The rest of the Pharyngula saga of Massa' Ginny, the white wimins Nicka maka.

The rerst of it on Pharyngula.com

I loved the out of/back into the kitchen line. It pretty much captured it perfectly.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke | April 14, 2007 02:31 AM

#107In light of all this kitchen talk, consider the irony in the fact that men in the restaurant business typically get the highest-paying wait staff and food prep jobs. Waiters make more than waitresses, if only because the most expensive restaurants don't even bother to employ waitresses at all. Somehow only men are qualified to serve food at high prices (which generate higher tips). And how many women, as opposed to men, hold the top job in the kitchens of the mid and high priced establishments? Not many, I expect.

Unpack THAT.

Posted by: Kseniya | April 14, 2007 03:13 AM

#108Shorter Chet: "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists rapists."

The boilerplate is tedious. Until you pause in rattling off attacks on a caricatured archetype of "naive male sexist" to read and respond to *my actual point*, you're only proving it.

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 14, 2007 04:01 AM

#109*puking loudly, gagging on fascist rhetoric*
Well..indeed, I can only say that this is a conversation that needs discussion, and I am glad it happened here;-)

Gracie: feel free to hunt me down, and post what ever you think is my personal information on the internet. This is an invitation to you, and every other sicko out ther. Then, watch how I handle it. You stupid cowardly fuck.
Have fun. AND: watch me have fun with you thereafter.;-)

Yes, my mother died over eight years ago, so thank you for adding to the multitudes who cannot seem to grasp that the erosion of civil liberties based on white womens priviledge( my own mother included) and their constant projections of fear are the primary problem in these debates, NOT actual or factual violence.You idiot. Now go choke your little grousing chicken,birdman, or just have momma soup it up for you, you stinki non intellect, but please go get your nutsack back from Ms. Ratchet; you might need it in the coming dialogues.Or: is it your mother that nibbled it away before you knew you had one? Idjit.
Askenaz: I don't care what you think, so you are superfluous too. BUT: your coment was close to on track. It evinced the possibilitry that you are not only aware of public space, and its geographical concepts, but also inferred that you might have a secret intellect that finds the current discursive to be a non sequitur as relates to the blatant fascist hypocrisy of those who cry wolf over and over and over....sans wolf.
AND " there is a push here to ascribe particularly noxious and misogynistic attitudes to Kos that really isn't expressed by his remarks."
Yes, you are on to s/th. NOW: can anyone at least adress the blatant misandry of Ms. Sierras framing of males as "untrustworthy"," not to be trusted", etc ( as appears on her blog two posts down from her fearful posts?)
Kseniya: I just got done speaking with Hillary, formerly of Shie-- in Minneapolis MN, and she told me why she was NOT a stripper: 1) strippers LIE to make their money 2) she ONLY made 400+ per night as a waitress in a strip bar(400+ per night?:????!!!!!!!!!).
What planet are you waiting tables on? Planet Perkins/IHOP/Bakers Square/Dennies??

But the main point remains: men are indoctrinated into this whole misogynist dialogue long before, and much too late for, real disent; like Gracie. Poor thing, stuck watching birds copulate instead of anything substantive.
p.s.
"Man Up " is a phrase that the ' hide behind the blue shield ' guyts use to describe getting caught at strip bars, watering holes full of holes, and dope deals where they claim addiction. In other words "man up" is cop speak.
tHE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND COPS IS THAT COPS COVER EACH OTHERS LEGAL INFRACTIONS, AND YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF SELLING FASCISM TO JOE BLOW.

Posted by: CMF | April 14, 2007 04:15 AM

#110Graculus: I owe you an apology; it sounds like you were right about the medication.

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 14, 2007 04:25 AM

#111OT: If it were possible to post a comment at Jeff Fecke's blog, I'd have posted a nice little encomium on his contributions here. However, I could not get past the Security shit: although the random letter sequence is quite easy to read, the software would not accept the right answer. Twice. AND it clobbered my input in rejecting it each time, leaving me to start over again. The first is bad; the second is inexcusable; and maybe he should find different blogging software.

(Not that I'm posting critiques of software or anything. Who wants his throat cut and... ?)

Posted by: Porlock Junior | April 14, 2007 05:23 AM

#112Ok, boys, I'm now giving out the homework assignment. Everyone go read Chris Clarke for a concise guide on whether to stfu before commenting again.

Posted by: Carlie | April 14, 2007 07:53 AM

#113We're talking about people who leveled disgusting, credible threats of violence against her - just because she's a woman.
How might we verify this claim that she was threatened just because she's a woman?

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 09:24 AM

#114CMF: So strip clubs - sorry, I mean a strip club - accurately represents the entire industry? LMAO. Wow. Your experiences on Planet Pussycat Lounge do not apply here.

Posted by: Kseniya | April 14, 2007 10:23 AM

#115Anyway, the restaurant thing is just an aside, unimportant in this discussion. It's just another brick in the wall.

I refer you back to #112.

Posted by: Kseniya | April 14, 2007 10:29 AM

#116Unfortunately, these kinds of incidents always seem to provoke many men into a typically male fear response--posturing about how the victim is overreacting, because they wouldn't be intimidated by a threat of that nature. As foolish as such responses sound, they are effective ways of dealing with fear, and illustrate the point that men tend to be culturally better prepared than women to deal emotionally with threats of violence. Unfortunately, such responses will inevitably be read as validation by those who engage in this form of intimidation.

And while most anonymous threats directed at people in the public eye are empty, not all of them are. Most people who make anonymous threats are harmless, but dangerous stalkers have been known to make anonymous threats and subsequently carry them out.

Posted by: trrll | April 14, 2007 10:35 AM

#117Until you pause in rattling off attacks on a caricatured archetype of "naive male sexist" to read and respond to *my actual point*, you're only proving it.

Did you have a point? It seems like you're just spouting off the typical defense of male privilege that most of us rebutted in advance within the first 30 posts of this thread.

Look - if Kos is supposedly so egalitarian, why is he saying the exact same thing that patriarchy always says to women who have experienced sexism? If it's not sexist to tell a woman that she's making it all up, and she should either tough it out or give up - completely abrogating any responsibility her attackers might bear - then why is that what sexists always say?

How might we verify this claim that she was threatened just because she's a woman?

The sexualized attacks prove it. People wouldn't tell her they want to cut off her head and "cum down her gob" if they were just disagreeing with her position on UI issues, or JAVA compilers, or internet security.

Posted by: Chet | April 14, 2007 10:46 AM

#118Try pointing out the failures of the advice on its own merits, instead of rejecting it merely because of its association with sexism.

Sexual attacks do not demonstrate that she was attacked for being a woman. At most, they suggest that her gender has an effect on the nature of the attacks being directed at her. If you do not grasp that your argument is fallacious, further discussion with you is pointless.

What I'm perceiving in these exchanges is people using the pretext of the Sierra case to air their sociopolitical concerns, and miraculously finding 'justification' for those concerns wherever they look.

Particularly telling is the misuse of language. What is at issue here is not 'male privilege'. Men not being subject to sexualized attacks has not been demonstrated here, and even if it had, that does not indicate that men are somehow granted dispensation or freedom from such attacks. What's at issue is the oppression of women.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 11:14 AM

#119Try pointing out the failures of the advice on its own merits, instead of rejecting it merely because of its association with sexism.

Why? Just to save Kos's reputation? Once again we see that the male gets every advantage, every benefit of the doubt when it comes to whether or not he's doing something sexist, but we see that people operated under no such stricture when they accused Sierra of "making it all up", or of "slandering men".

Kos should have known better than to tell a victim of abuse that she was making it up, because that's what women who are abused are always told. If he didn't know that's what they're always told, then he should have educated himself. The fact that he was ignorant that he was being sexist doesn't excuse his sexism.

At most, they suggest that her gender has an effect on the nature of the attacks being directed at her.

That's the same thing, as far as I can see. If they were simply responding to her arguments, her gender would be irrelevant.

The fact that it isn't proves that it's not that they're responding to someone whose arguments they don't like, they're responding to someone whose gender they don't like - at least, they don't like in a prominent position within their field.

These attacks had absolutely nothing to do with anything Kathy Sierra was saying - and everything to do with the fact that it was a woman saying it to these men. If you're just being deliberately obtuse then there's no point in talking to you.

What I'm perceiving in these exchanges is people using the pretext of the Sierra case to air their sociopolitical concerns, and miraculously finding 'justification' for those concerns wherever they look.

Did you consider the possibility that justifications for those concerns are found in this case because those concerns are justified by this case? That we do live in a society where men react to powerful women in male-dominated fields with campaigns of barrier harassment? That the reason that it's true "everywhere we look" is because it happens everywhere? Apparently not. It's just so much easier to ascribe bad faith motives to the whistleblowers than to face the import of their accusations.

I guess we're just making it up, right, Cal?

Men not being subject to sexualized attacks has not been demonstrated here, and even if it had, that does not indicate that men are somehow granted dispensation or freedom from such attacks.

Uh-huh. So, proof that men don't get attacked in the same way and to the same extent would actually not be proof that men don't get attacked in the same way or to the same extent.

Who's misusing language, again, exactly?

Posted by: Chet | April 14, 2007 11:41 AM

#120So you're using 'sexualized' to refer not to the content of the attacks, but to their motivation (that Sierra is a woman)?

That is not only a rather peculiar usage in this context, but it assumes a fact not yet demonstrated.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 11:49 AM

#121I don't understand what you're asking. No, I'm using "sexualized" to refer to the content of the attacks, which were violent, credible, disturbing threats of sexual violence that contained information like her home address and speaking schedule.

And that had absolutely nothing to do with any sort of controversial position she had taken on technology issues. You'd have us believe that these threats were sent at random, but that doesn't explain why it's almost always women who receive threats of this nature, to this extent. How can there be any doubt that these were sexist attacks? Just because you say so?

Posted by: Chet | April 14, 2007 12:05 PM

#122Then your arguments are just as faulty as I'd thought.

How can there be any doubt that these were sexist attacks?
Because sexism does not logically follow from the facts in evidence. (Obviously.)

A better question is: why are you treating suppositions on your part as established and self-evident facts?

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 12:10 PM

#123Because sexism does not logically follow from the facts in evidence. (Obviously.)

Not obviously. Are you employing an idiosyncratic definition of "sexism"? How would an attack motivated by a need to put a prominent woman "in her place" not constitute sexism?

Like I said you're just being deliberately obtuse, here. If you don't believe that these remarks were sexist then you've got a considerable problem on your hands explaining how "I can't wait to cut your head off and cum down your gob" represents a reasonable rebuttal to an argument about user interface issues or JAVA programming.

Or if it's your contention that these remarks are simply random non sequiters, then you have a problem explaining why such remarks are predominantly received by women and not by men.

Sexism is the reasonable explanation, unless you have a vested interest in discrediting charges of sexism whenever possible.

Posted by: Chet | April 14, 2007 12:15 PM

#124How would an attack motivated by a need to put a prominent woman "in her place" not constitute sexism?
Again: how have you determined what the motivation of the attacks was, and how can we verify this claim?

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 12:28 PM

#125Again: how have you determined what the motivation of the attacks was, and how can we verify this claim?

Let's start with inspections of the alternatives.

Just as soon as you provide some, that is.

Posted by: Chet | April 14, 2007 12:37 PM

#126So, Chet, if the attacks were against me, the threats involving, say, castration and the inserting of said amputation into the mouth, are those, then, sexist attacks on a male? Or are they merely psychotic threats tailored to the gender of the recipient?

Look, no one is disputing the vile nature of the Sierra threats here. No one is, in any way, condoning them. And no one is making any kind of character references for the offenders- I think we're all agreed that they're hateful, cowardly scumbags. The point I'm making is that the supposed misogyny a lot of you seem to have found in Kos' remarks is just not there.

Oh, and incidentally, the phrase "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" is attributed to Harry S Truman, addressing his war contacts investigation committee, when some apparently complained about the pace at which the work occurred.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that those committee members, in 1942, were, ahem, men.

Posted by: raindogzilla | April 14, 2007 12:39 PM

#127James:

I think Kos is a fine election geek, but he is not up to the job of Dean of the Blogosphere.

Yes. I was not surprised to hear of his take on Sierra; I don't read DailyKos anymore, thanks to his history of dismissing women's concerns-- there are plenty of great alternatives, most run by women, ironically enough.

Posted by: Susan | April 14, 2007 12:47 PM

#128To people obsessed with hammers, everything looks like a nail.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 12:58 PM

#129"There is the problem, the eliminationist assholes who thrive under the encouragement of AM talk radio, admire the posturing bullies like Limbaugh and Coulter and Savage, and think homicidal sexual fantasies are manly."

It's not just the right, as others on this thread have alluded to. Malkin really does get "ping pong ball" emails. A commenter on these threads approvingly republished a "humor" piece suggesting that Coulter's adam's apple ("proof" that she's a tranny - and if she were a tranny, would that be a reason to condemn her?) should be removed with a backhoe. Then there are the blackface, Aunt Jemima, Uncle Tom slurs applied to black Republicans on progressive blogs. The mentality is that those on the other side have relinquished inhibitions against misogyny and racism because they're not on the side of the angels. I'm sure there are all kinds of mental gymnastics justifying this kind of sexualized and racialized rhetoric. And the double standards of those who righteously condemn cartoon depictions of a Muslim prophet but are scathing against "Christopaths" and the so-called "Jewish lobby" is beyond obvious.

Posted by: Colugo | April 14, 2007 01:01 PM

#130So, Chet, if the attacks were against me, the threats involving, say, castration and the inserting of said amputation into the mouth, are those, then, sexist attacks on a male?

Are you asking me if attacks designed to portray you as feminized (castrated, homosexual) and therefore subordinate would be sexist?

Yes, they are. Next question, please. (Oh, I'm sorry - were you under the impression that the only time a statement could be sexist was when a man was saying it to a woman?)

The point I'm making is that the supposed misogyny a lot of you seem to have found in Kos' remarks is just not there.

I don't recall saying "misogyny." If I did, it was a mistake. I don't think Kos is a misogynist. I think he carelessly responded in an unintentionally sexist way, because society inculcates a habitual, sexist response of dismissal of women who have legitimate concerns about their harassment.

That would be excusable for someone on the right, who aren't trained to examine statements outside of privilege. For somebody held as the progressive leader of the blogosphere, it's not. He should have known better.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that those committee members, in 1942, were, ahem, men.

Again, it's not exactly clear to me how you could be so obtuse as to miss the obvious sexism in a comment designed to subordinate someone by portraying them as feminine. I would think that the association between kitchens and femininity would have been even stronger in the 40's, don't you think?

Posted by: Chet | April 14, 2007 01:02 PM

#131How exactly is 'Uncle Tom' a slur? An insult, yes, I can see how it's not just a criticism but an insult, but a slur?

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 01:03 PM

#132To people obsessed with hammers, everything looks like a nail.

Ah, I see. So when logic fails, poison the well. Nice.

Posted by: Chet | April 14, 2007 01:05 PM

#133Considering you can't think of even a single alternative hypothesis for why sexually-charged attacks might be directed at someone, Chet, I don't think you're in any position to make that criticism.

A thinker's strength flows from Reason. But beware of the dark side: speculation, assumption, unjustified assertion. The dark side of Debate are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your thinking, consume you it will.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 01:12 PM

#134Caledonian: "Uncle Tom' a slur?"

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.:

"1. A disparaging remark; an aspersion."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/68/S0486800.html

Also see Wikipedia's (I know, hardly infallible) list of ethnic slurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

Posted by: Colugo | April 14, 2007 01:21 PM

#135At least in my experience, 'slur' has much stronger connotations than that denotation would imply. By that definition, any negative statement about a person or their position would be a slur.

'Uncle Tom' is ununusal in that it's a racially-specific criticism that is only properly used by people within that racial group to describe people within that racial group. It is scathing, but not the kind of virulent that I associate with the word 'slur'.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 01:28 PM

#136Considering you can't think of even a single alternative hypothesis for why sexually-charged attacks might be directed at someone, Chet, I don't think you're in any position to make that criticism.

Oh, you misunderstood. I can think of several. But I can't think of a single one that's more reasonable than sexist misogyny. And also, I'm not inclined to do your homework for you.

Posted by: Chet | April 14, 2007 01:36 PM

#137Caledonian: "a racially-specific criticism that is only properly used by people within that racial group to describe people within that racial group."

Your point is well taken. Terms like "Uncle Tom," "house n-word," and "houseboy" have different resonances when used within the black community as a form of charged criticism and when they are used by whites to attack and demean particular blacks. In the latter case, I suspect that certain whites find it gratifying to be finally disinhibited about using racialized speech.

Posted by: Colugo | April 14, 2007 01:48 PM

#138As for homework, Jessica Valenti via today's AlterNet:

How the web became a sexists' paradise

But even women who don't put their pictures or real names online are subject to virtual harassment. A recent study showed that when the gender of an online username appears female, they are 25 times more likely to experience harassment. The study, conducted by the University of Maryland, found that female user-names averaged 163 threatening and/or sexually explicit messages a day.

http://www.alternet.org/stories/50519/

Posted by: Susan | April 14, 2007 02:04 PM

#139Nothing to do with gender, though, right Cal?

Posted by: Chet | April 14, 2007 02:06 PM

#140"Man up" was a very unfortunate word choice, if that's what he actually said.
It wasn't, nor anything like it. PZ linked Kos's post in the post way up at the top of this page, but it seems few people bothered to read it before discussing it. If you didn't already know Ms. Sierra was a woman (or guessed it from the name or the title "Ms.", of course) you wouldn't have been able to tell it from Kos's post.
But I have very little patience for those who treat any male who says anything that could be construed as critical of a person who happens to be a woman as "presumed guilty until proven guilty" of "misogyny" (the usage of which in some corners reminds me obnoxiously of the overuse of "Nazi" comparisons that led to Godwin's law).
Very well put. Genuine misogyny is vile and harmful, but that's no reason to fly off the handle at everything that might be remotely construed as a criticism (and you have to construe pretty hard to get any criticism out of Kos's remarks).
While it's not conclusive, I notice suspiciously many of the regulars here are on the "cool it with the unsupported accusations" side. Seeing several skeptics all criticizing X triggers my baloney detection kit...

Posted by: Chris | April 14, 2007 03:07 PM

#141Did you have a point? It seems like you're just spouting off the typical defense of male privilege that most of us rebutted in advance within the first 30 posts of this thread.
Perhaps it would be clearer if you were to read beyond the first paragraph of my first post, and anything of my second, as the fact that after I had posted the second you responded to was based on the assumption I felt the attacks against her were acceptable or trivial indicates you didn't.

Not obviously. Are you employing an idiosyncratic definition of "sexism"? How would an attack motivated by a need to put a prominent woman "in her place" not constitute sexism?
If you're talking about Kos' statements and not the threats, then it does not constitute sexism until more evidence of his motive being "a need to put a prominent woman in her place" than you simply taking it as a given. If you're talking about the threats made against Kathy Sierra than I agree with you that they are misogynistic in tone and would appreciate it if you'd stopped pretending I don't. Is this really so hard to understand?

Incidentally, if you're primarily concerned with Kathy Sierra's welfare and opposition to criminal threats of violence, rather than simply grinding an axe, why have you yet to acknowledge or respond to any of the suggestions I made in the second or third paragraphs of my first post?

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 14, 2007 03:11 PM

#142It's all very far from the utopian ideals that greeted the dawn of the web -- the idea of it as a new, egalitarian public space, where men and women from all races, and of all sexualities, could mix without prejudice.
Ha ha ha ha ha!

"I don't think a man would get that; the harassment of women is far more sexualised -- men may be told that they're idiots, but they aren't called 'whores.'"
Well, no. They're likely to be called (testing to see if this is the word), though. Sexual insults are generally less common between males - and when they occur, they're generally denigrating others' potency and orientation, not overloading/stressing the sexuality.

I do note that the sexual criticism discussed in that article originated from a woman. Hmmm...

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 03:28 PM

#143I wish someone would actually point out parts of kos's post that were women hating. I would also like to see the part where he said she was making up the threats.
I read the whole thing. I can't find it anywhere. I see that he said most people who make up death threats don't follow through. I see the part where he says that celebrities are rarely attacked in the USA. I see the part where he says that people who blog need get thicker skins.
I see the whole post as being an argument against some sort of blogger code of conduct.
I truly don't understand the argument of many people on this thread about Kos. I read Chris Clarke's piece on Pandagon. It was OK but missed to whole point of Kos's post that a bloggers code of conduct is a stupid idea just because someone got death threats.
I don't see where Kos blew it "big time." He was insensitive. If we are so concerned about the sensitivities of people, why do we read PZ? He is very insensitive to people he considers stupid.
I don't see where Kos is hateful to women.
Everything else is a matter of opinion about how seriously to take the threat.

Posted by: D | April 14, 2007 03:29 PM

#144That seems to be one of the words that can't be posted here. I think you can guess what it is.

Males, or people presumed to be males, tend to have their intelligence and competence insulted on the 'Net. If sexuality is brought up, males' orientation and virility is challenged.

In short, insults on the Internet are generally tailored for the best fit to the specific; if there's only a vague idea about which groups an identity is in, the insults are tailored to stereotypes of what the most probable groups are most likely to be insulted by. If specifics are known, the insults become more specialized.

This has less to do with sexism and more to do with people wanting to insult other people as deeply as possible.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 03:37 PM

#145raingodzilla wrote:

The point I'm making is that the supposed misogyny a lot of you seem to have found in Kos' remarks is just not there.
I agree. I don't think it was mysogenistic. I just thought it was callous display of juvenile machismo, which was unfortunatley directed at a woman who happened to also be the target of a really nasty hate-mail campaign involving psychotic threats of sexual violence and the posting of her personal information on the internet.

Fair enough?

I can't imagine why anyone would construe that as, you know... sexist or anything.

....

I've never really bothered to read Kos. I've seen the site- -it's a nightmare to look at, and the sheer number of comments makes it nearly impossible to follow discussions. That said, any inclination I might have had to read it is pretty much gone. His response to this situation and Sierra's suggestion was stupid, shallow, unremarkable and wholly unimpressive. And that's the nice version.

It's not that I'd boycott it or that I wouldn't follow a link there, it's just one more reason not to bother with the guy or his site. Why? There are plenty of non-assholes out there who are saying more or less the same things he does. If I want to read it I'll go read them.


....

Aside from all that, the reason I think his response was shallow (at best) is this...

The assertion that a blogger code of ethics won't prevent x completely ignores the fact that any code of ethics fails that same way for pretty much the same reasons. The Hippocratic oath doesn't prevent doctors from behaving unethically. The state Bar doesn't prevent laywers and judges from behaving unethically. What these things do do, aside from the obvious in terms of liscencing, is set a clear standard. It sets a level below which we do not go if we wish to taken seriously by others. A level that we all agree to by specifically affirming the standard. Kos, at least in this post, didn't bother to consider the implications of what Sierra was proposing.

Further, I think this has a pretty obvious connection to journalistic integrity. Imagine that Sierra were a regular columnist for some largely non-controversial and very popular publication like Scientific American, and that all of this happened at their webpage instead.

I have a hard time imagining, say, the editor of the Washington Post writing an article poo-pooing the harassment, death threats and posting of her personal information and then saying "Why should I bother with a promise to not put up with bad behavior. Someone else will just be mean anyway?"

Come the fuck on. Could he have said anything lamer and more unprofessional without all but agreeing with psychotic creeps who started this whole thing? I doubt it.













Posted by: Leni | April 14, 2007 04:28 PM

#146Leni et al: Unless you can point to a place in Kos' post where he trivializes her position and experience or belittles her *because* she is a woman, or unless you take it for granted that courage and perseverance are "masculine" virtues and that promoting them inherently devalues the "feminine", I don't see why you would find Kos' remarks "sexist." Insensitivity does not become sexism simply because the object of it is a woman (and frankly, if I were female I'm reasonably certain that I would find the belief that it does rather insulting).

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 14, 2007 04:43 PM

#147Once more, with feeling; go read Chris Clarke:

http://pandagon.net/2007/04/13/how-to-not-be-an-asshole-a-guide-for-men/

Posted by: Jeff Fecke | April 14, 2007 05:03 PM

#148One wonders how much risk the women who are wary/scared of men are actually in.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 05:12 PM

#149Leni wrote:

Further, I think this has a pretty obvious connection to journalistic integrity. Imagine that Sierra were a regular columnist for some largely non-controversial and very popular publication like Scientific American, and that all of this happened at their webpage instead.
Actually, the University of Washington is currently dealing with a similar situation in real life. On April 2, there was a murder-suicide at the College of Architecture and Urban Planning. Rebecca Griego was murdered by her ex-boyfriend who had a history and a long paper trail of stalking and threatening her and her immediate family. The people who had been trying to help her had given her extra company during spring break; they thought she would be somewhat safer in her office in a busy building during business hours once the quarter started. That assumption was wrong.

One of the University vice-presidents has acknowledged that the University Police and the College of Architecture and Urban Planning failed to follow their own procedures and develop a plan to lower the risk to her safety. So sensu strictu, it's true that a code won't stop a determined psycho, because the UW had not just a code, but a plan for moving the workplace, changing numbers, all kinds of disruption to the victim in an attempt to keep her safe from a psycho she had a restraining order against.

But, as Leni points out:

The assertion that a blogger code of ethics won't prevent x completely ignores the fact that any code of ethics fails that same way for pretty much the same reasons. The Hippocratic oath doesn't prevent doctors from behaving unethically. The state Bar doesn't prevent laywers and judges from behaving unethically. What these things do do, aside from the obvious in terms of liscencing, is set a clear standard. It sets a level below which we do not go if we wish to taken seriously by others. A level that we all agree to by specifically affirming the standard. Kos, at least in this post, didn't bother to consider the implications of what Sierra was proposing.
As you say, it's not that such a code of ethics would guarantee to prevent such things--the UW had a specific plan for stalking and death threats that someone didn't think important enough to bother with in this case. But in deprecating the call for a code of conduct, Kos said:

One or two [emails] actually crossed the line into "death threat" territory. But so what? It's not as if those cowards will actually act on their threats.
When Kos can produce a validated criterion that distinguishes between the cowards who won't act on their email threats and the coward that did act on it in this case, then I'll take his pronouncement seriously.

And sunlight being the best disinfectant, getting this issue out in the open and dealing with it honestly is more effective than his trivialization of the issue.

It's not that I'd boycott it or that I wouldn't follow a link there, it's just one more reason not to bother with the guy or his site. Why? There are plenty of non-assholes out there who are saying more or less the same things he does. If I want to read it I'll go read them.
Exactly. There are enough non-asshole guys who get it who deserve the support more. And there's enough work to be done to improve application of domestic-violence policies like the UW has in place, but failed to follow because they don't take the whole issue seriously, that I think that, at least for me, that's a better use of time than debating the obvious with people determined not to understand the issue.

Posted by: RavenT | April 14, 2007 05:15 PM

#150Azkyroth et al:

I couldn't really care less about your little battle here to save Kos from being called "sexist". Whatever he acted like (or maybe is), at the very least "asshole" ought to cover it. Sexist is just window dressing, at this point.

But take what you can get, right?

Unless you can point to a place in Kos' post where he trivializes her position and experience or belittles her *because* she is a woman...
Oh, that's an easy one. That would be the part where he trivialized her experience:

Says Kos:

Most of the time, said "death threats" don't even exist -- evidenced by the fact that the crying bloggers and journalists always fail to produce said "death threats". I suspect many are like this gem I recently received:
After which he then goes on to completely straw man the situation by insisting her experience must have been like his, when it clearly (and demonstrably) was not.

But of course, we can't *really* know what Kos' reasons were. Maybe he was just having a bad day and he really isn't a big sexist asshat, despite giving every indication to the contrary.

He may not have meant to put himself there, after all. Nevertheless here we are. But mostly, I don't really care "why" he said what he said. All I know is that he said a some very crappy things that make him look like an unprofessional, sexist fuckstick. If he doesn't want to look that way, that's his PR problem, not mine. And isn't yours either, incidentally.

Azkyroth et al. continue:

or unless you take it for granted that courage and perseverance are "masculine" virtues and that promoting them inherently devalues the "feminine", I don't see why you would find Kos' remarks "sexist."
I'm not sure how you think this applies to the discussion at hand and frankly, I don't think I care.










Posted by: Leni | April 14, 2007 05:41 PM

#151Kerri F. Dunn

Special privilege indeed.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 05:51 PM

#152RavenT wrote:

And sunlight being the best disinfectant, getting this issue out in the open and dealing with it honestly is more effective than his trivialization of the issue.
Definitely.

That pretty much sums up what I think about the blogger code of ethics. It isn't a fix-all and isn't meant to be. It's just meant to raise the bar.

Posted by: Leni | April 14, 2007 06:12 PM

#153Kos wrote:

I'm in and out of commission, so I hadn't heard of this so-called "death threat" thing.
So he looked it up here and found this:

Ms Sierra described on her blog how she had been subject to a campaign of threats, including a post that featured a picture of her next to a noose.
One might easily assume that this was a description of the most heinous of the threats and graphics she had received. We now know better -- but at the time he wrote the entry in question, Kos likely did not.

I don't read Kos, and maybe that's a good thing. I have no preconception of his attitudes about... well heck, about anything at all. So I offer this (relatively) unbiased assessment of his controversial blog entry:

Kos failed to do quite enough homework, and this failure has contributed, at least in part, to his shallow dismissal of Kathy Sierra's situation in what was otherwise a reasonable objection to the idea of establishing a blogger code of ethics.

That assessment is made in addition to, and does not supercede, comments I've already made on this thread.

And furthermore:

getting this issue out in the open and dealing with it honestly is more effective than his trivialization of the issue. (#149)
Yup.

---

Caledonian, I think I see the point you're trying to make by bringing up Kerri Dunn (#151), but I don't see the value in it. Yup, fraud happens, and sometimes people get away with it - but not Dunn. Help me out please. What am I missing here?

Posted by: Kseniya | April 14, 2007 06:40 PM

#154Help me out please. What am I missing here?
Caledonian doesn't distinguish between math and science, and so he thinks one counterexample to a general tendency serves to disprove the entire proposition. Like finding a flaw in a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem invalidates the proof, that kind of thing. So it doesn't matter how many women are threatened or murdered by real stalkers, the existence of one Dunn "invalidates" the "proof" for him.

Posted by: RavenT | April 14, 2007 06:47 PM

#155Kseniya wrote:

Caledonian, I think I see the point you're trying to make by bringing up Kerri Dunn (#151)
Well then, you're one up one me. I didn't see the point at all.

Especially since it has nothing to do with Kos' fuck up.

Posted by: Leni | April 14, 2007 06:52 PM

#156Caledonian doesn't distinguish between math and science, and so he thinks one counterexample to a general tendency serves to disprove the entire proposition.
RavenT, whether you hate me is your own business, but could you please try to do so intelligently? A good enemy is the second-best thing to a good friend. A bad enemy is just annoying.

***

As for the point of Ms. Dunn: in our society, there are multiple competing spheres of influence; people belonging to one or another sphere strive constantly to overwhelm the others with their own.

There are subgroups of various social activist groups who characterize the cultural advantages of being male/white/whatever as 'privileges' (granted rights or benefits not normally present) and who seek to create new cultural advantages for whichever group they belong to instead of trying to create true equality.

These subgroups exploit the tendency of people to band together into factions according to their sociocultural identifications, and the natural desire to improve one's lot, in order to increase their power and influence.

Ms. Dunn is such a subgroup member. The people who automatically side with a woman who says she was raped in order to counter the social stigma women face when reporting rapes are too.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 07:28 PM

#157I think it was someone in these very comments who objected to the example of the Duke lacrosse charges, saying that it wasn't as if Rich White Men hadn't been guilty enough before.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 07:31 PM

#158RavenT, whether you hate me is your own business, but could you please try to do so intelligently? A good enemy is the second-best thing to a good friend. A bad enemy is just annoying.
Huh? You're the one who bandies about terms like "stupid", "fool", and "hysterical". Insults and unsupported assertions in place of reasoned discussion are just boring; I don't either hate or like you enough to bother engaging anymore.

If I mischaracterized your argument, then of course I apologize for my error. But then instead of seeing it as your citing a counterexample and thinking it disproves all the previous points, in that case I have to join Leni in saying I don't see the point at all.

When instead of a reasoned rebuttal, you just cite a name and leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about what your point could possibly be, you leave yourself open to misinterpretations like that.

Posted by: RavenT | April 14, 2007 07:38 PM

#159If I mischaracterized your argument,
If?

The reason I bandy about terms like 'stupid', 'idiot', and 'fool', is that I so often either address stupid idiotic fools or their arguments.

You don't wish to be called a fool? Don't act like one. Acknowledging ambiguity is one thing, but pretending that you can't deduce the obvious implications is quite another. Do you wish to be treated like an idiot with every argument spelled out in full detail, or a reasonably-competent adult who supposedly practices science professionally and has at least an average level of comprehension?

If you don't want your intelligence insulted, why do you object when I don't do so?

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 07:43 PM

#160Re " Men are not called whores.."
No, actually, women label men many things much worse than 'whores'; things with actual potential legal consequences.
Like rapsits, deviates, stalkers, batterers, etc., and they are believed without hesitation. So, yeah, call me a whore.
Askinkiss: did you write your last post to me before, or after you removed your oral collostomy bag?

Kseniya and others :I couldn't ( and won't ) get past the male bashing Title of Clarke's article--one more internalized misandrist rant from yet another male who cannot find a lek where he can be part of the rutting unless he takes second or third breeding position.I see why some of these posters would indeed refer us to it, being that they are feminist shills and little neutered apologists for the testosteronally challenged.

KOS is right on track, and I poromise to read more often.
Has anyone out there other than me noticed that Sierra's site contains some blatantly misandrist posts?

I am feeling so 'harrassed,' here.....


Posted by: cmf | April 14, 2007 07:44 PM

#161Right. The ostensible reason for bringing up Dunn is that "Women can undermine 'male priviledge' by making stuff up," but Dunn's fraud didn't involve sexual harrassment. She tried to create a racial incident in an already racially-charged environment. So she doesn't serve very well as a counter-example to the Sierra thing, even if she does serve as proof that women can and will fraudlently cast themselves as victims. To which I say, "Yeah? So?"

But lately I've found that I underestimate Caledonian at my peril, and that his comments are often useful to me whether I agree with them or not, so I wonder if he's getting at something that I'm not seeing. That's all.

Posted by: Kseniya | April 14, 2007 07:49 PM

#162If I mischaracterized your argument,
Fine. I will take your assurance that I mischaracterized it as being in good faith, and I apologize for my misinterpretation of your response.

You don't wish to be called a fool?
I don't care what you call me. Your signal-to-noise ratio just isn't worth it.

Posted by: RavenT | April 14, 2007 07:56 PM

#163But lately I've found that I underestimate Caledonian at my peril, and that his comments are often useful to me whether I agree with them or not,
That's pretty much the reaction I'm going for.

I'm having some trouble posting - going to put it sections to find where the problem is.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 07:56 PM

#164Ah, the word is b-l-u-s-h-i-n-g. We can't use that word?! Anyway, I'm flattered.

Dunn anticipated the reaction that her claims and evidence would provoke - that's why she constructed them. She could anticipate such a reaction because people don't apply critical thinking to their sociocultural responses. It's considered extremely poor manners to challenge or question people who are ostenibly the victims of racial or gender prejudice, and with most people, having one's arguments or positions questioned is equivalent to being attacked - if someone isn't immediately supportive of the position, they must oppose the position, and they are therefore the enemy.

I'm seeing that kind of madness in this thread, on this subject, and it must be opposed at all costs.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 07:57 PM

#165Hmmm I was called away in mid-comment so as you can see I'm waaaaaay behind.

Posted by: Kseniya | April 14, 2007 07:59 PM

#166goddamn HTML and preview.

That should be a double quote; let's try a hack:

If I mischaracterized your argument,
If?
(ok, this looks right in preview)

Fine. I will take your assurance that I mischaracterized it as being in good faith, and I apologize for my misinterpretation of your response.

You don't wish to be called a fool?
I don't care what you call me. Your signal-to-noise ratio just isn't worth it.

Posted by: RavenT | April 14, 2007 08:02 PM

#167cmf: I know I should just ignore you, but will you please, please just stop already? You've made your "point" 1000 times now. I think it's safe for you to assume that by now everyone is resoundingly clear on your position (after being so relentlessly bludgeoned by it).

And that was my attempt for the day at grandly farcical understatement... (*rim shot*)

Jeez... It was annoying enough the first several hundred times.


Posted by: Don Price | April 14, 2007 08:15 PM

#168CMF:

I couldn't ( and won't ) get past the male bashing Title of Clarke's article

Your aversion is noted, but your opinions of the article aren't worth the argon flowing out of your mouth unless you actually read it. For all you know, it could be a piece about the role of hox genes in the development of the urethra.

C'mon. Take the plunge. Live dangerously. Come back to us with a "Well, that was crap!" or an "I agreed with his one point about..." or whatever.

Sierra's site contains some blatantly misandrist posts
Oh. Well. Burn her, then. Burn her!

Caledonian:

That's pretty much the reaction I'm going for.

Yes. I have learned that.

The cryptic call-and-response mode of communication does have its limitations, though, even if it does at times amuse and challenge the more simple-minded readers among us, such as myself. Others may be impatient with it. But I guess you already know that.

Posted by: Kseniya | April 14, 2007 09:22 PM

#169One wonders how much risk the women who are wary/scared of men are actually in.
Posted by: Caledonian

"Based on an analysis of 103 studies of stalking-related phenomena representing 70,000 participants, the prevalence across studies for women who have been stalked was 23.5 percent and for men was 10.5 percent. The stalking averaged a duration of nearly two years.

The average physical violence incidence rate in the above-mentioned study was 33 percent and the incidence of sexual violence was over 10 percent." -Sptizberg, B. 2002

"A recent analysis of 13 published studies of 1,155 stalking cases found that the average overall rate of violence experienced by the victims was 38.7 percent.

...stalkers who targeted strangers or acquaintances ... ranged from five percent to 14 percent" -Rosenfeld, B. 2004

"The prevalence of anxiety, insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression is much higher among stalking victims than the general population, especially if the stalking involves being followed or having one's property destroyed" - Blaaw, E., et al. 2002

Good enough for ya, Caledonian?

Posted by: Graculus | April 14, 2007 10:24 PM

#170Oh, that's an easy one. That would be the part where he trivialized her experience
-Leni
I think you had better reread my post:

Leni et al: Unless you can point to a place in Kos' post where he trivializes her position and experience or belittles her *because* she is a woman
-Azkyroth. emphasis mine, not in original
I'm waiting...

(More in a bit.)

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 14, 2007 11:04 PM

#171I'm waiting...

Why? She answered you. The part where he trivialized her experience.

Do you really expect people to come out and admit to sexism while they're saying sexist things? While that would certainly be helpful, I can't imagine why you think that would be universal.

Posted by: Chet | April 14, 2007 11:10 PM

#172Unless the definition of the term "sexist" changed radically while I've been assembling furniture for the past couple hours and no one bothered to inform me, the use of the term implies that Kos reacted to her in a manner less respectful, reasonable, gracious, or considerate, than his reaction would have been if the subject was male, all other things being equal. This is an allegation that you, Leni, and others have flatly and absolutely failed to substantiate, and you seem not even to understand that it SHOULD be substantiated. I explicitly did not contest that his statements were insensitive, but unless you've something more substantive to offer in support of your claim that they were motivated by gender prejudice than the simple fact that they were made by a man to a woman, your claims of "sexism" are baseless--so far as I can see it's just a word you're using for the emotional connotation, regardless of its actual applicability beyond the most superficial and summary details, which is the basis for my analogy to Godwin's Law.

You're smart enough to operate a keyboard; you SHOULD be smart enough to grasp this.

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 14, 2007 11:19 PM

#173You're smart enough to operate a keyboard; you SHOULD be smart enough to grasp this.
Posted by: Azkyroth

It's sexist because he (Kos) ignores the sexual and gender components of the harassment and threats, and because he is a male, and lives in a world of male priviledge he feels entitled to dismiss her concerns.

You're smart enough to operate a keyboard; you SHOULD be smart enough to grasp this.

Posted by: Graculus | April 14, 2007 11:37 PM

#174Graculus: This line of attack is like criticizing Ann Coulter's looks instead of her policy positions.
Posted by: Azkyroth


Cthoulter had policy postitions?

And here I thought she was just a vile, hateful pustule on the buttocks of the universe.

Posted by: Graculus | April 14, 2007 11:43 PM

#175Unless the definition of the term "sexist" changed radically while I've been assembling furniture for the past couple hours and no one bothered to inform me, the use of the term implies that Kos reacted to her in a manner less respectful, reasonable, gracious, or considerate, than his reaction would have been if the subject was male, all other things being equal.

Sure, but if in order to convince you of that, we'd have to peer into an alternate universe where Kathy Sierra was born with a penis, you're just setting yourself up behind a bulwark of invincible ignorance.

All that, of course, ignores the fact that if Kathy actually had been male, there wouldn't have been anything for Kos to be dismissive of, because nobody would have been telling Mr. Sierra that they wanted to cut his head off and fuck the stump.

The question, really, is why people like you are so adamantly unwilling to call sexism sexism when we're all looking right at it. It's not like we're accusing Kos of a genocide. We're making an assertion that he's engaging in speech that serves to disadvantage women, and supporting those who are engaging in such speech. Proof by inspection is sufficient to substantiate such an accusation.

You seem to believe that Kos's response can be considered in isolation from the subject, from context, and from society in general. It's this kind of logic-chopping obtuseness that allows sexism to persist in otherwise progressive contexts.

Posted by: Chet | April 14, 2007 11:48 PM

#176Hmm. So the intent of the speaker is irrelevant to whether terms that attribute specific motives to the speaker are applicable. I'll...keep that in mind... O.o

Once you're done grinding that axe, I'd like to call your attention to something from my first post:

With that said, I definitely second exposing these people as a way of fighting back. I know there's a lot of information that can be gained about people who threaten (or confess to) violence online, much more than these scumbags probably realize, and the overwhelming majority of them are likely to wet down their legs when the stalking and harassment they believed they could commit with impunity comes back to haunt them. I'm thinking a few very high-profile cases of publicizing information on these people (forwarding their emails and comments to their present or future employers and/or close family members sounds like a particularly powerful route) and making their crimes an albatross around their necks would go a long way towards discouraging others of their ilk. An organized effort in the blogosphere and cyberspace in general to ensure this happens would be worthwhile, so long as we recognized the potential of our efforts to be abused (to slime someone innocent, etc.) and avoided a "shoot first and avoid follow-up questions later" policy.
For people sending these comments from public computers, IP addresses where unsecured computers are available, and whose administrators do not make reasonable efforts to prevent their misuse, are easy enough to block; most major IRC networks do this with unsecured proxy servers as a matter of course....though it would be worth thinking long and hard about whether the cost in viewer access is worth the benefit in denying access to the maliciously anonymous.

Any thoughts? Or am I distracting you too much from the REALLY important issue here?

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 14, 2007 11:58 PM

#177So the intent of the speaker is irrelevant to whether terms that attribute specific motives to the speaker are applicable.

I don't see where I said that, but are you saying it's impossible to be unintentionally sexist? I don't see how that's the case.

Any thoughts?

Christ, could you get over yourself for just a Goddamn second? Why on Earth would you think this is a thread about your personal thoughts on internet security and IP deanonymization tools?

Posted by: Chet | April 15, 2007 12:11 AM

#178"Kos reacted to her in a manner less respectful, reasonable, gracious, or considerate, than his reaction would have been if the subject was male, all other things being equal"

Things are not equal. This notion of female priviledge and the Elizabethan-Victorian era priviledge of whit women to be entitled to some kind of chivalric exception to rude discourse is laughable.

Kseniya: I stand where I stood before, because more male bashing is a poor excuse for getting ones opinion read, or substantiated here or elsewhere. (I ain't about giving male bashers more free press, just like the
Cathy Sierra engineered scandal is getting)
engineered scandal is disreputable at least, disingenuous at most, and more advice for how guys can avoid being assholes??'Is less than honest.
So, you are recomending burning Sierra, AS IF this orchestrated PR grab is even similar to the Salem Witch Trials? So your fuzzy math indicates that a) women who get alleged misogynstic hate mail =men are bad b)women who get said hate mail in response to their male bashing are martyrs? c)natural conclusion: men are still bad, and should read more anti male crap to cure themselves of it, while tolerating Siera's male bashing?


Posted by: cmf | April 15, 2007 01:23 AM

#179CMF:

"I stand where I stood before"
You mean in nearly complete ignorance of what Clarke actually had to say? Yes, I can see that.

Your position seems largely if not entirely dependent on the presupposition that Sierra "engineered" this. Evidence, please? Until you provide some, I'm disinclined to take that charge very seriously. Do I think she implicated Chris Locke, and others, unfairly? Yes, almost certainly. People make mistakes when they panic. Mistakes can be addressed.

In any case, your accusation does not appear to be very robust.

By the way, you still haven't made any attempt to add support to that argument you left wobbling precariously atop the notion that a strip club is somehow typical of the restaurant business. If you were joking, that's fine. Either way, I've gotten a few chuckles out of it already!

As for the Salem Witch Trials, you're being way too literal. Or obtuse. Or both. You want to talk fuzzy math? Ok. All I was trying to suggest was that your equation:

"Sierra bashes some guy named Andrist [whoever he is]"

_EQUALS_

"It's ok to threaten to hang her, rape her, slit her throat, complete with illustrations"

is a little out of balance.

Posted by: Kseniya | April 15, 2007 02:36 AM

#180I don't see where I said that, but are you saying it's impossible to be unintentionally sexist? I don't see how that's the case.
I'm saying that the burden of proof remains on the "prosecution" even when the "defendent" is "charged" with something the accuser really, really, really doesn't like, even when that something is a genuine societal pathology. "Presumed sexist until proven sexist" is not a defensible approach to these sorts of statements, and I'm reasonably certain that if the topic at hand were any less of a hot-button issue for you, you would realize this.

Christ, could you get over yourself for just a Goddamn second? Why on Earth would you think this is a thread about your personal thoughts on internet security and IP deanonymization tools?
Interesting. I wonder if your unequivocal inability to accurately recapitulate and address quite literally any point I make is the result of a genetic defect, or whether it's due to subsequent brain damage. Discuss?

Were you to read the paragraphs of my previous post I quoted, you might notice some sort of relevance to the issue of online stalking and harassment, namely specific suggestions for a community response aimed at discouraging such threats and ensuring that people who send them get what's coming to them, along with some potentially fruitful approaches. As in, you know, a suggestion for accomplishing something productive. Terribly sorry. We now return you to your regularly scheduled axe-grinding...

(Incidentally, have you ever bothered to ask Ms. Sierra how she feels about her distress being made the mascot of your incoherent little crusade?)

PS: PZ, why on earth is CMF still commenting here? I'm about ready to smack the hateful little troll; the least you could do is disemvowel it.

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 15, 2007 03:57 AM

#181How interesting that so many emphasize the importance of "experience" and its profoundly subjective nature - we can't deny that people have experienced what they say they have, gone through what they say they've gone through, felt what they say they've felt, etc.

The prominence of emotion is particularly striking. Is this merely a coincidence, or is the importance given to social narratives and feelings related to the traditionally-feminine associations of those things?

Posted by: Caledonian | April 15, 2007 10:51 AM

#182Cross-posting fun:

When did the practice of referring to male sociocultural advantage as 'privilege' begin?

It's a fantastic example of embedding assumptions about a problem in the terminology used to discuss it, but it's fairly inaccurate. Privileges are specially-granted rights or abilities not available in the default state. The ability to walk down a street at night while being slightly less afraid for one's life/physical integrity is not a privilege granted to men. It's a consequence of biology and society.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 15, 2007 11:05 AM

#183I'm saying that the burden of proof remains on the "prosecution" even when the "defendent" is "charged" with something the accuser really, really, really doesn't like, even when that something is a genuine societal pathology.

Right, but we've gone well beyond "burden of proof" - which has been met for all reasonable people by now - and into "I'll never be convinced except under physically impossible conditions." That's invincible ignorance.

I'm reasonably certain that if the topic at hand were any less of a hot-button issue for you, you would realize this.

This is just well-poisoning, of course.

Were you to read the paragraphs of my previous post I quoted

I read them, Azk. If you could get over your truly astounding ego for just a second, you might have realized that the reason that I've refrained from commenting is because I wasn't interested in doing so, and because your much-loved paragraphs were completely irrelevant to anything I was saying.

If you have suggestions for how to deal with internet stalking, why don't you take them to people who can implement them?

Posted by: Chet | April 15, 2007 11:25 AM

#184Right, but we've gone well beyond "burden of proof" - which has been met for all reasonable people by now
But you're defining who the "reasonable people" are by whether they accept that the evidence you've presented justifies the conclusions you're forwarding.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 15, 2007 11:33 AM

#185Okay now chet has deteriorated into not making any sense what-so-ever.

astounding ego? get over yourself?

psssst insults only work when they aren't so far removed from the situation that they are comedic.

Also: five dollars said you either didn't read azkyroth's comments or didn't understand them. "Irrelevant to anything I was saying"??

I would say you were a troll but the majority of your and cmf's comments are just so oblivious that I don't think even a troll could pretend to think things like them.

Ya... your a real gem. Throughout this you and cmf have been making personal attacks, doing nothing to support your positions and just being incredible douches.


Posted by: cv | April 15, 2007 11:48 AM

#186PS: PZ, why on earth is CMF still commenting here? I'm about ready to smack the hateful little troll; the least you could do is disemvowel it.
PZ, in the spirit of transparency, sunshine being the best dinsinfectant, and all that, I request that you *don't* disemvowel or ban him. That would just make it easier for everyone here who pretends that women don't get particular harassment on the web to go back to business as usual.

Leaving him here as an example of what we get that they don't, on the other hand, serves as an excellent object lesson. Please leave him as is in all his glory. And if it bugs anyone, well, maybe there's a reason for that.

Posted by: RavenT | April 15, 2007 12:08 PM

#187I don't ban or disemvowel people for merely being disagreeable or insane. CMF is babbling his point of view on a thread that is about that point of view, so I'm going to let it slide.

Trolls start babbling their point of view on threads that are not about that particular topic -- if/when he starts infesting other threads and detracting from on-topic discussions, that's when the guillotine blade comes down.

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 15, 2007 12:15 PM

#188But you're defining who the "reasonable people" are by whether they accept that the evidence you've presented justifies the conclusions you're forwarding.

Nonsense. You're just leveling the same accusations you've been making from the get-go - that I and others who perceived the sexism inherent in Kos's response (regardless of his intent) perceived it because we're "obsessed", that we're unreasonable, and if we can't use mental telepathy, astral projection, or travel to alternate universes to prove what Kos would have done in an innumerable number of alternate realties, our perception is unfounded.

I'm happy to leave it to the readers to decide who is being reasonable and who is not.

Also: five dollars said you either didn't read azkyroth's comments or didn't understand them. "Irrelevant to anything I was saying"??

Did you read what I wrote? Did you read what he's been pestering me to reply to? I've replied to everything that I felt was relevant to the argument I was having. If someone else wants to address his Secret Plan to Battle Internet Stalkers, they're welcome to, but I have no interest in doing so, because it's irrelevant to the argument I was making. He might as well be pestering me for my thoughts on his recipe for Tofu Blondies for all the relevance that has to what I've been saying.

Ya... your a real gem.

Is there a point to this? I looked in your post for a response to my arguments but I couldn't find any.

Posted by: Chet | April 15, 2007 01:04 PM

#189How interesting that so many emphasize the importance of "experience" and its profoundly subjective nature - we can't deny that people have experienced what they say they have, gone through what they say they've gone through, felt what they say they've felt, etc.

The prominence of emotion is particularly striking. Is this merely a coincidence, or is the importance given to social narratives and feelings related to the traditionally-feminine associations of those things?

Posted by: Caledonian

"Men have egos, women have feelings"

We all know how women are unable to achieve higher cognitive function, being such bundles of "subjective" "feelings".

Guess what, it isn't about the feeling of being targetted. It's about actually, you know, being targetted.

Posted by: Graculus | April 15, 2007 03:51 PM

#190Kos' update

Obviously Kos should have carefully seperated his argument against the 'blogger ethics' nonsense and his remarks about the threats against Sierra. But, many people are too quick to insert a few extra paragraphs of bullshit into his post. It's common for us to try to fill in the blanks with a plot-line that fits our worst expectations.

Kos is guilt only of writing a post that was misconstrued due to his writing style/lack of careful rereading. I think people misjudge him because reading between the lines is so much easier than reading what's written as-is, and because there has been a long history of between-the-lines sexism in society. (plenty of obvious sexism, too)

Posted by: daelstorm | April 15, 2007 03:57 PM

#191Caledonian,

Privileges are specially-granted rights or abilities not available in the default state.
Earning 33 extra cents on the dollar is not something intrinsic to your penis. (Unless your penis is extraordinarily talented.) It's a "privilege" granted those in your class by society. If you feel that things which are consequences of society and biology cannot be privileges, I invite you to supply a single example of privilege which is not a function of either. On the obverse, please diagram your perpetual motion machine.

Your interesting assumption that you should be able to define what is and isn't sexism, that when discussing the matter the sexual violence aspect does not deserve to be discussed, that those accusing Kos of sexist action need to prove sexist intent and your insistence on living untroubled by inconvenient realities which, if you looked at them face on, might cause you to feel a troubling obligation to redress them: all these are privilege.

I can wait.

Posted by: ElizabethM | April 15, 2007 04:47 PM

#192Earning 33 extra cents on the dollar is not something intrinsic to your penis.
The studies that were the source for that infamous statistic were comparing the relative contributions of men and women to the total earned income, not the salaries of men and women in the same position.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 15, 2007 05:06 PM

#193not the salaries of men and women in the same position.

Men and women don't hold the same positions; that's rather the point. I, personally, need a little more justification than your say-so to believe that such a study is invalid unless it's performed from precisely the assumptions that you specify.

Posted by: Chet | April 15, 2007 05:14 PM

#194We're making an assertion that he's engaging in speech that serves to disadvantage women, and supporting those who are engaging in such speech.
Aha. I think we have here the crux of the disagreement.
Most of the people on this thread other than Chet (who is quoted above) seem to define sexism as "speech or behavior hostile toward women on the basis of their sex". Chet, on the other hand, seems to be working from a far more inclusive definition like "speech or behavior that has a harmful effect on women". Note that you can be unintentionally harmful, but you can't be unintentionally hostile. Hostility is a matter of intent.

Thus all the talking-past-one-another regarding whether Kos's post is clearly sexist, clearly not sexist, ambiguous, etc. We're literally not discussing the same issue. Kos may indeed have blundered into saying something that was hurtful to Ms. Sierra and/or women in general. But if he didn't do it on purpose, then ipso facto it isn't sexism by most people's definitions. There's no malice.

Which I guess leaves us back where we started - Kos screwed up.

P.S. Kos has recently posted a followup here. It's not precisely an apology, but makes it clear (IMO) that he wasn't saying many of the things he was accused of saying. Which, in turn, may imply his wording left much to be desired, since it was so prone to misinterpretation.

Posted by: Chris | April 15, 2007 05:18 PM

#195Men and women don't hold the same positions; that's rather the point.
Exactly.

Which, in turn, may imply his wording left much to be desired, since it was so prone to misinterpretation.
Isn't that blaming the victim?

Posted by: Caledonian | April 15, 2007 05:25 PM

#196Exactly.

Exactly exactly.

Kos may indeed have blundered into saying something that was hurtful to Ms. Sierra and/or women in general. But if he didn't do it on purpose, then ipso facto it isn't sexism by most people's definitions.

Look, he didn't type that stuff by mistake. His words weren't generated by random keystrokes. Sexists never think they're treating women unfairly; they're sexist because they believe that the egalitarian, fair way to treat a woman is to put her in her place.

That's what Kos was doing - putting someone in her place. Dismissing her concerns as No Big Deal would have, in his view, meant a change in how he would have had to act. So, he took up arms to defend his privilege.

That's why it's sexism. I don't think for a minute that Kos saw an uppity woman that he had to put down. I think he saw the potential restriction of his privilege, and he reacted to defend it. That's no less sexist.

Posted by: Chet | April 15, 2007 05:33 PM

#197That's what Kos was doing - putting someone in her place. Dismissing her concerns as No Big Deal would have, in his view, meant a change in how he would have had to act.
I think you mean NOT dismissing her concerns.

You seem to be arguing "sexists don't think they're sexists, Kos doesn't think he's sexist, Kos is therefore sexist".

What about dismissing her concerns because they're really not realistic, proportional, or "a big deal"?

Posted by: Caledonian | April 15, 2007 05:45 PM

#198Caledonian, it is not up to you to judge whether the threats against Sierra were "realistic, proportional, or 'a big deal,'" as you were not the recipient of those threats.

Posted by: j | April 15, 2007 05:52 PM

#199Since when do we not have the right to evaluate the claims of others?

Posted by: Caledonian | April 15, 2007 06:29 PM

#200I am not saying you do not have the right to evaluate others' claims, whatever that's supposed to mean. I am merely suggesting that your evaluation will be inaccurate and biased because of your point of view.

Posted by: j | April 15, 2007 06:39 PM

#201reading between the lines is so much easier than reading what's written as-is


OK, here's "as-is":

"Most of the time, said "death threats" don't even exist -- evidenced by the fact that the crying bloggers and journalists always fail to produce said "death threats".

"If they can't handle a little heat in their email inbox, then really, they should try another line of work."

It would help if you actually read the source material that is being discussed before accusing people of "reading between the lines".


Posted by: Graculus | April 15, 2007 06:44 PM

#202How, exactly, is the seriousness of a threat determined by the perception of the people who receives it?

What, precisely, makes me any more inherently inaccurate and biased than the recipient? And what makes you qualified to judge who's accurate and unbiased?

It seems to me that you're trying to establish a new kind of "privilege" in which people you approve of can make whatever claims they wish and not have them examined or even challenged.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 15, 2007 07:16 PM

#203Kos is guilt only of writing a post that was misconstrued due to his writing style/lack of careful rereading. I think people misjudge him because reading between the lines is so much easier than reading what's written as-is
Funny how so many of the personal-responsibility crowd are willing in this case to give a pass to a writer for carelessness and put the responsibility/burden of determining what is really meant on the reader.

I'm sure it is only a unique coincidence that the writer is male and the readers being criticized for not doing enough to discern his real meaning are female, as this kind of gender-correlated burden-shifting never occurs otherwise, and we've never had this conversation thousands of times before.

P.S. Kos has recently posted a followup here. It's not precisely an apology, but makes it clear (IMO) that he wasn't saying many of the things he was accused of saying.
No, I think it's pretty clear that he said that stalkers never follow through on their threats, as in his quote that I cited above. And he's right, they don't--except when they do.

As I said, when Kos can produce his validated criterion for distinguishing between real stalker threats and pseudo-threats, then I'll take his trivialization of Sierra's situation seriously; until then, there are plenty of non-asshole guys who deserve the traffic and support more.

Posted by: RavenT | April 15, 2007 07:27 PM

#204No, Caledonian, I'm trying to point out the obvious: that women in this society are oppressed, and you cannot possibly understand that oppression unless you are female.

Posted by: j | April 15, 2007 08:13 PM

#205No, the women who live in societies where they throw acid in your face if you're not covered head-to-toe with cloth are oppressed.

Women in this society are frequently disadvantaged, which is not at all the same thing.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 15, 2007 08:28 PM

#206Caledonian, bless your heart for the wisdom;-)
"No, the women who live in societies where they throw acid in your face if you're not covered head-to-toe with cloth are oppressed,".
Imight add that the oppression of women in America begins and ends with their own mothers expectations of them, not mine, or any other males expectations.
Further, I maintain that they choose the oppression here, unlike every 9-5 JHoe Baloney who is virtually relegated to the role of truck driver, pallette tosser, ditch digger, burger flipper by womens choices.
Women oppressed--have any of those who maintain this junk actually left your houses lately? Academic offices are chock full o' females; any government job where i have ever been to get a license, fill out legal paperwork, etc, is staffed by almost exclusively females; etc, etc.
Too bad that the folks who bandy this oppressed American woman crap around live in the selective feminist readings section of the 1970's.

Posted by: cmf | April 15, 2007 08:48 PM

#207every 9-5 JHoe Baloney who is virtually relegated to the role of truck driver, pallette tosser, ditch digger, burger flipper by womens choices.

I'm going to have this framed and mounted right next to the one from the creationist claiming that mammals weren't animals.

Posted by: Graculus | April 15, 2007 08:54 PM

#208p.s. CALEDONIAN??!!
the more I read, the more it occurs to me that Caledonian is the only brain with a ticking sound in it. A ticking sound that isn't a fallacious Google bomb, or feministic meme mine.Cal, you are on to something.
Not only would that whole circa 1971 statistic of 33 cents on the dollar be relegated to absooluuuute crap( if it wasn't for all of those single mother raised little boy feminists out there yakking about womens rights, in lieu of their own)if we took just TAKE ONE BILL GATES OUT OF THE EQUATION, but then, I am sure they would then go 'global' and posit the worlds wealth no longer in American terms, but en todo mundo terms--again shifting the debate from their fallacious lies.
Does anybody out there have the capacity to rework that whole 33 to the dollar crap, i.e. take one E Howard Hunt, and a Bill Gates out of the equation, and then see where the money is at?


Posted by: cmf | April 15, 2007 08:54 PM

#209http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html
http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

Right. American women are just disadvantaged. Especially the 200,000 or so women who were raped in 2005. Caledonian, when a troll like cmf is agreeing with you and stating outright that women choose their oppression, you know you are completely detached from reality.

Posted by: j | April 15, 2007 08:58 PM

#210PZ: Ashkeroth says: "to smack the hateful little troll; the least you could do is disemvowel it."
Hmmm: 1)threat of violence, projected to a second party, with a caveat of potential group violence directed at me 2)objectification of me, a living breathing person as something non-human 3) an outcry to enlist PZ Meyers in said violence directed against me, a real person;

PZ: I am on here precisely to make a point, and here it is : hold your breath, or don't, but guess what? I was just threatended on your blog! Get the point? Now I have a question: Is this an example of MISANDRY or MISOGINY, as you, and the others do not know my sex, nor my gender?

Now, can I get the web campaign of orchestrated scandal going, at your expense? I am feeling *fearful*, *threatened with violence*, and I am *one step away from calling in local law enforcement*!

On the other hand, I am more than willing to whip Ashkenkisses ass mano y mano, or mujer a mujer. or mujer ymano, whichever that cretin prefers. Time, Place?
NOT....the publicity of one good threat directed at me travels longer, travels way longer;-)

Like a lie travels the world a thousand times before the truth wakes up and gets its pants on, longer, ala Goebels longer.

And that was exactly my point.

If you hate s/thing long enough you become what you hate. Sorry y'all, but maybe Sierra could contemplate removing her sexist male bashing imagery from her site? Other wise, as Ashytrace's threat to me implies, people are prone to violence indeed.
And, I will sleep well tonight, with my 'girl card' in my nightstand, no need to engineer another useless male bashing scandal;-)


Posted by: cmf | April 15, 2007 09:13 PM

#211You seem to be arguing "sexists don't think they're sexists, Kos doesn't think he's sexist, Kos is therefore sexist".

And you seem to be having trouble reading plain statements in English.

What I wrote was abundantly clear, typos aside. You've got a reputation around here, Cal, for clear, rigorous thinking. Why don't you prove it's not undeserved and go back for another crack?

What about dismissing her concerns because they're really not realistic, proportional, or "a big deal"?

Since that's not what he did, why don't we restrict the conversation to events that actually occurred? The police determined that these were credible threats. Of course, that doesn't stop some people from dismissing any kind of threat when the target is a woman.

Posted by: Chet | April 15, 2007 09:19 PM

#212if we took just TAKE ONE BILL GATES OUT OF THE EQUATION

So, what you're saying is, if we ignore all the men who get paid more than women, then really, men don't get paid any more than women do?

That's truly an insightful realization on your part. Look, I'll let you take Bill Gates. Take the top 5, in fact. How many of them are men? I'm sure that's just a statistical anomaly, right? I mean we've already established that the only jobs for men are fry-cooks and truck drivers, right?

Posted by: Chet | April 15, 2007 09:26 PM

#213Rape is a term of political and social convenience, designed to monsterize males at large. The larger, unadressed problem with rape( which does not belong in this dialogue about webthreats) is that it is a term that designates male touch as bad, female touch as good,because it suits a political agenda. The real issue is that a large number of rapists report that they were sexually abused as children, by women, yet their is little or no research into that area, b/c it has not been proven to generate as much lobbyist money. Worse yet, female sexual abuse of children( which creates rapists) is normalized.
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume13/j13_1_2.htm

Further, the expedience of 'crushing patriarchy'( which I have an opinion on, and implied in the material of anyone who sends me to a RAINN site, is that I am against that idea-a whole nother topic-but for now, and the Sierra discussion I maintain otherwise)got in the way of truth, justice, and facts, as evidenced by all of the years of research about domestic violence that flew in the face of the MacKinnon/FBI stats collusion:
Great counter bibliography, for those who love Rainn stats
http://www.batteredmen.com/fiebert.htm
But j, how do you feel about me being threatened above anyways? Or don't I count? Or, am I just a woman with a different view point that flies in the face of the expected 'woman/victim" dichotomies of the matriarchs? Or if male do I count less because their are enough of them pawing dirt in the lek, and lining the bower with blue shiny things already?

Posted by: cmf | April 15, 2007 09:27 PM

#214cmf, you were not threatened with physical harm of any kind. You were threatened with being refused the privilege of commenting here, and with the vowels in your text being imperiled. Your reaction to that undercuts all of your arguments -- being told that you are a pest on the internet is qualitatively different from being told you should be hunted down and executed.

Go take one of your happy pills and lie down for a while, OK?

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 15, 2007 09:30 PM

#215Rape is a term of convenience? Are you insane?

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 15, 2007 09:33 PM

#216Chet: I don't wanna get into the whole pitting of peoples against peoples thing, it is beyond my knowledge base. But I am old enough to have seen a few things, in this order:
1) the crushing of the unions in the fifies-seventies
2)the then useful tool of race as a spoiler to decrease wages
3)the then useful tool of sex as a spoiler
4) the stereotypes of evil white men/good black men/good white women as justification to decrease wages even more
5)the continuuing stereotype of evil white men as spoiler, edging towards white women -almost as bad
6) the current rhetoric of 'illegals' taking jobs with a twist: they deserve them more than white women etc.
7) go on? Todays debates about gender, and the gay community deserving the marriage benefit, health benefits, because straight couples don't work out, etc etc,
So what I am saying is that the archetypes/stereotypes here are destructive, and not a good thing for building any sense of unity, and here, in this case, it started with yet another white woman crying wolf.
And thanks for noting the validity of the Gates argument. Can you help me with the math? What is impoortant is updating the old, not necessarily tossing it out. Sure, in SOME cases, at SOME levels of wealth, women do worse. But white women ALWAYS do better than black women, white women ALWAYS do as good or better than black men....wana keep splitting the baby? When does it end?

Posted by: cmf | April 15, 2007 09:41 PM

#217I am through feeding the trolls.

Posted by: j | April 15, 2007 09:46 PM

#218And thanks for noting the validity of the Gates argument.

LOL! Now I know you're kidding. Thanks for the laugh, CMF. You really had me convinced that you were an idiot, before. Well done!

Posted by: Chet | April 15, 2007 09:49 PM

#219Kseniya: Yeah, the strip bar waitress. Of course I was being facitious, with extra bread. It was a comment in regards to yours about the service industry.I worked their on many fronts, union and all, and I can tell you w/out hesitation that not everyone like beards or boobs in their soup.
So in the low ball bohemian joints, women did/do better w/ tips,and boobs in the soup; in the strip bars, women always do better w/ tips because strip clubs DO NOT HIRE MALE SERVERS,and women are equally employed as servers/bartenders; and in all other service industry wait staff jobs, I encounter this remarkable non gendered ration: good server= good tips.
Don: and who are you again?
Grackle: thank you for the honor of resigning my comments to the obscurity of your blog. Evidently, you live in it, not the real world, where womens birth choices relegate men to lives that are based on the mothers limited concept of how the world works-- a world where the PC are likely to buy their boys little dump trucks instead of doctor kits, but never buy them a squirt gun. Come out of that Ivory and Ebony towere once in awhile> all those guys you are rabid about were likely raised in these type of environments, and the great maternal minds that populated it.

Posted by: cmf | April 15, 2007 09:53 PM

#220
PZ: "Political convenience" is different than convenient. And not one salient honest discussion of the "implied threat" or the "objectification"..wowo...sos, um, double standardie...wow, maybe those righties are rightie, a religion of atheism....the right=patriarchy, the left = matriarchal longing...

Chet: I had to read your hypocritical ass dropped drivel before I could reply to your snipe.

YOU WROTE "I doubt that Kathy would have had her head photoshopped into hardcore pornography, or had her address posted on the internet, or received emails about decapitating her and raping her, if she were a man."

Any thoughts on your fellow idiot threatening to smack me around?
And gee whizz, any interesting thoughts on the links I posted, re: Rainn propaganda -vs- Feibert?
Prolly not.
Kos was and remains right, in the leftest sense, despite pseudo apololgy: the he stands for free thoughts not constricted by the absolutist cuckoldry exhibited here on this topic.


Posted by: cmf | April 15, 2007 10:03 PM

#221p.s.
j, et al, what exactly is your definition of a troll? I mean, is it " anyone with a different point of view"?
I bet you didn't even check my links.

Posted by: cmf | April 15, 2007 10:06 PM

#222PZ: I was merely positing an equalist perspective: no doubt you are aware that long after VAWA 1&2 rolled around, we finally had PRRA,
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4425&sequence=0 and only with the caveat that the same lobby that built the prison system and 'framed' the rape culture, profitted from its definitions, etc,was able to minimize the impact of the fact gathering process inside the prisons.

If rape were NOT a convenient political definition, we would have addressed the 'factory' as soon as we addressed the 'market' of that idea. Prisons are rape factories, designed to pit race against race, over the supposed fulcrum of power exerted through rape. The prison growth industry/lobby has equally created some interesting thinking in regards to this, especially amongst academics and their matrilineal intellectual progeny.

Posted by: cmf | April 15, 2007 10:14 PM

#223I got Bingo a long time ago, although it was a race between cmf and Caldonian as to who got there first.

Working on a creationist version now.

Hm, scienceblogs isn't liking me doing links today. Fine, the cut'n'paste version: Bingo - http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=431

Posted by: Carlie | April 15, 2007 10:14 PM

#224I got Bingo a long time ago, although it was a race between cmf and Caldonian as to who got there first.
Well, if anything was overdetermined, that would be it :).

On the other hand, considering Cal's new friend, I'm reconsidering my turn-down of the "enemy" slot he offered me earlier.

Posted by: RavenT | April 15, 2007 10:19 PM

#225minimizers remind me of the days whe we said of women with opinions that they are "loud mouthed" " annoying" and should "know their place"...best of all that what they have experienced does not exist, because the popular people don't talk about it, make fun of it, and deny it outright, without ever doing the homework of "believing". I guess I am learning that here, again;-(
Is their never a time to recalculate the old data, reframe the paradigms?

Posted by: cmf | April 15, 2007 10:22 PM

#226best of all that what they have experienced does not exist, because the popular people don't talk about it, make fun of it, and deny it outright, without ever doing the homework of "believing".

You and Kos should get along pretty well, then.

Posted by: Chet | April 15, 2007 10:32 PM

#227Carlie, I was just about to fill out another bingo board for this thread!

Posted by: j | April 15, 2007 10:38 PM

#228Yes, CMF, the phenomenon of battered males is quite real, and predictably more prevalent among men whose women force them to work at IHOP.

Posted by: Kseniya | April 15, 2007 10:52 PM

#229CMF: You're still dancing (exotically, but artlessly) around the restaurant issue.

CMF: You've still provided no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that Sierra "engineered" this, a claim you've made no fewer than five times here.

CMF: Your milking of the "smack" phrase as a threat against your person is transparently disingenous. AS IF that equates to the threats made against Sierra. Please.

CMF: Yes, woman-on-boy child sex abuse does exist, and is probably under-reported. Still: "The real issue is that a large number of rapists report that they were sexually abused as children, by women". Citation please? "Female sexual abuse of children [...] creates rapists." Citation please? "Worse yet, female sexual abuse of children( which creates rapists) is normalized." Cita... oh. Never mind. You've provided a link to your "proof" of this, which turns out to be a paper submitted by a freshman cultural anthropology university student in The Netherlands. Impressive. You have shaken my world-view all the way down to the turtles.

Dang. Running out of troll food here. Sigh.

Posted by: Kseniya | April 15, 2007 11:32 PM

#230Yup Carlie, the bingo board is a keeper. Bookmarked, with thanks. ;-)

Posted by: Kseniya | April 15, 2007 11:37 PM

#231"You have shaken my world-view all the way down to the turtles."

Kseniya, that is lovely! I might have to steal that.

Posted by: j | April 15, 2007 11:40 PM

#232Yikes. Kseniya writes "Yes, CMF, the phenomenon of battered males is quite real, and predictably more prevalent among men whose women force them to work at IHOP."

Such blatant classism. Such horrible denial of abuse, and a great example of systemic, peculiarly American style societal acceptance of said female perpetrated abuse.Not to mention heavy doses of pariarchal presumption that abuse victims who are male are 1) straight 2) gender identified as male 3) remotely even attached to the idea that heterogenous social customs are even acceptable 4) big huge fattie called etc.
I guess your points are taken: rape is minimized and discussions are moot when you adopt the strategy of patriarchal denial.
I am converted. Vive la feministas, the rapists, and especially those who use small threats instead of large ones to stifle discussion. Vive America La Violent.
Freshman paper? That is no ordinary freshman: that is a medical doctor writing in a widely accepted journal on child abuse. That freshman is not the average freshman, it was D. F. Janssen, MD., returning as mature student, medical doctor, and now, a cultural anthropologist--for whatever those labels are worth. Here is a bio if you actually give a shit.http://www.boyhoodstudies.com/dj.pdf
You are out yer ever lovin' mind Ksenya.Nice try at diffusion tho'.Fact is the dialogue has shfted, but I will stay with ya here. I only suggested at the beginning of my post that there are cause and effect scenarios for said Sierra incident. What a firestorm that was ;-)

"woman-on-boy child sex abuse does exist Kesinya, read through the IPT pieces ( it is a big 'ol journal), and judge for your self. It is not just a momma son kind o' dealand certainly the hostility at the topic should signify otherwise, re>> the reactions of these women posters and their male enablers to the very topic should give you a clue that the topic is deeper than mothers and sons.

For instance Dr. Jansen notes that " while clitoridectomy and other bloody morphology alterations have received extensive criticism, there seems to be a concurrent disregard of the young cunnus being subject to the extensive cosmetic of functional preparation in some way or another practised in a large number of (African and Oceanic) societies[14]. The issue of abuse is a more problematic one here (the girls may practice it in groups)."

Follow the trail,Kseniya and come to your own conclusions.I only know that the literature here is rare indeed, as rare as dissent on Sierra. Can I cite with certainty thta the whole thing was engineered? I can only ask you, and everyone else who has given her4 more publicity that the issue was worth, and also note that the jury ain't in yet as to even the facts of the case. So, yeah, the evidence will be shown if and when someone is charged, and my money is on that will as likely happen as me being able to stay on this dsspost much longer, or the issue of misandrist statements on her blog, or Carlies for that matter, ever getting discussed in public;-)

I feel like Jeezus here, beggin' my little digits for fire and thunder to come poppin out, but no miracles yet are 'froth'-coming from my fingertips. Wait and see comes the analyst in me;-)

Kseniya, I am not sure what you want to know about the strip bars, but gee you are persistent on that one;-) Just ask, but if I am
"milking of the "smack" phrase as a threat against your person is transparently disingenous. AS IF that equates to the threats made against Sierra," then exactly when is the time to bring note to such violent innuendos? I mean, I am here just sqattin in guano waiting for Gracula and Chit and the rest of them to hunt me down! Even after I ate my happy making jelly beans;-(

But it was NOT just a threat to kick me offa the board, because that would be your job PZ, not Arkensas, who made the comment. It was'nt directed at my "vowels" so much as my jowels.

Oh, yeah, unless I forget dear dear Caqrlie and her crappy lil' bingo board: Carlie, I am not a nice person,( should I be? I mean you feminasties ditched nice years ago right? Me 2;-)
OH: and I 'get' plenty, whether I am 'nice or not', but I imagine your board didn't anticipate that comment right?
YUCK: imagine if "gettin' some" were actually all we had to look forward to in life? But I have heard that the outback provides little in the way of other stimuli. Let me guess : your minimalization is your way of telling me " what's a matta, can't ya take a joke," Right? hardees har hear ya there;-) Why don't you go get 'enculturated' a little deeper.
Not.

Posted by: cmf | April 16, 2007 01:24 AM

#233Well, just read the whole thread, soup to nuts (as it were), and that sure was a big chunk of my life--and precious bodily fluids--I won't be getting back.

Most of the relevant horses have been beaten to death already, but I was troubled by one element that never was addressed explicitly with a link: what exactly were these "misandric" images on Kathy Sierra's website that inspired such invective (i.e., that she has it in for men, et cetera)? So I went back over there and took a look. I assume this is the material in question.

If so, I have to say: that was funny as hell. I'm a guy--the very model of the aging doughy tech jockey--and have seen enough bad software over time to relate exactly to what she was talking about. If you haven't already looked over there yourself, I heartily recommend it for a quick laugh.

What I didn't see was some sort of Oppression Of The Male, and that's worth bringing up only because various--um, let's call them "points"--have been made that suggest she was coming off as some sort of man-hater. (As if that would justify the nature of the threats, but like I said, horses, bodily fluids, etc.) Perhaps my internalized wussification really is to blame (though I had two fine parents, and the lack of hair on the top of my head suggests testosterone deficiency isn't the problem either)--but I guess if you really want to see the face of Jesus in the tortilla bad enough, any old tortilla will do.

Or perhaps "if you have a hammer...", as was sagely advised above.

-pr


Posted by: prismatic, so prismatic | April 16, 2007 01:42 AM

#234Did you read what I wrote? Did you read what he's been pestering me to reply to? I've replied to everything that I felt was relevant to the argument I was having. If someone else wants to address his Secret Plan to Battle Internet Stalkers, they're welcome to, but I have no interest in doing so, because it's irrelevant to the argument I was making. He might as well be pestering me for my thoughts on his recipe for Tofu Blondies for all the relevance that has to what I've been saying.
-Chet
No need to reply; you've already posted my response for me:

Christ, could you get over yourself for just a Goddamn second?
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 16, 2007 03:45 AM

#235CMF:


Such blatant classism. Such horrible denial of abuse

Uh.... Were you born without a sense of humor, or did you hope to give yourself some "edge" by having it surgically removed?

The IHOP line was a back-reference to your first rebuttal of my restaurant comment, a poke at your insistence that men are seriously limited in their career choices by the life-choices of their women, and a bit of a word-play. It's no good if I have to explain it, though.

(I seem to have gotten away with calling you a mouth-breather earlier, too. Heh. Sorry! Just be grateful I let you off the hook for relying on an historical inaccuracy regarding the Salem Witch Trials. Feh.)

Point taken on Dr. Jannsen. I should have looked deeper. Still, I don't agree that the paper proves that that kind of abuse is "normalized" in American society, though I admit that my rushed reading of the paper may have impaired my comprehension.

You are out yer ever lovin' mind Ksenya
Ya think? No. I'm not. Your myopia does not make me безумная. You, on the other hand, bear a passing resemblance to Norman Bates. Which is a shame because obviously you have a "ticking" brain, as you yourself might say. (When is it set to go off? Oops. Too late. I've already been caught in the blast.)

I'm not quite sure how me saying "Woman-on-boy child sex abuse does exist" equates to me denying it exists, or to me saying it's exclusively an іncestuous phenomenon. Maybe I should have typed in ALL-CAPS? What's your point? If it's "This is real, it matters, check it out," I have no problem with that. It is real, and it does matter.

But clitoridectomies and other practices of African and Oceanic societies are relevant to abuse of boys by adult females in Western societies... how? In that they are performed/perpetrated by adult females...? (Just a wild guess.)

I am not sure what you want to know about the strip bars
YHGTBFKM. O.o

then exactly when is the time to bring note to such violent innuendos?
I concede this one, with the understanding that the degree of threat is significantly different.

And to be fair, I do detect a sense of humor. However, you overestimate yourself and underestimate everyone else. This inhibits your ability and willingness to perceive wit, intelligence, subtlety or nuance in the expressions of those with whom you disagree (and are predisposed to think of as morons, fools, militant feministas or their compliant enabler-sheep, or some combination thereof). Not to mention that your views on women and on gender roles and relations are appalling, or that your presentation reeks of provokation. That said, if you were to claim that you were hit with the "troll" label prematurely, I wouldn't disagree. Hey, fair is fair.

Posted by: Kseniya | April 16, 2007 04:12 AM

#236cmf claims that, because he was threatened with being disemvoweled, his cannot properly represent his argument - which involves people being able to cope with implied threats against their life/physical integrity.

Does that seem right to you?

***

I do notice that no one is suggesting that women in our society are utterly unable to understand what women in other, crueler societies endure.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 16, 2007 07:40 AM

#237On the other hand, considering Cal's new friend, I'm reconsidering my turn-down of the "enemy" slot he offered me earlier.
I don't recall "offering" you anything, nor becoming cmf's friend. What I do recall is inviting you to hate me intelligently for a change.

You never cease to disappoint me, RavenT.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 16, 2007 07:48 AM

#238'Disapointments are many where the lekking hearts are left bleeding', begging not the prose nor the wit of the those far less needy;
yet to wit, If I had more time, I would reply, Kseniya, to this and more, but alas in this moment I must skedaddle, fo were it be said in this moment that arose, that I cannot count the flaws in your arguments nor the length till thread close, I promise upon my return a reply fit for an urn, and some humor to humor you, addled but intact as it were'n....
;-)
Yeah, you could say that 83.7% of what I said was total bullshit,attempts at humor, etc., but we know the new right/old left people have the humor bone of late guard feminists, and the sensitivity of freshly pulled bilophodontal molars.
I actually do have a sense of humor about it, but try to tell that to those who have no prose, and on Sierra's issue, a longer nose;-)
[ smiley faces added for humor connotation...yikes]

Yes, you are right Kseniya, it bears a need for a second look. We want to know the answer to the question of "why and what kind of%$#@124^&^ and how they do such things as what was done to Sierra, but no one wants to look at the 2000 lb Dworkinzilla in the center of the argument, which is that it takes one hecj of a mother to raise such woman hatin't dudes. Can we agree on that?
But I will rteply when time permits, and no, I DO NOT PRESUME this board has anyone with less than top 98pth intelligence level on it--which Is why I was startled to be labeled a troll, as I am RIGHT ON TOPIC,though perhaps 'pesky' to those who like homogeneous, nerwspeaking placid discussion; though I clearly disagree with the simplistic thought waves eminating from those I would expect s/th more of, here, I know this is among the most brilliant of blog-boards online.

Posted by: cmf | April 16, 2007 09:53 AM

#239Caledonian, when a troll like cmf is agreeing with you
Oh, lovely. It's argumentum ad Hitlerum with a troll taking the place of Hitler. The fact that some moron believes X for bad reasons does not prove X is wrong. Duh. If you want to attack Caledonian, please come up with a better basis than "a troll agrees with you".
What about dismissing her concerns because they're really not realistic, proportional, or "a big deal"?
Since that's not what he did


True - he didn't dismiss *her* concerns at all. He referred to a climate of fearmongering regarding threats on the internet - the vast majority of which ARE hollow, as we all know quite well - and dismissed "many" of *them*. He did not, at any time or in any way, state that the threats Ms. Sierra received were fake or not credible. "It's usually sunny around here" is not equivalent to "It is not raining today", let alone "Anyone who claims it is raining is a liar". Similarly, "most threats are fake or overstated" does not mean "this particular threat is fake or overstated".
This is an easy point to miss, of course, which is why I suggested that Kos should have expressed himself more carefully. If he had specifically stated that he wasn't making any such claim against Ms. Sierra, far fewer people would have jumped to the conclusion that he was (I hope). Which is why I characterize the whole episode as a mistake, not as some kind of act of oppression.

Posted by: Chris | April 16, 2007 11:50 AM

#240Chris: Which is why I characterize the whole episode as a mistake, not as some kind of act of oppression.
Aptly stated. [Sic] 'Hi Y'all'


Posted by: cmf | April 16, 2007 12:16 PM

#241True - he didn't dismiss *her* concerns at all.

Did we read the same post? Kos argued, essentially: "Sierra's experience doesn't mean we need a speech code, because those death threats are usually made up; besides, that's just the cost of doing business. Tough it out."

Of course that was the dismissal of her concerns; the blogger speech code under discussion emerged because of the public example of Sierra curtailing her work because of threats received, in the first place. It's not clear to me why you believe that since you can pull Kos's statements out into a context where they're not dismissals, they weren't dismissals in the original context.

"It's usually sunny around here" is not equivalent to "It is not raining today"

Not on it's own. But as a response to someone telling you "man, it's really coming down out there, maybe we should get some umbrellas", "but it's usually so sunny around here" is a dismissal of the first speakers concerns. It means "umbrellas are probably an overreaction, the rain clearly can't be as bad as you say."

Which is what nearly everybody understood Kos to be saying. You don't even have to "read between the lines." Just read the lines that were written in the context of what was going on.

Posted by: Chet | April 16, 2007 01:56 PM

#242Kos argued, essentially: "Sierra's experience doesn't mean we need a speech code, because those death threats are usually made up; besides, that's just the cost of doing business. Tough it out."
Even more than that, he made a falsifiable, false claim that stalkers don't act out their threats.

He could have made his points about the blogger code very well without trivializing her experience; that he didn't--and he didn't apologize for his mistake when called on it, but just said that the readers are wrong--is his choice. Like Imus, he's got a track record of this type of thing--once or twice can be a mistake; a repeated pattern of the same type of thing, on the other hand, causes one to wonder how serious he is about addressing his mistake. Of course, he is free to address it or not address it, as he chooses.

And if people choose to turn their support away from him for the choices he makes, well, what's wrong with that? No one's entitled to anyone else's support; if they're not interested in earning that support through their words and actions, no amount of apologia can change that fact.

Posted by: RavenT | April 16, 2007 02:10 PM

#243RavenT and Carlie: You've both long been two of my favorite commentators on this site. Although I can understand your emotional involvement in this issue, I was disappointed that you both resorted to mudslinging and cheap-shots to try to undermine your opposition on this one. RavenT: You stated that cmf was serving a useful function in "making people uncomfortable"--by which I assume you meant that his drivel might force people to confront their own thinly papered-over ideology. That's a valid point, but I feel that in your reactions you've created the perception that someone was poking uncomfortably close to a papered-over ideology of your own; and just that sort of poking seems to be the major function served by Caledonian on this site. (He reveals his own ideological blind spots on matters pertaining to the role of government and libertarianism, but I digress...)

Anyway... I generally love to read the comments from you two, but keep to the spirit of reasoned debate, eh? I do appreciate everyone who sticks their neck out on here and takes a stand for something!


Posted by: Don Price | April 16, 2007 02:42 PM

#244That's a valid point, but I feel that in your reactions you've created the perception that someone was poking uncomfortably close to a papered-over ideology of your own
Thanks for the feedback, Don--I'll take your criticism seriously, and watch to see whether I am protecting something on my own side.

I've experienced harassment and a death threat as a woman on the Web--a lot of which is almost, but not quite, as coherent as cmf. So when someone (specifically, not you in your posts, with which I had no issue at all) argues from his ivory tower theory that the experiences of women and men are homogeneous or that it doesn't matter, that trivialization doesn't sit well with me. Perhaps my reaction is colored by that, although I don't see where that makes it per se invalid.

But you are right; there's enough intrinsic merit in my arguments to where I don't have to take veiled swipes at anyone on top of them--fair enough. I'll watch out for that in future.

Posted by: RavenT | April 16, 2007 03:12 PM

#245RavenT: When I read whatsisfus love letter to you and Carlie I saw that he quoted you thus:
"You stated that cmf was serving a useful function in "making people uncomfortable"--by which I assume you meant that his drivel might force people to confront their own thinly papered-over ideology"

I realized that I might have missed s/th in your words, so I re-read them, in your own frame, not his slobbering attempt at a sixth grade s/p friendies letter. I was impressed indeed. Opposition challenges us as writers, and thinkers; propels us into new thinking, new paradigms, dialogue across race class gender, etc....and I was mildly impressed, thought" this dude Ravenet might get it after all"...and then, you opened your face cannon and spewed papfroth at me, and in a veiled way attemted to own my dialogue and turn it into some sort of stab at my vernaculus.

You are equating what I have said with harrassing you? Or that my thinking IS harassment? Is that what is called the argument from female victim stance, equate speech with a claim you are a victim, then bait target[me, your intended target] for excuses to claim victim status? Then, in lieu of ity accuse anyways? Gee whizz, another scandal engineer in the mists...

Yikes. In better more petty days, I would chalk you up as a mere null hypotheses with double nonsense regarding a topic that is itself void, and think to myself "You cunt: not cognate nor one of the good cunts, as in cuneiform and coherent, or cunnus, of the general female sex even, and definitely not as in as Kundalini kun, and too mean and trivial to inhabit the mandarin cun without hesitance on the part of real village feminists. You are just a cunt,( I would think to myself) with a face cannon, pot shotting at me,as if I am a mere part of your battleground gynography and I see you for what you are, you cyber Quimbecile."

But Raven T, I am beyond that,and I would never ever say that in public, or out loud or even with sincerity, as you no doubt are aware yourself,as you have noted quote from RavenT "I don't have to take veiled swipes at anyone". after of course, Raven T attempts to throw some bait by accusing me with veiled intent;-) hardees hawhahwhahwaw.

And that is even too much good coin to feed your trollobyting troll behavior. Now go write a post about how your ego was massagynized: I hate to waste good words on bad minds, but I gave ya a biscuit. Now go be nice somewhere would ya? I am tryin real hard to be a good person, just to keep all of you fanghounds at bay, but you just keep nippin me heels!
Now where is my darned gynaesthetic....

Posted by: cmf | April 16, 2007 05:02 PM

#246In better more petty days, I would chalk you up as a mere null hypotheses with double nonsense regarding a topic that is itself void, and think to myself "You cunt: not cognate nor one of the good cunts, as in cuneiform and coherent, or cunnus, of the general female sex even, and definitely not as in as Kundalini kun, and too mean and trivial to inhabit the mandarin cun without hesitance on the part of real village feminists. You are just a cunt,( I would think to myself) with a face cannon, pot shotting at me,as if I am a mere part of your battleground gynography and I see you for what you are, you cyber Quimbecile."
Ok, I just *dare* any guy here to say with a straight face that they get targetted mails like that, much less routinely, from freaky anonymous males.

Hardened bitch that I am, I take constant sand in the gears like that in stride now, but I also double-dog dare any guy here to tell me with a straight face that it wouldn't grind you down somewhat after a while.

Posted by: RavenT | April 16, 2007 05:13 PM

#247correction: there are many guys here who I know wouldn't even dream of trivializing the effect of mails like that from unknown harassers.

I'll change my dare to "any guy who seriously thinks women's and men's experience in cyberspace is homogeneous", because I wouldn't want to alienate anyone who doesn't deserve it.

Posted by: RavenT | April 16, 2007 05:16 PM

#248RavenT: Touché... :(

Posted by: Don Price | April 16, 2007 05:20 PM

#249Kseniya: You wrote"However, you overestimate yourself and underestimate everyone else. This inhibits your ability and willingness to perceive wit, intelligence, subtlety or nuance in the expressions of those with whom you disagree"

Most importantly, (and I don't want you to have to suffer re-reading this task heavy thread)notice that I never actually ever agreed or disagreed with the main point of whether or not Sierra was actually hair assed, nor did anyone ask me " what IS you real opinion?"
Sta-range huh? All of those presumptions about my opinion: yaks like Don Ashkenaz and a few others cramming sour yak milk down my gullet, saying I said it so I should eat it, that sort of thing;-) Yikes, sayeth I.....

But what you said was interesting, valid, and likely intended from the depths of your insightful mind. I don't necessarily disagre on soooooo many points in this discussion, but I do disagree with me being labeled, maligned, threatened, etc; the Sierra crap getting TOOO much free PR without an actual case being filed, and without conviction nor plea; I disagree with the flamers here who cannot get past their early 1990's "friendship with women= eat feminist rhetoric in short face sitting skat sessions, as often as the girlies diktate you need it," brainwashing; I disagree with the narrow and restrictive frame that this whole thing has taken, and especially disagree with the sad state of Male ness( like Loch ness) exhibited in these guys eating themselves up like little Dahmers,( Donners;-) ) etc...
But I apreciate your genuine criticism, and will take it to heart, because there is some nuggets in there indeed, and thank you. I wouldn't be dancing my artistic interpretation of Anna Freud watching her mother undress for the thousanth time as Catherine MacKinnon entes the room and says " what is that in your hand" and I .....oh I digress in the art of it all...on this thread if I didn't LOVE the humor here;-)

Doubly, I appreciate you even taking a look at the thesisand the IPT piece that I proposed that women can harm children, and create--not co-create--rape culture.


Posted by: cmf | April 16, 2007 05:23 PM

#250You said this, FIRST ;-)
Raven T said "I've experienced harassment and a death threat as a woman on the Web--a lot of which is almost, but not quite, as coherent as cmf.
I double boobiedog any girl out there to say that Raven T ISNT framing me, who never said a word about her directly or even in her 'veiled way'-framing my moniker next to the words "death threat"
hmmmm...more engineered scandal....and whoever said you own the language of the cun RavenT?

SPOILER ALERT: what follows is the COMPLETE ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD CUN:

http://www.matthewhunt.com/cunt/etymology.html


Posted by: cmf | April 16, 2007 05:32 PM

#251Sorry if I don't share your threatening malicious sense of defamation-al framing Ravenet.

Posted by: cmf | April 16, 2007 05:35 PM

#252I didn't say you threatened me; I just said many of the mails I got could only aspire to be as coherent as your comments are, cmf.

Posted by: RavenT | April 16, 2007 05:37 PM

#253Oh, lovely. It's argumentum ad Hitlerum with a troll taking the place of Hitler. The fact that some moron believes X for bad reasons does not prove X is wrong. Duh. If you want to attack Caledonian, please come up with a better basis than "a troll agrees with you".

Chris, that was my attempt to address the troll without feeding it. Obviously, it didn't work. Which is why I am now discontinuing my troll-feeding.

Posted by: j | April 16, 2007 05:38 PM

#254I admit that when I'm so boggled by someone's line of argument (and what I see as a complete disconnect with reality) and find it almost impossible to know where to start, that I do often resort to a more simplistic "idiot" brand of name-calling. It's so demoralizing to realize that the same bad ideas have to be refuted again, and again, and again, in a "fight the hydra" kind of way, that it's mentally easier to shut down, but it is laziness on my part not to go after each point individually. That, and not having infinite time. It would be nice to have all such arguments catalogued in a handy fashion to just provide when such things arise.
"I present point #45."
"It's been refuted by point #74."

And so on.


Posted by: Carlie | April 16, 2007 05:54 PM

#255OK, cmf, you are crossing the line. It's bad enough that you're flailing around to find an excuse to call women here "cunts", but you are doing it with near-schizophrenic incoherence. This is not your personal bedlam where you get to rave. Back it off about ten more notches, slow down and write something in sensible English, or say goodbye.

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 16, 2007 05:55 PM

#256"near-schizophrenic incoherence"

That's the descriptor I was looking for. Excellent.

Posted by: j | April 16, 2007 05:58 PM

#257CMF:

it takes one heck of a mother to raise such woman hatin't dudes. Can we agree on that?
For the sake of argument? Ok. For the sake of argument. Though I must go on record as saying "It ain't nowhere near that simple, Festus."

Even if we accept that supposition as true, your insistence on dragging it into some kind of time paradox, for the purpose of effectively blaming actual female victims for the hypothetical misdeeds of the mothers of the actual perpetrators, betrays something amiss in your logic or psyche. You'll never admit that that's what you're doing - but you are.

No, this idea does not "threaten" me, but I admit it does disturb me, in a not completely un-visceral way.

The subset of your arguments that I deem relevant to the Sierra topic includes:

1. That "actual or factual violence" against women doesn't really exist (or is unimportant, or worse, misleading) in the big picture of gender politics.

2. That women are disadvantaged only by the extent of their mothers' expectations of them.

3. That the criminal acts of rapists, wife-beaters, etc. are born of parenting errors committed by the mothers - by which you unjustifiably reduce the importance of the role of the male parent, and the significance of correlated behavioral modeling, to zero.

4. [...]

There's more, but I'm out of time. I include item 4 as a way of admitting that it's not as simple as I have made it out to be so far. But the "so far" borders on the "utterly reprehensible." Anyway, gotta jet. *poof*

Posted by: Kseniya | April 16, 2007 06:10 PM

#258(He reveals his own ideological blind spots on matters pertaining to the role of government and libertarianism, but I digress...)
Mr. Price, I would love to hear what blind spots you think I have, but that will have to wait for another thread.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 16, 2007 06:46 PM

#259Ok, I just *dare* any guy here to say with a straight face that they get targetted mails like that, much less routinely, from freaky anonymous males.
Hardened bitch that I am, I take constant sand in the gears like that in stride now, but I also double-dog dare any guy here to tell me with a straight face that it wouldn't grind you down somewhat after a while.

Well, if you restructure the email to replace cunt with "faggot" and various accusations of effeminacy I've certainly received commentary like that, albeit not as email within the last several years. I wouldn't say constantly, though.

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 17, 2007 01:09 AM

#260CMF, I suppose I owe you an apology. I assumed you to be a troll, merely spewing the most inflammatory, baseless rhetoric you could find, for the sole purpose of annoying people. My faith in humanity refused to admit that anyone could possibly be that stupid and venal.

Well, the troll label is misplaced then; how exactly do you think the sexes should relate, given your apparent position on "feminism" (whatever the hell you're using that to mean)?

(BTW, I'm a bit confused about something; you condemn the state of maleness ("masculinity") and complain about sensitive, effeminate guys (I think?) in one breath. And yet, in the next, you're using "cunt" as a pejorative. Not to imply anything, but it rather sounds as though you don't really like the female genitalia that much...any comment? :P )

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 17, 2007 01:17 AM

#261CMF, well I hardly know where to go from here, though I should at least say that I appreciate you recognizing that I have tried to engage you fairly.

Which is not to say that I suddenly agree with everything you're putting out there. But at some point I decided to try to cut through the chaff, if I could, to see what was really being said, and I think that point was when I realized you had been unfairly slapped down for pointing out a simple fact: that the Duke case hadn't been getting a lot of play in the blogosphere.

And boy was there was a lot of chaff. You know now that cultivating the appearance of provoking to provoke is a behavior that brings that troll hammer down pretty fast around here. I realize that once you saw it coming, you started encouraging the process so that you could later expose it. I'll leave any critique of the value and wisdom of that strategy to others. Enough metadiscussion. I'm tired.

No - I'm falling asleep at the keyboard, I am not responsible for my keystrokes, and
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Posted by: Kseniya | April 17, 2007 03:30 AM

#262RE: "one heck of a mother to raise such woman hatin't dudes. Can we agree on that?" You know what talkin' about my mother will get you where I come from? Nope. But I will adress you, personally, later, you buttfrothing yak.

The women in my life adore me. My girlfriends(plural) adore me as well. My lovers adore me even more, because of my awareness of the impotence of feminst rhetoric, and feminist sycophants when confronted with facts, not fictions.

My mother rest her soul, was whippin' her tit out in marketplaces mixin breastfeeding with shopping in 1961, reading mother earth news and teaching me to can vegetables long before you rape culturers were born, or during it

My father was active in civil rights,and was the man who cleaned the room wehere Mark Clark was assasinated, and I worked in same civ rights as well, until I realized that it was largely peopled with hateful white women,cuckolded white men, and whoever they could get to believe their book based rhetoric; who form the last bastion( hopefully) of academic post mad-urn thought.

So to all the haters, and women who still sleep with their mothers out their, piss off, or better yet piss on you, you are all mad, angry rabid little frothies with no actual life experience outside your own mindset.

I pray a short stay in jail, or a night on the 'wrong' side of town to all of you to wake you the hell up. In the meantime, I stand exactly where I stood before, and maintain thta women who sleep with their little gilrls too long create this madness in you that is based largley in your own colorless perceptions of yourselves.

Posted by: cmf | April 17, 2007 03:54 PM

#263PZ: I endeavor, and entreat you to examine the glorious history of the word "cunt" in all of its cognates. Then, maybe you will see its actual meaning, not the one you are brainwashed to see by the inferior feeling, label pasters amongst us. It is a significant word indeed.

But I am evidently too "coherent", except for the academically unsound minds here on this thread to follow.
Also, a word of warning: pissy label makers SHOULD NOT follow this link, it might educate you. Now, imagine what poor Mathew Hunt was feeling when he did his research?
Enjoy;-)

THE ETYMOLOGY OF CUN
http://www.matthewhunt.com/cunt/etymology.html


Posted by: cmf | April 17, 2007 04:00 PM

#264KSENIYA: You make sense, I mean that. "provoking to provoke is a behavior that brings that troll hammer down pretty fast around here. I realize that once you saw it coming, you started encouraging the process so that you could later expose it", except for one minor detail: the speech policing evident here is on a par with the pre fascist and pre National socialist discussions about motherhood previous to ww2, in that for instance, Shicklegruber handed out medals on the sole basis of motherhood, sans politic. In other words, motherhood was enshrined as an act of patriotism, and that which challenged it was suspect, and imprisonable. Gays, Gypsies, etc, were not contributing to the "Fatherlands Maothers".
Note that one poster is adamant that this correlation not be discussed here, and is co-onstantly sounding the Hitler alert( again, read the nauseous thred yourself). This is an argument by design to avoid drawing the same correlations here before it IS TOO LATE;-)
But otherwise, you should know, I did not set out to INTENTIONALLY go here, but when I was instantly labeled( non motherland friendly) I knew what I was dealling with , and yes, the threat inevitably came, first from you know who, and then, by a woman, playing victim, and trying to bait me first, and then, if she could actually bait actual comments from me( objectified 'male' boogieman--notice I have no clear sex or gender in this thread?...hehehehe) enlist male police state aid. Get it?

Posted by: cmf | April 17, 2007 04:10 PM

#265"A good enemy is the second-best thing to a good friend. A bad enemy is just annoying."

I guess Caledonian must have a TON of second-best friends. Maybe he just needs a hug?

Posted by: Scholar | April 17, 2007 04:33 PM

#266I think this thread could use this link, because it is obvious that misandy is appreciated here :

"stabbing men is funny"
http://angryharry.com/esstabbingmenisfunny.htm

Kseniya, thanks again. Her here! Gan Bei! "boy was there was a lot of chaff"....I think it is more aptky "white noise" don't you think? White people can fill the blogosphere quite rapidly mobilizing around 'massa ginny' don't you think?

I was never looking to comment this long, nor fully discuss the depths of misandry in the blogosphere, but when you say "you had been unfairly slapped down for pointing out a simple fact," don't forget that one of those pc cunnus up there used language that inferred desire to do me physical harm, and I thank you for noticing that as well.

( and PZ: is 'cunt' a bad thing, REALLY? I would love to hear more on that!)

j: you are near absent in your intellect, and I imagine your home life as well;-)Your 'near absent' meaningful input here is 'near absent'.

Ashkenaz: you write "BTW, I'm a bit confused about something; [] And yet, in the next, you're using "cunt" as a pejorative. " Your confusion is something you can take up with your psycho-analytic other;-) But whatever the 'sense' you had? way off, but I welcome you to read the definition and etymology posted by Matt Hunt( hehehehe). The pejorative sense of that word came about because late eighties feminists were so busy "owning the sex supply" that they, and thus you, rallied around their use of that word, not the global sense of it. Your loss, not mine. I have been on the global woman tip for years before this debate, with EVEN MORE misandrist p-whipped americans;-)
And:Did you even read my posts or were you merely one of the other adrenalin junkies in for a free ride?

RavenT: thank you, I think, and no thank you at all. I do NOT need feminine approval for my speech conduct. It was your framing of my moniker next to the word death threat, like, that wil live ioon the web.
As In RavenT and scat, or infanticide. Framing, ya know?

Don P. "Douche' "

Posted by: cmf | April 17, 2007 07:34 PM