?! teo, give me that scone back. I gots me a new award...
Aw, shit. I think kitty ate the scone.
565: you mean "Crapping Christ" is a book title?
This strikes me as sage advice. Thoughts?
I'll keep this thread going all night if I have to.
Well, I have chronic fucking insomnia, so I can help out.
Koji Asano's album Gravitiy is, so far (6 out of 78 minutes heard) really great! It's like a harder-rocking Forever Einstein or Vril with a greater rockabilly presence, if that makes sense.
570: I am sure we've discussed the Sitzpinkler here before.
Crapping Christ: Even Deities Poop, Seriously, the successful sequel to Everybody Poops.
No, Why Do All The Black Kids Sit Together In The Cafeteria is a book title.
I wonder what thoughts w-lfs-n might have about that.
For instance, this similar but splashier picture.
w/d has the correct link, of course. Favorite whipping boy ogged is a Sitzpinkler.
Oh, I never saw that post. I just put "penis" into Flickr's searchbox.
I watched R. Kelly's In The Closet (again) in the company of a gradually self-reducing dinner party tonight. Clearly, that pwns anything.
570: Hmm, interesting. There was a funny thing on Curb Your Enthusiasm about this. Larry was explaining to Jeff that it's much better to pee sitting on the toilet because one is able to read at the same time. "While you're pissing all over your shoes, I'm learning something!"
What I wanna know is: why do I frequently see piss all over the toilet seat in women's bathrooms? I never encountered this before I moved to NYC.
We should solicit Harvey Mansfield's opinion on this subject.
I just put "penis" into Flickr's searchbox.
Did you get Flickr's consent first?
581: da, I'm glad you brought this up, because it's something that concerns me greatly.
You see piss all over the women's toilet seats because of squatters. No, not people without a place to live, people whose germophobia and/or unhealthy level of squicked-outness forbids them from putting their perfect and pristine lilywhite asses on public toilet seats. Because, you know, New York City is so dirty, and if the top of my left thigh and the outer regions of my ass cheek touch this plastic, I'm going to get a disease and die.
I hate the squatters. They ruin everything for the rest of us. I'll sit on a toilet seat, but not in someone else's pee. It's just a cycle of squatting that can not be stopped.
What I wanna know is: why do I frequently see piss all over the toilet seat in women's bathrooms? I never encountered this before I moved to NYC.
It's a self-perpetuating problem, or so I'm told (obviously I don't have first-hand knowledge). The explanation I often see is that, since there's piss on the toilet, or at least, since bathrooms are well-known to be gross, women pee using the "hover" method, which is (apparently) prone to inaccuracy, and then don't clean up after themselves.
My sources here are actual women, honest.
What I wanna know is: why do I frequently see piss all over the toilet seat in women's bathrooms? I never encountered this before I moved to NYC.
More trannies?
I guess I could have just remained silent there.
The top of your left thigh!? Am I confused about where the thigh is, or, alternatively, women's anatomy?
Probably yes to the second, but I don't think in any relevant respect.
No, I think "hover" is more accurate than "squat," so you added something.
Bathroom-grossness is on my mind lately, because I'm planning a trip next spring to Egypt with a whole bunch of my friends and I have repeatedly gotten the "are the bathrooms gross there?" question.
Yes, they are gross. If that's of serious concern to you, don't come.
590:
Think "top" from a standing position, as in upper thigh.
Yes, w/d, the top of the back of the thigh. That's if you're a forward-sitter. If you're a back-sitter (i.e. with your back against the tank), then it's not quite so much the top. But I think most people tend to forward-sit in public bathrooms, as to minimize contact.
Understood. I refuse to explain what I had wrong.
m., ben, this is pretty much what I had guessed. No one ever got crabs from a frickin toilet seat (though I'll bet apo can dig up a link to prove me wrong).
When I worked in an office it seemed like all my co-workers were germophobic. They drove me up the fucking wall with their antiseptic hand wash and alcohol wipes and blah blah blah. One day a woman came in to work with pinkeye (pinkeye! I had never even heard of this affliction prior to that) and you could not believe the panic that broke out.
One of the infections that can cause pinkeye is Chlamydia. Bet she regretted pressing her face into the toilet seat like that.
m., tell them the bathrooms are gross....if you're lucky enough to find one in the first place.
Jaundice can be cured by looking at a certain kind of yellow bird, so maybe pinkeye can be cured by looking at pink flamingoes?
Well, to be fair, pinkeye is pretty contagious. Although, I've never had it, so I don't know if it's painful or whatever, or if your eye just looks gross for a few days.
Best I can tell, it just looks gross, but it will cost you a shitload of money to rid your child of it if you're in the wrong state.
602: How's the mono, by the way?
You know, I thought I pretty much had it licked, but as of this weekend, it seems to be staging a comeback. Once the pills and wine wore off, I drove in to work (where I am right now, at 3:18 am) to wrap up some last bits of stuff so I could take Monday off and sleep all day while the kids are being cared for by somebody else. Guess I should shut this thing down and go back home now.
So, well enough to get around and whatnot, but still feeling like I can't quite get out of 2nd gear. And my throat is no good at all. Bleh.
Hey man, you should be taking it easy. Isn't there something about mono and rupturing spleens?
I'm going to turn in too. M. Leblanc, it's up to you to keep the thread lively until we all wake up in the morning.
No, it's bedtime for me, too. Thinking about apo's mono just makes me want to sleep.
Isn't there something about mono and rupturing spleens?
Something, but I think it's related to lifting heavy objects. Good night, all.
nighty-night, other side of the earth people who are facing away, out into the inky vastness of space. this is why I never actually participate in comments threads here.
I looked at that picture and honestly believed that the two young women had probably just been presented with some kind of award by Clinton for their ceaseless campaigning on behalf of whatever terrible affliction all the other fucking mutants in the room suffered from.
In related news: if you thought that pose was sexually provocative then you have got it on the fucking brain, mate.
"Crone" is IMO borderline; if someone's talking like a puritan maiden aunt, then it ought to be OK to point this out, but "crone" is a bit personal. I would have gone with "nasty old sow" or "lemon-sucking fishwife".
Finally, if Reynolds is going to talk smack about "embarrassing blogger cliques", then someone should remind him that he is a member of "Pajamas Media".
Look, the thing is, Ogged is being deliberately provocative by using language like that, irony tags or no irony tags. And some people are, then, provoked. It's not a surprise.
If you recall more or less my only comment on the Jessica Biel thread that if he wants to defend to the death his right to needle people in a sexist way, the price is 436 comments about feminism. It's just how it goes. Stop the fucking needling, the comments will go away.
As I remember, his response was that he liked the 436 comments. So you have to apportion blame a little differently, I think. Ogged may be involving you in some masochistic game you don't want to be in.
In my experience Ogged often taunts his readership. He has a policy of pissing people off to keep the discussion hopping. (So a 600-post feminist thread isn't really punishment for him.)
I asked him about this at the meetup, and I can't remember exactly what he said but it confirmed my conclusions about his blog philosophy. For me it was always the old-fashioned, ungendered left-right issues, where he would frequently take center-right positions which I found obnoxious. (Granted that Unfogged has always been more centrist than I am, but then, it's always toyed with feminist-baiting anti-PC too.)
If you had Ogged's readership, you'd taunt them, too.
Hey John and other R*** alumnae -- the president of your alma mater has written an op-ed in today's Times defending the SAT.
Has anyone else ever noticed how utterly incomprehensible these comment threads are if you start at the bottom and read up? (Which I am prone to do, being left-handed.) I mean, one expects any conversation to be somewhat difficult to follow in reverse, but these are really 90+% gibberish.
So the next time, maybe try jumping on Ogged, rather than the people responding in an entirely predictable way to his passive aggression, or, hey, outright aggression. That might, you know, actually work.
The problem is that when you start to realize that in significant ways people are actually not on your side, as I did for the first time in the gay thread, their jokes at your expense become less funny
I'm definitely sympathetic to this, but I'm uncomfortable, a bit, with the phrase "not on the same side," simply because I think the most effective way of bringing about change in attitudes (especially as regards isms, the use of language, and unexplored biases) is the gentle correction of friends by friends. Setting up two "sides" seems to work against that. Obviously, if someone takes offense, they should say so, and if someone gives offense, they should apologize; I think that kind of exchange ought to be possible.
To my mind, the annoying dynamic here goes like this:
A: "[something sexist]"
B: "Hey, A, that was sexist."
C: "No, it wasn't!"
So, if you're C, could you cut that out? Thanks.
Wow, awesome oblique Weiner-pwn by ac in 620.
And yes, I'm feeling Fletcher Christianish this morning.
next time, maybe try jumping on Ogged
Thot 'Po and FL were the preferred targets for jumping-upon. Because of the gargantuan size of their members and all.
I promise you all beautiful Tahitian women if you follow me. An island paradise!
Wait, you're relocating to Tahiti? --- this I missed. Congratulations!
621: Yeah, pretty much exactly. These 'arguing about sexism' go just the way mrh described. And the starting points (Jessica Biel's ass, Althouse's cronehood) generally don't bother me all that much. It's the resistance that comes after they're noted as problematic that bothers me.
I'm going to pull a desperately annoying and usually invalid move, comparing sexism to racism. Say we were talking about a white guy, innocently making racist jokes to a black friend in an honestly friendly manner, because WG genuinely believes that between them, they're past all that. And say the black guy says "You know, WG, it actually does kinda bother me when you say that shit." I don't think WG is a bad guy, or a racist, for having made the jokes in the first place. I think that if his response to BG is "Man, can't I have any fun? I see your point but I'm just going to keep on doing it -- you can't expect me to take all the joy out of life, jokes wouldn't be funny if they didn't have a little edge," he's an incredible jerk.
I don't expect, or want, perfect PC around here. But when people who you respect are bothered by something, the courteous response is to acknowledge their response and tone it down. Or, if you think they're wrong and it's important, to argue with them about why they shouldn't feel that way.
The response that comments about sexism get are generally not the first -- if they were, these threads wouldn't turn into five hundred comment threads. They are often the second -- an argument that the sexism has to be allowed to continue because it's more important than the feelings of the people who object. I find that latter argument really disturbing: there are other jokes and insults in the world -- why are the sexist ones so important?
I accept ac's offer of Tahitian women. No, that's not what she meant. Bad text.
I accept ac's offer to unite against ogged as the common enemy. With pizazz.
I don't expect, or want, perfect PC around here. But when people who you respect are bothered by something, the courteous response is to acknowledge their response and tone it down.
But what you said upthread wasn't "people who you respect" so much as "people who have a lot of presence in this community". The problem with your racism analogy, at least insofar as it applies to Unfogged, is that there are several WGs and BGs hashing this out and they don't necessarily agree and your 438 solution, that several prominent commenters hold the same view, strikes me as an appeal to majoritarianism.
"Or, if you think they're wrong and it's important, to argue with them about why they shouldn't feel that way."
I don't think this is ever well taken. In fact, isn't there now a quasi-policy of not-well-taking such arguments? That's ok, I've decided, so long as you don't get stingy with the pizazz.
627: In this scenario, something is taken away from WG: his belief that he can be close enough to his friend that they can be past that. Since he's wrong, it is a mark of friendship and respect to point this out to him. He's mistaken in feeling that, here, now, that's possible between him and his friend. That doesn't mean he won't feel the loss, and won't be hurt by the feeling he can't be the "beyond category" friend he thought he could be, that he won't be hurt on some level. What he might have hoped for is closed to him.
And if he sees other white guys, in other situations, appear to be able to get away with it, perhaps even by the very same BF?
Ogged may be involving you in some masochistic game you don't want to be in.
The ravening mob of vampiresses searched for prey. There were many candidates, but one seemed to beckon to them. He was swarthy, and attractively waifish, dressed in a studiedly casual fashion, that obviously suppressed an inner desire to be fancy. The vampiresses contemplated how they would dress him, in the end. They were sure it would involve a cravat, and in the end, he'd be on his knees thanking the Croats for the joys he had known. The young man, whose name was ogged, sensed their attention, as one of them, whose name was Tia, bent down to lace the last eyelet of her thigh high pleather boot.
"Young miss," he called to her, "Have I ever told you in how little esteem I hold your--" and here a sneer came into his voice--"high-heeled, feminine accoutrements. They're so unnatural. Why can't you be more like a man?"
The vampiresses felt their blood rise. "We'll show you unnatural acts the like of which you have never known!" shrieked another, whose name was LizardBreath.
"I'm quite sure even if you did," ogged replied, "you could not satisfy me the way Jessica Biel could. Your tongue is one third the length of hers."
"Jessica Biel would not have you, boy, and besides, my tongue is quite long; you'll never know just how," Tia said coolly.
"Girlfriend, what are you talking about," piped Jackmormon, "I have the longest tongue."
"Whatevs!" cried Tia, "Your tongue grew an extra inch because of the better nutrition you got in private school."
"Ladies," interjected a red headed, bare nippled man in the corner, "I think you can settle this by measuring them against each other."
Tia and Jackmormon considered this for a moment, until ogged, upset that he was losing the ladies' attention, cried out, "My freedom to say whatever I want is a much more important than your humorless feminist sensibilities."
The vampiresses turned back to their prey. His blood rushed as he saw the glint in their eyes. They wanted him now.
"I'll go first, because I am head vampire," announced Tia.
"Since when are you head vampire?" hissed Bitchphd. "I should go first."
"Do you know what he said to me?" asked Tia.
"Bitch, I was banned. Oh wait, that's my name."
"Frankly, B, I think your claim to be head vampire is really problematized by a support for a cryptomisogynistic agenda that scorns women who are simply using their own strengths. Maybe I should be head vampire," ac suggested.
"We'll never get out of the kitchen and into the dungeon that way," snorted LizardBreath.
"Mmm, catfight," thought a curly-haired young gentlemen in a smoking jacket and a pipe nursing his claret in the corner.
ogged began to dispair that he would ever know the delicious agony of the full force of the women's wrath. He had one last trick in his bag. "Rachel Wacholder is too fat, and so are you!"
Finally, the mob of women set upon him. Cries of "Misogynist dickhead!" and "male chauvinist pig!" filled the air as he suffered unspeakable agonies and ecstasies. But finally, he was exhausted.
He shouted his safeword. "I retire. Look over there."
"Ta," ogged cried as he extracted himself from the heap, slightly bruised. The women turned around. The bare nippled man, and the one in the smoking jacket began to look rather tasty....
I wanna be a vampire too! Tia, you rock.
I'm all in favor of shazam and pizzazz, and really I'd go all Gauguin on your asses, if only you'd let me.
To answer the easy one first:
230: The problem with those arguments is that they're predicated on 'you're wrong and it's important.' That I may be wrong to take offense at all isn't particularly worrisome -- a response of "Dude, it was ironic, I'm not getting why it annoyed you. But no big problem, I'll take it down a notch" would be fine. That it's important to protect the ability to say sexist stuff against criticism is worrisome.
I'm uncomfortable, a bit, with the phrase "not on the same side,"
Honestly, I am too. The reason I start whipping it out is in response to people, here apo, who are insistently saying there's no fundamental conflict, that it's all just kidding around, when no, not all of it is. It's basically what ac said about the fiction. When people start to actively not acknowledge that the fiction is fiction, it forces other people (us), to start pointing out how fictional the fiction is.
633 -- unfortunately you would only get to be a vampiress.
637 to 632 (clearly). To 634, I think I would.
Also: Tia is way talented and clever. I want to read short stories and novels by her.
629: I'm taking 'presence in the community' to mean something like 'respect'. That is, I think Tia, and ac, and mcmc, and I (to make a non-exhaustive list of people who objected to the 'crone' thing) are a reasonably sizable chunk of what makes this place work, as much as any other four people.
So if we're saying what comes to: 'this is unpleasant and embarrassing to be associated with, and kills some of my pleasure in hanging out here' (you know how much it sucks to think 'Insty has a point?), I think that deserves to be taken with some weight.
And yeah, Tia, you should be doing more writing. I'm in agreement with 641.
Is ogged being voted off the blog?
It's more that he's resuming his rightful place as Common Enemy.
It's okay, Tia, I can be like a magic sorceress who swoops in and knocks some heads!
A: Sexist comment.
B: Point out that there is a sexist comment.
C: Argue with B that the comment isn't really sexist.
B: Get mildly annoyed with C.
A: Points out that it's just too much fun not to be sexist.
text: cock joke & lovable incoherence.
SB: baby turtles! oh noes, a seagull!
A: Sexist comment.
B: Mild indignation.
C: Argue with B that there is no reason to be indignant.
A: Express total and complete bewilderment that anyone could be upset.
A: Post another sexist comment. Express bewilderment that the comment thread ends up looking like every other comment thread about sexism. Profess to be baffled why this happens.
A: Post another sexist comment.
B: VAMPIRES. ATTACK!
Walking into school this morning, I noticed a plaque listing which student had gotten some award (I didn't read the top of the plaque) each year. Ann Althouse is on it.
Snicker. How come when I talk about this stuff I turn into Madame Humorless and Sober, and Cala and Tia manage to be funny?
w/d went to school with AA?
Second folio addition:
insert after "they wanted him now":
But they were concerned that one among their number was using inappropriate methods.
"Cala," Tia suggested, "We're vampires. We don't use baseball bats. That's why we have teeth."
"But it's efficient!" Cala protested.
"Precisely the problem," said Tia. "You need to savor."
"I guess I see your point. But what if I used it gently?"
"I think that would be okay," Tia conceded.
AA went to school with me, I go to the school which AA went to.
648: It's because Cala and Tia are funny.
Care for some low-hanging fruit text? Oh yes, I would. Oh sweet low-hanging fruit!
I, of course, resort to bribes.
In what context? Y'mean where Tia has her teeth and Cala her bat, ac has promises of West Indianesses?
I asked the baby turtles, and they've also had it up to here* with the "but wouldn't it be interesting to suppose that you were wrong" style of feminist-baiting.
*The mustard is running up my nose, as they say in France.
West Indianesses
Clown, where do you think Tahiti is located?
Or any other kind of feminist-baiting.
My only excuse -- somehow I got "Barbados" lodged in my head from a different comments thread elsewhere.
What if the baby turtles are mistaken about their own subjective experience? Perhaps a mischevious seagull has led them astray, telling them that forks are actually called dinglehoppers and what not.
ac has the mighty Packing Tape, which can be employed both to restrain victims as well as handily covering their mouths.
Had Ogged called Althouse a fucking asshole, this thread would have hit, maybe, 200?
Or maybe 600 on the basis that calling her a fucking asshole gives anal sex a bad name?
Anyway, futile tho it be, I'll repeat my call for simply shunning Althouse: don't read her, don't link her, don't discuss her. She is, quite simply, stupid.
If anyone can point out (1) Althouse saying something worthy of attention that (2) hadn't already been said elsewhere, I will stand corrected.
Muwahahahahah.
What? It was just sitting there, waiting for me.
665 has got a problem with parallel construction. And 666 is just Satanic!
What if the baby turtles are mistaken about their own subjective experience?
We're not really talking about baby turtles.
You mean they grew up into mommy and daddy turtles?
I'm surprised 665 is in English, let alone constructed in the appropriate Euclidean axiomatic manner.
Muwahahahahah.
What? It was just sitting there, waiting for me.
Oops. Wasn't trying to steal the Mark of the Beast from you, Tia. You can be as Satanic as you wanna be.
Tho do recall that it's "the number of a man." Figures!
I still think something sad has been forced on WG in 627, and if BG's practice is inconsistent, then WG's resentment is understandable. I know that's the way it is, but still.
Huh -- I thought I'd posted an answer to your comment, but I don't see it. In any case, certainly it's reasonable for WG's feelings to be hurt, but it's not reasonable for him to resist BG's request that he tone it down on that basis. Once the request has been made, the relationship is revealed as not what WG thought it was, and clinging to his right to make racist jokes won't make it closer again.
On the inconsistency, I don't know what to say -- call BG on it if it's glaring, otherwise accept that nothing in life is fair.
Tia's vampire story was excellent.
I also keep reading "pizzaz" and "pizzas."
We're not really talking about baby turtles.
In fact, we're not really talking.
Pizzas are also good. Insufficient pizazz puts one on the hook for pizza. As with trolls.
You're right, we could hope that WG had the self-possession to express how his resentment is based on BG's apparent inconsistency:
"Didn't I see you laughing when WG' said X? That's why I thought you'd be ok with it."
But I restrained myself from scoffing at Jessica Biel's tongue!
There is a comment thread where people's personal ads got made fun of and someone talks about whisking Tia away to a mountaintop (in Wales, I believe) to drink claret. I can't find this thread by using both yahoo and google site-search with the search term "claret".
Remember when B used to call unfogged the frathaus?
I'm pretty sure someone else coined that term.
666: You misunderstand the systematic human need for group hatred: "No man is an island"*. Without sharing, humanity withers, as each is locked into his or her own tiny private hatred. Kotsko understands this, at least.
Althouse does a real bangup job job as a Durkheimian Other.
*Or woman, either, probably; though some sociobiologists say that women are occasionally islands.
Flame war, power struggle, hostile takeover, whatever. It's is like the joke about academia:"The battles are so vicious because the stakes are small." It is actually fun to watch intelligent adults play clique wars.
Quick:Everybody email each other.
ac has the mighty Packing Tape
She had it all along? Do you know how long I've been looking for that?
The problem with your 627, LB, is that I don't think there's much of an analogy between a couple of friends and people on a blog. Many of the people here have become real life friends, but the purpose of the site is not to be a friend-place. If y'all think I talk like this in real-life, you're insane. And if you think I want to explain what this kind of talk means, or what purpose it serves, well, you're wrong. I'm not sure what is means or does, and I think it would kill the fun to explain it even if I did know, but it seems important, and it seems important to enough other people that they participate, and it makes them happy.
Insofar as I've become friends with a lot of the people on this site, I do feel bad and I really do fret when people say they're hurt or bothered, but insofar as I think the blog shouldn't be a friend-place, but a say more-or-less what you want place, then I ignore their feelings and my feelings.
I'm not (well, mostly not) trying to "bait" anyone, I'm just trying to make sure (as Emerson was saying, jokingly, but not jokingly, in maybe even this thread) that the range of things that can be said is as wide as possible. When I start sensing that people want to proscribe certain views, then I push back--I think that's part of my job here. If we suddenly had an influx of offended African-Americans, you'd see a lot more racist humor.
Anyway, I think it's totally fair to say that if I'm going to be sexist (though I would dispute that I have been in most instances that I've been charged, but whatever), the "price" will be 500 comments of complaint. I think that's fine. Those threads annoy some people, but other people find them really valuable. But I don't think you should expect me or anyone else to finally come around and cut it out.
If we suddenly had an influx of offended African-Americans, you'd see a lot more racist humor.
Oh, that ought to go over well.
687 -- I've often thought to myself, I wish we could get Op/helia Ben/s/on over here.
If we suddenly had an influx of offended African-Americans, you'd see a lot more racist humor.
Mexican-African-American relations reach an historic lowpoint.
You know, I just want to make sure everyone knows that, at least speaking for myself, the problem is not just, or primarily, jokes. It is actual sincere misogyny that either dresses itself up as a joke, or just doesn't bother to.
So you admit you taunt. We're agreed. I just refuse to be responsible for fallout of that and accused of humorlessness, for reacting to being poked over and over again. It's annoying to be poked, people! Not fun! Don't criticize the poked person, criticize the poker!
Look, it's Gauguin's grandma.
Why does this kind of thing have to happen when I'm travelling and don't have internet access? Why, god, why?
Althouse deserves "old crone" because it's a sexist slur in *precisely the same* manner as her slagging of Jessica for--god fucking forbid--standing up straight. It's called irony. I'll go a step further than Ogged, even, and say that Althouse is a prudish fucking bitch biddy whose sententious assault on Jessica's titties in order to censure Clinton's sex drive makes me want to pee on her.
But why would you then strike all that out, having said it?
Fuck, forgot to close strike tag after "bitch." Anyone who wants to fix it for me gets a tit shot, gratis.
B, also for the record, the only person who didn't understand the irony was SCMT. We disagreed that it was appropriately employed.
(Is "696" an oral sex threesome consisting of a man and a woman going down on one another while the second man lies with his back turned to them and no attention paid to his privates?)
What do you assume the sixes are men? Sexist.
I prefer to think of myself as a gendrist.
I remember first encountering "69" in the form of a note that was passed to me in third or fourth grade, and everyone around crackign up. Then someone snagged the note and added a digit to form "696" which was more hilarious yet. Thinking that the hilarity derived from manipulating this string of numbers according to an as-yet-unrevealed rule—and happy enough to find this hilarious if other people did and wanted to pass me notes!—I added a 3. Which was greeted with total silence. Frankly, I got off easy.
I'm perfectly satisfied with bitch, B. Why cross it out? Because you don't want to be in the same boat with Althouse?
695: Fair enough. I posted after reading the first 70 comments. I'm now up to about 350, and not at all sure I'm going to read the rest of the thread.
I've changed my mind. Crone and biddy are fine, as long as you don't call her a slut or a bimbo.
Thinking that the hilarity derived from manipulating this string of numbers according to an as-yet-unrevealed rule
Oh, 'Smasher.
703- It mostly became an examination of why these sexism threads all take the same pattern. It almost doesn't matter how far apart you are on the initial post, it diverges because of a repeated dynamic.
Ac, you forget about the boar semen.
703: I strongly suspected that, B. I'm trying to think of a non accusatory sounding way to say this; I hope I'm succeeding.
It's kind of problematic to wade into a thread both without reading and without announcing that you're not reading so that everyone knows how big of a grain of salt to take things with. I don't like it personally, because it contributes to that "not being heard" thing I've been talking about. But it's also problematic because a lot of people who were actually in this conversation brought a lot of interesting arguments to bear (I don't know if you got to the sambo part), and if you, who has a feminist project both in your life and, avowedly for this blog, are going to jump in against your usual allies it would be better to first understand what they're saying. If you disagree, obvs. that's you're perogative, but it would be good to listen first. Also, since some people, including me, said on the thread that they don't really like the kind of rhetoric you just used even when employed by women, and try not to do it themselves, it would be good if you listened to that too before jumping in saying you want to piss on a woman.
710: Isn't that another way of saying, "Don't comment unless you've read the whole thread"?
But it fits in nicely with 710 as well --
"...Saying you want to piss on a woman."
"Well, yes, that too."
713 -- Tia specifically says "without announcing that you're not reading" -- so seems like you're free to comment without reading and retain Tia's approval as long as you say what you're doing.
And also: don't cross the girls' club? Comments like Tia's and LB's upthread are melting my brain, not because blocs exist among the Unfoggetariot, but because they're being cited as reasons for questioning or quashing sentiments that are not only reasonable but developed through totally acceptable practices (i.e., reading the post but not every comment).
Although, the second half of Tia's paragraph actually seems to presuppose knowledge of what was on the thread, so I'm confused again.
Okay, I'm at about 440+ now and suspect I get the jist.
Where I come down on this is that my feminist project isn't about putting sexist shit-giving in the untouchable category. I *like* giving people shit. This blog is largely *about* giving people shit, and that's a particularly guy kind of way to interact, and I like that about men. Teasing is a good way of bonding, and naming taboos is a good way of taking the piss out of them. I mean, for fuck's sake, my pseudonym is "bitch." Mockery is a very effective way of making offensive nonsense impotent.
And yes, there's a difference between mocking within an in group and mocking people who aren't in that group and then claiming that you're doing so in the name of good humor. On this blog, anti-semitic shit-giving is fine; anti-black slurs would be less so. There are a lot of women here; I think that a bit of feminist-baiting is all in good humor, and if we were to declare feminist-baiting completely out of bounds I'd feel like I was being treated with kid gloves, and the whole "let's not say that with a lady present" thing is more offensive, to me, than any of the kind of sexism that shows up here.
Which is to say, god knows, I am on record here for bitching about sexism when it crosses that line. I don't think "old crone" crossed that line AT ALL, I thought it was in fact a very good tweak of the Althouse post, and for fuck's sake, I thought that Ogged' posting this and defending Jessica's stature in that photo was a GOOD thing that actually pretty much directly addresses the whole "stop posting the hot or not threads so often, you jerk" complaint.
If some people disagree, that's fine by me. I'm not here as part of some official club of feminist reformers, and I'm not really all that thrilled with being told that I'm supposed to stand in support of some alliance that I'm not aware I've signed on to. I'm gonna be an unhappy pup if this blog goes the way of other feminist boards I've been on and falls apart because it breaks up into some kind of "us" v. "them" dynamic among the regulars. When I think something obnoxious, I say so; when I don't think it is, I say so. I don't always read 600+ comment threads all the way through, especially when I'm on the road, and I'm well aware that other people don't always read long threads either. I like conversation and I like argument, but arguments that fall into the same patterns over and over again get boring real fast.
All right, I didn't actually manage to get a reaction with my 705 (darn you, calm and thoughtful Tia!), I'll note for the record that I'm aware that skank would not be an appropriate word to use in responding to a woman's arguments.
Also--I've read the whole damn thread. So I totally beat B.
B sometimes says that she has something she wants to accomplish here, a project. If she wants to accomplish it, it would be a good idea to handle some things differently.
Also, I reserve the right to pee on whoever I want to pee on.
but arguments that fall into the same patterns over and over again get boring real fast
Taking a tip from an old joke, next time this argument pattern arises, someone should just say "crone!" and automatically this thread is deemed incorporated, and then everyone can move on. [/utopia]
Right, B, disagreement, fine, but maybe listening would be helpful.
721 could be read, by less generous souls than I, as either a touch passive-aggressive or a touch threatening, in the protection-racket "you've said you want your business to succeed—and I'd sure hate to see it founder…" way.
I was thinking of doing that by saying, "needle!"
but maybe listening would be helpful
See, this is what sounds to me, again, like, "Don't comment unless you've read the entire thread," which is not a rule I'm willing to abide by.
But I'm just one man. Who has to run to a meeting, damn.
727: By insane people. The project I'm referring to is raising feminist consciousness.
Okay, argggh, I'm off the board for a bit. I don't want to ghettoize any conversation, but I resent the notion of a de facto governing board overseeing certain threads, for reasons I've stated and B put in much better terms. Sorry, Tia, but I feel like I didn't sign up for this, you know?
But there's another bloc to be broken up here as well, which is the boys' club thing, always assuming that every reaction to sexism is oversensitivity. When there are certain rhetorical things going on designed to produce a given reaction. Which b, in other moods, would surely notice and comment on herself. I disagree plenty with the other women here, it's just that most of them recognize Cala's 646.
721: Excuse me? According to whom? I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I want to do and how to do it, thanks very much.
726: Whatever. I read most of the thread, I don't agree that not reading everything someone writes = not listening to them. Unless you're saying that a requirement for reading Unfogged nowadays is that no one is allowed to go on vacation or step away from the internet for a few days. I get the importance of listening, but you'll allow me to point out that I was not engaging with anyone's argument specifically, precisely BECAUSE I hadn't read the whole thread. So if you choose to interpret my general comment about liking "old crone" because I found it appropriately ironic as disagreement with *you* specifically, that's your problem.
1.) I have not read every comment in this thread carefully, and skimming has left me very confused. It seems that people are saying that I had some sort of disagreement with WG. Perhaps they were referring to someone else. If that's the case, please stop referring to that person as BG. I am BG.
2.) I agree with apo in 485.
3.) 473 (tia) and 481 (m. leblanc): Am I not allowed to use teh word "nasty" to describe a woman? Because, if that's the case, there's been a serious impoverishment of the language. You all (the blog as a whole, apostropher and LizardBreath--and I actually thought that it was offensive when LB used the word) go around calling people crazy all the time, and neither Alameida or I have said that this reflects anti-mentally-ill-ism. Alameida has embraced the term. Not acknowledging the word crazy just means that people cover up their true beliefs. Also humor can be a powerful force for social change. Ahem.
4.) 473: if I say that someone is nasty and old, I am generally thinking of their personality, not their looks. We are always talkign about the old people who complain about the kids on their lawn, and we mock them for being stick-in-the muds. I think that Becks complained that she was getting old, because she actually asked some kids to get off of her lawn. Is Becks criticizing her own looks when she does this? No, she's talking about a particulart set of personality traits which tend to become more pronounced as we age. I guess that this is ageism. Am I only allowed to complain about men who yell at the kids and not about women? Please.
5.) 481: m. leblanc, if you'd ever read any of my comments, you'd note that I have never made the precise argument that you make. I made no equivalence between calling a woman ugly and a man fat or saying that he has no money. I only said that I use nasty in an ungendered way to describe a person's personality, and not his or her looks.
Frankly, I find your comment kind of insulting, and I feel condescended to.
6.) Finally, a general comment. I did not pipe up in some of the sexism threads before, even though I disagreed with much of the consensus. I did not feel like being told that I was just a tool of the patriarchy using its norms to oppress other women and advance my own success. I mean, I'm not a member of Concerned Women for America or anything.
I think that this is teh sort of thing people are describing when they say that PC language can have a chilling effect on substantive dialogue. I really don't want to be associated with the right wing, and I think that a lot of their criticisms of PC strictures are over-the-top and misplaced, but I do want to say that my disagreement is not an example of false consciousness. Claims of false consciousness attack my ability to think and reason as an adult, and I find that profoundly anti-feminist.
I don't think there's a maxim that comment threads must be perused carefully, just if you haven't done so, take care when responding to people so you don't misrepresent their views (this should not be construed as a shot at B) and spawn another 400+ posts that won't be read either.
How am I acting as a governing board? I don't have any rule-making power. I'm expressing an opinion on ways to act that would, in the specific case of B, maybe further what she says sometimes, explicitly, that she wants to get done (though she is free to disagree about the best way to do it), and in general, just be considerate, in my very humble and individual opinion. If you can't read the thread, people generally say, "I can't read the whole thread," but for a specific kind of thread and a specific kind of comment it seems to me especially inconsiderate to drop in and drop a certain kind of bomb, as I think saying you want to pee on AA is, without considering what has come before. It's rather, well, contextual. "I think this is inconsiderate and ill-considered, and it would be a good idea to do otherwise," is the sum total of my point.
736: Yeah, what Cala said. If you're going to drop in and not read the thread, "[It would be a good idea to in my opinion and this should not be construed as the rule of all Unfogged] Be careful."
Well, perhaps my not having read the last third of this comment thread means I missed something vitally important, but it seems to me that there are a lot of guys here who disagree with, say, Ogged, about X or Y arguably sexist comment on a pretty regular basis, and that there wasn't any boys v. girls consensus in this thread about "old crone" reading one way or another in the 400+ comments I read.
Anyway, I'm repeating myself now and I'm on a strange computer so I'm not likely to spend the rest of the day here hashing this out anyway.
I was addressing smasher's notion of a girls' club, which obviously doesn't exist. You're right, it doesn't break down so easily, but it's often women complaining about sexism. I don't think it's so strange to slightly oversimplify that way.
736 is exactly right. Which is why I'll once again point out that I wasn't engaging a specific person; I was commenting generally on the *gist* of the discussion and the post itself. I didn't misrepresent anyone's views, because I didn't *claim* to be representing anyone's views except my own.
My father used to always say that one should never go out at night because there is only evil and meanness outside in the nighttime. (Goodness and decency are at home in bed sleeping, I think.) He didn't mean it to be literally true, but more as a prophylactic rule -- there's a lot of trouble to be found if you're out and about in the middle of the night, and comparatively few virtuous activities in which to engage. While I think he's completely wrong about this, I do think a similar statement can be made about blog comments, one that has the additional virtue of being more or less correct: there's no reason a comment thread need stretch beyond 250 or so comments. After that, insights become fewer and further between and nastiness and irritation become more of the norm. Or, even when all is convivial, the comments just tend to swing around the same circles in endless loops, with little to no real progress. Plus, they just take too damn long to read.
I've made substantially this same comment previously, but I'm going to keep making it until someone acknowledges the brilliance of automatically capping threads at 250.
Whom are you quoting in 738, Tia?
I'm perfectly fine with everyone expressing their own opinion; what I was objecting to was the fact that these things always follow the same pattern, and I identified one factor, which ogged more or less confessed to.
a prophylactic rule
heh heh
Alright, I kind of give up. I tried real hard to moderate my tone, and didn't do well enough. For clarity, though I have said this before, I sometimes forget to say IMO before every sentence, and if we're going to talk about charity, it is uncharitable to assume I am attributing anything that comes out of my mouth to anyone else, or presuming that I think I have the power to control anyone else's behavior. No one understands better than I do that I don't. B, maybe I was attributing a sense of alliance against sexism, which LB has said she feels, to you, when you don't feel it. You do sometimes say that you want to raise feminist consciousness at Unfogged. My point was certainly not that we all agree on everything all the time; obviously we don't, but that there might be contexts where more careful consideration of what has preceded an entry into the conversation might be in order. I didn't interpret anything you said as addressing me specifically, I just thought it was inconsiderate, since it was yet another 700 comment thread about feminism, in this context, not to consider carefully what had come before.
742: I disagree. For one thing, I think some of the more recent comments have hit on what was subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) irritating about the anti-"crone" proscriptiveness much more concisely than anything in the first 250 comments did.
Secondly, if we capped the thread at 250, that enormously valuable digression about boar semen would never have happened, and the world would be objectively a poorer place for it.
It's not my notion of a girls' club. I only recognized it as such after LB's 438, in which she suggested that "Tia, and M. Leblanc, and ac, and mcmc, and any other women who've spoken up on it are, while certainly not the whole of this place, [are] a big piece of it" in which she was discussing veto power and community standards. There might be an equivalent boys' bloc—at least, there was back in the frathaus days, and had I actually been a vested reader at the time I'd've probably quit entirely when B was banned, which was the enforcement of a certain set of community standards that are now disfavored.
And see, all this nonsense is causing me to ignore 702. I crossed out bitch because that's *my* word, goddamnit, and I ain't sharing it with the likes of Althouse. Not b/c I don't want to be in her boat, but b/c I'm not letting her in mine.
721, for the record, misrepresents something I've said privately to Tia about feeling that *part* of the role I play here is to represent a sort of feminist consciousness. I'm not all that nuts about having private conversations broadcast in public in ways that seem to imply hypocrisy, by the way. But more to the point, I don't want anyone reading that and thinking I've got some kind of vagenda. Other than the obvious vagenda I've been grinding all along, that is.
742 -- your rule is easily refuted by pointing out the existence of threads like "Innocence" and "This Should be Fun".
I'm sorry, B, I don't mean to misrepresent anything you've said privately; it was my impression, perhaps mistaken, that you were comfortable with publically being known as someone who gave people shit about sexism at Unfogged, and it was part of your identity here. But it was not my intention to repeat any part of a private conversation, and I apologize.
I am feeling unloved, but here's my important question: will you all agree not to use "BG" to refer to anyone but me?
Boar semen is unavoidable. It's one of life's great inevitabilities. If it hadn't come out now it would have come out later, is all I'm saying. Same thing with innocence and vagendas and all the rest.
753 -- What about the Brothers Gibb?
I will never use "BG" to refer to anyone other than Bostoniangirl.
753: I think I was doing that, to oppose BG as "Black Guy" in LB's hypothetical, where she had referred to "white guy," WG to stand for that, and "black guy." I see where it was disconcerting to you, but I wasn't thinking of you in context at all.
Bostoniangirl, "BG" in this thread stood for "Black Guy," from an analogy that LB used.
maybe I was attributing a sense of alliance against sexism, which LB has said she feels, to you, when you don't feel it.
I think my sense of feminist solidarity is pretty clear.
You do sometimes say that you want to raise feminist consciousness at Unfogged.
Sure, but that's not all I want to do, and I don't think that there's only one kind of feminism.
My point was certainly not that we all agree on everything all the time; obviously we don't, but that there might be contexts where more careful consideration of what has preceded an entry into the conversation might be in order.
There might be. On the other hand, I have a real problem with being told--or having anyone told--that their tone or method of being a feminist in the world should be more "careful," or that they should use a different approach in order to be more effective. I don't like it when the boys say that, and I don't like it when the girls say that. I don't care whose opinion it is. Those who dislike my tone are free to do so; they aren't, imho, free to tell me to change it in order to please them.
All BG's look the same to me. I don't know how anyone can tell them all apart.
735: Sorry, bg -- I made a racial analogy with the characters Black Guy ("BG") and White Guy ("WG"). I didn't think of you. (Every so often I'll see someone refer to Lindsey Beyerstein as 'LB', and it confuses me.)
Bitch -- I dunno, I'm still hung up on the problem of framing the issues as 'Evil old woman jealous of the pretty young thing,' and I think saying 'crone' does that. First, I think it's generally a problem (see mcmc's 394, which sums it up) and second I don't think it accurately describes Althouse's thinking, which was more Clinton than Jessica directed. It's not that I think Althouse deserves better -- she deserves worse. I just didn't like that insult.
And 'Smasher and anyone else thinking the same thing, I'm really sorry I wrote 438. I'm not trying to claim veto power, or to be the voice of women or anyone else at Unfogged. It's just embarrassing being here sometimes -- having to have Instapundit link here with a comment about what sexist assholes we are, and not being able to disagree with him... I was thinking of 438 as an appeal to the idea that if enough people who are cared about are unhappy, their happiness is a reasonable thing for other people to consider. But I recognize that it didn't come off that way.
I dunno, maybe if I spend too much time wincing about shit people say here, I should leave rather than asking them to stop it as a favor to me. (I'm nowhere near leaving, and I'm not considering the idea in any near term way at all.)
It's annoying, in any case. I know when that other person appropriated my initials I was all, hey, I'm the real ac (slim shady). Even that "aa" person bugged me.
565: "Why do All the Black Kids Sit Together at the Cafeteria" is actually a really good book, for the record.
I keep coming in late in this thread. 762 to 757.
Even that "aa" person bugged me.
You mean the nasty old crone under discussion?
No, there was someone who commented as "aa." None of y'all probably noticed.
759: Okay, B, I didn't like it and I thought, in this context, it was inconsiderate and unconstructive.
(To me, this pretty much implies, "In my opinion, you should do otherwise," but I see that people don't like hearing it.)
752: Fair enough, and I apologize for taking such a high-handed tone my own damn self. I just wanted to clarify.
761: I'm still hung up on the problem of framing the issues as 'Evil old woman jealous of the pretty young thing,' and I think saying 'crone' does that.
See, I think that that frame *would* be problematic, if Ogged had done it seriously; but it was very clear to me in the post that he was doing so *in order to* draw attention to how obnoxious it would be to do so, and by extension how fucking obnoxious it was of Althouse to frame Jessica as a sexbot sellout. The point is that attacking a woman's sexuality in order to discredit her is fucking sexist as hell, and I think that demonstrating that is way more effective than simply saying it. In this case. And with this presumed audience.
The second paragraph of 768 sounds like what I was saying with my "proposed rule" and "exception" talk way up above, except better argued for why it might be an exception. 692, while it could potentially have worked in the same way as the original post was intended to if it (692) had been a post on B's blog, is problematic in the context of this thread.
767: Fair enough. (FWIW, I don't want to extend this argument *at all*, but I think the difference between I-messages and you-messages, in pop psych terms, is that the former clearly implies a recognition of subjectivity, whereas the latter effectively functions as a lecture, and is therefore hard to carry off without sounding condescending.)
See, I think that that frame *would* be problematic, if Ogged had done it seriously; but it was very clear to me in the post that he was doing so *in order to* draw attention to how obnoxious it would be to do so, and by extension how fucking obnoxious it was of Althouse to frame Jessica as a sexbot sellout.
Yeah. Maybe I was just having a humorless moment, or I've got more internalized misogyny going on than some of the rest of you. My initial internal reaction to Althouse's post was a completely non-ironic 'evil old cow', which I edited before saying anything about it. In light of my reaction, Ogged's post looked to me like kidding-on-the-square: 'I'm saying it ironically because you can't say stuff like this straight, but I kind of mean it straight.' But of course I could be wrong.
The sitting/squatting discussion is way more interesting. I say just grab a wad of toilet paper and wipe the pee off the seat--you shouldn't have to clean up after someone else's pee, but doing so is good karma because it solves the problem for yourself and everyone else.
Maybe I'll start a campaign to teach women how to lift the seat and pee standing up, same as the boys, and just solve the whole fucking problem.
I still think the position of the speaker is essential. B and I may disagree on the position of the speaker in this case.
Wiping the seat is what I do. Perhaps a required sign saying "Urine is sterile -- getting a drop on you won't kill you"?
771: I saw it as a sincere attempt to demonstrate a recognition of the feminist issue at stake, coupled with a sincere attempt to give us, the resident humorless feminists, shit.
Maybe I'll start a campaign to teach women how to lift the seat and pee standing up, same as the boys, and just solve the whole fucking problem.
You will have my eternal gratitude.
All women should lift the seat cover and pee, same as the boys. Any woman who chooses to do otherwise is betraying feminism and indirectly supporting the patriarchy. Wiping piss from the seat presents an image of women as domestic servants, with a strong subtheme of sexual degradation. [/Hirschman]
I meant to say earlier, I didn't mean to suggest to Tim that he had irritated me (although 431 was in response to him); it was more a cumulative thing.
I never even get pee on the seat and I don't have the most ruly urine stream in the world. I don't know quite how other people are managing to spatter so much.
769: Funny you should say that. In fact, 692 did turn into a post on my blog.
I also didn't really mean to bring up Tim in the middle of a discussion of pee.
In light of my reaction, Ogged's post looked to me like kidding-on-the-square: 'I'm saying it ironically because you can't say stuff like this straight, but I kind of mean it straight.' But of course I could be wrong.
That's how it looked and still looks to me. A whole hell of a lot of work is supposed to be done here by the idea that ogged couldn't possibly mean it straight at all, because he isn't a misogynist, so he must have meant it purely as a corrective. But ogged has never done anything that would give him remotely enough feminist cred to pull that off, so I do think he kind of means it. (I certainly don't think I have enough feminist cred to pull it off either.)
The relative sterility of urine compared to saliva is one of those taboo subjects you don't hear about much. The Man wants you to keep on risking your lives kissing one another, while needlessly wiping toilet seats and squatting.
772: "the seat" s/b "Ann Althouse"
A whole hell of a lot of work is supposed to be done here by the idea that ogged couldn't possibly mean it straight at all
I tried to address that briefly in 404.
786- did you mean "grab a wad of toilet paper and wipe the pee off Ann Althouse" or "a campaign to teach women how to lift Ann Althouse and pee standing up, same as the boys"?
I confess that neither makes much sense to me, but maybe that's because I'm a humorless feminist.
787: But not successfully, because it's not the structural equivalent to the ugly motherfucker thing. Calling the old woman "crone" who called the young woman "chippie" is the logical next move, the other side of the same coin, in a way that saying "don't criticize people for their looks, you ugly motherfucker" is not.
A whole hell of a lot of work is supposed to be done here by the idea that ogged [didn't] mean it straight in the context of a post criticizing someone for their anti-feminist and just plain malicious post(s), because it would indicate a total lack of reflection on one's own rhetoric before posting.
788: The first, in reference to B's earlier statement that "Althouse is a prudish fucking bitch biddy whose sententious assault on Jessica's titties in order to censure Clinton's sex drive makes me want to pee on her."
789: Well, yes. As I said above, I may just be confessing to more internalized misogyny than anyone else here, but 'evil old cow' was my instant, non-ironic reaction. It's not incoherent to call an older woman a crone because she called a young woman a whore in the same way 'don't call him ugly you hideous motherfucker' would be -- it's the natural sexist next step in defending the young woman.
Oh forget it. I wouldn't pee on Althouse if she was on fire.
I'd pee on all of you, though, if you were on fire.
Even if one thinks that ogged's concern in writing the post is only with the malice and not at all with the misogyny, it still follows that if ogged thought AA was doing something wrong by criticizing Jessica for her posing full stop, and not just doing something wrong by incorrectly criticizing Jessica for her posing, ogged's calling her "old nasty crone" (by the by, where's the article in that clause?) would be structurally the same as AA's attack, and is either ironic or totally unreflective.
Except for Apo, because I don't want him to set himself on fire just to get me to pee on him.
793: That's the sweetest thing I've ever read on Unfogged.
794: No, it *could* be kidding-on-the-square. I'm not really that interested in these questions of intent, anyway, but there's a third option.
Bitch, there's a question about mouse orgasms on Tia's thread up above. You might need to consult PK.
795: No worries, amiga. While you may be a strong and talented woman, I doubt your aim is good enough to extinguish me from clear across the continent, so I'll not be lighting myself.
I never even get pee on the seat and I don't have the most ruly urine stream in the world. I don't know quite how other people are managing to spatter so much.
Is it b/c women are squatting above the seat and thus peeing in unexpected directions? Are squatters creating the very problem they fear?
Just curious if that's even a plausible possibility given y'all's urological anatomy. All I know about girls peeing is that you shouldn't pee on Althouse, b/c god knows, she might enjoy it.
(God knows, she invites getting shit on just about weekly, in a blogospheric kinda way .... Not stupid, just a particularly arcane kind of pervert?)
800: Well, I'll be in your neckish of the woods around Xmas time for the MLA, and have sort of considered driving down, actually. So, you know, maybe we can make it a festive occasion.
But ogged has never done anything that would give him remotely enough feminist cred
This is a bit overstated, but I forgive you. Pee?
If the next unfogged orgy is now going just to be people peeing all over each other I will be sorely disappointed.
804: God knows, she invites getting...
Agh! You just had to take it there.
795: Actually, I like to think I reserve the right to pee on Apo.
All the while laughing "Ha ha! Who's the humorless feminist now, eh?"
"Are squatters creating the very problem they fear?"
It's a classic slippery slope issue.
809: The best bit is trying to figure out the right answer for Apo to give. "You are" seems like a problem, but then again so does "I am."
I think it's a tragedy of the commons, myself.
721/731 - Tia, you may not have intended your comment to be interpreted as w-lfs-n and Bitch - and I, ftm - note it could be, but the phrase '[i]f she wants to accomplish it, it would be a good idea to handle some things differently' has a decidedly different connotation from, say, '[i]f she wants to accomplish it, it might be a more productive to handle some things differently'. The former construction is frequently used to threaten: 'If you want to live, it would be a good idea not to cross X'; 'if you want a raise, it would be a good idea to be "nice" to me'. The latter suggests an alternate viewpoint, without a connotation of superiority ['my idea is better than hers'] or the taint of intimidation.
So, no, offering that one interpretation was that of a tossed gauntlet, a threat, an ultimatum, is not insane. It would be wrong, if the subtext we saw was neither intended nor a reflection of your feelings on the matter.
What I disliked about the word "crone" used as a description of Althouse has more to do with ageism than sexism, tbh. We old broads aren't dried up prunes with pursed lips and Grundyesque views, nor are our [male] partners curmudgeons who go on about the immorality of today's youth, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. [And frightening as it may be to the young'uns, many of us ancients even have hot monkey sex, care about social issues and worry about global warming. And have sex. What we do not care about is what Britney Spears names her K-spawn and whether Nicole Richie ever eats again.]
I can easily imagine the same excoriation of Jessica coming out of the mouth of, say, Christine O'Donnell, who seems to be within a few years of Valenti's age. I cannot imagine it coming out of the mouth of Gloria Steinem, who is older than Althouse. It's not about the age or gender of Althouse; it's about how Althouse, a soi-disant "feminist", uses vituperations against another woman to vent her anger against Clinton. This is more than hypocritical, given her "defence" of Katherine Harris who repeatedly sits for the camera in that arched-back, breasts-thrust-forward pose Althouse accuses Jessica of using. Althouse is a sexist and a traitor to her gender, for all her 'I are more feminist than you' ranting, and should be taken down without dishonouring the worthy elder women of the tribe.
And B's desire to pee on her - well, I don't indulge in watersports, but I can understand the sentiment.
[And yes, I've read all the comments up to when I started writing this, which was somewhere about the time it was suggested that somebody pee on Apo, which is all right if golden showers turn him on, but I fail to see the political statement therein.]
[An aside: I fear for my work product when my effing ankle finally heals and I can do something other than while my time way reading cock jokes and looking at PZ's cephaloporn.]
sort of considered driving down, actually
Oooh! Please do. We'll pull something special from the cellar.
Oops, that was me. But Roberta agrees.
816: DE, since I share all B's goals in this respect, and am speaking in the context of our cooperative effort, in a larger sense, and only disagree about the methods to reach the goals, I am necessarily not threatening her; what could I be threatening her with? The prospect of a sexist world? Since that already exists, it's not an effective threat. I understand the objection to the wording and whatever parallelism there is to the language of threat, but just because it is possible to see something some way, or that it would be a good idea for me to phrase it differently (I don't have any problem using this language to apply to myself) does not mean that it is, well, charitable in context, or for that matter, makes any sense.
809: I concede the wifely prerogative.
820: Now, now, ladies. There's enough of me for everybody to pee on.
Bribed with booze. Tempting! We'll see if we can swing it. The MLA is always at *the* most awkward time of year.
819: I dunno, Tia, you're pretty scary.
For a parallel, just to make this excruciatingly clear:
Two people are lost in the woods. One points and says, "I think that way's north." The other says, "It would be a good idea to use the compass."
Perhaps the second will piss the first off less if she says, "It might be more productive if you used the compass," but it is not readable as threat because they both share the same goals and will each be similarly fucked over if they don't reach them.
824: I know, B, and you haven't even met me yet.
I'm keeping a special place dry for you, text.
I'll make sure not to drink too much water, so it's extra concentrated.
Apo has the courage of many men; that 100 women could not satiate him.
We'll pull something special from the cellar.
The gimp?
So do we now all at least agree that Insty is a nasty, nasty little pig?
Have any of you ever tried the Rockstar energy drink, specifically in whatever flavor comes in the orange can? In addition to tasting like carbonated Hawaiian punch, it turns your pee bright green. Disconcerting.
492: And Michael
How is that possible? I've met him. He's Harry Potter's age.
For teh record, I think my first comment, after a little while of reading Unfogged, preceded Ben's first by a few days, and followed Apos by a good bit.
yeah, i'll probably finish this thread by next week
819/825
Tia - Your attempt at an anology doesn't hold up; it lacks both a similar context and the subtleties inherent in discussions of strategies and tactics.
As for having the same goal: Anyone who has read various "feminist" blogs has to be aware that My-Brand-of-Feminism-is-Better-than-Yours is far too pervasive. The recent blow-job wars were an exemplar of that hierarchical jousting for dominance. I, for one, am becoming increasingly cynical about the what I perceive as the adoption of the pissing contest as a model to "debate" philosophical differences among the branches of feminist thought; it just strikes me as all too, well, patriarchal. Wear heels? You aren't a feminist! [We wear Doc Martens, we're better at rejecting the patriarchy than you.] Pose with BC? You aren't a feminist! [We keep accusing him of rape because we all know that no young woman can have consensual sex with an older man.] Decline to suck at the teat of Catherine MacKinnon? You aren't a feminist! [You're probably a man and a baby-raper!] Then we have the list of approved sex acts - oh, sorry, you have sex with a man???...
I have too often seen feminists turn on each other to be completely sanguine about language that could be construed as "if you know what's good for you". Neither Ben nor B nor I are paranoid idiots, nor unaware of your feminist beliefs - yet all three of us noted something a tad off about your statement.
Whether language that could be perceived as threatening has any actual oomph behind it is another question entirely. Have you "power" over Dr. B? Only insofar as you're on the mast head, which might give some passing readers the idea that your words are more valid/ important/worthwhile than hers, and that you apparently have more time to post. Were you to decide to, you could certainly devote your time to relentless criticism of her every post - not that I am suggesting you would, or that other people who comment here wouldn't immediately start typing "Baby turtles!!!"
This isn't meant to be a dump-on-Tia post; frankly, I wouldn't have said anything earlier had it not been for the "by insane people" comment to w-lfs-n. Considering that you were questioning B's particular use of language/process of thought, do you not find it inappropriate to suggest that anyone who questioned yours was mad?
837: I was peeing pure concentrated right-wing rage! No wonder.
Well, I suspect this-all has driven off the trolls nicely.
The trolls weren't so bad this time.
DE, if you'll look over my comments, you'll see that I adjusted my language several times, eplicitly acknowledging that I was trying to do so. I haven't even defended the statement as not "off." I'm only defending it as not "threat." I actually don't know that B thinks it was threatening; rather presumptuous. The specific thing I was responding to when I said "insane" did not say I was being "presumptuous"; it said it could reasonably taken as something parallel to a mobster shakedown, which implies an intention to hurt the other person one way or another--that I could be functioning in a similar way. Looking back at the original comment, it said "either passive-aggressive or threatening"; I should have clarified that only the threat part doesn't make sense. Since the context includes my relationship to B and everything that has ever happened on the blog, as well as feminism, I maintain it doesn't. I still don't understand how or what I would be threatening her with. I guess, as I type this, I realize I'd be meant to be saying, "If you know what's good for you, or otherwise you'll be one of those chippies with false consciousness?" and the threat is that outcome? Or of excluding her from the ranks?
I was actually considering the "on the masthead" thing; I think one reason LB and I may be being taken as more prescriptive than we intend is that we think of ourselves still as commenters but other people invest us with authority we do not feel ourselves to have. I've barely been posting and would rather prefer being thought of as a commenter, actually, or perhaps just not being around here at all.
That last bit not meant to be mopily passive aggressive; I was making an effort to spend less time round these parts long before this recent round of feminist arguments--only to illustrate how little authority over the blog I have or want. I only want the authority of my words and judgments; if that makes sense.
That last bit not meant to be mopily passive aggressive; I was making an effort to spend less time round these parts long before this recent round of feminist arguments--only to illustrate how little authority over the blog I have or want. I only want the authority of my words and judgments; if that makes sense.
I want a pair of Doc Martens, but they are pricey. But not to be a better feminist, just to better stomp the seagulls as they swoop! to attack the baby turtles.
That's our Cala, always looking out for the baby turtles.
And also because I need shoes that won't be destroyed after one season. Are shoes not made to walk in?
Shoes are made for you to stand there and look pretty in, dear.
846: Do you know what happens when one shreds one's Achilles tendon? Aside from the lovely scar up the back of one's ankle [I'm seriously considering a vine tattoo to cover it]? One's surgeon, who cannot be more than, oh, fifteen years old, says "No more high heels, Princess". [Yes, he calls me Princess; after all, he usually is kneeling at my feet. I call him Robbie or Doogie, depending on my mood. And we hug.] He has suggested Doc Marten's. Also Taryn Rose. And you thought Doc M's were expensive.
Tia - The comment to which I was responding simply read: By insane people. The project I'm referring to is raising feminist consciousness. It didn't articulate that you were referring only to a particular aspect of Ben's observation - and, when you continued with "[b]e careful" in a later comment, that only emphasised the possibility of the "threat" meaning. [Not, of course, in the "there'll be a horsehead on your pillow" kind of way, but in the "I will pixel you till you cry 'Baby turtles!' if you get on my bad side" kind of way.]
As I said before, it seems to me that when one is criticising the expressions of another, one is obligated to take care with one's own. I think that notion was what underlay Ben's original comment [correct me if I've got it wrong, BW].
As for history and context - not everyone who reads a long thread that has been linked to/referred to elsewhere bothers to read the entire blog archive. Reading just this thread would not have given the average passer-by enough information about you and Dr B and your respective feminist goals, or whether you were feminist soulmates or intellectual combatants. Nor, frankly, can anyone tell from my comments re: the word "crone" - a term B endorsed and I took issue with - whether we simply disagree or whether we are on opposite sides of some canonical divide that would preclude us from ever doing lunch.
And, unfortunately, that mast head thing is problematic, but not because of anything you do. I certainly don't think you see yourself as somehow goddesslike because of it - you've never acted that way - but name-on-the-door has a certain cachet to those who are just stopping in.
And my tangent-oriented brain has now popped up with "is giving mast-head a patriarchal act?' I think I'll go see what's on TV...
Nah, giving masthead is totally empowering.
I was doing my best to take care with my own, and I started off the whole thing by announcing that I would do my best with my own language, and I might fail. You're impressing on me the importance of an obligation I already feel, and have announced that I feel. I've also already conceded that I should have clarified that it was "threat", rather than the rest of BW's comment, that I was responding to.
844, 845
Not being mopily passive-aggressive once is quite enough.
I think the confusion was that one could imagine, in other circumstances, B agreeing with the sentiments expressed. She does admit that Ogged was giving feminists shit. It's probably a question of trying to figure other people out and why they don't have the reactions you would imagine they'd have, rather than anything sinister.
ac sometimes says that she has something she might, at some time, decide to devote some time to, a something. If she wants to accomplish that something, it would be a good idea to handle some things differently.
Or, you know, I'll throttle her baby turtles.
Be careful.
Or else.
I mean it.
And by "it" I mean "something."
That's so very true, text. I mean something. Or other.
still not finished with the thread, but a few things i want to observe..
I'm still hung up on the problem of framing the issues as 'Evil old woman jealous of the pretty young thing,' and I think saying 'crone' does that.
Yeah, but really, LB, you read it that way because of the perspective you bring to it. *I* didn't read it that way, for instance. I just registered "insult to AA". That's it. Because it's a blog post, and I read it quickly, and I'm not in the habit of dissecting the meaning of all the language employed. In short, your conclusion is contingent. Some people will read like you, some will read more like me. It seems true to me that whether the language employed is sexist or not is actualy dependent upon the perception of the reader, it doesn't reside in the language itself.
To me, this pretty much implies, "In my opinion, you should do otherwise," but I see that people don't like hearing it.
tia, you've been really big on telling people what you think you should do lately. imo, this is very annoying, and you should otherwise.
I really should finish my trains of thought. Darn those free drinks!
Ok, so the status of the language as sexist resides in the reader. I see 3 possible reactions:
1) It's sexist! Boo!
2) Read over, subconsiously absorb a bit of the oppressive patriarchy
3) read, not really vulnerable to being part of the oppressive patriarchy, so not chuffed
You could say that Ogged was doing a bad thing because of the possibility of 2. Certainly.
Lately, though, I just don't care about couching language because of the possibility of fools. (I'm not advocating this position, just saying it's my own. But, of course, I think it's good or I wouldn't have adopted it.) I don't think the first position is bad.
I haven't read a lot of these threads or comments, so I could be wrong, but I think what I'm seeing is that people in the first position argue that people in the third should adopt their position, and people in the third position argue back that those in the first should join them.
As I said, I don't see anything wrong with either of thse positions. They can live side by side as long as they're not trying to be dogmatic, or universal.
Nothing more on this from me, but do you know what "chuffed" means, Michael? Is so, then what does 3. mean? I'm not seeing much evidence that we should accept you as an authority on language. Crone doesn't bother you because you don't understand its connotations.
When I see you all tossing the N-word around I'll buy your "we must be free to say anything, or what will happen to our fuuuun?" story.
In the meantime, see you around the intarweb. Dickheads.
imo, this is very annoying, and you should otherwise.
Michael, I'm perfectly capable of absorbing that and understanding it's equivalence with "I don't like it." But it may be especially easy for me in this case because I don't value your opinion. In any case, not referring to this thread, if people see sexism around them, it might be more productive to say "Stop being such a sexist dickhead," than just to say that your feelings are hurt, with the full understanding that you have no actual control over them, but that your respect for them is contingent on some decency on their part.
When I see you all tossing the N-word around
Nutsack.
Tia was trying to communicate that B's entry yesterday felt like a bit of an own goal for Team Feminist. Maybe there is no TF around here, or shouldn't be one, I don't know. But there are some reasons to believe that B perceives there to be one, and Tia was conveying her sense of the state of play with that in mind. Not. Sinister. Unless you agree that there's no reason for that notion of B. Tia can have been wrong about that perception, but there still seems like a good case for imagining it to be true.
Nudibranch!
856: She does admit that Ogged was giving feminists shit.
...and was clear that she meant "shit-giving" in the sense of "teasing." It kind of looks like you're twisting her words there.
860: It's questionable whether many of the people objecting to the "crone" reference were doing so because they think the reference is sexist independent of context. LB actually explained at one point that that's not really what she's saying (though I didn't think her position on context wound up making much sense).
And sorry, but I just can't make heads or tails of 861.
Finally, I don't think BG's 735 got nearly enough props -- her last point in particular is worth some serious attention.
she meant "shit-giving" in the sense of "teasing."
At a different time, though, I could imagine it pissing her off. The needling dynamic I described upthread has pissed her off in the past.
I guess I'll add that any sense of own goal did not stem from B disagreeing. If you'll note the larger context, Cala, whose feminism I certainly don't question, and BG, whose beliefs on these questions I don't know much about but she's certainly not out there baiting us, both disagreed, and I didn't say anything remotely critical to them, although in BG's case I addressed a comment to her disagreeing with her about something. Also, I get that we all disagree a lot, and part of the point of my vampire story was to make fun of the way our own squabbles distract us from our blood filled prey. And further, as ac said, I was not trying to impose my values about the existence of some sort of feminist solidarity on Unfogged--I (perhaps mis)perceived that B felt it, and I was trying to talk about the issue from that perspective, which I thought was B's. I was making a specific, context and value dependent point about the value of either announcing you haven't read before you comment, which I always do if I haven't read, or even better, getting a sense of the lay of the land, what arguments have been made.
On preview, to begin to address BG's 735, (this is just speaking for myself and expressing my thoughts about these things, not saying BG) while I've used the term "false consciousness" in the abstract, and I think such a thing exists, though it is poorly named, and should maybe just better be described as selling out, I do not believe I have ever said or implied in argument that anyone I was talking to directly was suffering from false consciousness. In fact, I wouldn't do this precisely for the reasons I said I wouldn't call someone a big boobed dumbunny, or whatever the gender equivalent of "sambo" is--because it's condescending. Anyway, BG, to address your 3 + 4, I don't think you can separate out the parts from the whole that way. "Nasty old crone" is a classic sexist archetype; ogged chose it just for that reason. It's hard to generalize out a rule; I was responding to a case.
Also, on a larger point, since I have been accused of making context independent statements in the past, I don't think there is one place on this thread (though I could be wrong) where I have proposed a rule against using the word "crone". My original objection said that I thought I understood the ironic intention but that it didn't come off well here, which is about as context dependent a statement as they come, and I modified it with, "to my ear." I later said that I didn't think it functioned that well as irony, because of the ease with which it could be flattened back into sincerity. Then I said that I would not use gendered analogs to speak to women. I thought B's first comment, as w/d said, was problematic in this thread because of context of which she unaware, but w/d was right, it worked great on her blog.
861: The point a lot of us have been arguing at some length (I mean, on a whole bunch of these threads) is that people who might subconsciously absorb a bit of the patriarchy are not fools, and that very few people are not vulnerable to being part of the patriarchy. That's part of what I thought b gets at when she argues (elsewhere) that calling something sexist shouldn't be too hurtful, because everyone's at least a little sexist.
That doesn't make people in position 2 horrible people, but it doesn't mean that their participation in the partriarchy is benign either. What gets on my nerves, as in the dynamic described in 620, 621, and 646, is when the response to "There's something sexist about that" is "This can't possibly be harmful because we don't believe in the patriarchical oppression—we all think Vox Day is a tool! Why are you feminists so humorless?"
The latter quote is a caricature, of course, but what I'm saying is don't assume you're not vulnerable to taking part in a powerful society-wide patriarchical system. That's not how it works.
What's beginning to get on my nerves is that there seems to be an increasing inability to distinguish between disagreement with an argument and dislike of a person. And that the former seems to be becoming an excuse for airing the latter.
I don't think so. If anything, it's an expectation of extra-liking that's getting in the way.
In the interest of taking this thread to 1000, #870 needs to name names.
If anyone's confused by this, I don't value Michael's opinion.
Michael, I'm perfectly capable of absorbing that and understanding it's equivalence with "I don't like it."
Please! "its".
871 doesn't really seem to be an objection to 870, to me, so much as an adjustment of the valences; same phenomenon, though. I have no opinion on the second sentence of 870, actually, but I do think that agreement with someone and liking that person are generally independent things.
Some hoped-for solidarity seems a different thing than general dislike, no? Lack of immediately pre-existing ill-will, when the argument began, for one.
And if it's about a mistaken notion of someone, rather than a general dislike, one can hopefully correct it, and not fall into it again.
I think this thread is getting to bad-for-the-server size, so we should move the discussion elsewhere.
877: You mean to say the dream of 1000 comments is unachievable on this punk-ass server? You, sir, are not on my side in some important ways.
Wasn't being serious. Dropping it.
Matt, I appreciate your response, and I understand and agree with your position that sexist language can be dangerous in subtle ways. .
But I also am perfectly fine with little imperfections. All the time, we see things we don't quite agree with, and we let them go. I'm all for this kind of tolerance. I do not think we should share the same opinions, even on sexism. I don't even think we should all try to be perfect, even when it comes to avoiding -isms.
Of course, the result of this is that it's a judgement call on when to disagree, and when to ignore and go on. I don't think the people who are saying "crone" was sexist are wrong. As I wrote above, I think it could be read that way. And several people here are on record saying that the discord which results from calling out these little incedents of sexism is worth it. Ok. Myself, I don't agree. And I don't think it's sound pedagogic strategy. Poking people, in most of my experience, just makes them more stubborn and cantankerous.
the last bit of that comment was maybe too much in taking one side...my central thing here is that it seems like both sides might have some ground to cede so that arguments become less bitter (they're not going to disappear). For my part, even though this is really my first foray into this stuff, which I'm kinda regretting, I'm saying that I recognize that the complaints of sexism have basis.
