« Counterintuitive | Main | Doves Coo Softly »
February 17, 2007
Life Marches On
I'm perfectly aware that the world absolutely doesn't need another Edwards blogger flap post, but there are some personal things that I wanted to say.
I spent a lot of this week feeling sick whenever I thought about politics. I've always been a big fan of Melissa and Amanda, and to see them working for John Edwards was a dream come true. To have this end largely because of violent threats from the same kinds of people who blow up abortion clinics was incredibly depressing. (Chris Bowers wrote an excellent post making exactly this point.) Feminist bloggers have to deal with some really horrible stuff that the rest of us don't.
But I felt better after reading Amanda's Salon piece -- not because of anything in particular that she said, but just because it's good to see her moving forward. And I'm proud to say, with so many others, that I am Spartacus. It's hard for me to see any harm to Edwards from this mess -- unlike Democrats before, he didn't back down against Donahue, which showed a lot of bloggers what he was made of, and they like him better for it. And so it's time for me to shrug at the past and move on.
February 17, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I think you should ask yourself if there is any truth to the comments that Amanda's critics have made. Ask if there are any truths that you have known for awhile, but never brought up.
If there are not, please say so (and exit this routine). If there are, then (continue) you might examine your behavior as a friend of Amanda and see if you have been shielding Amanda from these truths, and if that is the true act of a friend.
Is Pandagon an echo chamber? Does Pandagon bully/ban/delete commenters? Does Pandagon have an in ordinate amount of group think? Is Amanda whining? Does Amanda truly appreciate the travails other feminists have gone through? Does Amanda understand the astonishment expressed in the Salon letters of older feminists that note that Amanda's life experiences do not match the amount of anger and bitterness she expresses?
What is Amanda's actual life experience that justifies her anger?
Why would Amanda have thought she was a good fit for that job? Was their hubris involved? If so, how did Amanda get such a distorted view of reality? Did her friends enable her?
Do you believe that "the patriarchy" and misogyny are as real as Amanda makes them out to be?
Did bloggers like Ezra, Matt, Duncan enable Amanda? If so how? What lessons are to be learned?
If Amanda had made similar statements but made them involving Jews, or Muslims, or Women, or Blacks, instead of Catholics and Fathers, would the liberal blogosphere have stood for that?
And you can ask yourself, is there some innate reason that a men's rights movement must harm and denigrate a women's rights movement?
'Cause to be honest, I don't see her moving forward from all of this. She has yet to acknowledge any mistake she has made in her statements, and any mistake she made in accepting the job. She continues to claim she meant no offense and that her statements were intended to be humorous. She continues to make claims about the Duke case that do not fit the known facts and that appear to be terribly inaccurate and biased, if not downright sexist and bigoted.
Posted by: anon | Feb 17, 2007 5:30:19 PM
I'm going to steal a comment left over at Lindsey's place, because I think it's a really good summation of this entire issue:
It's possible to simultaneously believe that (1) Amanda was the victim of a straight-up smear job, and (2) her hiring wasn't a very smart move to begin with.
Posted by: fiat lux | Feb 17, 2007 5:58:11 PM
"anon,"
First, those questions are really none of your business. Why did she take the job? Who cares?
Second, the questions you ask are hardly the example of objectivity and neutrality you wish them to be. You start from the standpoint that Amanda is a big meanie with a potty mouth, that Pandagon is a bloghivemind that brooks no dissent, and then try to validate your opinions through these questions.
Do you believe that "the patriarchy" and misogyny are as real as Amanda makes them out to be?
Who. The Hell. Cares.
You disagree with Amanda. Great. Why is it important that she get punished or whatever for not sharing your views? Assuming you're the same "anon" as a few days ago, Amanda attacks your hero Glen Sacks, your hero Sacks fires back or doesn't or I really don't care. What does it matter?
Amanda pays for the bandwidth she uses. If she wants to ban your ass from the comments, too bad. Quit reading Pandagon. You'll stop jacking up her pageload count and you'll probably feel better too.
If Amanda had made similar statements but made them involving Jews, or Muslims, or Women, or Blacks, instead of Catholics and Fathers, would the liberal blogosphere have stood for that?
If Bill Donohue made anti-semitic statments and "gook jokes" as he calls them, would conservatives care? If Michelle Malkin was associated with a white power group - talk about strange bedfellows - would conservatives care?
Would you?
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 17, 2007 6:10:18 PM
Zoinks, 'anon,' your little diatribe sure fits in nicely with all the other 'civilized' rot I've been reading from trolls who insist upon demonizing Amanda Marcotte.
At least some of the more vile stuff Amanda (or her supporters) have been reading has a return address. Apparently, you, 'anon', are so sure of your moral position that you espouse it from behind a wall of anonymity. This tells me something about you, and about most of the people who've gotten their dander up over Amanda Marcotte.
Amanda Marcotte is catching grief because she stabs you jackals right at the heart of your cowardice. She lampoons the hypocrisy of your religious bureaucracies, and you chafe (as opposed to examining those bureaucracies). She assaults the clay-footed monolith of white male privilege, and you blanch. Despite all your attempts to chastise Amanda Marcotte and paint her the villain (not the tiniest caveat, though, about intentions of the neofascist shepherds who've guided you to this point), you can not escape the fact that you are frightened children. You can't face the possibility that your sacred cows might be rotten to the core, so you attack the messenger.
You are much like the dupes who followed the Pharisees who persecuted Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Church Secretary | Feb 17, 2007 6:10:52 PM
That's a pretty fetid pile of bullshit. No wonder you posted anonymously.
Posted by: NBarnes | Feb 17, 2007 6:19:32 PM
The great thing about this anon posting is the simultaneous suggestion that patriachy is a product of Amanda's fevered imagination, while taking Amanda's male friends to task for not reigning her in and shutting her up.
Posted by: djw | Feb 17, 2007 6:25:23 PM
If Bill Donohue made anti-semitic statments and "gook jokes" as he calls them, would conservatives care? If Michelle Malkin was associated with a white power group - talk about strange bedfellows - would conservatives care?
Some would, but not enough. You didn't answer the question you quoted. The unfortunate fact appears to be that each side will support bad behavior on its own side, will justify it, will refuse to even see it for what it is. At the same time every similar fault on the other side will be magnified and treated as inexcusable. That's the rule that prevents any progress on either side, as both focus on the faults of the other.
Church Secretary, you still prefer to ignore the substance of the criticisms made of Amanda. It seems you have your own sacred cows.
while taking Amanda's male friends to task for not reigning her in and shutting her up.
Now that's bullshit.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 17, 2007 6:33:53 PM
Why has the constant position of the liberal blogosphere been that any word against Marcotte is a word for Donohue?
Why has it been assumed that everyone who condemns her statements does not condemn his too?
Why has there been a near-universal resistance to the idea that her statements were wrong independent of whether or not Donohue condemns them?
I'm really curious, here.
Posted by: Senori | Feb 17, 2007 6:36:30 PM
I think Fiat Lux said it very well.
And I would ask Senori above, "Can you explain to me why Marcotte's statements were 'wrong'?" I tend think your post is a bit disingenuous when I got to the bit about donohue. Frankly, any self-respecting religious group would have ex-communicated, shunned, or something a gross fool such as donohue. Instead, what I hear from the catholic church and from conservative catholics is...hear it? Nothing.
So yes, although the way you put is a vast over-simplification, in this case, a vote against Marcotte was a vote for a disgusting bigot. That may be hard to accept but there it is anyway.
But the whole reason I'm even posting in this thread was this comment from Neil, "t's hard for me to see any harm to Edwards from this mess -- unlike Democrats before, he didn't back down against Donahue, which showed a lot of bloggers what he was made of, and they like him better for it."
Do you really believe that? Because Neil, I have to tell you, from what I read and from what I've seen of others who have commented on this, Edwards folded like a cheap paper napkin. I read Edwards' apology. I don't how you can think Edwards was standing up to anyone. He looked, to me, like a fairly clueless, unorganized and somewhat incompetent candidate, taken by surprise and covering his ass. I do think this isn't dreadful, per se, but it does say to me that unless Edwards can get his shit together quickly, then I think he's doomed as a candidate.
Maybe it's just me.
Posted by: ice weasel | Feb 17, 2007 6:55:12 PM
Why has there been a near-universal resistance to the idea that her statements were wrong independent of whether or not Donohue condemns them?
Because only Donahue can create enough of a media ruckus to hound her our of her job and the kurfluffle wouldn't exist in the media were it not for him.
Posted by: Constantine | Feb 17, 2007 7:06:41 PM
in this case, a vote against Marcotte was a vote for a disgusting bigot
How does that work? As Senori said, one can condemn both, and many have. Just because Donohue attacks something doesn't make it beyond reproach.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 17, 2007 7:06:48 PM
Lousy trolls. Don't feed them with argument. Hurt them if possible, but just try to drive them away.
I share your diappointment, Neil, tho probably not to the same degree. I have no complaints with the bloggers or Edwards, they seem too have done their reasonable best.
Unfortunately, there apparently remain people who don't realize who the enemy is, or that there is no point engaging with the violent and their enablers. That critters like Sanpete still support that evil Donahue and demand concessions and apologies just sickens me.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Feb 17, 2007 7:31:18 PM
Bob, your sickness appears to be interfering with your reading skills.
One side point I'll just mention here for what it's worth. I'm not sure that Amanda's friends should be expected to criticize her (even if they saw reason to, which I don't think they do) in the ways that others might. There's something to be said for sticking by your friends in difficult times. However, without trying to figure out how to balance or combine these, anon may have a point about it not always being in someone's best interest to automatically accept their point of view and reinforce it.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 17, 2007 7:43:59 PM
Over at Hullabaloo, just today, there was a discussion of anonymous and pseudonymous comments. The basic conclusion was that by the time you have to complain about "anon", you have decided yourself that you have no real argument.
They also want to know why you guys have no understanding or appreciation of the importance of "anon" in American History, or whether it is just that you hate America.
Note to the person using the pseudonym Bob McManus: remember if you don't like an argument, but cannot refute it, call the presenter a "troll". It's better if you can call them a "concern troll." Call them a troll and you invalidate their humanity, and say they are worthless people, and you also call on others to pile on. It's an effective strategy if you are not able to discuss the underlying argument in a winning manner.
Note to the person using the pseudonym Stephen, try reading the comments to the Salon article. Assume that 1/10th of them are not from the conservative nazis that you will want to claim the others are from. Lots of people are trying to figure out why Amanda would have taken that job.
It's not a question of punishing Amanda, it's a question of figuring out if Amanda and blogs like hers demonstrate an illness or weakness in the liberal blogosphere, and if so, trying to figure out how us in hte liberal blogosphere move forward.
I don't give a shit about donohue or reichtard fucktards, but I don't want to spend any of my time with a group of shitheads that would become thugs if that was the convenient strategy, and that is precisely the tactics that Marcotte espouses.
No one asked male friends to reign her in and shut her up. But a little pushback now and then and a reality check might be warranted.
It is your sexist attitude that turns a discussion of others viewpoints into "reigning her in and shutting her up." It is your sexist condescending attitude that tries to protect Amanda and keep her in an insulated cocoon because you are afraid a discussion of her major thesis is something she can't handle.
I will in fact go to various anti-semitic websites and tell them their hollywood jew conspiracy is bullshit. And that I haven't gotten my check this month from the conspiracy.
It is reasonable to ask Ez, Yglesias, August, Michael Berube et. al., if they really perceive the patriarchy the way their friend does, and if they do not, how come they are not calling her on it.
If they do see the patriarchy on her terms, why have they been so cowardly themselves in not writing about the patriarchy on their own websites.
Cause I don't understand how Amanda can see something, and see it so vehemently, when our brave blogger Ez has never mentioned it on his website at all.
No one here supports Donohue. It is your own strawperson and your own inability to engage the facts and your own condescending sexist protection of Marcotte that forces you to create this strawperson.
People on the left having been screaming about Marcotte for years.
People on the left are very pissed with her now for hurting a decent candidates run for the President for her own selfish, arrogant needs.
There are now over 200 comments to the Salon article, largely negative. Have you read them? Are you insisting they are all from conservatives? Trolls?
Do any of them make any points, negative, about Marcotte that seem in any sense to be true to you?
Posted by: (rand) | Feb 17, 2007 7:55:19 PM
Why has there been a near-universal resistance to the idea that her statements were wrong independent of whether or not Donohue condemns them?
Because Amanda didn't say anything wrong?
Seems like a simple question.
Posted by: NBarnes | Feb 17, 2007 7:57:14 PM
You can't read anon's comments as a demand that Ez, Matt, Berube, Duncan criticize her now. You can only read a sentence like "did you enable" as a suggestion that they had criticized her in real time over the years.
Posted by: (rand) | Feb 17, 2007 7:57:51 PM
Regardless of your politics, a vote for Marcotte is THE SAME as a vote for Donohue, if we're playing flamethrower rhetoric.
Both utilize a message well-doused in hate. I don't care if you agree in principle about feminist and religious issues- in a number of cases I agree with Marcotte on the issue. She is the same as these other people, however, because hate is simply not acceptable political speech. It does not matter which side it is on, or whom the hate is directed against.
Or do we just want to be the right, but with softer positions? That is the thought that sickens me.
Posted by: Fnor | Feb 17, 2007 7:59:11 PM
Or do we just want to be the right, but with softer positions?
Apparently the idea is that we should be the left, just willing to be beaten up willingly by the right. Remember, Donahue wasn't just complaining about Amanda. He was complaining about Amanda and Melissa. Melissa is not Amanda, and yet she was also the target of Donahue's ire and media blitz. Are you saying that Melissa should have just stood there and "taken it" for fear of otherwise becoming the "same as Donahue"?
Posted by: Constantine | Feb 17, 2007 8:20:07 PM
Wow, (rand), your comments are pretty stupid.
My problem with using "anon" or "anonymous" as a pseudonym is that so many people use it. I really wasn't sure if today's "anon" was the same person as the "anon" that was around before. For what it's worth, "Stephen" is my middle name. I was lucky enough to show up around here early and claim a one-name handle. It's generally what I go by. However, if there's confusion then I use "Stephen Suh" which is my middle name and the Korean surname given to me by a very dear family friend. When I lived in Korea, my business cards had my Korean name (and Hanja translation) printed on one side, so I consider it as much my name as my English one.
Anon clearly thinks that the male bloggers it mentioned should "rein Amanda in." It clearly believes that these male bloggers somehow have a responsibility for her, to manage Amanda. It's almost as if there is the idea that the male bloggers anon mentioned are the only reasons why Amanda was able to grow Pandagon to its present size - which iirc, is larger than when Jesse and our own Ezra were there.
Note to the person using the pseudonym Bob McManus: remember if you don't like an argument, but cannot refute it, call the presenter a "troll". It's better if you can call them a "concern troll." Call them a troll and you invalidate their humanity, and say they are worthless people, and you also call on others to pile on. It's an effective strategy if you are not able to discuss the underlying argument in a winning manner.
Whereas engaging in a condescending lecture about how mentioning the word "troll" makes you lose the argument is a sign of a keen mind and rock-solid forensic skills. Hey, could you explain to all of us why mentioning Hitler is so bad? And then tell us what an appeal to authority and ad hominem arguments are? Maybe you could link to Wikipedia to show your high level of research.
Anyway, if John Edwards can't survive this, there's no way he'll survive when the GOP starts bringing out the big guns on him.
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 17, 2007 8:26:26 PM
In a small fire, green wood will not burn. In a furious bonfire, green wood will smoke and catch fire and add a bit more heat.
Melissa was green wood for Donohue. Without Amanda he could not have attacked her. With all the fuel Amanda gave to him it was a good idea to toss Melissa into the fire. She added a bit more heat and kept the fire burning a bit longer.
I am bad with analogies, but she also added just a bit more credibility to his argument: see, it wasn't one blogger it was two.
The basic problem was Amanda's own arrogance and sense of righteousness leading her to her own problems that also took her friends, Edwards, McEwan and the liberal blogosphere down.
hu·bris (hyū'brĭs) pronunciation also hy·bris (hī'-)
n.
Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance:
We all have a lot to thank Amanda Marcotte for.
You go girl! Go far. Go away. Go far away.
Posted by: matte.black | Feb 17, 2007 8:29:49 PM
No one believes your name is Stephen.
Let's see your driver's license.
Posted by: brick red | Feb 17, 2007 8:31:29 PM
Are you saying that Melissa should have just stood there and "taken it" for fear of otherwise becoming the "same as Donahue"?
It bears repeating that not being needlessly offensive or hateful isn't the same as not fighting back.
Anon clearly thinks that the male bloggers it mentioned should "rein Amanda in."
This is twisting what he said, which was clearly about Amanda's enablers without any reference to gender. Anon doesn't say or imply anything about reining her in.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 17, 2007 8:40:07 PM
An underreported fact by you guys. these wackos who drove the bloggers away and stalked the campaign, is that these so called christians sent out death threats to other candidates. Both Obama and Hillary received some of the hate mail and threats in regards to the mess.
I think you should do some research and an article on why christains who are suppose to be good and decent are some of the most violent people. They will not hesitate to kill or maime and will send death threats to 15 year old girls who make peace videos saying the most vile and ugly things that even seculars wouldn't use that language. Yet they walk around pretending they know Jesus.
Posted by: vwcat | Feb 17, 2007 8:51:01 PM
It bears repeating that not being needlessly offensive or hateful isn't the same as not fighting back.
Nor does fighting back necessarily entail being "needlessly offensive or hateful."
Amanda has a much closer relationship with Feministe, Majikthise and blogs/bloggers such as those than with "Ezra, Matt, Duncan." Why choose those particular bloggers when wondering if someone was "enabling" Amanda? To enable an alcoholic means to be derelict in one's responsibility to "rein in" that alcoholic. The word enable is similar to the word allow. Only those with the ability and responsibility to at least attempt to rein in someone can be said to enable that person. To suggest otherwise is to render the word meaningless.
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 17, 2007 8:56:44 PM
Nor does fighting back necessarily entail being "needlessly offensive or hateful."
Of course not. Only showing respect for others, relying on reason and appropriate feelings rather than fear and bigotry, things like that require it.
Why choose those particular bloggers when wondering if someone was "enabling" Amanda?
That's a good question to ask "anon." Maybe anon doesn't even know the others. Remember Ezra's very appropriate criticism of Glover for publishing a mere assumption about why the archives at Pandagon were messed up, rather than asking Amanda?
To enable an alcoholic means to be derelict in one's responsibility to "rein in" that alcoholic.
"Enabling" means doing things that enable the alcoholic to avoid facing or dealing with her problem. The alternative to enabling is not reining in, which can actually be a form of enabling in some cases, as it can remove responsibility. The alternative to enabling is not doing things that enable, such as showing sympathy where it isn't called for, or withholding it when it is (which can enable martyrdom responses). I know the difference can be confusing, and they can overlap, but there is an important difference.
The comments at salon.com are well worth reading, by the way.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 17, 2007 9:34:10 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
