Today Jeff is engaged in the hypermasculine practice known as barbeque, and there were many things that I’d hoped to bring to this forum, but the call has gone out for extra people to work today at the business, and my wife advises me that overtime pay would be welcome, so I’ll be off-line most of the day. I think before I leave I have just enough time to yark up some of the things that are on my mind.
Jeff’s already pointed out the psychosis of a hypermasculine mindset of the sort that wins wars, builds suspension bridges with 19th-century technology, railroads across the wilderness, and completes the Panama Canal or throws a successful barbeque. The same kind of set-your-face-like-flint insanity that produces successful space programs and Tour de France winners. In short, acute testosterone poisoning.
Whereas the proponents of radical Islamism, they’re all about teh women. I like, for example, the version of Romeo & Juliet where the heroine gets stoned to death in Act III, because honestly my attention-span isn’t that long.
According to these pundits, who conflate machismo with masculinity, the masculine defines itself as the absence of femininity. It might be relevant to point out that mainstream feminism identifies itself as the absence of masculinity according to its own terms, which is simply a complex technique for ascribing all virtues unto itself, while assigning all failings to “the masculine.” It is also rage against the real, which is always disappointing when compared with the utopian ideal.
Now, I completely condemn the abuse that Jill Filipovic suffered at the keyboards of fellow law students on the AutoAdmit message boards, but I have trouble collating her statement in this article:
The Law Blog also reached Jill Filipovic, a NYU law student who has been the topic of numerous lewd discussions on AutoAdmit, some of which included threats of sexual abuse. “The worst thing about it is they were people I go to school with, seeing me, sitting next to me at events,†she says. (Filipovic, who is a veteran blogger on sites such as Feministe and a contributor to Huffington Post, tells the back story, in her own words, here.) She said, “It doesn’t make me feel vindicated or any better seeing [Ciolli’s] employment prospects damaged.†But, she added, “People need to know the consequences of what they do.â€Â
Joe Malchow weighs in on the AutoAdmit controversy here.
With her defense of Marcotte, when she was “let go” from the Edwards campaign as a consequence of what she did. But as we’re all aware, every criticism of a feminist is, by definition, a “backlash.” So retrograde.
As you may be aware, my own animus towards Marcotte has been fueled, not so much by her vile diatribes against Christianity–though I myself am a Catholic of the practicing variety, and rather observant, in a louche way, as well as founder of Lounge Lizards for Jesus (loosely affiliated with the Rosarians)–as with her pure ideological insanity with regard to the Dookrape case. Once in a class on Dickens, a fellow-student felt outraged that in Great Expectations Pip’s foster father, a powerfully built blacksmith, suffered domestic abuse from his (female) partner. She argued that this misrepresented the truth of domestic violence, which she held was almost always perpetrated by men against women. I didn’t bother to argue the statistics, but I pointed out that no novelist was obligated to generate his (or her) storyline in strict accordance with sociological statistics, and that, indeed, a literature confined to demonstrating the usual would be intolerably dull. You will notice, for example, that the number of squares of (double-ply) toilet paper used by fictional characters on pesky occasions is seldom represented, much less their technique for folding and wiping, and that such detail would be of intense interest (in my opinion) only to a smallish portion of the potential readership.* From FrontPage Magazine’s Lawrence Auster comes the inconvenient statistical truth about interracial rape in the US, which can now be added to the inconvenient truths about instigation of domestic violence and the comparative charity of liberals and conservatives.
Oh, and I don’t care whether the Pope wears an ermine-trimmed cape, either, even if it is a little ghey.
* In truth, I pointed it out at such elaborate and scornful length that I eventually caused her to weep, which made me a long-term pariah among a certain set who regularly visited the student lounge.
Related: Iranian Walks Out Of Dinner With Condi
Claims Female Violinist Was Dressed Too Revealingly
Tolerance. Well, unfortunately there’s no photograph to show just how revealingly the violinist was dressed, but I imagine it would be tough to play in a chadorable chador. Next time I’m at a dinner where the women aren’t revealingly enough betogged, I’m walking out. Which pretty much means I’ll be taking the family to Hooters.
UPDATE x2: There’s a photo of the sultry siren violinist here.
UPDATE x3: Jill posts on the whole AutoAdmit debacle, and the stuff is truly revolting. And she does have a point about the difference between vile speech directed at an anonymous group rather than an individual whose personal information is made public, from the point of view of imminent danger posed (though the line between “hate speech” and valid criticism is purely a function, in most cases, of whom you sympathize with and whom you loathe). I cannot help but feel that the lack of sympathy for someone falsely accused and subjected to legal abuse is despicable; I can, however, admire the lack of victimly self-pity that Jill expresses in her posts on the subject, and I rather suspect she’d rather have my respect than my agreement, for what it’s worth, anyway.
Mine were red. But this:
Can’t possibly be viewed as a bad outcome.
Jill Filipovic, a NYU law student who has been the topic of numerous lewd discussions on AutoAdmit, ……….. (Filipovic, who is a veteran blogger on sites such as Feministe and a contributor to Huffington Post, tells the back story, in her own words, here.) She said, “It doesn’t make me feel vindicated or any better seeing [Ciolli’s] employment prospects damaged.†But, she added, “People need to know the consequences of what they do.â€Â
Interesting story.
Ciolli should consider himself well out of working for that particular law firm. They are clearly arseholes. (Can I say this without losing my job? I think so.)
On the WSJ site, almost every comment was by “Anonymous”.
How frightened are these people? Are they right to be frightened?
Good question, furriskey, but one I’m not sure I can answer. Perhaps some law students will happen by.
I think feminism has largely won and now it’s time for individualism. A movement to let men and women (a function of biology), whether masculine or feminine (a function of society), do whatever they want in accordance with their whims and dreams while not getting discriminated against sounds like a good idea. I don’t favor discrimination based on the contents or lack or style of undergarments. Nor do I support discrimination based on hairstyles, clothing, dating partners, consensual sexual habits and partners, or familial arrangements.
[Off topic: I also think marriage can be a strictly religious thing (if God intends it to be a certain way, who better to enforce that than God’s people?) and licensed domestic partnerships should be for any couple willing to enter a partnership and receive the receive the benefits and responsibilities we’ve come to associate with marriage.]
MADD, which absolutely won it’s battle to make us take drunk driving seriously, now has morphed into some sort of modern version of the Temperance League, placing the demon rum alcohol as the catalyst for any and all applicable social ills: teenage promiscuity, failure at school, gun violence, the popularity of tattoos and jazz clubs, worker malaise, and the slow integration of immigrant populations. I don’t know if they’ve hit on all those things yet, but they will. Similarly, feminism has now come from “We want to control our bodies!” to “How come you men make us wax our genitalia?” in a few short decades. I wish I was being a lot more facetious when I say that.
Yeah, jon. I mean, look what they’ve done to Paris Hilton!
And Britney, too! Though I bet Disney’s cryogenic brain did medical experiments that kept her pubes from developing. Evidence? Has anyone ever seen Justin Timberlake or Christina Aguilera’s minge?
Let’s see how this goes down:
Now this is funny. Not just because this clown can’t spell, but because he himself hides behind the anonymity he attacks.
I note with some concern that about 95% of the comments posted on this site are Anonymous. What’s the matter with you all? Frightened of losing your jobs?
It won’t be much of a life, kiddies. Get some balls.
Comment by Jonathan Wilton – May 5, 2007 at 10:02 am
I pointed out that no novelist was obligated to generate his (or her) storyline in strict accordance with sociological statistics, and that, indeed, a literature confined to demonstrating the usual would be intolerably dull.
Fuck you, Dan.
I liked gruel. Sorry if that wasn’t trendy or exciting enough for you.
Bastard.
Shall I send you some Jean Rhys novels?
Oh, you’re a Chreaster too?
I prefer to think of myself as a Chreastofarcist.
I think there’s a huge difference between the things Amanda wrote and allowed on Pandagon and the things that Ciolli allowed on AutoAdmit. I can understand how Amanda’s posts were very offensive to some people—I can understand how a lot of my own posts can be offensive. But there’s a difference between offensive postings and postings which reveal the name, contact information, etc of private law students, along with comments about raping them. One example: Someone posted [Full name of female law student] gangbang tonight. RSVP to [her email address, school and home phone number]. Then there was a link to a picture of her.
There were several female law students who had their pictures and personal information posted on AutoAdmit, along with comments about sexual assault. Plus the basic racism/homophobia/anti-Semitism the board is generally rife with (complaining about Jews, making foul jokes about Holocaust victims, using the n-word, etc). As much as you may dislike what Amanda said, it’s not the equivalent of threats and putting personal information out there.
I have (lots) more to say about this, and you’re welcome to read it here.
Tangent, but I see an opportunity here – the ultimate feminist activism – abolish spousal support.
And mandate equal parenting. There’s no reason women should have to do all that work!
“And mandate equal parenting. There’s no reason women should have to do all that work!”
Come to think of it, I keep hearing (from feminists) how “degrading” and “oppressive” it is to be stuck with all the child-rearing, especially in the context of browbeating fathers to do their “fair share”.
But after divorce, suddenly having the father do his “fair shaire” of this same parenting is then considered (by feminists) to be an extravagant bauble the bastard has absolutely no right to whatsoever.
Odd how that seems to work…
As far as it goes, I have generally found Jill to be the kind of person with whom disagreement is an invitation to engagement, rather than a call to man the battlements or a call to arms.
I think the crux of a lot of this kind of thing (as well as the relationship to hate crime legislation).
In particular, one of the biggest problems is how it all relates to the funadmental Judeo-Christian ethic of “Don’t Be An Asshole”. In this broad category of behaviors, we can clearly see that there are those folks who are being particularly Big Assholes owing to a person’s particular characteristics, but we don’t have a way of tackling that as a legislative issue.
Dunno. I find this all rather frustrating and confusing.
Jill, et al.,
I guess, having thought about it a bit further, that the idiots at AutoAdmit have no more first amendment, my-dissent-is-being-stifled protection than Bill Maher had when he got hisself canned for being an idiot about cowardice and courage, or Imus deserved when he’s an idiot.
On this, and many other sites, it has been pointed out that a private site has every right to not have to put up with nonsense it doesn’t agree with.
I do note that in a lot of the discussions on this, there has been some question over whether or not this AutoAdmit dork should have lost his job and whether or not one should feel vindicated when he did lose his job, or whether or not all folks who are idiots on AutoAdmit should lose their jobs.
It’s the private sector. No firm should be obligated to fire you based on your views any more than they should be forced to hire you based on religion, race, creed, or whatever.
I do, however, note that in the world of DC, if the message board had been populated by Hill Staffers of both parties, the hue and cry for their dismissal would have reached the high heavens. Whether or not Marcotte’s case is applicable here is beyond me, as the more explanations I hear, the more unclear her position becomes.
At any rate, onversely, if the comments had been left by people in prison for 20 years to life, nobody would bat an eyelash.
So, if nothing else, lawyers and commenters who argue that it really isn’t that big of a deal should bear that in mind when they wonder why people hate lawyers even more than they hate politicians.
BRD
Jill, et al.,
Jill, et al.
But on the other hand, those for whom this is a big occasion to throw a schadenfreude party must also begin to realize that this cuts both ways, and if they’re not going to at least clean house, it wouldn’t be a terribly bad idea to at least acknowledge when one of their own has gone over the line.
Or, more accurately, the equanimity shown in the tone taken by Jill (“It doesn’t make me feel vindicated or any better seeing [Ciolli’s] employment prospects damaged.”) can easily be drown out by the vociferous defense shown by some of her ideological compatriots in regards appalling, but ‘ideologically sound’ behaviors.
All being said and done, the AutoAdmit idiots were fools of the highest order, and should, at bare minimum, be shunned from polite society.
So, I guess we’ll just have to see.
BRD
I’ll be darned… Who knew?
Maybe the horse will learn to sing.
Then again, maybe not:
From what I gather from Jill’s post, they were also complete assholes to pretty much everyone, much like Don Imus. I can’t bring myself to sympathize with Ciolli, and I think allowing himself to continue to be associated with such garbage was an unwise career move. I’d throw people like that out of my house, and that Ciolli didn’t speaks poorly of his judgment and presents a potential public relations problem that any potential employer would be well advised to consider. But when I see things that have been posted on Auto Admit like:
I can’t help wonder if this is Teh Patriarchy, the Illuminati, the neocons, or just a bunch of juvenile douchebags who may or may not be learning a lesson from any of this. What I’m not wondering is whether this sort of crap is indicative of some societal trend. It isn’t.
Someone ought to do a study: what proportion of the people who experience negative consequences as a result of their behavior on the internet, were doing so from behind a pseudonym that they thought would protect them?
I have a feeling that proportion is going to be on the rise, if it isn’t already a majority.
It’s an unwise life move. Dogs. Fleas. Any questions?
Pablo, I’ll take door number four, please. They may physically be males, but they aren’t men.
Time to bombard their pesthole of a country with Bond CD’s…
Except from the (potential) size of the audience, that’s not all that much different from the type of thing people used to write on the bathroom walls in bars. Not that that fact makes them any less pigs, but really, it’s not new.
I guess I must be completely missing the point here, why shouldn’t this clowns values and past decisions be considered in his future employment? Based on what I have read I wouldn’t hire the scumbag to clean toilets.