Just as serious is the fact that the geeks on the blogs (they were technically oriented) not only didn't defend her but many piled on, acting as if death threats was just colorful speech that Kathy should just 'take'.

Either Kos did not understand the full story (and this does not happen on his site because he has had to deal with these issues before and his site has a system) or he does not get the difference between angry speech and intimidation and physical personal threat. I am sure he understands cross-burning and nooses but somehow rape threats don't matter?

Markos wrote a post that is poorly put together and that wrongly ignored the underyling sexism and misogyny issues. But for Jessica to equate that with misogyny is really beyond the pale.

Misogyny is a high standard  - exhibiting hatred or distrust of women.  Certainly Markos doesn't appear to hate women - hatred requires a lot of effort and Markos never exerts enough effort in his dismissal of women's concerns to rise to the level of hatred.  He simply dismisses.   And we could argue until the cows come home as to whether or not he distrusts women.  The mere fact that that he has women front pagers will always preclude any easy conclusion that he distrusts women.

But of course arguing about whether or not Markos is a misogynist distracts from the real discussion of Markos' behavior in this matter.  

Valenti did not call Kos a misogynist. She charged him with dismissing the issue of misogyny. Which he did.

(And no, the title says nothing of the sort. Since BTD argues that Kos's sneers referred to "everyone" who "whines" and so despite the context had nothing to do with women in particular, he can't argue that the title referred to Kos in particular as opposed to the entire issue of misongyny on the Web.)

She called such a dismissal "reprehensible." Which it is.

In a part of her article clipped from BTD's quote, Valenti said Kos implied Kathy Sierra made the whole thing up. Which he did, referring to "so-called death threats" and asserting that "most of the time, said 'death threats' don't even exist" while labeling those who say they have received them as "crying."

I'm not going to call Kos a misogynist both because I don't know and because I feel no need to thereby defend Valenti against a charge she did not make.

Except to say this: Contrary to an assertion here, misogyny does not "require actively advocating and expressing hatred for women." It means "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women." There is no "requirement" for any "active advocacy" of hatred. Words do indeed mean things and should indeed be used properly.

I think your post here is a bit unfair to Jessica for all the reasons others above have stated.

As for Markos-

I think his post was incredibly insensitive. I don't think that Markos starts out with the intention of dismissing misogyny...but that IS what he did. The thing is, Kathy Sierra's threat wasn't just a death threat. It was a sexually related death threat. It was about her being an outspoken woman...and about the desire of the person doing the threatening to show that he had power over her. I basically viewed it as a mental rape.

I don't know what sort of death threats Markos receives, but I'm guessing he doesn't get many from people who say they're going to rape him and then kill him...or rape after they kill him. That's what she got.

And I agree with Markos, for what it's worth...in that I don't think a code of conduct would work. But he really could have found a way to state that he disagreed with her request for a code of conduct among bloggers...without being so insensitive to the specific way in which she was threatened.

I think Markos is a nice guy in general...and I'm sure he's tired and sleep-deprived...but I don't think he put enough thought into this post before he put it up there. Markos isn't the only one who would do well to put him/herself in someone else's shoes before he puts forward his own interpretation of things.

I wasn't calling Markos a misogynist.  I have no idea if he's a misogynist.  But I certainly think that the arguments in his post (toughen up, she made it up, etc) are arguments often used by misogynists and therefore beneath the level of discourse that should be going on a "progressive" blog.

Again, a skilled writer can make you think about more things than what they put on the page, and Valenti accomplished just that. She wagged the dog without ever once suggesting whose dog it was.

BTD has made an allegation that Valenti's post says something that it does not specifically say. He has made no effort to divine intent in a scholarly manner, but has interpreted the post in an arbitrary fashion and refuses to brook any other interpretation. He erupted when I suggested there was no libel, but refuses to engage over the language, instead repeating over and over that Valenti's post means what he has decided it means.

WTF? Why is BTD INSISTING that Valenti said what she says she did not say?

Jeralyn, Kos is not mentioned until the fourth paragraph. If he is the subject of the title, that's burying the lede VERY deep in the story.

I'm sorry, but I think you're both being hyperprotective of Markos at a time when he would benefit more from a swift kick in the backside to remind him not to opinionate when he's caught up in new babyland.

IMHO, this fight is about something else entirely, and for those of us walking into the middle of this, it's all very bewildering, especially given the YOU ARE WRONG! insta-responses from BTD who has made almost no effort to "listen" to what others are saying.

Valenti has written a provocative post about misogyny and online culture. It is worthy of being debated, but there has been no debate here, just BTD stomping out every spark of contrary opinion.

I try to stay out of comments threads but posted to this one because it was clear to me that BTD's post's premise was faulty. Valenti has confirmed that it is. I cannot stress loudly enough that Valenti's post was written so as to NOT say that Moulitsas was a misogynist.

Since I have secured Ms. Valenti's input into this debate, perhaps BTD could humor me and consult with a Ph.D. in Literature regarding the interpretation of text and what Valenti's words mean. I thought I was an expert in that regard, but since my input has been consistently devalued and impugned, I think BTD owes it to himself to talk to someone he respects who has actual expertise in that area.

Kos has (again) contributed to a situation that is causing friction within our greater community (George Washington wasn't perfect either). BTD has responded by pouring gasoline on the fire by introducting facts not in evidence. If he wishes to reassert his allegations, he needs to bolster them with some actual discussion, and not this "you're wrong, you're absolutely wrong" thing he's into.

Valenti did not have to interpret her words but did so at my request. Her original post spoke for itself, and did so in a manner consistent with her subsequent clarification. The burden here is on BTD to walk the rest of us through his logic, because it is not as self-evident as he seems to think.

To say Markos makes or uses or includes (as opposed to quotes) arguments often used by misognynists is to compare him to a misogynist.  Comparing him to a misogynist is as good as calling him one.  Also, to include the word misogyny and in the title of the post and then use a post by Markos as an example of those who are unsensitive to women is throwing him in with the bathwater. -- Jeralyn

Jeralyn, your first sentence is clearly not true in every case. Karl Rove uses the propaganda techniques pioneered by Josef Goebbels, but that does not make Karl Rove a member of the Nazi party. Yes, you can interpret Valenti's post in this manner, but you are inferring something that is in fact only implied. A fine distinction, but Valenti spent considerable time on her post and was quite careful in her nuancing. Why would she do this if her intent was to call Markos a misogynist? She respectfully stopped short of doing just that, yet she is being flogged as though she had flamed him instead.

Separators have a very useful purpose, especially in blogging. They indicate that the dialogue has just moved on, and that what follows is somewhat different than what came before.

Here is the full [bowdlerized] text that you have quoted:

Misogyny in our midst
By Jessica Valenti | bio

Last week I wrote an article for The Guardian (UK) about online misogyny, using Kathy Sierra's experience as a jumping off point.

Last week, Kathy Sierra, a well-known software programmer and Java expert, announced that she had cancelled her speaking engagements and was "afraid to leave my yard" after being threatened with suffocation, rape and hanging. The threats didn't come from a stalker or a jilted lover and they weren't responses to a controversial book or speech. Sierra's harassers were largely anonymous, and all the threats had been made online.

One of the things I wrote in detail about in the article was the unbelievable responses to Sierra's story. Some thought she "deserved" it, some called her complaints (about getting death threats, imagine!) "whining." Sadly, I expected to find these kinds of reactions in certain places on the internet. What I didn't expect was to find them so close to home, and from a progressive "leader" in the blogosphere, no less!

[section break]

Kos on Kathy Sierra and female bloggers being harassed and getting death threats:

Look, if you blog, and blog about controversial sh*t, you'll get idiotic emails. 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".

So let me get this straight: blogging about the oh-so-controversial world of software development means you should expect to get death threats. After all, nothing brings out the crazies like tech-talk. And besides, she probably made it all up anyway.

...Email makes it easy for stupid people to send stupid emails to public figures. If they can't handle a little heat in their email inbox, then really, they should try another line of work.

I mean come on, if you can't handle your address and social security number being published along with threats of rape, hanging, suffocation and death--you're a f*cking lightweight.

Seriously though, it's one thing to argue--as Markos does--that a blogger code of conduct would be ineffective. Fine. But dismissing online misogyny and Sierra's experience (without even bothering to do any research on the subject, to boot) is reprehensible. Though predictable given the source.

I would say Valenti is calling Kos out for coddling misogynists, not for being a misogynist. You may choose to interpret her words differently, but you may not put words in her mouth to make your point.

If you want to argue for a different interpretation, please do so. But do not condense her post in nontransparent ways and then dismiss all arguments to the contrary. Your loyalty to Kos has been amply demonstrated. Now you are at the point where a real friend would think, "Gee, I don't think Kos understands how many folks he's P.O.ed with that cavalier and insufficiently researched post, maybe I should drop him an email to let him know."

I've read Valenti's post approx. two dozen times. I can diagram each sentence and I can walk you through how she makes her argument, the elements of her argument, and what point(s) she is making. I cannot make her post say, "Kos is a misogynist" because it does not say that. You can certainly take that from the post if you choose to, but that does not make you correct. Most English teachers would drop you a letter grade for not respecting the author's intent, however well argued your case.

This has gone well past the point of being about Valenti and Kos. This thread is about your emphatic refusal to consider that you may have misinterpreted Valenti's words. You have not budged an inch in that regard even in the face of Valenti's denial.

Valenti has written that she is not calling Kos a misogynist. Further persistence on your part is tantamount to calling Valenti a liar. I do not know how else to interpret your words. If you were Kos's friend, you would seize upon this further communication from Valenti as proof that Kos is not a misogynist. Instead you refuse to budge, insisting that Kos is not a misogynist, and Valenti is a liar for saying she didn't say that.

1. Start thinking in terms of libel since you're obviously not a Comp Lit grad.

2. Valenti's hed does not say that Markos is a misogynist.

3. Valenti references Markos but does not specifically call him a misogynist.

4. Valenti DOES say that Markos is "dismissing online misogyny." She calls that reprehensible.

5. Valenti says that "implying" certain things is a "sexist cliché."

Any English major could explain to you that Jessica Valenti never once calls Markos a misogynist in her post at TPM. She's using sharp elbows, but she simply does not say what you accuse her of. Break down her post line by line, word by word. She doesn't say what you accuse her of.

If you don't understand how bad the Sierra issue is, go to Google and enter "Kathy Sierra" in quotes, and the vulgar four letter word for vagina.

If 42,000 matches doesn't impress you, I guess you must be blogging from the heart of the sun to be so impervious to misogynist flames and death threats.

This is NOT like other flame wars. The anti-Sierra stuff is much, much, much worse, and even a 1st Amendment fan like myself cannot countenance these ugly attacks.

Click on some of those matches. Again, this is MUCH uglier than previous flamewars. I have no doubt that both you and Markos have not done your homework on this one, because I doubt very much that either of you accept this kind of hate speech.