PandaGate and anti-male bigotry

|

I'm coming a little late to the farewell party for Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte as blog coordinator for the Edwards campaign. Now, Marcotte's sister-in-arms, Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister, has stepped down as well.

Some, such as my Reason colleague David Weigel, are concerned that the Marcotte/McEwan brouhaha may backfire against all bloggers who don't write like political hacks. I think outspoken bloggers have nothing to fear unless they aspire to actually become paid political hacks. (Andrew Sullivan has a good comment on this.) What I find more troubling is that the criticism of Marcotte has focused so much on her swipes at religion, and so little on her brand of feminism—a cult of female victimhood rife with militant anti-male bigotry.

A number of publications have quoted her sarcastic comment on the Duke alleged sexual assault case: "Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair." But it's hard to appreciate the full flavor of that comment without its full context.  This is the post that Marcotte scrubbed from her blog after it attracted unwanted attention in the wake of her new job with the Edwards campaign. It seems she also deleted some of her comments in the thread, preserved here. Even with Marcotte's posts gone, the thread remains quite revealing: Marcotte's like-minded regulars (particularly ginmar) verbally assault, insult, and mock any dissenter.  Responding to a feminist blogger who says she is a survivor of sexual assault herself but is concerned about fair treatment for the accused players, ginmar offers this gem:

Natalia, I don't think anybody cares if you're a rape victim and you toe the party line when it comes to "But what about the menz!"

(Yes, I know ginmar is not Amanda Marcotte, but ideologically they're pretty much peas in a pod.)

A sampling of Marcotte's other posts on the Duke case can be found on this page. Anyone who questions the guilt of the accused players, in her book, is a "rape apologist." In this post, she fumes:

Kathleen Parker has been … building a long case that unless the victim is 9 years old and a virgin and white and blonde and her attacker kills her and he mutiliates her body, then rape isn't so much a crime as a feminist plot to put all men in jail so that we can, I don't know, wear sweatpants more or something.

Here are three Kathleen Parker columns, discussing the "rush to judgment" in the Duke case. In the last of these columns, Parker actually expresses concern that the alleged victim may be seen as less deserving because she's a stripper, and writes, "A woman raped is a woman raped, no matter what her ill-chosen profession."

Marcotte's crude "satire" is far worse than a caricature of Parker's views. A caricature is an exaggeration of truth. Marcotte's summary of Parker's position is an outright, slanderous lie.

I should add here that I have been on the receiving end of the Marcotte method of polemics myself. On July 25, 2005, Marcotte made a post at Pandagon titled, Cathy Young to battered wives-"Stop hitting yourself!" This in reference to my Boston Globe column on the Violence Against Women Act. Somehow, my discussion of the false assumption that mutual violence always involves male aggression/female self-defense becomes a call for throwing battered women in jail if they fight back or so much as accidentally hit the abuser while flailing around trying to escape.   See also Marcotte's post here at Feministing, and more of my discussion here.

And finally, best for last: an October 19, 2006 post in which Marcotte explains that there's no such thing as man-hating feminists. She's particularly unhappy with the "made-up word 'misandry.'" (Actually, the word "misandry," or "hatred of males," appears in the Webster's Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language [1996] and its origins are traced to 1945-50. That patriarchal conspiracy sure is insidious!) Sayeth Marcotte:

This is a word that was made up by men on a victim trip because they don't get to abuse and oppress women as much as they'd really like to, and it's an attempt to pretend there's a tradition of man-hating so severe it deserves a word of its own. … Attempts to create a false equivalence are about the worst sort of victim tripping imaginable. It wasn't the girls that were sent out of the room so boys could be raped and killed in recent school shootings.

Marcotte, I assume, is referring to these two cases. The horrific actions of two severely disturbed men become her paradigm for male attitudes toward women in our society. (Was serial killer John Wayne Gacy a self-hating misandrist male because he killed only boys?)

Marcotte's conclusion:

The phrase "man-hater" is more an insult to men than to feminists. Anyone who uses it generally means that the person thus accused is a rapist-hater, abuser-hater, sexist-hater. And when you call someone a "man-hater" who is actually hating on sexists, abusers, and rapists, you imply all men are these things. And they are not. So who are really the man-haters when that phrase is being wielded? It's not the feminists; it's the men implying that hating rape or hating abuse is the same thing as hating men.

Or maybe the person using the phrase "man-hater" means that the person thus accused is ready to presume any man to be a rapist or abuser at the drop of an accusation, no matter how non-existent the evidence. For a stark demonstration of such bigotry, look no further than the Marcotte/ginmar lynch-mob mentality in the Duke case.

Extended version cross-posted at The Y Files.

NEXT: One Down, One to Go

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. She reminds me of those students who never graduate from college, but they keep going for some reason. Or a large body of the Arts and Sciences faculty, but that just made this post redundant.

  2. Sometimes on this board, someone will suggest that I don’t post here, but rather post at some liberal board like KOS.

    Well, you might be surprised to know this, but in the summer of 2006, banned temporarily from HnR, I did try out a liberal board, under the pseudonym of “farces.”

    Here is the thread where I got kicked out for suggesting Crystal wasn’t raped:

    http://tinyurl.com/yp8m3d

    Internet forums can be so touchy. So much name calling, too!

  3. From the NYT article:

    In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus.

    Is the vulgar language the issue? I mean it isn’t particularly difficult to, hmm, criticize this idea. Particularly because it is such a common attribute given to all manner of hero figures, Gods, etc. throughout the ancient world. It ain’t a unique story in other words. That is also true of lots of the things attributed to Jesus over his lifetime. Which should cause one to ask, who is more likely to be a historical figure, Jesus or Hercules?

  4. Also, attitudes like those two ‘bloggers are why NASCAR is so wimped up now.

  5. It’s weird that there are still feminists that people take seriously.

  6. Dave W, you are a glutton for punishment. I followed your link. Man those are some crazy, man-hating biatches over there. You could feel the misandry dripping from their fangs in every post. It’s too bad that topic has expired because I have a great rape story that would have caused the girls over their to go into apoplectic seizures.

    That experience makes me appreciate H&R.

  7. That experience makes me appreciate H&R.

    Wow man, high tolerance. I only had to come over here from Ezra Kline’s ‘blog to appreciate H&R.

    Well, I appreciate it on it’s own too.

  8. Cathy should have known better than to question the dominant narrative of domestic violence.

    That’s one of those issues where no one is willing to discuss anything that doesn’t fit the model.

    I haven’t been around anything resembling domestic violence in a long time, but when I was [in high school and college] roughly half the time violent incidents started with “I saw you looking at that other girl!” [i]Smack.[/i] or “Where were you last night? At Jenn’s house?” [i]Smack.[/i] But we must never, never say this, because that might “discourage victims” or “enable oppressors” or whatever.

  9. I believe you mean October 19, 2006 rather than 1996.

  10. Marcotte’s a hottie. I kept staring at her boobs reading her blog.

  11. I haven’t been around anything resembling domestic violence in a long time, but when I was [in high school and college] roughly half the time violent incidents started with “I saw you looking at that other girl!” [i]Smack.[/i] or “Where were you last night? At Jenn’s house?” [i]Smack.[/i] But we must never, never say this, because that might “discourage victims” or “enable oppressors” or whatever.

    Wow, you ran around with some rough guys in college!

  12. I’m coming a little to the farewell party for Pandagon’s Amanda Marcotte…

    Oooo Cathy. You naughty girl. Nothing gets redblooded mens heart pounding like hot lesbi… Oh wait. You might want to fix that.

  13. All the nonsense aside about what some blogger wrote in 1996, the question of whether the idea of “bigotry” can apply when generalized distain is directed to the more powerful group from the less powerful group is an interesting one. I would say no.

  14. Yes, I know ginmar is not Amanda Marcotte, but ideologically they’re pretty much peas in a pod.

    So why bother quoting her at all. If true, you shouldn’t have a problem finding relevant quotes from the actual person you’re talking about.

    Weigle did the same thing the other day. One would think Hit & Run would be the last place bloggers would want to be held accountable for what’s in the comments section. I know that last thing I want are comments scrubbed clean of dissenting views. That kind of echo chamber isn’t worth listening to.

  15. “Marcotte’s a hottie.”

    No way. I have her pictured as sort of a Rosie O’Donnell, except without the good looks.

  16. Dan T,
    So Palestinian antisemitism isn’t bigotry?

  17. OK, I found her picture on her old blog, “mouse droppings”.

    You’re right, she is pretty cute. That just goes to prove that my God is a vengeful God.

  18. I agree very much with Cathy here. I don’t like that these two bloggers are coming under fire for more personal writings in which they were angry and using angry words, but I also think their brand of feminism is a crock. I’m a feminism. I’ve read both their blogs for a few years now (sporadically at best, though- sometimes both are excellent writers and good reads) and like the recent open threads on how certain slightly conservative writers have gone crazy conservative to the point where it’s hard to know if they believe what they espouse, I find that Amanda and Shakes have gotten crazier and more extreme in their feminism. They are so far into their little blogging world, they are reduced to yelling, crude insults and assumptions about anyone who is not “their kind of feminist”. I feel sort of bad for them.

  19. Dan T,

    Please increase your coherence level.

  20. What is disturbing is that moon bats like this woman end up as political appointees in government. Imagine this woman or someone like her heading up a special task force on violence against women at the justice department. Or, just to be fair, some nutcase evangelical in an important position at NIH. That is what our spoils system gives us.

    This woman is a moon bat and I can write her off as such. As a journalist, she doesn’t bug me nearly as much as someone like Dalia Lithwick, who is supposed to be serious, yet whenever she writes on this case she always finds a way to equivocate and make it “about larger issues of race and sex” totally ignoring the fact that innocent people are being railroaded by a craven prosecutor beholden to the mob. That fact never seems to bother Dahlia too much. Why worry about innocent people wrongly charged and whose lives are ruined when you can score points about how Rush Limbaugh is just as bad as Jesse Jackson.

  21. I’m coming a little to the farewell party for Pandagon’s Amanda Marcotte as blog coordinator for the Edwards campaign.

    Cathy I hope to God you meant “coming a little late to the party” otherwise this is kind of a disturbing opening sentence.

  22. Dan T.,
    The litmus test for “bigotry”, “prejudice”, or “racism” is the content of the message, not the speaker in relation to the subject.

  23. Cathy…your comment is fine just the way it is…heh, heh, heh…snort

  24. cat fight…

    score.

  25. What is disturbing is that moon bats like this woman end up as political appointees in government. Imagine this woman or someone like her heading up a special task force on violence against women at the justice department.

    Or they get appointed to study eating disorders and find a crisis that does not exist?

    I remember one of those a few years ago and an astute woman pointed out that if it were the crisis that was being described there would also have to be ambulances making round trips to proms and other events that teen girls attend.

    Turns out, from what I remember, the ‘panel’ pretty much had the attitude that fit slender women were all anorexic, including cheer leaders, rock climbers, bicycle racers, and all sorts of track and field athletes. Oh, and I think that was the beginning of magazine bashing too. Turns out that tune has not changed either. Men are blamed for the way runway models and models in magazines that are run by women look.

  26. these people are irrelevent.

  27. totally ignoring the fact that innocent people are being railroaded by a craven prosecutor beholden to the mob.

    How can any of us be innocent when we are being poisoned by testostrone?

  28. “Men are blamed for the way runway models and models in magazines that are run by women look.”

    I would blame men for that. I blame gay male fashion designers whose ideal of beauty is a teenage boy. Of course that is not exactly a PC view.

  29. Is the vulgar language the issue? I mean it isn’t particularly difficult to, hmm, criticize this idea.

    If Mancotte had been content just to criticize the idea, rather than engage in deliberately provocative and insulting language, she wouldn’t have gotten nearly the reaction she did. Does Grotius really think that if he were hired by the Edwards campaign, his post would cause William Donahue to come down on his back? So yes, it’s the vulgar language.

  30. John,

    But it’s a view that nearly all men understand and it’s understood somewhat by women who know and actually listen to men with these opinions rather than listen to other women and the aforementioned publications on what the ideals of body shape/size are.

  31. I don’t blame the anti-thin-model hysteria on man-hating feminists.

    That meme tends to come from straight, upper-middle class women who are just fine with straight, upper-middle class men – but are mad that not every straight, upper-middle class man is in love with them. You know, the Maureen Dowd or Susan Faludi type.

    There is a very strong strand of hyperperfectionist “alpha female” whining in the whole “Da Magazinez Create Unfair Expectationz!” bit. It’s a social problem that disappears if the women complaining just sit back and accept the fact that they can’t attract every single last high-status male, and they might have to just live with it if the very highest-status males seek out younger and thinner mates.

  32. Women in men’s magazines, not always run by men, but the audience is certainly men, are not built like walking coat hangers. They are built like women, with hips, a waist, big racks (I am a small rack liker myself), BOOTIE, thighs (the coconut cracking variet being my favorite), muscle tone, etc.

    That said, I too think Marcotte is a cutie and would be pretty hot in thigh high boots and a corset. Hope she has the upper body strength to utilize the brass pole.

  33. John,

    I read the Lithwick column that you’re referring to and I remember it being about how Limbaugh and Jesse Jackson(and everyone else) were making declarations about the case based on the nothing more that their political stances.

  34. Yes David, but Lithwick totally ignored the fact that these people are innocent. She actually had the nerve to say that just because the DNA didn’t match doesn’t mean they are innocent. Yeah, I am sure she would say that about any other case. Lithwick is the worst hack in journalism.

  35. I don’t really agree with your take on the substance of anti-male bias, but I do think that if there is any professionalism to be had in blogging, misconstruing your opponent’s argument so that you can belittle them, and engaging in ad hominem attacks, shows a lack of it.

  36. Marcotte reminds of the character played by Sarah Silverman at the beginning of Way of the Gun.

  37. Marcotte is pretty cute. Not gorgous but not bad. Worth talking to at a party until you realize that she is batshit insane. Consiering her attitude towards men, I am guessing she doesn’t get a lot of dates, assumeing she plays on the straight team and all. God, could you imagine dating this woman? “So, how many women have you raped during previous relationships?” sounds like wonderful dinner conversation.

  38. Marcotte is pretty cute. Not gorgous but not bad. Worth talking to at a party until you realize that she is batshit insane. Consiering her attitude towards men, I am guessing she doesn’t get a lot of dates, assumeing she plays on the straight team and all. God, could you imagine dating this woman? “So, how many women have you raped during previous relationships?” sounds like wonderful dinner conversation.

    Yea, thigh high boots and a corset will not be enough. Needs a ballgag too.

  39. Does anybody really expect rational, dispassionate discourse in the blogosphere? H&R is about as cool and collected as I’ve seen, and we still manage to crawl into ad hominem silliness (yeah, me too) in most threads.

    The whole point of blogging is that we can all bring out our inner asshat anonymously. But the fact is that such asshattery will catch up to you in politics, sooner or later. Just another reason not to get involved in politics.

  40. Dan T.,
    The litmus test for “bigotry”, “prejudice”, or “racism” is the content of the message, not the speaker in relation to the subject.

    I don’t think it’s quite that clear – otherwise, an individual could never hold a negative opinion about members of any group without being guilty of bigotry. So I think there needs to be a power relationship between the speaker and the subject – bigotry is meaningless and harmless if not backed by the power to cause actual harm.

  41. “Yea, thigh high boots and a corset will not be enough. Needs a ballgag too.”

    You never know Guy, she might go for it. I forget the name but I seem to remember some she man feminist type from the 1970s who conducted a long term geisha like relationship with some man. In public she was a full fledge member of the she man man hatter club, in private she was dolling herself out and worshipping at her boyfriend’s feet. It is not uncommon for people to be extreme in public trying to hide their opposite tendencies. You know the jerk bombastic attorney who sees the dominatrix on the side or homophobic he man who keeps gay porn on his computer.

  42. Dan T. – I can’t personally cause any harm to black people as a whole. So if I held a negative opinion against all black people, that wouldn’t be bigotry?

  43. Anyone who reads feminist blogs with any regularity knows that ginmar is very different ideologically and stylistically from Amanda Marcotte and most other feminist bloggers. She was even banned from the comments section of Alas, a Blog. Do some research.

  44. John,

    The Lithwick column you refer to came out within days of the story breaking, and warned both sides about a rush to judgement.

    What are you saying, that it’s good to rush to judgement when it furthers your preferred narrative?

  45. Dan T. – I can’t personally cause any harm to black people as a whole. So if I held a negative opinion against all black people, that wouldn’t be bigotry?

    You can’t personally, but you’re a member of a group that can.

    But your remark does illustrate how people recognize that gravity of prejudice depends on the ability of the person harboring that prejudice to put it into action. Nobody cares if an anonymous blog commenter espouses racist viewpoints, but if the President of the United States expressed them there would be much controversy.

  46. “The Lithwick column you refer to came out within days of the story breaking, and warned both sides about a rush to judgement.”

    The Lithwick collumn came out at the end of April in 2006, nearly two months after the story broke and long after the accuser’s story broke down. Lithwick, despite this, says the following:

    Also, there is evidence here: Mounds and mounds of significant physical evidence. There is a rape kit. There are bruises, and then, apparently, more bruises. There are DNA tests and broken fingernails and witnesses seemingly tumbling out of the woodwork. There are time-stamped photographic accounts of much of the evening. This is not a classic “he says/she says.” The evidence has something to say to us as well.”

    She assumes all of the evidence points to guilt, when in fact little of it did. She further writes:

    “This case serves as yet another depressing reminder of all that is wrong with this country: Our sons are spoiled misogynistic bigots,”

    This is just after she disses on everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Jessee Jackson for commenting on the character of people they didn’t know. Of course Goddess Lithwick feels free to slander the entire Lacross team and all college age men as spoiled misogynist bigots.

    Lithwick is constituionally incapable of admitting that the Duke students got a raw deal. So instead she equivicates by saying “we don’t know” while backhandedly slamming the accused in this case. It was a disgraceful article.

  47. John, you act as though the Duke case is not still open.

  48. You never know Guy, she might go for it. I forget the name but I seem to remember some she man feminist type from the 1970s who conducted a long term geisha like relationship with some man. In public she was a full fledge member of the she man man hatter club, in private she was dolling herself out and worshipping at her boyfriend’s feet. It is not uncommon for people to be extreme in public trying to hide their opposite tendencies. You know the jerk bombastic attorney who sees the dominatrix on the side or homophobic he man who keeps gay porn on his computer.

    Well, I am drawing the line at a leather hood. I have already spent too much imagenary money on this woman already.

    Side note: yes, almost all of my porn at home is gay porn. Female on female.

  49. Dan T.,

    You act as if they are adding charges instead of dropping them.

  50. Cripes, you’re gullible, John. Tell the truth, you read the hit piece in the Weekly Standard, and you swallowed their characterization hook, line, and sinker.

    “This case serves as yet another depressing reminder of all that is wrong with this country: Our sons are spoiled misogynistic bigots,”

    That quotes ends with a fucking COMMA, John! A COMMA! What the hell?

    Here’s the entire sentence: “This case serves as yet another depressing reminder of all that is wrong with this country: Our sons are spoiled misogynistic bigots, and our colleges are hotbeds of polarizing identity politics.”

    Nice spin, John.

    Here’s the passage where Lithwick dares to say that the DNA evidence might not be conclusive:

    “Supporters of the Duke students say the lack of a DNA match exonerates them. Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project says, “There’s an old saying that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.” Nurses say the injuries are consistent with rape. The boys say someone else raped her. Time-stamped photos suggest the alleged victim was already injured before she arrived at the party. Other time-stamped photos suggest new injuries occurred while she was there. Lost fake fingernails in the bathroom suggest a fight. The lack of any DNA material under those nails suggest she never fought back. Photos say she was intoxicated upon arrival. The second stripper implies she was drugged at the party.

    Pick your fact, any fact. Each of them can, it seems, be spun both ways. This scandal has become yet another exercise in fiction-writing as opposed to truth-seeking; we can use the same evidence to confirm what we already know in our bones to be true.”

    This column was about uncertainty and spin, and because you wanted to spin with certainty, you accuse Lithwick of doing it, too. You know in your bones what you want to be true, and aren’t going to admit that this wasn’t an open and shut case.

    “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Right, John?

  51. And the transformation of joe to Dave W. is complete . . .

  52. I don’t see what you mean, Guy. I think joe is merely trying to refute John’s points about the Lithwick article.

  53. Guy, that’s totally unfair. Dave W (from what little experience I’ve had dealing with him) just makes wild assertions and ignores anything that he can’t answer. Joe took the name to do some fact-checking and call someone out on buying into a hack article that did, in fact, totally mischaracterize the original piece. I don’t see any credible reason for your comment at all.

  54. Calm down guys, I was just joking about the shrill tone.

  55. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”

    this is, sadly, the prevailing wind with anything controversial (whether it involves criminal issues or is merely ideological.)

  56. I appreciate it when people like Andy and Dave stand up for me. There are a large number of regulars (like Guy and rob) who characterize anything I write as “trolling,” merely because they disagree with it, and think I’m inferior for holding opinions they dislike.

    If I thought they spoke for the majority of regulars, I wouldn’t bother coming here.

    Dave, Andy, you’re the best enemies a guy can have. I love you guys.

    Ah, screw you guys.

  57. Well, there is this little bit on picking facts you want to pick:
    The second stripper implies she was drugged at the party.

    Well, she also said flat out that what the ‘victim’ was saying can not possibly be true.

  58. Dan T.,

    Since your question deserves an answer more coherent than yours…

    Bigotry, racism, etc imply making generalizations about a group of people then using those judgements to unfairly characterise individuals. It’s degrading to them because not only is it unfair, it reduces them to a mere representation of a group rather a person and worthy of being treated as such.

    There is nothing in it contingent on power relations, and even if there was, those relations have powerful local components when dealing with actual situations – you cannot simply generalize from which group is more likely to be in the dominant position in aggregate which group is dominant in a specific situation.

  59. I posted quite a bit on this during the whole dustup — though my concern was never really with Marcotte’s “potty mouth” per se (just with how uncreative she is in using it), nor was it with her anti-Catholic bigotry or her heterodoxical views (against all evidence to the contrary) on the guilt of the Duke 3 — though naturally, all of those things played a part.

    But for anyone familiar with Marcotte’s online writing, none of this was particularly surprising. Which made her hiring by the Edwards campaign almost surreal.

    On the day of her announcement, I posted a few questions to the Edward’s blog — namely, I wondered how Marcottes’s views on Iran jibed with what Edwards had just got done saying that very morning, and if her recent indictment of such views, when she was ascribing them to Bushco, would color her impressions of the campaign for which she had chosen to work (I juxtaposed her characterization of Rethuglican deathmerchants with Edwards’ own muscular statements, which he later tried to walk back). I also wondered if she thought it wise to insist on the guilt of the Duke 3 while working for a North Carolina candidate, or if she regretted noting that the people of North Carolina treat women and minorities as subhuman. After all, she was now to be part of the community, and had spent the morning writing about how she is staunch defender of social justice.

    So it seemed naturally to seize on what might be a problem with selection bias.

    I didn’t find these questions beyond the pale — after all, she was hired to be the web presence of John Edwards, and she came to that task with a well-known set of biases — and I was curious to know how she was going to reconcile her beliefs with the official message of the campaign, or if she thought the question of reconciliation between her personal beliefs and those of the campaign even a legitimate one to ask.

    For my troubles, I was accused of “stalking” Marcotte, and her boyfriend even showed up on my site to accuse me of wanting to bed her down. Which is about as far from reality as you can get without licking a mess of Colorado River toads.

    Later, Amanda herself showed up to scold me. The temerity! Asking questions when I should have been celebrating the ascension of a woman to a position of power and influence (which, we heard when the going started getting tough, was not a position of power or influence at all, and so we shouldn’t be picking on such a low level staffer).

    Not only that, but Marcotte, or one of her underlings (if she had any) deleted my post from the public Edwards blog — just as she routinely deletes dissenting views on Pandagon, leaving behind only vicious rejoinders while preventing the people she is attacking from answering back.

    Hers is a hermetically sealed world of hyperbolic victim politics and perverse views on social justice (which typically involve constraining the “institutionalized” power of men), and I found it rather astounding that she was being mainstreamed by a man who came within OHIO VOTER FRAUD from being the VP of the United States.

    So when Edwards accepted their apologies once the anti-Catholic writings were widely quoted, I found it insulting that he concluded his statement by talking about how this country needs a debate on the issues — even as his webmistress was busy scrubbing away dissenting views.

    And this was the real outrage of the Marcotte hire, as far as I’m concerned. After all, the blogosphere is filled with ideologues who occasionally engage in salty language (I do it myself from time to time); but what we were witnessing was a presidential candidate who hired — then defended — two women who are not only openly hostile to Catholicism and the idea of equality before the law, but who likewise were willing to openly shape the terms of the debate by weeding out any inconvenient rejoinders to their cliched feminist / progressive boilerplate.

    And lest we forget, Marcotte was also willing to dismiss as practically subhuman large portions of the electorate with whom she disagreed.

    For instance, here is one of her more pointed posts:

    I’m not an idiot. I’m a twat. Get it straight.

    I’m a hot, moist, inviting twat. Warm, wet, inviting. But not to you or your friends. Even if I were single, these nubile thighs do not wrap around the hips of Republicans. You can fuck yourselves or the dry twats of the self-hating misogynists who will allow you tiny penis to penetrate them. Have fun! Um, the wounds you get from rubbing you un-lubricated dick repeatedly into your heartless, soulless woman-iodine is your best friend, my be-scarred friend.

    And now she complains of hate mail — and tries to get us to believe it is all coming from wannabe theocrats.

    But the truth is, Marcotte has made a career out of trashing everyone with whom she disagrees, and she uses dishonesty and a tightly controlled comment section to do so.

    That these women, who are both illiberal and averse to genuine public debate, are now being defended, celebrated, and proffered as “Free Speech” martyrs by many progressives (though I don’t believe they actually believe this to be the case, just that they believe it a useful rhetorical counter meant to rally the troops and to deflect attention away from the fact that critics cited Marcotte and McEwan’s own words, in an effort to turn that unmasking into a grand conspiracy by rightwing smear merchants), shows either a depth of cynical opportunism or denial that is staggering in its presumtuousness; or else a worldview that has become so twisted by ideological hatreds that it is a wonder it hasn’t yet imploded under the weight of its own incoherent baggage.

  60. “You know in your bones what you want to be true, and aren’t going to admit that this wasn’t an open and shut case.”

    Joe, it was an open and shut case. There were a million holes in the accuser’s story from the very begining. Had Nifong not been a political hack hell bent on getting re-elected, the charges would have never been brought. Switch the races in this case and Lithwick would have been appalled by it even in April of 2006. The fact that she wasn’t and pulled the “we just don’t know what happened” card in the face of a mountain of evidence pointing to innocence shows what a hack she is. Yeah, sometimes the facts are clear and if you don’t see them for what they are, you are against us. There isn’t a lot of ambiguity to this case. But, hacks like Lithwick can never come out and admit that when the facts go against their world view. Instead, they defend the indefensible and equivicate the unequivicable.

  61. “and her boyfriend even showed up on my site to accuse me of wanting to bed her down.”

    She has a boyfriend? Wow. I can’t imagine the kind of self loathing and guilt issues that guy must have. I mean seriously, how could you date someone you knew hated your entire gender and tolerated no dissent without a lot of self loathing?

  62. Two things:

    1. I can’t believe that I agree with Jeff G, but pretty much. I stopped reading Pandragon about a week after she started blogging there. And odds are I’m more liberal than most people reading this.

    2. When the subject of a comment thread is a guy, why do I never read comments on if they look good or not, although I often see it in threads on women? WTF has that to do with anything?

  63. “2. When the subject of a comment thread is a guy, why do I never read comments on if they look good or not, although I often see it in threads on women? WTF has that to do with anything?”

    True she wouldn’t be any less insane if she were ugly. Why not comment on her looks? She is cute, what is wrong with saying that? If some woman or gay man on here thinks Ron Bailey or Jessee Walker are good looking they are free to say so. I don’t think Ron or Jessee would be demeaned by them doing so. Hey, if you are going to post on the web and put your picture up, you are opening yourself up to comments on your looks. Is it really your position that commenting on a woman’s looks is verbotten?

  64. “2. When the subject of a comment thread is a guy, why do I never read comments on if they look good or not, although I often see it in threads on women? WTF has that to do with anything?”

    hit and run is a fucking sausage party, dude.

    there are other, more complicated answers, but that’s the bottom line.

  65. JDietrich.
    Regarding point 2
    Mr Steven Crane’s comments here wonder that very same thing…

  66. Dan T.,

    Since your question deserves an answer more coherent than yours…

    Bigotry, racism, etc imply making generalizations about a group of people then using those judgements to unfairly characterise individuals. It’s degrading to them because not only is it unfair, it reduces them to a mere representation of a group rather a person and worthy of being treated as such.

    What you’re talking about here is stereotyping, which can be either positive or negative and doesn’t necessarily involve bigotry.

    Still, I’m going to maintain that without some sort of imbalanced power relationship, you either can’t have bigotry or at the very least the bigotry is irrelevant. In other words, do men really feel victimized by a female blogger who doesn’t like men?

  67. Dan T.

    Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

    I see nothing about this definition that requires that the targets of the intolerance feel victimized.

  68. Yes, Penry, but the issue of the power relationships is interesting. You know, “Risk = uncertainty that matters”. In that direction.

    We could have: bigotry = really fucking lame and stupid. And: bigotry + contextual power = another barrel of monkeys altogether.

    It’s not an issue of someone feeling “victimized”, rather does the bigot have social, situational, or other power over the target? If so, we’re talking about substantially different levels of suckiness.

  69. VM,

    I agree. But notice that I offered no definition for suckiness.

  70. Typos fixed. 🙂

    As for my quote from ginmar: I have plenty of quotes from Marcotte herself. Of course I don’t hold bloggers accountable for what their commenters say, but I have never seen Marcotte disagree with ginmar or rebuke her for one of her posts. (Even though Marcotte posts extensively on her comments threads.) If you look at the thread in question, you will see ginmar bullying anyone who comes in with a dissenting view. Marcotte never intervenes, not even when people say they’re leaving the blog because of ginmar.

    I don’t know of any ideological differences between Marcotte and ginmar. The only difference is stylistic — ginmar is completely humorless and a more explicit bully. Also, she probably hits a 10 on the Richter scale of hysteria, whereas Marcotte is somewhere around 8.

    Oh, and I agree that her looks are totally irrelevant.

  71. Penry:

    Yup. True. No definitions nor levels of suckiness. Agreed.

    Just wanted to throw that out there, as I think your point and Senior Sarcusmus’s point tackle the same issue from different points of view: You note that bigots are bigots, regardless of how the target reacts.

    The Sarcastic One was bringing up those times where the power asymmetry is so great that the target cannot ignore and has very little recourse.

    In neither case the bigot is anything other than an asshole. But when said bigot has contextual power over the target, that’s when degrees and levels of suckiness enter. I guess elevating from bigot to bully?

  72. “Oh, and I agree that her looks are totally irrelevant.”

    Come on Ms. Young, what is the world coming to if Guy and I can’t have sick fantasies about crazy bloggers?

  73. Tom Paine,

    That is a terrible picture of her. I never said she was gorgous, but she is cute. Look at this pic.

    http://photos1.blogger.com/img/225/1025/640/x-masMonahans%20033.jpg

    She looks acceptable in that one.

    Now of course prepare for Cathy Young to ban you, I and Guy Montag from Reason for life.

  74. “There were a million holes in the accuser’s story from the very begining.” There usually are – the testimony of people who have experienced traumatic events is often unreliable. On the other hand, there were reasons to conclude that something worth looking into did happen. After a certian point, the inconsistencies in her recollections became pretty damning – after a certain point.

    “Switch the races in this case and Lithwick would have been appalled by it even in April of 2006.” Spaketh John, through is ass. Look, how’s this: I believe that you believe this is true. I believe you are completely confident that this person you don’t know, and (tell the truth) never heard of before this Weekly Standard article trashed her, would have responded in a certain way.

  75. “I mean seriously, how could you date someone you knew hated your entire gender and tolerated no dissent without a lot of self loathing?”

    You couldn’t. Is it possible, just maybe remotely possible, that you don’t have a very accurate understanding of what she believes?

    Hell, you spend half your posts telling me I thought the Baathists were a terrific government.

  76. “I mean seriously, how could you date someone you knew hated your entire gender and tolerated no dissent without a lot of self loathing?”

    Marcotte has described herself as “a cum-guzzling boozehound”. This might be enough to compensate for beng hated by her.

  77. Cathy,
    I still say you should have aced the ginmar portion of your post. As you say you have plenty without it so why bother. Your point about how in accord Amanda is with ginmar seems feeble to me.

    If you were suggesting that Marcotte was blogging under an alias that would be different.

    John,
    What about my sick fantasies? Well I guess they don’t count since I find Amanda far too scrawny to be attractive. But still, boots, corset, ball-gag, there’s a scene I want to be part of.

  78. Yeah Joe, nothing about Mancotte’s writings would ever cause someone to conclude she hates men. No way. Her rantings speak for themselves. I will admit perhaps I failed to take into account the contortions men will put themselves through to get laid. The guy may not actually loath himself and his gender but I guarentee you he pretends he does.

    As far as Lithwick goes, Having seen more than my share of these cases, I had my doubts about this case even before the accuser’s story broke down. Why? Because even though they were at a party with dozens of people, the prosecution had no witnesses beyond the victim. We know even by the accuser’s story everyone at the party didn’t rape her. Just a few. How does no one notice this? Or at least testify to seeing her going into the bathroom with the accused and coming out beat up? The Lacrosse team isn’t that loyal to each other. All of these party rapes happen after everyone leaves. Reality is not Hollywood. Almost never do you get the case of a huge group of people at a party raping a woman lik the movie the Accused. Rapist are much more subtle and vile. They find a drunk woman, wait for the party to clear out, get her alone and rape her. God, if only I had a few dozen witnesses for some of the cases I did. If it had happened during the party their would have been witnesses. Further, when faced with the prospect of being an accessory to rape, someone would have talked and ratted the perpetrators out and confirmed the accuser’s story. Yet, no one did. That doesn’t add up and it never added up. Anyone who has had any experience with rape cases knows this. Granted, I wasn’t there. In some ways you are right, we will never know what happened for sure. You know what that is called? Reasonable doubt. If a prosecutor honestly believes that there is reasonable doubt of a suspect’s innocence, then he ethically shouldn’t bring the case.

    Lithwick never bothered to apply one shread of common sense or legal analysis to the case. She is a lawyer. Scarily enough she went to Stanford. I fear for the profession knowing a hack like her went to an alleged top law school. She never bothered to really think through the case or if she did she couldn’t accept the obvious reality of the LaCross player’s innocnece and instead inpunged on everyone who stood up for them. She is a terrible writer.

  79. “John, What about my sick fantasies? Well I guess they don’t count since I find Amanda far too scrawny to be attractive. But still, boots, corset, ball-gag, there’s a scene I want to be part of.”

    You got it man. She is a bit scrawny but I never had a problem with that.

  80. Do you guys ever have female commentors? Female readers? Well, except for Jeff Goldstein, I mean. I hear he warms up a heck of a pot pie for his breadwinner.

  81. “You couldn’t.”

    what about people in abusive relationships? (i’m not saying the above people with whom i am unfamiliar are abusive or whatever, but it seems entirely possible to me that you could get mixed up in all sorts of bad people with poor enough esteem and/or economic issues at hand, etc.)

  82. What is with this feminist notion of a power imbalance favoring Men?

    Women:Half the money and all the pussy-
    now that is a power imbalance.

  83. I’m coming a little to the farewell party for Pandagon’s Amanda Marcotte…

    Aw, I think it was neater before you fixed the typo. I was thinking that was some serious schadenfreude.

  84. “Marcotte has described herself as “a cum-guzzling boozehound”. This might be enough to compensate for beng hated by her.”

    Can’t argue with that. See the above post about the feminist who had the Geisha relationship with her boyfriend. People who are extreme in public tend to be that way to hide serious insecurities about how they are in private.

  85. “2. When the subject of a comment thread is a guy, why do I never read comments on if they look good or not, although I often see it in threads on women? WTF has that to do with anything?”

    It has nothing to do with anything, but it’s fun to comment on the looks of feminazis for the same reason that it’s fun to ask them if they can cook their man a nice dinner.

    “Which one of you cute little cupcakes wants to come over to my place and cook me dinner?” – George Carlin to the National Organization of Women

  86. “Do you guys ever have a female commentator?”

    I think the person who posted this item is female. Cathy is still a girl’s name, right?

  87. Seamus,

    So, what makes the difference is whether I use vulgar language to knockdown the notion of Christ’s virgin birth?

    What do you think of the Danish cartoons which stirred such controversy?

  88. Dan T,

    I lost a more detailed comment to server funkiness, so I’ll give you the short version.

    1) Bigotry still isn’t contingent upon power relations, but you’ve backed away from that position now. The extent of power a bigot has does affect the damage he/she can do, but that’s true of any character flaw.

    2) I don’t see where threat comes into this. I personally disagree sharply on many things with Marcotte but wouldn’t characterize her as bigoted, but even people I do think are bigoted against people like me aren’t particularly threatening to me unless they are near me and have a knife or something. Just because I chose to condemn someone as a bigot doesn’t mean I necessarily think they’re a threat to me or anybody else.

    3) Though experiment: Does putting handcuffs on a neo-nazi doesn’t make him less of a bigot?

    4) Even bigotry that is passive because of power relations can become active when the power relations change, and even the oppressed are not entirely powerless, and thus bigotry should still be condemned on practical as well as principled grounds even in groups who are not dominant in a society. See pre- and post-war Iraq’s religious tensions for example.


  89. 1. I can’t believe that I agree with Jeff G,

    Ditto. I ended up in some reasonably intense flamewars with Dems/liberals who were all bent out of shape about right-wing attacks on the Edwards bloggers. Yes, I understand they are sick and tired of the right-wing driving the narrative and getting away with its denunciations of critics as traitors, anti-American, not supporting the troops, being unhinged, or Jonah Goldberg’s latest that liberals are fascists in a book with a cute little Hitler smiley face on it.

    And yes, I also understand that Wm Donohue is a professional grievance monger and asshat, and that Michelle Malkin is no paragon of decency merely because she mostly lacks a potty mouth.

    But at the end of the day, two things pissed me off: 1. My own moral compass isn’t directed by fear and loathing of those whom I normally revile to the extent I will give a pass to behavior they rightly condemn, and 2. a significant number of those defending Marcotte see no problem with her gratuitously trashing a doctrine held to be sacred by many of the electorate. Hers was not a dispassionate examination of the empirical failings of the Virgin Birth doctrine; it was obscene ridicule of a major religion for no good reason.

    Nor is the situation akin to the Mohammed Cartoons. Catholics did not riot and send Marcotte into hiding with armed guards, even if she did receive some vile email. By contrast, the Danish paper running those Cartoons did so because it had come to the editors attention that professional illustrators feared drawing Mohammmed least they be killed. Thus, running the Mohammed Cartoons was in the vein of flag-burning; it an act, one repudiating thuggery more than saying anything about Islam itself.

    Which is to say, it was a revolt against things like a fatwa on Salman Rushdie. For all I know I wouldn’t approve of Rushdie’s fiction about Mohammed, but the response to it is intolerable in a free society. By contrast, in a civil society we do not run around gratuitously slamming in the most vulgar possible terms the beleifs of our fellow citizens, and a politician who hires people who do do that, lacks all good judgment.

    Then there is the matter of Marcotte’s awful belief that men simply cannot be falsely charged when the “victim” is a female. Please.

  90. That “I am a tw*t” piece is incredible. I am something of a prude, I admit, but even if I had a high threshold for profanity or “potty mouth” I would find this disturbing. Marcotte is a not a mere swear-like-a-sailor type; she is someone whose instinctive reaction to criticism is to respond in sexually explicit language in graphic, obscene detail and then condemns her hate mailers for doing the same. Even for those of you who think Marcotte is a useful blogger in a private capacity, how could she ever have been regarded as suitable for a bland, boring position like official campaign blogger? Edwards should thank Bill Donahue for getting rid of Marcotte before she posted something embarrassing on the campaign blog itself. I don’t appreciate terms like “Christofascist,” but McEwen was much less offensive and I would not have been upset if she had stayed.

  91. True she wouldn’t be any less insane if she were ugly.

    True Dat!

  92. mona: i must highly recommend you read mr. rushdie. really. midnight’s children is his best, but the satanic verses is also quite good.

    he is a hell of a writer.

    the libertarian sausage party mentality that shows up here sometimes is depressing. the best you can do is tweak the noses of strawmen? (strawpersons?)

    “It has nothing to do with anything, but it’s fun to comment on the looks of feminazis for the same reason that it’s fun to ask them if they can cook their man a nice dinner.”

    another way to put this would be that libertarian blogs collect a huge amount of lonely men, and so discussions of women invariable fall to their physical presentation, regardless of topic.

    this is true of a lot of places, of course – but for a magazine called reason…(CHUG CHUG CHUG)

    there really aren’t that many true “feminazis” out there; genuine dworkinites – who lack even her less nuanced nuance – are few and far between.

  93. Women:Half the money and all the pussy-
    now that is a power imbalance.

    Actually, 60% of the wealth of the USA is cntrolled by women.

    Somehow, evil men control that too.

  94. Come on Ms. Young, what is the world coming to if Guy and I can’t have sick fantasies about crazy bloggers?

    Um, MY fantasies are not sick! However, she is NOT getting me helpless.

  95. Now of course prepare for Cathy Young to ban you, I and Guy Montag from Reason for life.

    Speak for yourself!

  96. Mona,

    …a significant number of those defending Marcotte see no problem with her gratuitously trashing a doctrine held to be sacred by many of the electorate.

    So, like, when individual libertarians gratuitously trash the economic doctrines of liberals, are we supposed to attack these libertarians for such? Fat chance.

    I’ll be blunt: religion gets far too much respect in comparison to other ideologies (we must remember that is all a religion is – an ideology).

    Now this isn’t a defense of Marcotte’s writings (I’ve never read them), it is a defense of the use of less than pleasant language in describing the absurdities of religion. Indeed, language used against the absurdities of all ideologies. In other words, “respecting” while disparaging patently stupid religious ideas is just about as silly as “respecting” while disparaging stupid economic ideas. We don’t do the latter, so why are we expected to do the former? I wonder why that is?

    Nor is the situation akin to the Mohammed Cartoons. Catholics did not riot and send Marcotte into hiding with armed guards, even if she did receive some vile email.

    Not the analogy I was making at all. Indeed, the “reaction” issue doesn’t really matter in the context of the question.

    By contrast, in a civil society we do not run around gratuitously slamming in the most vulgar possible terms the beleifs of our fellow citizens…

    Sure we do. Indeed, blogging is a perfect example of how civil societies actually work.

  97. Er…

    I should qualify that last statement by ending it with:

    “…much of the time.”

  98. Going back to ginmar. You can read her Livejournal at http://ginmar.livejournal.com

    You can decide for yourself. I’ve waded into making a comment in her journal. It’s like tiptoeing through a minefield.


  99. Sure we do. Indeed, blogging is a perfect example of how civil societies actually work.

    Speak for yourself. I’m a blogger and I do not gratuitously ridicule the religious beliefs of others, nor their political beliefs unless they are manifestly lying and operating in the service of vile agendas (e.g., war-mongering). If they are obviously nuts, and off into conspiracy theories and such, yeah, I’ll poke fun at them. But not religious belief per se.

    Why? Because in a civil society where we all agree to live peacefully together, demonizing people for their Ultimate Beliefs is not a good idea. Scientology is a system it is hard for me to fathom any intelligent person accepting, but I would not criticize them if they didn’t bilk people out of lots of $$ and employ litigation and lies to destroy critics. But their beliefs per se, I’d leave alone if they didn’t try to harm people, and I criticize only the harmful beliefs (such as their “fair game” doctrine).

    Further, as a libertarian I’m with Hayek — the ultimate rationalist — in holding that long-surviving religions embedded into our culture serve some group survival advantages. Religion is a double-edged sword, but not all that it brings is bad.

    Moreover, I’m an atheist, and on occasion I will strongly object to uncivil attacks on those of my kind — attacks which are legion. Widespread misunderstanding of atheism and contempt for it causes people to think of us as monsters, and that really bothers me. It is wrong, and I have been known to object when bigoted hate against non-theists rears its ugly head.

    In any event, it is monumentally stupid for a candidate aspiring to the presidency to hire a blogger who writes the rancid bile Marcotte does about Catholic and Xian belief. She isn’t The Skeptical Enquirer, she is a contempt-monger. Atheist Carl Sagan warned his pal James Randi not to step too far into the latter behavior, because it is attacking something quintessentially human, and I agree.

  100. Speak for yourself. I’m a blogger and I do not gratuitously ridicule the religious beliefs of others, nor their political beliefs unless they are manifestly lying and operating in the service of vile agendas (e.g., war-mongering). If they are obviously nuts, and off into conspiracy theories and such, yeah, I’ll poke fun at them.

    What are you talking about? Given admin privileges you actually altered my posts. And not even for any good reason. It is people like you who are the problem. It is people like you who need to change, Mona.

  101. Mona,

    I’m a blogger and I do not gratuitously ridicule the religious beliefs of others, nor their political beliefs unless they are manifestly lying and operating in the service of vile agendas (e.g., war-mongering).

    I don’t see the reason to personalize this. What you do individually has little to do with the overall nature of the blogosphere. So all I can write in response is – *shrug*.

    …demonizing people for their Ultimate Beliefs is not a good idea.

    The problem with this statement is that they don’t keep their “Ultimate Beliefs” to themselves. Christians don’t, Muslims don’t, etc. They try to legislate their values. They come to my door and knock on it and try to “save” me. So guess what, I get to comment as well. We aren’t living in a world which isn’t chock full of commentary by religious people.

    But their beliefs per se…

    How do you so easily seperate beliefs from activities? It seems likely that the more strongly one believes in something the more likely they are to act on it.

    …in holding that long-surviving religions embedded into our culture serve some group survival advantages.

    And clear disadvantages. Very clear ones.

    Moreover, I’m an atheist, and on occasion I will strongly object to uncivil attacks on those of my kind — attacks which are legion. Widespread misunderstanding of atheism and contempt for it causes people to think of us as monsters, and that really bothers me. It is wrong, and I have been known to object when bigoted hate against non-theists rears its ugly head.

    Again, why the personalization?

    In any event, it is monumentally stupid for a candidate aspiring to the presidency to hire a blogger who writes the rancid bile Marcotte does about Catholic and Xian belief.

    What is the exact “rancid bile” BTW? Calling Jesus, well, “Jeebus?” Because the one link in this write-up which actually describes a specific comment refers to that term, and that term only.

  102. What are you talking about? Given admin privileges you actually altered my posts. And not even for any good reason. It is people like you who are the problem. It is people like you who need to change, Mona.

    Oh Sam, (Dave W.) I didn’t merely alter your comments, I wholesale rewrote them, with Chinese characters, random Latin grafs, icons of trolls, and other amusements. Of course, everyone knew I was doing that because I said so — including to you. After I had politely told you to stay out of my threads which you were disrupting, and you would not abide by my request. Then Thoreau told you to stay out of his too, and eventually, once the site owner was back we were given permission to ban your ass. You know, kind of like happened to you here at one point.

  103. Anyway, as regards in-group and out-group behavior, well, that is human biology at work.

  104. politely told/i>

    lol

    all I can say is that Hankie better have gotten some good luvin’ outta u 4 what u did.

  105. “There are a large number of regulars (like Guy and rob) who characterize anything I write as ‘trolling,’ merely because they disagree with it, and think I’m inferior for holding opinions they dislike.” – joe

    You seem to have some serious self-delusion going on there, joe. I count 4 times in this recent thread that you call me a troll. (https://www.reason.com/blog/show/118684.html#comments)

    “A 59-41 election is what is generally called a rout, troll.” – joe, February 14, 2007, 4:04pm

    “And just to remind you, troll boy, the question you asked was, ‘Hey, joe, about those Dem presidential candidates – which ones didn’t vote for authorization of force? You can’t even name them, can you?’ That’s whay you asked, that’s what I answered. If you meant, ‘…who voted against the resolution,’ you should have written that.” – joe, February 14, 2007, 5:06pm

    “You don’t say. No, genius, it doesn’t give you an 8 point split. It gives you a 16 point split, 58-42. Smarter trolls, please.” – joe, February 14, 2007, 7:35pm

    “Neener neener nee-ner. pwned, troll.” – joe, February 15, 2007, 10:30am

    My only sentence with “troll” in it? This one:
    “I love it when you call ME a troll. I’m not the guy who comes to a libertarian web-site armed with the latest DNC Talking Points and itching for a fight, then insulting and cursing at people who (predictably) disagree with you.” – rob, February 14, 2007, 10:38pm

    “If I thought they spoke for the majority of regulars, I wouldn’t bother coming here.” – joe

    Stop trying to blame your masochistic desire to be a libertarian pinata on “the majority of regulars.”

  106. This is a completely unfair analysis. You state that “Marcotte” and “ginmar” are the same type of girl and then proceed to criticize Marcotte on the basis of what “ginmar” says in the comments. What a load of crap. Marcotte should receive credit or condemnation for her own writing, not the writing of another person.

    I suppose all feminists look alike…especially in the dark.

  107. There are a large number of regulars (like Guy and rob) who characterize anything I write as “trolling,” merely because they disagree with it, and think I’m inferior for holding opinions they dislike.

    When did I accuse you of that? Hint: if I disagree with you I am not calling you a “troll”.

    Oh, you must be talking about that Dave W. thing 🙂

  108. Guy Montag – You should know by now that joe doesn’t actually need facts to be right. In fact (pun intended), Standard Operating Procedure for joe is that the less the facts support his accusations the more he simply repeats the accusations.

    This is only superceded by SOP #2: If the facts clearly contradict him, he repeats himself more frequently, usually with more insults and profanity directed at anyone who disagrees with him, then complains that the people he’s been disagreeing with and insulting are insulting him and only disagree with him because they’re crazy trolls.

    It’s amazing how often this tactic seems to work, and even more amazing how often people show up to talk about how joe is a good guy, despite his politics, insults, profanity and generally deplorable approach to 80% of the folks who post here regularly.

    Of course, he has changed his tactics over time. I remember posting an entire list of under-handed “joe tactics” at one point…

  109. I’m not familiar with everything Amanda Marcotte (who I’d never heard of before this post) has written, but the quotes included here are pretty disgusting. However, they’re not really any more disgusting than many of the comments people have made here.

  110. (Yes, I know ginmar is not Amanda Marcotte, but ideologically they’re pretty much peas in a pod.)

    All the same, this post would have been stronger had you not mentioned ginmar. You simply can’t quote commentors on someone else’s blog and have the quotes taken seriously. And any mention of a commenter on Marcotte’s weblog detracts attention from Marcotte, so why would you do it? Also, Marcotte is a known individual, ginmar is an anonymous alias. Surely you can see why its best to stay focused on Marcotte?

  111. “I suppose all feminists look alike…especially in the dark.”

    In the dark, all cats are black. In the dark, all women are dangerous, feminists especially so.

    Q. How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
    A. Angrily… That’s not funny!

  112. Wow, I came here to join the piling on Amanda, for whom I have no love–and even less admiration.

    But after reading many of the comments here that bring Amanda’s looks into the discussion (along with the obligatory Rosie O’Donnell/fat lesbo gags), and that posit the conditions leading to her feminist “awakening” (rape, abuse, sexual frustration, etc), suddenly I am not so sure that she isn’t right to see misogyny behind seemingly random commonplace actions and social phenomena.

    I think she takes things a little too far–and far too literal-mindedly. But some of the cretins hereabouts do more to underscore her point than an arena full of Amanda supporters ever could.

  113. Thank you for this post, we are a online dating website blog network, which college students read our blog, so thanks and well post this article on our blog. Jennifer @ University of Syracusewoman seeking men

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.