February 27, 2007
— Ace And that's the way it is.
Hollowpoint notes that Greenwald is right to some extent -- one can't claim that the comments on a blog are indicative of what the actual blogger believes.
Well, yeah-- but Greenwald set up a straw-man argument there, because that was NOT what was being claimed. The right wasn't claiming that that Arianna Huffington was saddened by fact that Dick Cheney escaped assassination; the right was claiming her readers and commenters were doing that, by and large, which is demonstrably true.
At least it was demonstrably true before she began deleting all the evidence.
It's not that blogger is responsible for the comments so much as the comments are, in fact, indicative of the beliefs of the left.
Greenwald isn't just saying bloggers aren't responsible for their comments -- he's also saying (slipping it in there real fast in his preferred mode of argument, the ipse dixit) that the comments *do not reflect the beliefs of the left at all.*
He offers no evidence as to this. Or even suppositions as to why this should be the case. Suppositions like, "People who comment on blogs are angrier and more impulsive than the general population on the left, and hence comments on blogs are not representative, randomly selected samples of the greater population, and hence without statistical validity."
Not only is there no evidence for such a claim, but the left CAN'T claim that, since they're so busy simultaneously arguing the netroots are the real face of the Democratic Party and should be treated as such.
Do such comments prove that everyone on the left is like this? Of course not. But given that fact that 20% of comments were pro-assassination, *and there were few commenters slamming them for their venom,* we can say, absent contrary evidence, that these comments DO represent a significant, if not majority, position on the left, and certainly the majority of the left is unwilling to rein in these people. They either quietly agree or else feel that political solidarity trumps the imperative to not engage in pro-assassination hate speech.
Furthermore, comments really are indicative, to at least some degree, of what is tolerated in a blog's comments. Few people make such comments here, even as jokes, because they know I have a hard-on about this point.
Apparently the Hufftards know that it's a, errr, free-fire zone for assassination talk over there.
Bloggers can, must, and do patrol for comments they think are simply out of line, hateful, irresponsible, and which reflect badly upon themselves. Do they do so so thoroughly as to scrub out/deter such comments? No, of course not. One can't be reading and writing stuff all day while simultaneously reading every damn comment on a popular blog, deleting offensive posts, issuing warnings, arguing with readers, etc.
It's impossible to do that, and probably undesirable to do so. I'm sure commenters wouldn't appreciate a heavy-handed thread-nanny watching over every word they wrote.
However, certainly a blogger can make it known, broadly, that he doesn't want hate speech in his comments, and those who find such a policy too constraining can find another blog more latitudinarian on death threats, hate-speech, etc.
The Daily Kos and Huffington Post -- and Glenn Greenwald himself -- cannot afford to deal too roughly with their anti-semites, racists, and assassination fantasy circle-jerkers.
Because those people aren't "a few bad apples." They're their core audience, and they are, in fact, the majority of the Angry Left.
More On Gleen: At Protein Wisdom.
Still, give the guy some credit: his self-righteousness these days is so freakin' pure you need to cut it with corn starch just to keep it from killing you during that first warm hit.
By the way, given that Gleen does nothing but engage in apologism for the pro-assassination left, and slam the pro-American right, can we drop the silly piffle of a lie that he's somehow "indpendent" or "libertarian" or a (apologies to P-Town Boy) "true conservative"?
Home is where the hate is.
It works, by and large. They're mostly Truthies over there but they're cautious about saying so directly. (They just "raise questions.")
So: Why hasn't Arianna had a no-assassination-solicitation policy beforehand?
Does she plan on having one going forward? Will she threaten to ban posters who engage in such dark, irresponsibile, potentially lethal talk?
I doubt it. It will all be swept under the carpet... until next time. And one thing we know from the left: There always is a next time.
— Ace Oh, wait, I got that headline wrong. Muslims chant "Allah is great" while beating a director for displaying the barbaric practice of "honor" killings.
So easy to make that mistake, you know? I mean, it's hard to keep track of which religion it is murdering people this week. It's always changing.
Anyway, they rioters claim that the director misrepresented the region they came from by depicting it as filled with "honor" killings and general "honor" violence.
Chanting "Allah is greatest," a group attacked the set of the Yaralı Yürek television series, and beat the director and his assistant with clubs and stones.
Most of them were bearded. They shouted "you've soiled Şanlıurfa's honor."
These fucking primitives are driven by poverty, all right. A poverty of irony.
Can we start irony-bombing these fucking neanderthals?
Ah well. We'll have to content ourselves with the real ones.
Thanks to headline for both the link and the headline.
— Ace Well, I guess that's one way to get the media to report on the stock market and economy, huh?
A harbinger of the coming recession, we'll now be told.
Last time I checked the media was still permitting Democrats to claim we're currently in a recession without any sort of challenge, fact-checking, or truth-squading.
And so the media's reporting will go precisely as I said. The new business cycle, at least when a Republican is President, is recession -- (guilty whistling) -- contraction -- recession.
That whole "expansion" part never gets reported on, until it's over.
Corrected: I wrote "over 500" originally. I thought that's what the information was at the time, but perhaps I misread.
— Ace An admission from the perp. I was pwnd. Kinda-sorta.
Damn, I hate that.
Via Hot Air, linking that story about Generation Y'ers, pumped up full of themselves thanks to the "self esteem movement," about to get a cold splash of bracing reality as they enter the real world and discover it doesn't quite revolve around them.
— Ace "Better luck next time!"
LGF also notes that lefty bloggers get the vapors when right-wing bloggers suggest that perhaps enemies of America, like Iranian mullahs and nuke scientists, ought to be assassinated. But when it comes to assassinating American leaders, suddenly these leftwing bloggers engage in nothing but apologism for their fellow travellers who jerk off over thoughts of dead presidents and vice presidents.
Gleen, of course, claims this "proves nothing." Nothing. The Huffington Post actually had to close down threads to prevent the tidal wave of pro-assassination comments, but it proves "nothing." Nothing at all about the left.
And certainly nothing at all about leftwing bloggers, which, Glenn Greenwald insists, are not responsible for their commenters.
Allah notes the sweet irony -- Gleen, who has a rich history of actually being a psuedonymous commenter on blogs, is claiming that comments have nothing at all to do with bloggers.
Rick Ellensberg, Thomas Ellers, Wilson, and Ellison might want to have a talk with him about that.
Incidentally, Gleen also dismisses the right's mention of racist, hate-filled emails from unhinged lefties as evidence that there's a lot of racism and hate on the left. He links Michelle Malkin dismissively as an example of this. (I didn't even bother clicking on his link; I know who he's talking about. She's all they ever talk about.)
Those emails also don't mean anything, he says.
And yet I seem to remember the entire left of the blogosphere being pretty upset by the "hate-filled" emails sent to Marcotte and MacEwan.
Those emails, of course, very definitely proved something.
Michelle Malkin's? Not so much.
A Tribute... to the angry Hufftards, from Protein Wisdom.
Allah has a good digest of the attack. And wonders how the Taliban knew Cheney was in Baghram, when in fact he was scheduled to be there yesterday, and was delayed by bad weather.
— Ace Hollowpoint tips me to this. Her explanation about her sheepskin Uggs:
I'm getting rid of our Uggs - I feel so guilty for that craze being started around Baywatch days - I used to wear them with my red swim suit to keep warm - never realizing that they were SKIN! I thought they were shaved kindly?
WTF? Is she saying that she thought "sheepskin" (the most descriptive term EVER) actually meant "wool"? Did she think there was a humane way to skin a live sheep?
Maybe she just thought they waxed the skin off them, then let the sheep, now gleaming wet and red with exposed viscera, "kindly" grow their skins back.
I know one thing: It would be hard as hell to administer a Voigt-Kampff Empathy Test on Pamela. She'd keep testing false-positive as an android.
DEKKARD: A boy shows you his butterfly collection, the butterflies' wings pinioned out by sharp pins.
PAM ANDERSON: Awwwww!!! I love butterfiles!
DEKKARD (checking equipment): That's weird... no reaction at all. Even Nexus-3's showed some delayed response.... anyway:
You see a puppy by the side of the road. It's been hit by a car, and it lays twitching in a pool of its own blood.
PAM ANDERSON: Puppies are cute! Can I keep him?!!
DEKKARD: Please wait for the end of the prompt. The pupy dies in your arms.
PAM ANDERSON: You're not going to let me keep him, are you? I can tell from your tone. You're not a nice man.
DEKKARD (tapping retinal scanner): Is this thing on?
Continuing: You're sitting in your den when a beautiful woman comes in and takes off all of her clothes. She walks up and embraces you, kissing you hard on the mouth.
PAM ANDERSON: Is this test to determine if I'm an android, Mr. Dekkard, or a lesbian?
DEKKARD: Actually that wasn't really a question. I was just kind of thinking out loud for a moment.
PAM ANDERSON: Well, if that happened, I guess I'd make out with her for a while. And then, maybe, spank her ass with my enormous breasts?
(Dekkard stares at her in glassy-eyed lust)
PAM ANDERSON: Is that the right answer?
DEKKARD: Ahem. Yeah. Uh. It's an, um, acceptable response. Back to the test:
You're in a moutain cabin when a tortoise crawls in from outside, and then dies.
PAM ANDERSON: What's a "tortoise"?
DEKKARD: It's, uhh, like a turtle.
PAM ANDERSON: Oh... What's a "turtle"?
DEKKARD: Oh, forget it. I can't tell if you're a replicant or just a retard. The V-K just doesn't seem to be picking up any readings from your brain.
PAM ANDERSON: Oh. What's a "brain"?
DEKKARD: Let's go back to that question about the naked woman kissing you. That seemed like something we should explore further.
— Jack M. and is doing so for all to see. Isn't this a violation of public indecency laws?
Anyway, ABC News has published an opinion piece today from some blogger I never heard of polishing the knob of a man I wish I had never heard of. (Damnable prepositions..I will not rewrite my sentence. You don't own me!)
Check out these laugh a minute excerpts from Ostroy's article:
Make no mistake: Former Vice President Al Gore will be our next president.
Make no mistake...this should clue you in as to how deluded this editorialist is.
I am as confident about that assertion as I am that George W. Bush will go down in history as America's worst president ever.
Really? Worst. President. EVAH? Finally, Andrew Johnson can catch a break. And is that the sound of a sigh I hear eminating from Plains, Georgia?
Make no mistake...I think this guy's attention span and sense of historical perspective is probably limited to whatever was on before the last commercial break on "Oxygen". Or "E". Whatever is gayer.
At Sunday's Oscar ceremony, Gore took home the coveted prize for best feature documentary for "An Inconvenient Truth," his scorching red-flag raiser on global warming.
Quick, America! Name 3 people (and I'll spot you Gore and Michael Moore) who have ever won the "best feature documentary".
Make no mistake...you probably can't.
Hardly a barometer for guaging public popularity, I would say.
On stage he was graceful, poised and presidential. And it didn't hurt his hipness quotient any to be getting a little Leo DiCaprio love either. That's right, Al Gore is suddenly cool.
Umm...on stage he was also very, very, large. Ginormous, even. Are the Taft bathtubs still in the White House?
And since when is being associated with Leo DiCaprio cool?
Make no mistake...when people's fondest recollection of your biggest movie role is seeing you drown in a field of icebergs and ship debris, your "hip" factor is probably pretty low.
Except to 12 year old girls, I suppose. Or Andy Ostroy.
It gets even better.
In October, Gore will also likely be the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for being the planet's biggest advocate in the fight against climate change. His prestigious nomination in this exclusive club puts him in the company of such independent thinkers, statesmen and activists as Dr. Martin Luther King, President Jimmy Carter, Elie Wiesel and Mother Theresa.
And Yasser Arafat. You wouldn't want to leave out the mass murdering, anti-Israel, terrorist leader. Might diminish your award a little.
Oh wait...you did include mass-murdering, anti-Israel, terrorist leader, apologiser Jimmuh Carter. So, I guess it was diminished by your list.
Now let's talk chops. Gore's an enlisted Vietnam vet...
Make no mistake...Al Gore served his country bravely as a Stars and Stripes reporter who was assigned personal bodyguards by his Senator father. Just like all those other GI's.
Hell...even John Kerry didn't have personal bodyguards on his three month tour of duty in the 'Nam. So, thanks for being the only veteran alive who makes Kerry look positively butch, Al!
...who served four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, two terms in the Senate, and eight years as vice president in one of the most successful administrations ever...
Most successful administrations EVAH?
Make no mistake...besides raising a lot of money in Buddhist Temples, what exactly was Al Gore's biggest accomplishment in the Clinton Administration? Was it not getting impeached, or not getting indicted?
...Let's not forget that he won the popular vote in 2000, and as many say, the Electoral College as well.
Ahhh..Florida 2000 much?
Make no mistake...many say Ostroy writes like a BDS-addled douchenozzle. I guess that means it's a valid criticism.
So wait, he's hip, he's brilliant, he's highly experienced.
You do realize this column is about Al Gore, don't you?
Must be that whole attention span issue I noticed earlier.
I even have the perfect campaign slogan for Gore: "Imagine how it would've been."
Heh...John Lennon as political campaign spinmeister. Is there anything he couldn't do? Besides duck.
I think I'm going to take a page from Ostroy's book and imagine I didn't read his ridiculous article.
After all...this kind of ankles-grabbing punditry is much more suitable for, I dunno, Wonkette's site, I think.
Then again, I think she does get more hits than ABC News, so that may explain why they ran this abomination.
February 26, 2007
— Ace Yeah, I'm having trouble comprehending those words used together myself. But it's true.
Tucked away here at the back of HotAir's video of Ayaan Hirsi Ali smacking down Darrell Issa's stupid revisionist Islam-has-always-been-tolerant history -- which is, frankly, oversold, as she doesn't say much you haven't heard a thousand times -- is a very funny overdub of a heated argument on Al Jazeera.
Quite frankly, I suspect that the comedy bit is really what Allah wanted to post, but didn't want to give Bill Maher credit. So he claims it's for Ali's brief statement about dhimmitude.
Definitely worth watching.
— Ace No wonder so many liberals are stupid.
It makes hectoring, didactic, masochistic liberalism so much easier a regime to live under when you're too dumb to realize you're violating its precepts left and right.
I guess I could be a liberal, maybe, but for the fact that God gifted me with this damnably clever brain of mine.*
* A moronbrain, to be sure, but a fairly advanced one by moronbrain standards.
— Ace You can vote Vmultiple Vtimes.
Vthanks to Vmesablue.
PS: MKH is just barely edging Amanda Congdon.
No problem -- I imagine JackM. alone can now generate enough votes to win this.
— Ace More outrage from the Islamist "godbags."
They're not Holocaust deniers. They're Holocaust enthusiasts.
When they say there was no Holocaust, they mean it in the same way Crocodile Dundee meant it about the knife, i.e., "That's not a Holocaust, this -- what's coming -- is a Holocaust."
Oh My... Police ID victims as being Catholic and Lutheran, but the religion of the Hitler-loving, Jew-"cleansing" immigrant cab driver, Ibrahim Sheikh Ahmed is unknown, according to police.
They just don't know.
I'm sure, however, that religion has been immediately ruled out as a contributing motive, despite the fact the police have no idea what the perp's religion might be.
— Ace That's a bit of snark for Time Magazine, which headlined the story about the dramatic drop in violence in Baghdad thus:
It's Quiet In Baghdad. Too Quiet.
...and went on to lard up their article with a lot of quotes from troops about how scary the quiet was. Well, I'm sure they did find it a little unnerving, given their expectations of constant shooting and explosives. But Time Magazine didn't see fit to include a quote from one of the soldiers, which one of them certainly must have said: "Sure, it's kind of scary... but it's a lot less scary than being shot at every few hours."
Nuance. But nuance drained from the soldiers by Time's just-the-facts reportage/editing, to portray the soldiers as scared nearly senseless from the horrors they knew must be lurking in the dark corners.
The network reporters apparently weren't interested in venturing out into Iraqi neighborhoods now that it's actually safe to do so -- they favor the physical security of their Green Zone hotel rooms when the city is dangerous, and the intellectual security of remaining with their fellow reporters in those same hotel rooms when the city is much safer -- so the DoD knocked this report together themselves showing the surge in progress.
— LauraW. This Entry Was Written By My Dog
Even after a hearty repast of good kibble fortified with egg, the more subtle canid may well feel that something is missing.
A bit of elegance not found in a plastic bowl, perhaps? A rustic yet (quite literally) refined finish for day's end? For who are we, if not the descendants of wolf kings and queens, who once laid claim to all the proceeds of a vast and varied wilderness?
For this peculiar yen, fellow hounds, let me recommend the yard-truffle.
As I started my journey 'round the accustomed acre this evening, I made pause under an aged crabapple tree still sporting last Autumn's tart and shriveled fruits. How could I not but indulge in some deer-droppings, redolent of acorns and sweet tree barks, concentrated in flavor and texture by Winter's dry kiss?
Cleansed the palate with several mouthfuls of cooling snow, and moved on apace, nose to the ground lest other morsels should elude my appreciative maw.
Further afield, at woods' edge, ah! This is the place. Atop a short rock, as if on a platter made just for me by God; small black curls full of fur and seeds. The rough digestive work of the Grey Fox will not go unappreciated this evening, by the three heads of Cerberus!
Faintly mousey, and definitely rancid, with a 'chewy' background of bone and berry, is how I would characterize this vintage.
Mouthing the turds contemplatively, and looking out upon the great snowy expanse, I took my sweet roughage, and ignored Laura (the clucking Hen!), shouting something from the House.
Still, sighing and yet licking my chops, thought it better to trot smartly on to the next course, if one was to be found on the return loop.
And LO. At the edge of the garden, it all but called to me.
There is no mistaking the eye-watering pungency of a fresh cat crap. If I had seen that little blighter on my rounds, I'd have given him what-for!
Ah, well. And well and good, and me full up to the brim with snow and shit, I think I'll bring this most precious of finds into the house, for my dear Laura. She always makes such a fuss over my little tokens.
— Ace Dogs are amazing.
[Jason Schildler] said he heard the dog yelping loudly Thursday after dark and went out to see what was happening.
Suddenly, "all I saw was this dark thing lunging at me," Schindler said.
But his dog jumped between the two and was quickly snatched up in the bear's jaw, he said.
"If not for the dog, I wouldn't be standing here," Schindler said.
The bear, estimated at being between 400 and 500 pounds, dragged the dog to his nearby den under a thicket of downed trees.
Schindler said he returned to his house, grabbed a .30-30 rifle, returned to the scene and fired, possibly hitting his target before the bear fled into the woods. He rescued his dog, gushing blood but breathing, and rushed him to the Sparta Veterinary Clinic.
The relationship between dogs and humans is wonderfully strange. Are there any other examples of two entirely different species caring for each other just because they like each other?
Intestinal parasites do not count, nor do cats, for similar reasons.
I guess people might say "horses," but the dog's place is special. Sleeps in the home, even in the owner's bed.
Just an odd thing how two species which look absolutely nothing alike just seem to decide 100,000 years ago that they'd be buddies.
— Ace Alas, I can't find the actual pics yet.
Not True! Or, at least, not true to the extent some are saying.
Actual (NSFW) pics here, but "Vote For The Worst" -- the site that encourages the public to vote for the worst possible singer every week, to screw up the show -- says they've found that the worst of the alleged pics of this girl are actually not of this girl at all, but of a porn model.
The pics at that last link are cropped to be (more or less) work safe, just to show you the girl from this porn site matches up better with the girl shown in the oral sex pics.
I have no point which of these pics are of the girl and which pics are of the porn actress. Neither of them is super-hot, so the whole thing now, sadly, bores me.
Thanks to anonymouse and dj paradise. Also, Rob from Say Anything sent me a super-duper not safe for work link, which I won't bother linking, since I don't think it's the girl at all, so it's just porn without any pretext of a news hook.
I don't really know who this girl is, but it does seem as if any half-naked pics of girls with a vaguely Mediteranean look are now being called "Antonella Barba pics."
Another thing is that some of these shots look like professionally-photographed cheesecake, when one would expect amateurish shots of the girl. Plus, some of them just don't look very much like her at all.
— Ace Al Gore's mansion uses twenty times the energy an average home uses.
Please, by all means, reduce your relatively paltry energy consumption so that Al Gore and his Hollywood swells can live like kings with a clear conscience.
Somebody has to reduce their production of lethal carbon dioxide, and for the love of God, you can't imagine that would be Al Gore or Larry David's wife, now can you?
They are life's winners. They've made it in ways few of us can ever hope to; are you really suggesting that these one-in-a-million multimillionaires really give up the pleasures that wealth brings?
So please -- for the millionaires -- you people out there just using your cars to get to work and to get the kids to soccer camp will have to cut back, drastically, on what few creature comforts you enjoy so that Gore and Co. can continue jetting around the world on private jets.
Do it for Al. Do it for Chevy. Do it for the rest of the millionaires.
We're all going to have to tighten our belts if we want to avoid a grim future.
And by "all," I mean you, and definitely not the folks who could reduce their CO2 production by 95% simply by living their lives as if they were upper middle class rather than upper upper class.
— Ace See-Dub runs down Yankee innovations in spycraft, surveillance, and the like.
My attempt to track down the Spies Like Us video failed. Well, they have the song, but played under video of Scarecrow and Mrs. King. I wish these idiots would stop trying to make their own videos.
But I found this: Turning sharks into robotic sentries. Like in Never Say Never Again.
— Ace Since she took time to post here, I figured I should offer her rebuttal in a main post.
The misattribution of the post to Jill has been fixed, hopefully.
That post wasn't mine. And Zuzu -- who actually wrote the post -- never said that promiscuous anonymous sex was empowering for women. She was only arguing that this isn't anything new, and that the hand-wringing seems to be more about female sexuality than anything else.
With all due respect, this is a semantic quibble. She's not bemoaining "female sexuality," which is something pretty much everyone is in favor of, broadly speaking. Who the fuck wants to be with a woman who doesn't enjoy sex (or, in my case, at least can't manage to credibly pretend to)?
She's bemoaning girls fucking anything with "two balls, a dick, and a heartbeat," to invert the old joke. That's not really a complaint about "female sexuality." That's "hand-wringing" about young girls embracing a specific theory of what "female sexuality" ought to be, and, furthermore, almost certainly to their own detriment.
The author of the WaPo piece denounces women who play the field...
What's the compulsion to engage in euphemism here, Jill?
"Playing the field" could mean just dating a lot of guys. It could mean dating guys without fucking them, deciding which one would really like to be with; it could also mean dating a lot of guys, but fucking them all.
Strepp isn't writing about either. She's writing about girls who just fuck guys without even dating at all.
Surely you see the difference between that and how "playing the field" has traditionally been understood?
...and in other articles accuses women of making their boyfriends impotent and salutes the role of the wingman. In other words, she has a history of being hostile toward younger women.
I'd like a cite, though I strongly suspect you are giving these articles a willfully tendentious reading.
I'm 23. Two years ago I was still in college. Right now I'm in law school. And maybe my experience is atypical, but I didn't see a whole lot of this "hook-up culture" of women sleeping with the entire fraternity. But I had a boyfriend throughout college, and so maybe I was just missing out.
You can blame feminism all you want, but the Girls Gone Wild / performed female sexuality for male pleasure is hardly a feminist invention, and is contrary to everything we believe. But it's probably easier to keep beating the Strawfeminist to death than it is to actually grapple with feminist arguments, right?
It is something new, Jill. If it doesn't seem new to you, it's because you're 23. What frame of reference do you have to compare it to?
If you believe Strepp overstated the extent of the new feminine promiscuity -- well, you're probably right about the overstating; Lord knows one doesn't sell many books by understating a problem. But overstated or not, something has changed in the past ten or fifteen years.
To the extent it's "nothing new," well... maybe, but only due to the brief precedent of the 70's free sex culture, which of course disappeared by and large by the mid-eighties, due not to any large awakening to the virtues of chastity, but due, of course, to AIDS.
And now, with AIDS apparently not quite so scary as it was from 1985 to 1993 or so (felicitiously enough, just about the time I was in college, as m ex-roommate not_steve_in_hb often bemoaned), the free sex experiment of the seventies seems to have returned in full force.
Now, your having been in college far more recently than I -- I can't discount your claim that this isn't going on. That's anecdotal evidence that I have to consider. But I have anecdotal evidence from another recent college graduate who says this is precisely what's going on. Where's the truth actually lie? I'm not quite sure, though given all the pictures girls are posting of themselves naked, kissing other girls' breasts or even asses, or even engaging in sex, I'd have to say that my admittedly-limited capability to determine the truth nevertheless compels me to believe it's closer to Strepp's version than yours.
As for this not being the fault of feminism -- are you arguing that this new culture of distaff James Bondism is not endorsed by feminists 3.0 as a positive embrace of one's sexuality and a freedom from previous, male-imposed double-standards of sexual modesty? If that is what you're claiming, I confess I have no idea what zuzu might mean by commentary like this:
[Quoting Dobie's review:] Stepp goes on to offer something more definite: What makes hooking up unique is that its practitioners agree that there will be no commitment, no exclusivity, no feelings. The girls adopt the crude talk of crude boys: They speak of hitting it, of boy toys and filler boys, my plaything and my bitch.
[zuzu:] Isnt that also known as playing the field?
Well, as I said above, "playing the field" seems to rather understate what Strepp is describing. She's writing not about, as they may have said in an earlier age, allowing a number of gentlemen suitors to come a-courtin', but about young girls simply fucking a lot of different guys without so much as a coffee date beforehand.
You and zuzu seem to just be arguing in favor of a semantical gloss that obscures the nature of the behavior being discussed. What purpose does that serve? You know what I'm talking about; zuzu knows what I'm talking about; I know what I'm talking about. So enough of this "playing the field" evasion.
A more accurate term anyway would be "taking one for the team, and then taking another one for the JV squad to boot."
And what should I make of this?
In any event, most college students are over 18. If they want to hook up, theyre grown people.
Well, they are "grown people," but only barely so, and furthermore Strepp's book addresses this phenomenon among high school girls as well.
One thing I don't get from the sexual left. They are for sexual liberation, I know that. But they sometimes seem to also be in favor of the sexual liberation of children.
Do I really think most feminists endorse that? Probably not-- but they're also afraid to say one cross word about the sexualization of children for fear of sounding like "prudes," or being on the same page as the dreaded Patriarchal Christian Right even as regards immature, underage girls sleeping around.
But, really, this has to be my favorite. From the review:
[quoting Dobie's reivew:] In the final chapter, Stepp writes a letter to mothers and daughters, in which she warns the girls: Your body is your property. . . . Think about the first home you hope to own. You wouldnt want someone to throw a rock through the front window, would you? And: Pornographic is grinding on the dance floor like a dog in heat. It leaves nothing to the imagination. The ugliness of these images seems meant to instill sexual shame.
Think about those images: youre nothing but Swedish meatballs, missy, and if you let just anyone stick their frilly toothpicks in you, youll sit out on the table too long, and your gravy will congeal long before the little can of Sterno under the chafing dish goes out. Youre only worth anything if some man thinks youve got that new-car smell. You can dance, but you look like a dog being humped.
But the weirdest, and potentially most revealing, image is the whole broken windows thing. I dunno about you, but if someone throws a rock through my window, its a safe bet I didnt give them permission. I let my guests in through the door. And its not going to fall off the hinges if I let more than one person through (even at once!).
I have trouble reading that as anything other than a slam on Strepp's lament about Girls Gone Wild Gone Mainstream, and, unavoidably then, an endorsement of same. Even multiple partners at once, it seems, is wondrous new sexual landscape needing exploration.
Now Jill claims that such behavior is contrary to everything "we [feminists]" believe. Perhaps that is so, and perhaps this post is just overstated and not terribly thought out or coherent, as many blog posts are (including most of the ones on this site).
But rather than telling me all the things feminists don't believe on this issue, perhaps Jill would be more helpful if she explained what they do believe. Can she affirmatively tell us, for example, that she more or less agrees with Strepp that perhaps younger girls should be a tad more selective as regards their sexual partners? That perhaps, contra William Blake, the path to wisdom often does not lead through the palaces of excess?
I don't know. I wasn't attempting to create straw-woman "feminazi" type arguments, Jill. I am honestly telling what it seems the 3.0 feminists are telling me about sexuality lately.
If I'm wrong, please correct me. I would, despite whatever you may believe, actually be quite comforted to learn an entire influential political movement has not gone batshit crazy on the subject of youthful female hyperpromiscuity.
PS: If you want to respond, but only on your own blog, that's fine, I'll link it. I'm not huffily demanding you provide my blog with content.
If you can clarify things for me, I honestly would appreciate it. If I am wrong, I'd like to know that. And yes, I've been wrong frequently, and my ego is nicely shattered by this point so as to not prevent me from admitting error.
Sharpening My Question: First of all, don't bother telling me that if young women truly wish to be promiscuous and actually derive true satisfaction from such they should be allowed to do so. I say don't bother because I imagine most are in broad agreement on this; certainly no one's calling for Saudi-style religious police to beat loose women with sticks. For those women who wish such a lifestyle -- well, many may disapprove, but there's little we can do to stop them, and few of us have a real interest in actually trying to do so.
So just take that particular point as stipulated in your favor.
What I'm asking is: Is a culture of rampant promiscuity without even the slightest trappings of dating good for most young women? True, there are outliers like Kathy Dobie, who seems to have thoroughly enjoyed the slut lifestyle but do most young women want this?
Assuming they don't -- and they'd actually prefer a bit of relationship along with their sex -- is it wise for feminism to suggest to them that such a lifestyle is what they should want? Is it smart to propogate, or at least leave unchallenged, the proposition that not only can young women treat sex as disposably and ruthlessly and carelessly as most young men do, but that they should do so, else they fall into the trap of "dependence on males"?
And couldn't feminists like yourself perhaps do a slightly better job of communicating to younger women that perhaps they're better off being a little more demanding of and discriminating about those they choose to favor with their netherbits?
Hell, they're not going to listen to me. Nor any guy. (And no guy is going to ever talk with this when sex is actually on the line -- there has never been, in all of recorded history, a guy who responded to the statement "Well I don't know, I think maybe we ought to wait" with "You're damn straight we should wait, Missy! Now you're getting with the program!")
My source on this -- your age, mind you, and also your gender -- tells me that it's quite common for high school and college girls to treat sex like the see it on Sex & the City. The trouble with that, as she says, is that not only are those older women, but furthermore they're not actually even women -- they're gay men as played by women.
Even feminist hero Tina Fey remarked upon this, noting that a Samanatha-like statement such as "All that girl needs is a cock up her ass" is not something a woman would say, but a gay male comedy writer might say.
And on "playing the field:"
Your euphemism is poorly chosen. For even if one "plays the field," one does so with the expectation a winner will emerge from the race, a horse that one eventually hopes to ride. Strepp is writing of women who are simply fucking men with little expectation of ever having any sort of relationship with them, beyond the "friends with benefits" sort of thing, which is really just "friends with benefits almost exclusively accruing to the male 'friend.'"
Furthermore-- to be even more literal about this expression, you can't actually win while "playing the field." Any bookie can tell you that. Betting on any horse may be a bad bet, but betting on nine or ten horses at once will bankrupt you even faster. The odds are simply too stacked against you. The house, as they say, always wins.
And the house here is young men. The Oppressive Patriarchy, Junior Division.
Correction: I'm told it was William Blake, not Oscar Wilde, resposible for the path to wisdom runs through palaces of excess line.
Even when I try to be smart, I end up a moron. Such is life.
And If This Is Not What Feminism 3.0 Holds... Why on earth do we have feminist bloggers claiming nonsense like this?
— Ace This guy has less objectivity on the war than Tokyo Rose.
Honestly, that snark doesn't do it justice, because it seems like a joke. It's not. He's actually doing the whole Lord Haw-Haw routine of painting the Taliban as supermen who will doom the British in their notorious Graveyard of Empires.
Baghdad Bob laughs at Robert Fisk.
If anyone doesn't know, that's the picture of tyrant toady/terrorist bootlicker Robert Fisk after he'd been beaten half to death by a crowd of Afghans -- and then of course apologized to them for striking their fists and feet with his head.
— Ace Fascism!
43 queries taking 3.657 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.