Woman, Know Thy Place
Like a scene from the director's cut of some lost George Romero zombie flick, the anti-feminists stumble forward in this dawn of the dead pre-political season, lurching incompetently and semi-blindly for victims, and reminding Americans that an endemic hatred of powerful women lies just below the surface when the full moon blooms. Only a head shot will kill them.
The bitter harvest of the incompetent Duke lacrosse sexual assault prosecution - tied so closely as it was to national fault lines of race, gender and wealth - is sucked into the thresher of public opinion, tossing out the seeds of enduring misogynist lore. Women lie about rape. They use it was a weapon against men.
I've always believed that one of the worst legacies of the disastrous Tawana Brawley episode in New York was the cover it provided for gender discrimination. Race got the headlines, as it did in Duke; but the collapse of a prominent rape case, its notorious revelation as a hoax, throws up a screen to the endemic violence against women, regardless of race of social status.
Thus, when noted blogger feminist Amanda Marcotte was dinged for her admittedly knee-jerk reaction to reports about the Duke case, the online gotcha moment in the last day or so (she was hired by the Edwards campaign to lead its blogging efforts, and so became an instant target) immediately led within nanoseconds to hate speech on the right-wing RedState blog:
R.E. Finch: "I guess calling her 'Blogmistress' is out?"
Kyle8: "How about man-destroying, dyky, leftoid, blogbitch-Empress?"
Yes gentlemen, cover your genitals. And beware the feminine. Rush's feminazis. It's tempting to read too much into the sniveling, mindless effluvium on the right-wing blogs, until you tune into Chris Matthews or read Maureen Dowd - and see the panic-sweat glistening from their pores at the thought of a Commander-in-Chief without the standard set of wedding tackle.
Matthews was in full anti-Hillary mode this week on Hardball, every question suggesting that her disastrous support for the Iraq War resolution was somehow purely calculated with a political formula, and removed entirely from any true belief - as if Hillary alone from the other 99 Senators employs a political algorithm in creating her voting record. Matthews (fresh from a stint as a Miss America judge) seemed genuinely angry at the candidate, as Charles Pierce remarked: "the very thought of an HRC candidacy seems to have driven Chris Matthews into some serious brain-fever."
And Dowd, well, there she goes again - the only op-ed writer for The New York Times has a big-time grudge against the even-odds first woman President of These United States. Note the loaded language of gender from her Wednesday anti-Hillary screed:
Through all the years of sitting behind Bill Clinton on his trip to the stars, Hillary fidgeted and elbowed, trying to be co-captain rather than just wingman, or worse, winglady.
[snip]
She didn’t have to feign interest in East Wing piffle — table settings and pastry chefs and designer gowns.
[snip]
She showed off a long parade of unflattering outfits and unnervingly changing hairdos.
[snip]
In Iowa, her national anthem may have been off-key, but her look wasn’t. It was an attractive mirror of her political message: man-tailored with a dash of pink femininity.
[snip]
Now she feels she can’t simply say she made a bad decision. And that makes her seem conniving — not a good mix with nurturing.
The Iraq War and Senator Clinton are a fair combination for political comment and criticism on the op-ed page of the nation's leading newspaper; Senator Clinton and her gender are not. Dowd's obsession with Clinton's femininity - now she has it, now she doesn't - and her use of loaded terms like "conniving" (quick, what noun does that so often modify) are pathetic, and entirely unworthy of a publication that considers itself the paper of record.
Fear of feminism, of "radical" women who demand equality in the workplace, has long been one of the strongest pillars of mainstream American conservatism.
A post-election article in FreeRepublic - the go-to site for activist conservatives - is a neat illustration of the right's views of women. Under the headline "Feminist Infiltration into the Conservative Ranks?" the site takes issue with a November article in the usually-reliable Washington Times, which reported that “A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70% of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape.” Said the writer:
Maybe it’s time to assess whether the feminist ideology has been allowed to invidiously dilute the conservative message.
In other words, the conservative newspaper was being disloyal to the conservative movement by reporting on the rate of sexual crimes against women in India. The post further noted:
Let’s be perfectly plain about it: Feminism is the antithesis of everything conservatism stands for. Thankfully, some in the conservative ranks have bravely spoken out against the rad-fem jihad, including Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, Laura Schlessinger, Catherine Seipp, Kathryn Jean Lopez, and Myrna Blyth.
Yes, thankfully. It was Coulter, after all, who said of the accuser in the Duke case: "Not a trace of DNA from any of the lacrosse players was found on the accuser, though this girl had more DNA in her than a refrigerator at a fertility clinic."
The right will always attack feminists, and nothing is more threatening to their leadership than an actual woman in charge. So feminism is now Stalinist, unyielding, and worst of all, manly. As Pat Robertson famously said during the 1992 presidential campaign, "Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
Beyond pure conservatism, there's a threat to female power, especially among the crowd that sucks its power from being part of the Beltway social scene, its machinery of cogs and cocktail party. The likes of Maureen Dowd feel the threat.
But let's leave this with a little levity, courtesy of the late, great Molly Ivins who always, as someone said, put a little jalapeno in every column:
I used to go on college campuses 25 years ago and announce I was a feminist, and people thought it meant I believed in free love and was available for a quick hop in the sack. ... Now I go on college campuses and say I'm a feminist, and half of them think it means I'm a lesbian. How'd we get from there to here without passing 'Go'?
UPDATE: I've been called a "Mad Mandy supporter." Okay! A typical quote from this board: "...these mad women seem to believe that every sexual encounter, where the man is not actively tied to the bed, is rape!" Nice. Funnily enough, over at right-wing blogger Riehl World View, it took less than a day for regulars there to call Amanda Marcotte the same c-word that my ole buddy T-Rex once called me - right here. I wonder if it's now been "reclaimed" by the right, too? And the woman-hating Pajamas Media blogger Dan Collins calls Marcotte a "delusional bitch." See the language pattern here, folks?
UPDATE II: Jim Wolcott roundhouses into MoDo and Matthews, first on the Times: "...the deplorable thing is that the MoDo style has permeated the Times, whose critics flaunt a brittle knowingess that weds the worst of Access Hollywood and Gawker into the print equivalent to a Carrie Bradshaw voiceover." And his transcript quote (priceless) on Matthews and his positive Stepford spin is preceeded by this:
I know it's rough on Chris and MoDo and Mike Barnicle and Imus and the rest, but the sad truth is that we're not going back to the prefeminist suburban paradiso when Daddy was the sole breadwinner and Julie London made sultry music on the hi-fi and a pot roast was forever being warmed in the oven by a wife waiting all day for her Galahad to pull into the driveway--what Matthews half-jestingly considers the good old days.
from Amazon.
I know a few Rush fans who freely use the term "feminazi" and yet accuse me of wanting to see the women of Iraq beaten with AK47s when the war is mentioned. I hate women because I am against the war and yet they freely use terms like "feminazi", attack Cindy Sheehan for her looks, and accuse HRC of being a lesbian who wants to cut off their manhood.
I believe much of this hate of women is based a lot on many men's feelings of sexual helplessness. An average jerk will cat call a woman on the street as a way to belittle what they fear and crave the most. This is very common in the male sex and males make up the majority of politicians, CEOs, religious leaders, etc. This issue goes far beyond politics. Is there a religion of any significant size that isn't openly sexist? This is culture being reflected in our politics. If it takes a half dozen generations to make major societal advances in racism, I would guess it would take a full dozen generations to make significant advances in sexism.
I doubt Coulter would voluntarily enter a world in which women are treated in a manner her political cohorts call for. She may truly be so filled with self hatred but I would guess that she knows her audience and it pays her well to feed her fans what they want to hear. People of her integrity rarely care for anything other than themselves and what serves them best. If hating midgets was as lucrative as hating liberals she would be surely attacking them instead. Same goes for Pat Robertson. His power is based on nothing but hatred. Would anybody be surprised if Robertson had a slew of mistresses? Hypocrites all.
Maureen Dowd seems to have some personal grudge against HRC. Why? Who knows. Personal attacks are to be expected in such a case. Attacking HRC because of her sex or using her sex as an attack might be more a personal attack than signs of self hatred. If you witness an argument between to men and one calls the other a "Fat Fuck" odds are they don't really have a hatred of over weight people. Attacking someone for a trait that is not a choice is a sure sign of the attack being personal.
Sexism is so common and so embedded in all of human cultures it makes it quite easy to use such negative terms in regard of women. Passing the ERA amendment wouldn't have immediately alleviated any sexism but it would have forced some changed behavior and that alone would have been a great accomplishment. And from behavior, attitudes can change. And yes Tom K, it is the governments role to protect all its citizens equally, especially for those who need the protecting. This is no different than the government playing a role in protecting our food supply or regulating drugs for the good of society as a whole.
Posted by: Slappy | February 04, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Not a good argument, Tom. Not good at all.
To wit : Not all feminists think like Amanda. That is, unless you want to throw Susan Estrich from the fold for daring to apologize. Mandy is a radical feminist, Tom, whether you like that nor not. Pretending her views are more mainstream than they really are won't do any political movements you support any good.
Many people of all political stripes blog about the Duke case. Unsuprisingly, over 99 percent of them believe the accusations to be lies, because, at this time, all evidence has been released ( I refer you to rules of discovery if you don't believe me) and all evidence points to no physical contact between ANY of the Lacrosse players (all 42 of them!) let alone a sexual assault or violent gang-rape.
Not Mandy. She hasn't looked at the evidence -or she wouldn't say some of the inaccurate things she's said- but feels free to malign the Duke 3 as rapists and racists, even though the evidence of rape is non-existent, and the accuser herself doesn't claim the 3 boys indicted for the rape said anything racial to her.
Her modus operandi is to curse and call names as part of her argument, delete posts that disagree, and try to erase her tracks if caught in an embarrassing gaffe. I'm glad she's getting what she is from mainstream Democrats and Republicans. Couldn't happen to a better living, breathing, parody of Rush's famed "feminazi".
Posted by: Clarence Woodworth | February 04, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Amanda is one of my favourite bloggers. Pandagon is one of 3-4 blogs I read DAILY due to its fantastic use of language, calling a spade a spade, and a great sense of humor. The language and phrases used by people criticizing her now are exactly the phrases (the "MRA code") she gets on her old blog whenever she touches a nerve of insecure males.
And of course, 227 mysoginists raise their ugly heads on the thread on the iditic Durham Wonderland blog (and additional 74 on the next one on the same topic). Must have hit some nerve there, eh?
Even Mr.Tasty-And-Nutritious-Nocturnal-Emissions (aka Mr.Jeff Protein Wisdom Goldstein) himself got threatened enough to show up at the Edwards blog and try to saw seeds of resentment among the locals - and was put in his place immediatelly.
If she is hitting all the sexists' and racists' nerves right now and they feel compelled to emerge from their primordial slime and show to the world who they are - I say this was a brilliant move by the Edwards campaign.
Amanda screwed up (don't we all - I do at least twice a week on my blog), got put in place by the commenters and deleted the post. Much, much later, she gets hired. Everyone anti-Edwards jumps on that post in order to smear Edwards.
You don't have to be a racist, of course, to know that Amanda messed up on that post, but that IS who is raising their heads, of course, as expected.
And as I have written a gazillion times on my blog, femiphobia (Google the term) is the core motivation for all the conservative iditoic ideology.
As for the Duke case, it is a mess. I never touched it on my blog because it takes a full-time job to follow all the leads and get all the info. Nobody is a saint there. A bunch of spoiled, rich, white, racist guys insult a poor, black woman. The poor, black woman, insulted and naturally seeking revenge, invents the rape charge out of thin air. An overzealoss prosecutor seeking re-election screws up majorly. Duke administraiton acts totally ineptly, further alienating the town folks in Durham. Lawuers using all their reserves of sleaze to win the case for one side or the other. Local journalists and bloggers come into this with their own biases. National media and bloggers jump on the case and show an astounding misunderstanding of the entire case, not to mention the Duke vs. Durham relatinship. The boys' parents, themselves filthy rich, racist, sexist jerks, pull their weight around to get revenge of their own. There is nobody in this entire mess who behaved semi-decently.
Still, after all the dust settled, the least despicable person in this whole thing is the black woman - she was stupid and inept, but that was the only way she could think of to get back at the jerks. I hope that, although cleared of charges, the guys will spend the rest of their lives in misery, forever stamped with a label of "loser", "jerk" and "racist". And that is, pertty much, what Amanda said in her (now deleted) post.
Posted by: coturnix | February 04, 2007 at 05:12 PM
Geez, coturnix, I suppose rape charges against three randomly selected males (one of which she now claims didn't rape her) are a fair response to a grand total of two racists comments that she doesn't even claim the defendants were the ones to say. Wow, thanks for setting me straight. And this from one of Marcotte's defenders.
By the way, your attempt to rewrite Marcotte's posting history on this subject will fail. She's blogged pretty extensively about this and long past the time when pretty much everyone else has given up on this case, she's still slandering the Duke 3. Heck, Seligmann's alibi is by far the best I've ever seen, and there's absolutely no DNA on or in this accuser when there should be TONS of it even if they used condoms (which the accuser claims they didn't) but it's good to see that Amanda's friends will stick up for her months and months of "intemperate" comments.
Posted by: Clarence Woodworth | February 04, 2007 at 06:57 PM
Problems with reading comprehension, Clarence the Corss-Eyed Lion?
First of all, the post is not deleted - it is still up there on Pandagon.
Second, neither Amanda nor I claim she was raped.
Third, the racist, sexist jerks and their fathers and their lawyers should suffer for what they DID do: treat her like an animal.
And everyone voicing any support for them and trying to exonerate them and pain them as some kind of angels have only one motivation: to turn back the clock of history and make openly voiced racism and sexism respectable again.
Posted by: coturnix | February 04, 2007 at 09:08 PM
Wow.
I'll put out that black commentators far more informed about this case than you wouldn't say the party was a hotbed of sexual or racial jokes. There may have been a retort between one of the strippers and one of the 42 players, there may have been the "cotton shirt" comment at the end, what doesn't exist, except in your fevered and possibly dishonest mind is any treatment of the accuser like an animal.
Anyway, I'll let the rest of your post stand for itself. You really have to be very very uninformed, dishonest, or a total ideologue to toss crap like that around about a party you didn't attend. I'll let you discredit Amanda more with every post you make.
Posted by: Clarence Woodworth | February 04, 2007 at 09:30 PM
Interesting, you think I am Black. Ha-ha! What else: female, perhaps gay? Your prejudice show from this very assumtion you made.
Also, Duke campus is about 7 miles from me. No escaping the darned case. Cuttin' it down to "may have been a retort" and ha-ha-cotton-shirt-is funny shows: a) you are dishonest, and b) you know shit about the case or about Durham, and c) you have a curious motivation to defend the jerk frat-boys and put down the black women - why is that so? Can you asnwer that while looking in the mirror?
Posted by: coturnix | February 04, 2007 at 09:39 PM
Your race baiting I will ignore. Standard op from some of your ilk.
As for the rest, I'm quite the expert on this case. I've read Amanda's rantings: I read them eleven months ago when this case first made the news. I've been on the TalkLeft Duke boards since May, and LieStoppers for several months now. I discussed this case on StandYourground.com in March. I've been to pandagon, I've been to Alas.
I know you. I know what you are, and how you think. I could write your replies for you. Facts, which are readily available from scanned documents and links at both LieStoppers and TalkLeft matter not to you. You probably know nothing of NC rules of evidence, Nifong's past, the names and criminal records of both the accuser and the stripper, the names, income, past criminal history etc of the 3 indicted players (hint: two of the 3 are spotless as lambs)the prevalence of gang-rape, esp. white -on-black gangrape, the Coleman Report (bet you couldn't even tell me who professor Coleman IS) about the Lacrosse team's reputation, and so on ad-infinitum.
What is quite obvious to most of us who observe this case is that Amanda, and, in my opinion, you will put justice behind ideology at every opportunity. I bet it does stick in your craw that Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans are not guilty of raping or even touching your precious name-guarded stripper, and that they are not accused of anything unsavory of a racist nature. It just spoils your perfect little story of white oppression. You can't handle that, so you resort to slander. Well Amanda does the same damn thing, and thinks she will get away with it this time. It's not going to happen.
Just once I'd like to see you put individual lives and reputations above your ideology. It might humanize you. But you and others of your ilk seem incapable of doing that, preferring instead postmodernist and semi-marxist dribble about how all truth is filtered through a class or race or sexual lens and so truth doesn't matter when considering the guilt or innocence of your class enemies. Finnerty, Seligmann, and Evans are guilty of being the wrong color and guilty of being at a stripper party -something millions of men and women attend on college campuses every year. Wow. Throw them under the bus.
I'm sure Amanda will be losing her job soon. She had better, if Edwards wants to have any hope at all of appealing to the mainstream. I'll be happy: I have no sympathy for those who value truth less than ideology. Same goes for you.
Posted by: Clarence Woodworth | February 04, 2007 at 10:22 PM
http://pandagon.net/2006/03/29/the-gang-rape-is-the-essential-scene-of-the-patriarchy/
Hmmm. Well, let's see. Where did my history with Amanda begin? It seems that it began here:
http://pandagon.net/2007/01/06/knowing-when-to-quit/
Considering that Amanda doesn't mind telling bald-faced lies, and telling them, and telling them, it's not surprising that she feels this way about the source whose name isn't what they say who cannot be produced to admit that he sourced the stories that misrepresented the facts, who hasn't provided another story since his accuracy was impeached in the blogosphere.
I think she is delusional, first because of her absolute dismissal of the evidence in the case, and second, because she apparently believes that she can erase her trail of posts. I think that she's a bitch, because she will not retract libellous statements regarding the guilt of the accused, and is a supporter of those who would have liked to put these young men away regardless of the evidence, for a crime that they didn't commit. And now they're blaming it on Nifong, while attempting to suppress the evidence of their own complicity in this retroverted McCarthyism.
The accuser, who's revised her accounts any number of times, and whose versions are all impeachable untruths on any number of accounts, you now hold up as a shining beacon of truth. Bullshit. The people who defended the lacrosse team are far more heroic, insofar as they are far more committed to the truth.
What's perhaps most pathetic is that people denounce me weepingly as one who wants to harm Marcotte's future by getting her punted out of her job. She and her enablers, of whom you apparently are one, would very much like to have seen these guys put away for a long, long time for a crime that they didn't commit. Where's the proportionality?
I'm not carrying any particular brief for jocks who invite drunken strippers to their parties, but there is such a thing as a presumption of innocence of the accused that still pertains, despite any desires to the contrary, even to white male lacrosse players. Beyond that, there is the guarantee of untainted evidentiary procedure that presumably is still afforded to all, despite race, creed, gender, political affiliation, or lifestyle.
But will Marcotte apologize? Will you? No. You just had a bad day.
Yeah. I hate women, the way I hate the truth. By honoring them. It's frauds I hate, and I'm equal opportunity that way.
Posted by: Dan Collins | February 04, 2007 at 10:34 PM
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/02/edwards-hires-hoax-apologist-to-run.html
I mean, for crying out loud, coturnix. And you blog at something called scienceblogs?
Posted by: Dan Collins | February 04, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Retroverted McCarthyism? I see you still prefer the original. Your ilk.
Posted by: coturnix | February 04, 2007 at 11:50 PM
OMG, that "liestoppers" blog is unbeliavable - what levels of obsession! What oozing mysoginy and hypocrisy! Approvingly linking to Michelle Malkin, for cying out loud! And you say you honor the truth? Bwahahaha! And obviously, that is how you honor women as well.
Posted by: coturnix | February 05, 2007 at 12:03 AM
coturnix,
Look, if you're going to type misogyny, get it right.
You claim that she never claimed there was a rape. You lie.
You misstate the point at which she begins attempting to erase her previous statements on the subject. You lie.
You cannot possibly think that given the fact that you show as little regard for truth as you do in the space of this thread, I can possibly give a rat's ass what you think about Michelle Malkin.
If you think that the liestoppers piece is inaccurate, or has misquoted or misinterpreted Marcotte, please demonstrate how.
And while your at it, please either retract or defend your demonstrably false statements, if you can. Bwahahahaha.
Posted by: Dan Collins | February 05, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Dear Serbian Jewish Atheist Liberal:
I know it would serve your purpose to try and smear Liestoppers by association. Why heck, posters of all political persuasions and sexes and races post there. And heck, you can find one or two times when Anne Coulter was praised there. So? Do you want me to bring up who Amanda is linked to? Which links do you think will play better to the Democratic base? I mean ginmar, by herself, is a one woman wrecking machine for radical feminism. I know the Dems can do better.
All that matters to Liestoppers is who is telling the truth in a particular case that we are dealing with. That's why Susan Estrich was praised over there. That's why Rush comes in for some praise. That's why Anne LoudMouth Haryp Coulter comes in for some praise. And I will say to your shock and consternation that I find you and Amanda equally as dishonest as Coulter and you, Mandy, and Anne far more dishonest than Michele. See, I know that dishonesty doesn't have political affiliations. Coulter is a demagogue. One of the things I've never forgiven her for is that she refused to admit she had been wrong in the Central Park Rape case. But irregardless of my personal feelings, so long as Anne speaks truth on THIS issue I feel no compunction about praising her for it ON THIS ISSUE ALONE.
Anyway, I want to blow your lil lefty mind. Go to www.standyourground.com and read a post there by a former feminist named Typhon Blue. It' s her latest post, I believe about social power. There's all kinds in this world, and I think your rather intellectually provincial outlook could use some shaking up.
Posted by: Clarence Woodworth | February 05, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Amanda stated it was a rape months ago when EVERYONE stated it was a rape because it was before the woman retracted. It doesn't matter for you righty fundie medieval femiphobes. And adding that the site approvingly linked to the biggest liars of all, like Coulter, Limbaugh and has a post by someone self-identifies as "ex-feminist" (we all know what THAT means, don't we), just places the site a few notches lower on anyone's list, right down there with the human slime of LGF, Corner and Hugh Hewitt.
Posted by: coturnix | February 05, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Ohhhhhhhhh poor baby.
I misjudged you. I thought you might actually like to be amused by someone with a view point that is so far out of the mainstream, she's the only one I've ever seen espouse it. I wasn't thinking to "convert" you or nothing, heck I dont' agree with her. But she's interesting, and I really believed you were the type of guy who liked to add new and interesting intellectual experiences to his mind.
Instead it seems you are nothing but a lefty version of a Promise Keeper. Afraid to shake up the cobwebs in your comfortable lil ideological cocoon. Oh, don't worry: I'm sure you keep your science separated from your politics, same as a creationist physicist. You're just no fun. Probably would have fit in real well with the Red Guards in China. Tsk.
Posted by: Clarence Woodworth | February 05, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Funny that, coming from a wingnut!
Posted by: coturnix | February 05, 2007 at 02:13 AM
Gee, I thought the worst legacy from "the disastrous Tawana Brawley episode in New York" was the fact that it never happened, but I can see where "gender discrimination" by far out-weighs accusing & prosecuting the innocent of horrible crimes – great point! I mean one person’s fake rape is another person’s totally acceptable political stepping-stone & who should really care about paltry concepts like honesty or justice, so long as your view-point is the one promoted, right? If you are so willing to feed your cause w/ the names, reputations, freedoms or lives of innocent people, what’s a little lying or false imprisonment thrown in? If you are so willing to sacrifice the innocent to fuel your cause, why would anyone, who doesn’t totally agree w/ you or is sitting on the fence, take anything you have to say seriously? We want justice, but only for our side really isn’t a convincing argument, much less fair, honest or moral, but who cares as long as you win or your side isn’t hurt in the process!
It seems to me that if that is one of the things you took away from the Bradley case, or the Duke case, is future victims, female only of course, might be questioned, you have no right to imply, say or lay any claim to anything resembling justice – unmitigated, one-sided revenge possibly. Your version of justice is actually called a lynch mob & tends to emulate the exact thing you proclaim to be against, there’s just a reversal of gender. So you’ll forgive me for not being too upset for anyone pointing out that Amanda was/is promoting, before any credible evidence or a “fair” trial has taken place or been presented, the exact same thing. Especially when that person is now a “spokesperson” for a Presidential Candidate that already ran as the 2nd part of the Democratic Party’s Standard Bearer in 2004.
Posted by: PMain | February 05, 2007 at 03:12 AM
Yeah, we do. Someone who's sick of being associated with tendentious reptiles such as you.
Posted by: Dan Collins | February 05, 2007 at 05:23 AM
Dan - why don't you approve my comment at Protein Wisdom? Afraid of taking a break from your cheering chorus?
Posted by: Tom W. | February 05, 2007 at 07:41 AM
Tom,
I don't have any control over what gets "approved" in comments at the site. I use the quotes because anyone is welcome to comment there unless Jeff bans them. I can ask Jeff, if you tell me your handle and where you attempted to comment.
Generally, it takes quite a lot to get banned at PW.
Posted by: Dan Collins | February 05, 2007 at 09:23 AM
There is no comment approval process at protein wisdom. If you aren't getting through for some reason, please note the error message you are getting. I just checked my site's admin page and there are no comments pending.
Now.
As to this characterization --
-- I find it frightening that someone purporting to be a scientist is capable of these kinds of weak-minded, sweeping generalizations.I find it even more frightening that said "scientist" would write something so breathtakingly juvenile as "Even Mr.Tasty-And-Nutritious-Nocturnal-Emissions (aka Mr.Jeff Protein Wisdom Goldstein) himself got threatened enough to show up at the Edwards blog and try to saw seeds of resentment among the locals - and was put in his place immediatelly [sic]."
What, specifically, was the threat that I supposedly felt? And who, specifically, put me in my place?
You are hardly more than a cardboard cutout of an online human, "coturnix" -- one whose positions, as someone else noted above, are as stale as they are predictable, and could be written for you by even your most unkind critic using the most low-rent parody imaginable.
It seems to me a "scientist" would try to let the data shape his judgement, not let his selection bias pollute his ability to form hypotheses that stand up to even the slightest pressure.
For those who might be reading this thread and who'd be interested in reading what I really have to say about identity politics and feminism (by the way, I consider myself a feminist -- and a more geniune one than Marcotte could ever hope to be), here are a series of posts I did on the subject, which included a back and forth with Jill and Lauren from Feministe, The Countess, Barry from Alas, Cathy Young, and others.
It is far from the cartoonish depiction of me favored by the "netroots," which is why they seldom link to anything I write -- preferring instead to call me names redolant with spunk references.
And of course, I'm about as "fundie" as coturnix is sharp.
Posted by: Jeff G | February 05, 2007 at 09:39 AM
Coturnix, if you think that Dan Collins is a misogynist you must have no clearer idea of what the word means than you do of how to spell it.
Posted by: Jonathan Wilton | February 05, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Jeff is everywhere these days! I remember those back-and-forths with Jill, Lauren and others - they put you in your place and exposed your mysoginy mighty fine. And you are still proud of it all?
Posted by: coturnix | February 05, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Seems a lot of people "put me in my place," according to you, coturnix, and yet you seem completely unable to say how.
I suspect it has to do, in your mind, with their having answered me at all -- which you seem to view as the equivalent of some sort of rhetorical victory.
Which is hardly surprising coming from someone who suffers simultaneously from intellectual constipation and an unearned streak of self-regard, and who probably still claps himself on the back and yells "in your face!" every time he manages to put a complete sentence together.
It is beyond sad, frankly.
Posted by: Jeff G | February 05, 2007 at 11:51 AM