Is the Blogosphere Sexist?
Ann Althouse thinks there is some truth to Amanda Marcotte's accussation that she was fired because of sexism:
Sexism is what got Marcotte hired in the first place-- she and her co-blogger were hired because they were women, and Edwards as well as the bloggers mistakenly believed that because they were women, they could get away with anything. No self-respecting politician would have hired a man who talked and acted like a deranged teen who spouted off at the mouth as if he were a sexually abused borderline using the internet as a weapon against all that angered him. Such a man would rightly be called a loose cannon--a misogynist who was part of a fringe group of warped minds. My guess is that Edwards hired these women to make the point that he was a "progressive feminist" who took women's views seriously. His mistake was to believe that the average woman, or man for that matter, would take the views of a bigot and a hater like Marcotte seriously regardless of sex. Sexism may have played a part in Marcotte and her fellow-hater getting hired but it certainly played no part in getting them fired--their unprofessional conduct and rantings did that for them all by itself.
As for the notion that the blogosphere is full of sexism and men just don't realize it, I think the Professor should take a real look at who some of these sexist comments are made by. I, for one, have noticed that as many sexist and nasty comments on my blog are written by females as by males. And, proportionally, men do read more political blogs: generally about 75% of political blog readers are male, meaning that there will be more of a chance of comments of any type from men on blogs such as Althouse's--but many of these males are supportive of women's sites, otherwise they would not be on there commenting and interacting with female bloggers. And, honestly, some of the ugliest comments I have gotten have been from cowards that come to my site to make ugly comments about my husband's appearance--one commenter (don't know if male or female) even called him "tubby." How sexist is that? Other so called progressive sites call me the "ole Mrs. Doctor Perfesser" or some such nonsense--I have seen this on "feminist sites." Isn't it sexist to be addressing a woman by her husband's occupation etc? So, who is the sexist here? (Even leftist blogs have complained about that: see the footnote.)
I recently answered some questions for a researcher who was studying women's political blogs and she asked if I encountered sexism as a woman on the internet. My response, "Yes, but frequently from other women." And the digs from those women are often not subtle, and usually related to appearance. I remember reading some blog where a "feminist" didn't like something I said and stated, "She needs to do something with that hair, Meow!" "What a catty comment," I thought, particularly coming from a blogger who seemed to pride herself for being a feminist.
To tell you the truth, I don't read many of the "feminist" blogs: they seem immature and tend to blame men in vile terms for every aspect of their miserable lives--while at the same time, slamming any man who makes the slightest criticism of women. Yep, the blogosphere is sexist all right but it may just be that the women give as good or better than they get. So I really can't feel too sorry for them. I am just disappointed that the typically just and reasonable Professor Althouse would fail to give her male readers and bloggers the benefit of the doubt in this aspect.
I think Marcotte goes way too far blaming sexism for her troubles, but there is still some truth to it. I've seen plenty of attacks on me that have the odor of sexism. I think there is a sense out there that the blogosphere belongs to the guys and the women are interlopers. Rationally, most guys will say that's not true, but I think they still have that prejudice, that instinctive reaction: Who does she think she is? Who let her in here? And I readily admit that some of what I think is my own imagination, but I've read enough things about me to believe it.
Sexism is what got Marcotte hired in the first place-- she and her co-blogger were hired because they were women, and Edwards as well as the bloggers mistakenly believed that because they were women, they could get away with anything. No self-respecting politician would have hired a man who talked and acted like a deranged teen who spouted off at the mouth as if he were a sexually abused borderline using the internet as a weapon against all that angered him. Such a man would rightly be called a loose cannon--a misogynist who was part of a fringe group of warped minds. My guess is that Edwards hired these women to make the point that he was a "progressive feminist" who took women's views seriously. His mistake was to believe that the average woman, or man for that matter, would take the views of a bigot and a hater like Marcotte seriously regardless of sex. Sexism may have played a part in Marcotte and her fellow-hater getting hired but it certainly played no part in getting them fired--their unprofessional conduct and rantings did that for them all by itself.
As for the notion that the blogosphere is full of sexism and men just don't realize it, I think the Professor should take a real look at who some of these sexist comments are made by. I, for one, have noticed that as many sexist and nasty comments on my blog are written by females as by males. And, proportionally, men do read more political blogs: generally about 75% of political blog readers are male, meaning that there will be more of a chance of comments of any type from men on blogs such as Althouse's--but many of these males are supportive of women's sites, otherwise they would not be on there commenting and interacting with female bloggers. And, honestly, some of the ugliest comments I have gotten have been from cowards that come to my site to make ugly comments about my husband's appearance--one commenter (don't know if male or female) even called him "tubby." How sexist is that? Other so called progressive sites call me the "ole Mrs. Doctor Perfesser" or some such nonsense--I have seen this on "feminist sites." Isn't it sexist to be addressing a woman by her husband's occupation etc? So, who is the sexist here? (Even leftist blogs have complained about that: see the footnote.)
I recently answered some questions for a researcher who was studying women's political blogs and she asked if I encountered sexism as a woman on the internet. My response, "Yes, but frequently from other women." And the digs from those women are often not subtle, and usually related to appearance. I remember reading some blog where a "feminist" didn't like something I said and stated, "She needs to do something with that hair, Meow!" "What a catty comment," I thought, particularly coming from a blogger who seemed to pride herself for being a feminist.
To tell you the truth, I don't read many of the "feminist" blogs: they seem immature and tend to blame men in vile terms for every aspect of their miserable lives--while at the same time, slamming any man who makes the slightest criticism of women. Yep, the blogosphere is sexist all right but it may just be that the women give as good or better than they get. So I really can't feel too sorry for them. I am just disappointed that the typically just and reasonable Professor Althouse would fail to give her male readers and bloggers the benefit of the doubt in this aspect.
posted by Helen at 3:37 PM
79 Comments:
If I thought I could add anything to your writing about the matter, I would. Let me just say "What she said" and concur.
And now for the invective to follow.
Trey
I think it would be valuable for us to start trying to seperate "sexism" and "racism" from generic insults. Many people who say things that are sexist are just looking to wound and, unable to come up with anything with substance, go for the lowest common demoniator. I hesitate to elevate idiotic insults to the level of a full-fledged worldview such as sexism.
But to take those comments and extrapolate them to "the blogosphere" seems a bit silly as well. Ann's comment about her sense that some people feel that the "blogosphere belongs to the guys" feels like more of a personal projection on her part. Sometimes I feel like the blogosphere belongs to reasonable libertarians but that's really only a reflection of what I choose to read.
Calling your husband "tubby" is many things--stupid, impolite, uncalled-for, inaccurate, off the point, unnecessary--but I have no idea how it is sexist.
I regularly hit a British blog called Harry's Place. The commenting culture is like a sports bar, and now and then someone says something in a censorious tone to the effect that it is "not a very ewelcoming place for women" and apparenly in Britain that is enough to shut everyone and have them straing at thier toes. What is really going on is that people commnet with screen names, anonymously basically, and everyone gets treated the same. And very few women can handle it. Some can, the ones that know the difference between having one and being one. Fair enough. What is not fair, and is pathetic, is that they get equal treatment and call it sexism; when they are noi treated according to patriarchal sex role expectations that is sexism. And they refuse to see this when it gets explained ot them. Sad.
There is no question that Marcotte expected to get a p*ssy pass on this and is howling "sexism" when that is the exact oposite of sexism. Her real problem is that she came up in the modern university environment, was lead to believe that that was normal, and is miffed that the world is not indulging her the same way. The poor thing is just very spoiled, and ungrateful.
One other thing. Dr. Althouse is right, the blogospher may indeed belong to the "guys", because it is bluntly and overtly confrontational. You cannot whisper behind someone's back in the blogosphere. Further, since everything is down in balck and white, you cannot dissemble and equivocate and re-interpret what oyu said in the past. Many women may feel that that puts them at a disadvantage; I would say that that position would be misogynist.
The blogosphere is very public and safe, comfortable, affirming echo chambers get the doors thrown open and exposed to the light very easily. That is very hard for some people.
Sexism is a broad term. Why does a female commenter attack a female blogger? Why does a male commenter attack a female blogger? What is the message both parties think they are sending through their comments? What message does the blogger actually receive from said comments?
There is so much going on it would take volumes to explain it all.
A couple of comments:
1) Althouse is not a "Dr." She is a lawyer, not a PhD or MD.
2) I don't understand how calling someone "tubby" is sexist. Juvenile, yes. Obnoxious, yes. But what sexism has to do with that I have no idea.
3) Of course feminists are sexist, just as advocates of affirmative action are racist. The problem arises when one's entire worldview is encompassed by one's pet issue. If you see the entire world through the lens of male-female relationships how can you be anything but sexist?! Your entire perspective is informed by sex.
Calling your husband "tubby" is many things--stupid, impolite, uncalled-for, inaccurate, off the point, unnecessary--but I have no idea how it is sexist.
The point is that woman are (more often than men) attacked on personal grounds, be it looks, their spouse, etc... instead of their critics addressing the topic at hand. The irony is that more women tend to use these tactics than men! (in my experience, at least, women are always quicker to "go there")
As for Marcotte, I agree that she never would have been hired in the first place were she not a woman.
In general, I think Matthias has it right.
People spew invective that they believe to be a sore issue for the person being insulted.
Someone who is terribly afraid of gaining weight will be called a pig regardless of the persons actual weight.
Put a simpler way, there is no worse insult to the anorexic than to call them fat.
That isn't sexism/weightism/ whateverism, it's just knife twisting.
To those here who say it is not sexist to call a man tubby--Please! It is commenting on his appearance--if someone were to call a woman tubby, you better believe she would think it was sexist.
"...you better believe she would think it was sexist." But would thinking that make it so? Why does it make it so in your case?
Perhaps Ann Althouse needs to hone her sense of irony, as Marcotte has a history of spraying the Internet with her own brand of sexism.
Here’s one of Marcotte’s gems regarding the term ‘misandry’:
“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. It just doesn’t seem fair that there’s an actual word for woman-hating just because misogyny is a very real thing.”
As far as "Dr. Althouse" goes, a lawyer is granted a Juris Doctorate (JD). Though it's not common parlance, I think it within bounds to call a lawyer "Doctor."
I routinely so call lawyer friends of mine. But then I call an artist friend of mine who was a classics scholar at Princeton "Professor." Maybe it's just me.
I'm a guy with a name that causes people to often think I'm female if they haven't met me. In the beginning I didn't have a picture on my blog. I often got rather nasty emails from anonymous people who disagreed with me. After I put up the picture I noticed that the tenor of my commenters changed quite a bit. They became somewhat more respectful. I still get the occasional semi-coherent nastygram from anonymous miscreants, but it's fairly rare.
In general I've observed a tendency for certain commenters (mostly anonymous) to more quickly attack a female blogger for an opinion than they would a male for the same opinion and to be nastier and more personal about it.
Aubrey:
This was an interesting article that appeared at Showbuzz about our culture's aversion to pretty female comics. This was an interesting comment from Drew Carey:
"It's not so much that women aren't funny, he explains, as that men don't want them to be funny. "Comedy is about aggression and confrontation and power," says the stand-up comic. "As a culture we just don't allow women to do all that stuff."
The same can be said about women with any other type of well-thought out opinion.
The fear of straying from the spin... What "Dr." Helen writes here confirms what Althouse wrote.
The "Dr." Helen's of the world are looking for victims. Men, boys in school, bloggers, etc. It's just words, honey. Your husband is not a victim of sexism because he was called "tubby". Sorry, no. You're just trolling for male "victims" here.
What "Dr." Helen's M.O. is, in case people haven't visited here long enough, is to spin every issue as victimizing men. The Duke accused are victims for life.
A woman who uses her husband and his links to promote herself and her independent blog should be prepared for people to question her merit/her blog's merit on its own. That's not sexism either.
What the Professor is saying is: if it's a free-for-all, don't pick a victim or victimizer sex. You can't group like that. Just like you can't do it with ethnicity, race, or religion, you can't categorize based on gender. Especially with such a small sample size. Anecdotes all. Your hubby got called a name? Pffft. Deal with it.
If this is what passes for "sexism" these days on the right, I laugh at all upir fellow "doctors" promoting this nonsense. And no wonder American boys are finding it so hard to become men. Don't victimize them, "doctor". Funny thing is, if you were Catholic, you'd see it as religious bias, not sexism. Indeed.
As for the notion that the blogosphere is full of sexism and men just don't realize it, I think the Professor should take a real look at who some of these sexist comments are made by. I, for one, have noticed that as many sexist and nasty comments on my blog are written by females as by males.
Follow up question:
How do you confirm your commenter's sex online? Or do you make assumptions, and go on that, presenting it as "scientific" observation? I call bullshit... (and it's not because you're a lady, but because as a thinker, I think you've long been given a pass in some of your reasoning and conclusions here.).
Well, it does seem that there are more men posting on the political blogs and it seems likely that the number of idiots is the same for both sexes: Thus, at least to me it seems that it would APPEAR there are more male sexists, with that only being a matter of their being more males.
I don't real Althouse, I don't like her politics.
on several forums, and blogs, i get called sexist, for stating, that boys and girls are not the same, when i try to say that men are marginalised, denigrated, i frequently get called sexist mostly by women, i had to leave 2 boards because they were forever insulting men, and when i as a man stood up, i was shouted down.
any group who discriminates against any other group including their own are sexist.
If you don't think there's a double standard on what gets called sexism then you're not paying attention. Commenting on a woman's appearance -- sexism. Commenting on a man's -- humor.
And what's this about female comics? Ellen DeGeneres was pretty back when she was funny. Sandra Bernhard, too.
8:03:
See what I mean about the "Dr." Helen Club? BooHoo, I'm a boy.
Ugh. I hate that, and folks that try to push that too. First do no harm. We can only hope it passes quickly...
Say, whadya think of the Professor's guest columnist gig in the NYT? She's good, eh?
Anon2:54: You are, of course, exactly right about Dr. Helen and you're not alone in seeing that. What is interesting to me is that when a commenter disagrees with Helen, she tends to assume the commenter is a woman. Why? Because it fits into her image as a woman who is different, a woman who is one of the guys. Why does she think she's one of the guys? Because she's a deep thinker and because women are stupid. (She also tends to think that a critical post comes from liberals, as if there is no room for disagreement among conservatives and libertarians, but we're talking about sexism here.)
Is Helen sexist for thinking women are weak and stupid? Are we sexist for criticizing Helen? Are we sexist for talking about how we see her blog? The responses will be predictable.
Anonymous 9:09:
You have it exactly backwards. I think that women are intelligent and capable of handling criticism without screaming sexism on a regular basis. Many people think that women do not make sexist comments. Why? Because the catty comments women make about other women are seen as cute and innocuous rather than the power play they really are. Women think that only men have the ability to have power plays because men "own" power whereas women do not. This is sexist--I think that women do not realize how powerful they really are.
anonymous 2:54 and 3:00 am and
alter ego 8:03, 8:15, 8:21 and 9:09
Are you off your meds, again?
9;33:
You must be part of that victimist society that has a pill to fix everything, and a doc to prescribe it, eh? Tell me how that worked out for Anna Nicole and her boy... I heard the methadone scrip was made out in Howard Stern's name. Poor guy. He must really be suffering, eh?
Got your "Wonder Woman" deflector rings on this morning?
I was talking to you, about you. How does Anna Nicole Smith, her son, and Howard Stern play into this outside of your own mind?
jim:
"Further, since everything is down in balck (sic) and white, you cannot dissemble and equivocate and re-interpret what oyu (sic) said in the past."
Hahaha. Never stopped you, jim!
As for the substance of this post, I don't know how helen knows when a poster is male or female. So, I don't understand how she thinks she knows which sex engages in more sexist comments.
Is calling Glenn "tubby" sexist? Well, I don't know. But it's certainly inaccurate and stupid.
Are women more apt to "go personal"? I try not to generalize about vast groups of people. It's unhelpful and invariably inaccurate and unproven. Why not talk about actual, specific facts? I mean, unless, you have an axe to grind or something.
Aubrey Turner has in effect done a controlled experiment, so I am inclined to give his experience some weight. There is also the Libertarian Girl hoax from a couple of years ago:
http://libertariangirl.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/02/if_it_werent_fo.html
I suspect that any tendency to hurl abuse towards women has more to do with tactics than misogyny. People anticipate that a woman will be hurt more and a man will be angered more by such abuse.
As such abusers generally wish to cause hurt rather than return fire, they tend to concentrate such remarks on women.
And women speaking ill of other women must be the oldest stereotype on Earth...
Anonymous 11:25, very true. There is much more cultural pressure on women to be perceived as nice than on men. Consequently women take negative comments much more personally.
Commenters use this concept to their benefit, getting personal with a woman much quicker than they would on a man, but also the female targets of commenters have thinner skin than men.
i have found women to be in general more snippy, more sniping towards other women, they are happy face to face but behind their backs its hasnt she put on weight, etc..
with men its usually fight fight fight, then your back to friends again. men are generally more upfront, physically based, we wouldnt call other men tubby, unless we were feminised men.
women generally demonise other people by putting them down.
they generally resort to personal insults,
Is calling Glenn "tubby" sexist? Well, I don't know. But it's certainly inaccurate and stupid.
He is a flabby thinker.
No doubt about it.
br549: Care to enlighten us on how many pills you pop each day? Funny how when you get in with people like that, suddenly mom, pop and all the kids are on scrips. All for the better, of course. Nothing like a quick pill fix to make excuses for one's overall health, lifestyle and diet choices. Your body pays in the end, and you can't make excuses for poor health. Indeed.
Marcotte's claims of sexism are simply a way of attempting to redirect the criticism. "It's not me, it's you." Rather than engage in a bit of introspection, she chooses to blame others for her failings.
The point is that woman are (more often than men) attacked on personal grounds,
Is this really so? When people are attacked invectives of all sorts are often used. It's rare to call a man a "bitch" but equally, or more rare, to call a woman a "bastard" and so on. You may think that women are attacked on personal grounds more often but that doesn't make it so.
Another anon wrote: "br549: Care to enlighten us on how many pills you pop each day? Funny how when you get in with people like that, suddenly mom, pop and all the kids are on scrips. All for the better, of course. Nothing like a quick pill fix to make excuses for one's overall health, lifestyle and diet choices. Your body pays in the end, and you can't make excuses for poor health. Indeed."
What is this gibberish? It is the quality, more specifically the lack thereof, of your thought that brought up the critical comment. Quick pill fix? Are you trying to annoy people by posting random words?
Trey
I wish that Prof. Althouse would either elaborate her arguments or refrain from introducing them. The style of commentary that she's adapted tends to produce these sorts of universalizing subjective statements. Here her snarky commentors evince the unconscious motives of the blogosphere generally. Why? - that's just how she feels about it, and objects to the contrary are meritless because of.. secrets of the id!
Her recent treatments of articulateness among African Americans, states rights, and broader issues of federalism demonstrate the same pattern.
The style of commentary that she's adapted tends to produce these sorts of universalizing subjective statements. Here her snarky commentors evince the unconscious motives of the blogosphere generally.
I smell jealousy... Heh.
Really though, it still hasn't been proven that there's a secret code to determine the commenters' sex. Helen is making it up, and calling it true. Not many buying today. Try again tomorrow.
Derve? Is that you?
This topic has come up before surrounding the BlogHer conference. Professor Althouse was uncomfortable with the environment--she was cast as the "conservative" (ha!) there and felt she was a tad hoodwinked as every other presenter was Left/Progressive.
Anyway, female blogger Kathy Sierra of Passionate Users said that she wasn't a "female blogger". I agreed. Ms. Althouse disagreed.
It is a few months later, and my opinion is still that the blogosphere isn't generally sexist. I received my first hate post at another blog by a Leftist woman who went personal and for the throat and refused to argue the issue. It was a tad alarming. I'm all for spirited debate and even incisive snark, if an idea warrants. Nobody on the web has the corner on absolute truth. We're all open to criticism. But why the knives? Interestingly, she titled her post "attacked by a ...." (me) which I in no way did. I simply disagreed. Talk about projection.
Marcotte was free to say what she believed and others are free to respond. I couldn't have disagreed with her more. But I do notice that people feel free on the internet to say things in ways they would never say in real life. People, including Marcotte, seem to forget that the people on the receiving end of their vitriol are flesh and blood human beings. Her outrage is rich considering...
Here is one way I do think the sphere is sexist: women will rant against another woman far more than against a man. I think some women still lack the confidence to enter the serious arena of ideas or maybe they're put off by the locker-room nature of some blog threads.
tmink wrote: "Another anon wrote: "br549: Care to enlighten us on how many pills you pop each day?. . . "
tmink, I sometimes comment as "Another anon." It wasn't me who wrote that.
Anyway, I don't understand what "sexism" means, or what's wrong with it. I know what misogyny is, but sexism just seems to be a fancy word for a view of the sexes that someone doesn't agree with.
Another anon
Melissa Clouthier said: "women will rant against another woman far more than against a man."
I'd say both Yes and No to this. Women will, it appears, spout nonsense insults at other women more often. But, women will also denegrate men more often by mocking his pain or calling him an abuser.
I know more than a bit about men sexually assaulted by women, it's a field I do everything I can to learn ever more about. It is TO BE EXPECTED for women to make comments like "I bet you're spanking the monkey right now" when a victim reveals his pain and his trauma.
It is fairly rare for a woman to take such a thing straight up and handle him like any other rape survivor. No... Sadly, denegration and the most extreme rudeness are to be expected in most forums. I will note, NOT HERE and not in a few other forums: So the problem is typed by forum in some way.
Watch how a battered man is treated by gender-feminists, very mocking and hateful: Then watch how he is treated by women in general: Dismissive. This is the key difference as I see it.
When held in summation, there is no difference in sexist behavior between the two sexes. There is however, a difference in the TYPE of sexist behavior.
Two (or more ) types of sexism. Not a matter of more or less, just different.
Also, both males and females will dismiss male pain far far more often than female. Watch a thread where victims of violence discuss their lives. The obviously female posters get the support and kindness. The annonymous, get tentative support. The men get nothing or almost nothing. This is normal for almost all web forums.
This difference carries itself onto the political blogs.
Melissa Clouthier,
I agree with you, that we are bloggers first, this whole notion of seeing everything through feminist eyes is ridiculous, for one will see sexism everywhere. And maybe some women rant against other women or men for that matter precisely because they have no serious ideas other than, "I am woman, hear me roar." Those women with ideas such as Michelle Malkin etc. generally talk about issues and only bring up gender, race, etc. when others (usually "progressives") target them because of it.
Cham said...
but also the female targets of commenters have thinner skin than men.
I don’t think it is a question of how thin the skin is, it’s just that different weapons penetrate further and do more damage.
An insult against a man should suggest that he is weak: loser, failure, weakling, coward etc. It is hard to use such insults unless the victim actually has shown a weakness, and most men long since learned not to do that.
Hence the bad experiences of jw’s self-admitted victims – having shown a weakness they are attacked for it. They are attacked for the same reason they would not have suffered nonsense insults: They are expected to take things like a man.
Probably the best way to deal with such attacks (whatever your sex) is with contempt.
Anyway, why does anyone care whether vile behaviour is sexist, racist etc? The important point is that it is vile.
Anonymous 11:25
My observation of the blogspere/forum/group/message board scene, is that it's a microcosm of real life but with a spicy flare. It allows the opportunity for you to seek out people discussing topics you are passionate about which has the potential to bring out the most extreme aspects of your personality. Especially when you factor in the detachment of not having to "look into someones eyes" when you are saying something. Insults that might normally get filtered out and not said, will often be thrown out into the discussion.
Even though there are diplomatic ways of expressing ourselves, it's not always what gets the laugh, makes you "popular", pushes someones button...etc. I think unfortunately when you get down to the nitty gritty and you have a group dynamic unfolding, you still end up with power plays on all kind of levels that take place. You'll have the class clown types, the cliques that run of to a "private" internet locale to gossip about the commenters, the deep thinkers, the encouragers, the observers, the chatty types who always have an opinion they feel compelled to share, the "I'm smarter than you" types, the "can't we all just get along" types, the "bow down and worship me" types, the down right hostile/judgemental types, the "I'm miserable so everyone else should be" types, the "life revolves around MY religion" types...and yes, the sexist types...I do think the majority of us however are lurkers who are just taking it all in and occassionally commenting...lol
It takes all kinds to make the world go around. I kind of like it that way.
Glenn "tubby"? Nah. Although the low-cal puppies are never a bad idea...
Seriously, this conversation is amazing, and highly informative. 3-1 says that 90% of the "anonymous" postings taking a bitch-slap at Helen above are by women. And Marcotte was fired because everyone suddenly noticed she was weapons grade, Grade A loony, not because she was a woman.
I read Helen and Malkin and other female bloggers because I'm curious about what they have to say. I just don't understand the hypersensitivity and disingenuosness necessary to filter everything through "gender-politics". And I own several guns, a 4WD pickup, and multiple lovely children....
Indeed....
Let's see, every morning after breakfast I take a 1000mg. high potency vitamin C and a multivitamin "complete" (whatever that means). I pick them up at Wal-Mart.
In all honesty, my problem with you, and anyone like that, is you only enter here to sling mud, call people names, and expound on your irrational jealousy of Dr. Helen. Never mind that she, and 99% of the others that enter here could lay a rant on me that would take me hours in a collegiate dictionary for me to figure out what they said.
You seem like a trained seal. Do you get coached between posts?
Perhaps when you graduate from community college and enter the work-a-day world after you reach 21 years of age you will mellow some.
"1) Althouse is not a "Dr." She is a lawyer, not a PhD or MD."
Thanks, Dave; clumsy mistake on my part. I was trying to be polite and correct, which is always an overcompensaion for me.
Appologies Another Anon. I was using the term generically instead of specifically. Clumsy of me that.
Trey
Never mind that she, and 99% of the others that enter here could lay a rant on me that would take me hours in a collegiate dictionary for me to figure out what they said.
You seem like a trained seal. Do you get coached between posts?
Perhaps when you graduate from community college and enter the work-a-day world after you reach 21 years of age you will mellow some.
Did you forget to take your pills today?
What?
Glenn is tubby, a flabby thinker, and clumsy now?
Indeed. Heh
I don't read Glen's blog and I have no idea what he looks like, but if Helen would be so kind to post a full length picture of him here, we can have a comment area devoted specifically to whether he is tubby or not.
Cham,
Really, isn't that a bit sexist? The point is not whether or not Glenn is tubby but that some people
make remarks about appearance regardless of whether one is male or female. It is usually is a
metaphor for "I don't agree with you and have nothing of substance to say."
Would you ask one of your "feminist" friends to post a picture of herself up on her blog to discuss whether or not she is tubby? No, I would assume you would refrain from doing something so sexist to a woman. Why don't you give the same respect to a man? Or are you being sexist
towards women? A man is stronger and can handle criticism whereas a woman might dissolve into tears if she heard she was fat? Either way, with your silly suggestion, you really don’t come out looking too good.
Um, Helen. Even without a full-length photo of cham, I can see that his tongue is firmly in his cheek.
Anonymous 9:13:
Cham is a she, not a he, and I don't think she is being tougue in cheek. You would think she was joking, but alas, I think she is serious.
I agree. Pretty clearly was being sarcastic.
Helen, lighten up, I was kidding. I was getting bored with the tubby/not tubby discussion. Taking pot-shots at people for their girth isn't sexist. With America's expanding waistlines one can be an equal opportunity judger.
I guess the lesson is that if you're looking for insults, you are likely to find them.
cham's a girl?
The blogosphere simply mirrors the rest of the country: when I published a post about a teacher who had seduced a male student -- and wrote that women raping boys was as profoundly criminal as men raping girls, a blog called Betsy's Place immediately deleted my link.
The blogosphere simply mirrors the rest of the country: when I published a post about a teacher who had seduced a male student -- and wrote that women raping boys was as profoundly criminal as men raping girls, a blog called Betsy's Place immediately deleted my link.
It honestly would not have occurred to me that the blogosphere was sexist. Perhaps I'm just not sensitive enough to such things.
As an aside, nothing is funnier than people who log in as 'Anonymous' just so they can spew their bile without ever having to be called on it.
It seems like such a cowardly way to operate. Buck up and put a name to the post. Even if you don't have a blog you can still be involved in the discussion without having to be referred to as 'Anon 9:23'
If you are afraid to use your own name, make up one.
What, you really thought my name was tigger?
What't the difference between posting as anonymous and posting as tigger, tigger? You can still spew a bunch of bile (as some would say you just did) without suffering any consequences.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
One difference is that when I agree or disagree with tigger other people can follow the thread. Another it that the five other anons don't waste time and space by responding to a post that was not aimed at them.
Capiche?
Trey
Specifically so I don't have to respond to Anon 6:23 like I do now.
Thank you so much for proving my point.
Every anonymous comment could be the same person. Could be three people who've just got a lot of time on their hands. Unless there is a listed IP or a handle (or name, if you prefer) it's difficult to assess.
I'm just point out that it makes it easier to discuss things when you know who you are dealing with.
And seriously, if you think what I posted the first time was bile then you need to get out more.
Um, no I think YOU just proved MY point. You know very well who is responding to you. You know, for example, that I am the same anon at 6:37. But even if you didn't, your point still holds no water. What difference is it if you are talking about one anonymous or multiples? Whatever is said, by whomever it is said, you can respond. The fact that you don't know if it's the same person is mostly irrelevant. Either way, I can identify myself as anonymous 6:37. Isn't that sufficient? It's as identifying as your "tigger".
I just find it really ridiculous when posters with a tag act like they're all brave and shit because they are not posting as "anonymous". You're not using your real name, you're posting anonymously also, you're not brave.
I had never heard of Amanda Marcotte before the Edwards thing popped up.
I googled for and then went to her blog for indoctrination.
I had never considered whether blogs were sexist until the particular question came up here. I went to Althouse' site to read about her take. After going to Marcotte's sight and reading, I believe that sight is.
It appears to me to be a blog of many who agree with each other, a club. And if you aren't one of them, having an alternative point of you, they really let you have it. Needless to say, I didn't bookmark it.
Sorry, I don't respond to anons. I am giving it up for Lent.
Trey
It's ok, dear. Nobody was talking to you anyway.
Anon 6:37
Anon 6:37 and anon 6:47 (see how cumbersome it is?)
Thank you for telling me I'm not brave. I was really confused on that point for a while. lol
I was simply saying it's easier to find out who you're talking to when you have 7 anonymous postings in a row and you're attempting to hold a discussion. Not simply doing a drive by post and then walking away. I have no way to determine if you're not the same anonymous poster for this entire thread.
Again, it's all in an attempt to have a discussion with someone specific. It simply makes it easier. How obtuse do you have to be not to see that?
Again, if you have nothing to be afraid of then pick a handle and stick with it.
I'll even help. How about: ReallySmartAnonymousPoster
That way you can still be anonymous and I can ignore your posts much more easily. :)
And once again, you prove my point. See how you're managing to "hold a discussion" even though I'm posting as anonymous? Maybe you're not as dumb as you think?
And if what you're really wanting to do is just ignore folks (I imagine particularly those folks you can't win an argument against), then, why, you can ignore anonymous posts just as well as those posted by ReallySmartAnonymousPoster,can't you?
Anon, 6:37, 6:47, 2:55:
See, but you're the only anonymous poster right now. If three or four more really really smart people (like you of course) start to post anonymously then it makes it difficult to determine who wrote what. And who was responding to who.
And if I post on another thread, you still know who I am and what my earlier positions were.
I'm also not interested in ignoring all anonymous posters because some might actually have valid points worth considering.
Are you really this stupid? Or does being deliberately obtuse just come that easily for you?
Hey Anon, I'm out with this discussion. Vacation calls.
I'll give you the last word should you choose to take it.
Gee, how do you know I'm the only anonymous posting? I could be a bunch of different anonymi! But somehow, you've managed to figure it out, you genius you!
Yeah, I'm just being deliberately obtuse. But, you? Why, I suspect you're the "real deal", buddy! Congratulations!
As for your vacation-- begging off in advance is the perfect setup when you know you're not on solid ground. Come on, we all know you're still reading.
And women speaking ill of other women must be the oldest stereotype on Earth...
One, however, that seems to be confirmed by all the Anons on this post. Don't want women to be seen as catty? Don't be catty yourself. It really is that easy!
The only reason Marcotte got fired is because she's a nutjob, not because she's a female nutjob.
Personally, Edwards should have known better than to align himself with anyone who's well-known by spouting anti-Christian views in the first place. After all, he knew he wasn't about to be elected a second time to the Senate by North Carolinians (at least, I wouldn't vote for him).
If being sexist on the internet is wrong, I don't want to be right: Dr. Helen, you are so friggen hot!
Male support is really important for women websites:)
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
聊天室交友080中部人聊天室080 聊天室6k聊天館貓咪論壇080豆豆聊天室豆豆聊天室13 15歲聊天室080摯愛中年聊天室aaaaa片俱樂部影片情色情色貼圖情色a片情色文學情色小說情色視訊台灣kiss情色文學彩虹性愛巴士情色交友情色論壇
Post a Comment
<< Home