More "Progressive" Blogger Sexism

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Shakes calls out Josh Marshall:

Hillary Sexism Watch: Castrating B*tch Edition

Part Seventy-Six in an Ongoing Series. (Previous parts linked at end of post.)

Are you f[ra]king kidding me, Josh Marshall? Because I quite honestly can't believe that a person who identifies as a progressive and has two brain cells still knocking together doesn't understand why it's problematic, to put it charitably, to frame Hillary Clinton pushing her male chief strategist from power as "gelding" him.

There are no more fewer progressives in the "progressive" blogosphere than previously thought. I hope Shakes is not holding her breath waiting for her blogging "buds" to step up and criticize Josh Marshall? Never will happen. Don't wonder too much why defending David Shuster by misstating what Hillary Clinton had said was such an important cause for TPM.

< Hillary And The Trina Bachtel Story: Part II | Hillary, The Media And Trina Bachtel: Part III >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Stunning! (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:21:55 PM EST
    These guys are out of control.  The nebbish factor rules.  

    They should look up the great geldings (none / 0) (#76)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM EST
    there are quite a few. Kelso, five time Horse of the Year, John Henry, multi-millionaire champion, multiple horse of the Year, Funny Cide, winner of the Derby and Preakness, Forego, champion and Horse of the Year in several categories. Of course, these horses have class, which is more than I can say for Mr. Marshall, with or without his balls.

    I know it's ot (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:23:22 PM EST
    but I would like to celebrate the return of the word "frak" to our collective vocabularies.

    So say we all?

    (back on topic: I think they proved way back during "pimp-gate" that they have no vested interest in fighting misogyny.  So long as it helps their guy, then it's all right.  As I said during the infamous Schuster Shuffle, just wait until it comes back on Michelle Obama.  Strong, outspoken women are not exactly celebrated by our male-controlled media)

    Where is Michelle these days? (none / 0) (#77)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:40:33 PM EST
    Back looking after the kids? She hasn't been much in evidence in the press lately. I guess her ongoing foot-in-mouth problem made her a liability. And has anyone seen in the news about Condi being interested in being McCain's VP?? That would be interesting, wouldn't it..oh my!!

    Are we not (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:23:49 PM EST
    in the progressive blogosphere here, or are we off the island?

    Better, perhaps, to redefine the progressive blogosphere.

    Where does one begin? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Lahdee on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:51:37 PM EST
    First we lose Hippies, then Liberals and now we've lost the Progressives? Quick, off to the Marketing Pool for inspiration!
    Please, let it be over so we can heal, if that's still possible.

    Feminists (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:58:20 PM EST
    seem to be making a comeback...at least at the voting booth.

    This oughta be a bumper sticker (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:13:24 PM EST
    and I love the line, Kathy.

    You bet, I'm just fine with being called the f-word.  It means better company by far than being one of the liberals, progressives, et al., lately.


    I prefer to think we're on (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:05:08 PM EST
    the margins of the island. On the beaches, where everything is open and clear.

    Good analogy. (none / 0) (#71)
    by lansing quaker on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:15:21 PM EST
    On the beaches' edge where I can have a pina colada rather than force down my own bile by staying in the more volatile center of it.

    One chick that's come home to roost (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:19:05 PM EST
    This wearisome habit from the boyz in the blogz of trotting out pesky female troubles as the go-to  straw (wo)man to smack around to "prove" their cred as neutral defenders of human rights is laughable.

    I've had enough of listening to the deflecting tactic of waving any logical criticism of Team Obama's actual words and actions as racist, whether or not the challenges are even remotely connected to a racial issue, but getting huffy about applying the same pristine standard to themselves about indulging in egregious bigotry like misogyny.

    The solution is simple for the boyz in the blogz who like to draw b(.)(.)bs on the enemy du jour before they smack their straw(wo)man around.

    Make the case based on what's immediately at hand. Own it, explain it (if you like) or deal with whoever's in your face at that moment on mutual terms. Have the fracas but don't get in a bunch if someone tosses back what you tossed using the cunning Rubber / Glue akido.

    The Obama Roolz double-standard is like a vertical rock-climbing cliff here.

    I'm sympathetic to the case of watchdogging language, including one's own, but tend to be slovenly about the social chore of continually mopping up the slime trails behind other people's messy brains.

    Sticking their noses in it does have cumulative value though, since we all have to share the planetary confines. I've had my own nose stuck in my words and actions plenty of times.

    Sometimes it's tolerable and others, I really really didn't want to go back there. Everyone smells at some point or other in every material, linguistic and figurative sense. Setting reasonable standards for toxic emissions isn't unreasonable, just the expectation that some people get to do all the spewing "balanced" by a separate caste indentured to perpetual cleanup.


    Oy. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:25:21 PM EST
    Don't they ever exit their echo chambers and find out how they really sound to the other half of the Party?

    I would like to propose a field trip for JMM, Kos and Aravosis. They should come to the other side of the blogosphere and see what their former readers are saying about them.

    I think it might be a rather rude awakening for them.

    In all fairness (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:32:55 PM EST
    Greg Sargent has been up to some questionable anti-Obama tactics, and the Hillary supporters on TPM (if they are in fact Hillary supporters) are not very good emissaries. So maybe going over there and being sane would be a good thing. On this point, has anyone ever accused a MAN of castrating another man? I can't think of an example. It's pretty galling that he used this analogy--inartful and unhelpful. They don't admit mistakes easily over there though.

    You know, I understand what you're saying... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    but I think as prominent progressive/Dem bloggers, the onus is on them to try to support both candidates. It's not up to me to try to police them and point out when they are being blatantly unfair to one candidate over another.

    I don't even mind if they prefer Obama to HRC, I just don't approve of the hate. I won't approve of it by giving them my traffic any more. Same goes for Aravosis and Kos.


    Yes (none / 0) (#19)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:40:27 PM EST
    However they usually use the word emasculation rather than castration.

    Sargeant has had reading comprehension (none / 0) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:59:46 PM EST
    difficulties off and on.

    Greg Sargent? (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:01:06 PM EST
    "Greg Sargent has been up to some questionable anti-Obama tactics"

    Yeah?  Like what?  Only thing I ever see him do is try to report fairly about Clinton, and he gets regularly crucified for it by the Obama fanatics in the comments.

    That's what "going over there and being sane" gets you, and why I no longer bother.


    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:23:16 PM EST
    I tried for a long time, but finally just couldn't do it anymore.  No one is really listening to anyone over there anymore, just trying to score points.  I can get caught up in that too, and play that game, but I find life is too short.

    Aravosis... (none / 0) (#72)
    by lansing quaker on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:18:23 PM EST
    Jumped the shark AGES ago.  I used to love his LGBT focused commentary, but I simply stopped visiting when he posted his inane "Is Laura Bush qualified to be President?" fluff piece.

    Heck, I bet even now he won't say anything good about Hillary, even though she came out in the strongest support of gay rights I've seen for her in the public eye.

    Watch her advocacy today, from the Ellen talk show.  Great personal anecdote on gay rights:



    Good morning, Mr. Phelps. (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    This man is Joshua Micah Marshall.  Twelve weeks ago he was kidnapped and his place was taken by this man, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, in disguise.  The real Joshua Marshall is being held incognito in a safe house in Berkeley, California.

    Your job, should you decide to accept it, is to rescue Mr. Marshall, expose the hoax, and restore sanity to the left blogosphere.  As usual, if any of your team are killed, captured or caught meeting with the Columbian government, Senator Clinton will deny any knowledge of your actions.

    I live in Berkeley (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:28:23 PM EST
    and there are no safe houses left.  My lone Hillary sign is valiant and steadfast like the little soldier Hillary is.  

    I just put my (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:01:58 PM EST
    Stewart/Colbert 2008 bumper sticker on my car.

    There goes my righteous anger (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:35:58 PM EST
    I was all set to add my screed about the betrayal of women by a large chunk of left blogostan, then you had to go mention Stephen Colbert, and I turn to mush.

    Just like a woman.


    ROFL - If only it wasn't so close to the truth (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    The only thing you forgot was "This tape will self-destruct in five seconds" but in the case of the Kos's and Josh Marshall's of the world, it's their blogs that are self-destructing.

    Good for Melissa. No, she won't get much support from her "blog buds" but she is sticking her neck out to call JM on his continuing descent. She gets my respect.


    Cut off the Obama Ad money (none / 0) (#37)
    by goldberry on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:10:08 PM EST
    That ought to do it.  Before you know it, Josh will return and act like nothing ever happened.  

    Unless He Changed His System (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:18:59 PM EST
    He has no control of the ads at his site.

    Poor Boys (5.00 / 16) (#8)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:28:51 PM EST
    We all have irrational fears and prejudices, but some men's (or, more accurately, boys') inability to hide their terror when faced with a strong, powerful woman is remarkable.  I almost feel sorry for them putting so much of their inner psyche on display and not even realizing it.

    Perhaps I can help - Relax, Josh, I think I speak for women everywhere when I say we aren't interested in your genetalia.  Heck, I'm not even interested in your website.  How do you expect to beat McCain if you wet yourself every time Hillary Clinton says "boo"?  Man up, boys.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#16)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:37:52 PM EST
    I was shocked to discover that all women are old (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:49:38 PM EST
    Not that there's anything wrong with it; I'd love to be a fraction as cool as my Gran someday*.

    I'm just trying to figure out why middle-aged guys are young and hip for supporting Obama but anyone who supports HRC is stereotypically characterized as a racist hatchet-faced old white woman. HRC's support runs the gamut.

    Neither the math nor the rear view you're not seeing isn't flattering, guys.

    The self-flattery is as wanky as the boobtopia presented in the glory days of mildewing "liberal" centerfold mags, where "equality" meant an expanded available pool of fantasy playmates in every slightly off-white shade imaginable and the shared attribute of mute indulgence.

    *Appropos of nothing: My Grandmama contributed to the resistance by disabling vehicles used by the fascists, and used her downtime to refurbish old motorcycles. If I'm lucky, one day I, too, will be in my eighties and roaring around on a mint-condition vintage cycle. My sisters and I call her "The Nonz" ... eyyyyy!


    Re: The Person who kidnapped Josh Marshall (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lepidus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:34:24 PM EST
    BTD, you've been writing about the change in him longer than anyone, and doing it very well. Have you ever gotten a response from him? I remember when he posted some generic self-justifications during the Shuster thing, but don't recall anything really since then.

    I've also grown increasingly disturbed by the "(very) short term" hiatus of the Horse's Mouth. Has that ever been addressed? I've seen nothing about it.

    Most progressive blogs have become nothing (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by FLVoter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:35:09 PM EST
    more than "little boys and/or girls" using offensive language to get attention. I do not call them men and/or women because that assumes a level of maturity that is no longer displayed at these blogs. It is very disappointing that the Democratic Party counts these "little boys and/or girls" as part of its members since they do not reflect Democratic values. The DNC needs to stop being so myopic about this perversion of the "progressive" movement since it will hurt the dems come November.

    Panic perhaps in OooLand (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:38:28 PM EST
    that the attacks on Hillary seem to be getting shriller and shriller? Fear that there is still the great possibility that Hillary may end up with the nomination?  The intense anti-Hillary attitude in the "progressive" kingdom is unbelievable. Sexism, and all other isms.  Facts and issues no longer seem to carry any weight at all.  

    Just like (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:24:38 PM EST
    right-wing media and Republican talking points.

    Never would have believed that any let alone so many "progressive" blogs would slant coverage, demonize, contort and worship their candidate like a God.  

    So reminiscent of right-wing media and operatives.

    If Obama is nominated and elected I wonder how they'll react when he screws up and turns out to be much less than they've thought.  Will they behave like factions in the MSM and right-wing media that refused to criticize Bush when he so obviously messed up?  I think the answer is yes.

    Deeply disturbing.


    That's One Of My Biggest (none / 0) (#69)
    by The Maven on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:05:29 PM EST
    fears/concerns these days.  So many folks have dug themselves so deeply into Obama's corner that they will be as unshakable as the 28%er Bushbots.  Over the past few months now, it's become increasingly clear that there is a core group which will be constitutionally incapable of directing justifiable criticism at Obama should he deserve it.  They will be enablers in the worst sense of the word.

    Unquestioning support of the leader is antithetical to the very essence of democratic governance.  Just because these people are coming from left of center doesn't make what they're doing any less dangerous to our nation's political health.  I am greatly disappointed by what I've seen from so many folks I used to respect.


    Oh, goody! (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:41:02 PM EST
    I just emailed requesting a place to post my immense distaste for a comment from the Wright stuff.

    To wit: "I suspect many will not react well to Sen, Clinton getting all feisty with him."  Are you all getting too jaded to get mad at this?  Only women, cute little women at that, get feisty.  Right?  Senator Clinton is not a cute little woman, and if she gets to take on McCain, I expect them to treat each other with respect.  Which is more than Obama has given Senator Clinton.

    didn't see Obama's (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:47:28 PM EST
    "sweetie" comment, or the offering of a kiss, getting much spin, either.

    But, as I said, when it happens to Michelle Obama, there will be outrage shouted from the highest blogtops.  


    Yep. I saw her a while back on Larry King. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:09:57 PM EST
    She was followed by the typical CNN panel and they spent five minutes in amazement at what a well-spoken, intelligent woman she was. She probably has more education than that panel put together and it struck me as "OMG, can you believe how smart this black woman is"? It made me mad and I'm a Clinton supporter. They acted like she was a little girl that had performed well.

    Please watch your language (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:45:04 PM EST
    no specific references to anatomical organs without using asterisks, we are subject to censor software used by law firms.

    ohh sorry about that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jgarza on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:49:00 PM EST
    Arrogance and stupidity (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:58:40 PM EST
    mixed in with equal parts of misogyny.  Why do these supporters of the so-called winning candidate sound so much like whiny losers?  Didn't their mommies love them enough?

    force of habit (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:04:02 PM EST
    Why do these supporters of the so-called winning candidate sound so much like whiny losers?

    Gore, Kerry and now Obama.

    We never learn.


    I wonder if it's because the corporate media (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:19:18 PM EST
    is constantly calling for "unity" and "bi-partisanship" a la David Broder. They have convinced our Party that what the people really want is someone to hold hands and sing "kumbaya" with Republicans.

    What I really want is someone to hold the Republicans accountable for all their criminal actions, and to fight for peace, health care, a strong economy, a green Planet Earth, and justice for all people.

    I thought the "progressive" blogs felt the same way.


    But, but...! (none / 0) (#74)
    by lansing quaker on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:24:58 PM EST
    Donate to NED LAMONT now!  Link!

    </2006 Blog-o-Snark<p> Every day I see the big blogs get ever more shrill over Obama, I just think about the Lamont frenzy and how it panned out in the end.


    Wow. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:02:08 PM EST
    I've become speechless lately. Thank you, BTD, for your sense of fairness and objectivity. You are the only Obama supporting blogger that I will listen to for the general election.

    I know you'll be frustrated with us if Obama wins and you'll be on us hard to support him. You, I will listen to. Those others can expect nothing from me.

    WOW- I can only hope the voters (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by kenosharick on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:14:06 PM EST
    of Penn, Ind,W.Va,NORTH CAROLINA, ect. tell these "progressives" where to stick it.

    That's a good point (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:16:41 PM EST
    The only way to make these !@)#!@()%&()_!@*#!@s eat crow is for Obama to get trounced in the remaining contests.

    Possible but unlikely.


    Keep the faith (none / 0) (#51)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:43:57 PM EST
    I was just talking with a friend from NC, a young woman who went to see Bill speak in Charlotte the other day.  She thinks Obama is overhyped and everybody she talks to is voting for Hillary.

    I know, I know - he'll probably win NC, but it made me feel better. :)


    I was trying to decide (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:39:46 PM EST
    just this afternoon which horrid thing has been the most offensive to me during this primary season when it comes to coverage: the media's obvious bias and lack of professionalism, the fact that blogs that are "progressive" are anything but, the lack of fairness when looking at candidates, the fact that we had this in the bag and somehow managed to frak it completely, or the misogyny that I've seen from "progressive","liberal" and "Democratic" males (and women).  Yep, I think the misogyny is the worst. It's beyond acceptable to speak of a  United States Senator and Former Firs Lady AND Democrat as a little woman who goes around castrating men, getting hysterical, pulling out her claws, periodically getting down and her femaleness not counting for anything other than her hysterics.  

    Silly boys. When 60% of us aren't voting in November, you'll feel our feminist wrath. God knows mine is currently overflowing.

    Let's not forget it is not only the boys (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:38:55 PM EST
    To me the worst was Randi Rhodes and the f*** w* comment. Nothing more sexist than a woman trying to impress the boys.

    ...hope Shakes is not holding her breath... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by clio on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:43:44 PM EST
    waiting for JMM to understand what is so sexist about associating Senator C with "gelding" because he never will. Probably can't, actually.

    Not only is sexism still an acceptable public attitude, but it is bred-in-the-bone in certain circles, and the higher up the power ladder you go the more embedded in the sub-conscious it is.

    there is no justification for Hillary's treatment (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by angie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:56:28 PM EST
    I know we Americans like to think we are progressive concerning women's rights, but this election has opened my eyes that women in America have rights as long as they stay in the kitchen baking cookies but not if they run for President.  And I'm a 38 year old professional woman with two post-graduate degrees. My mother (a PhD in Mathematics) called me today and the first words out of her mouth were: "Aren't you glad you aren't Hillary? The woman gets attacked from all sides -- for what she does, for what her husband does and for what Obama does."  That pretty much sums it up as far as I am concerned, and I am sad and disgusted by it.  Thank god for BTD -- the only Obama supporter I've run across who has the cojones to call this outrageous sexism what it is.  I'm thisclose to offering a proposal for marriage.  ;-)

    I'm this close (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:30:46 PM EST
    to having your mother adopt me. :-)

    Great comment; thanks.


    That is funny. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by halstoon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:06:30 PM EST
    My problem with feminists like the one you linked to--and with people like you who support them--is that they literally complain about nearly every mention of Sen. Clinton or any other woman that does not walk some fine line they see as defining misogyny.

     I went back through her previous 5 posts, and they are all equally dubious as this one. The gelding reference was witty, no doubt intentional, and was funny to a lot of us. It was not funny b/c we laughed at the thought of painting Hillary as some kind of man-eating castrator, but at Mark Penn having his nuts cut off for doing something way stupid and hurting the campaign.

     PC police may think they're defending women, but instead all they do is continue to give fodder to the real misogynists who insist women are far too sensitive to be active in the public square.

    Bravo to her--and to you--for trumpeting your cause. I hope it has the desired effect on at least some people, for your sake.

    PC really stands for (none / 0) (#87)
    by LHinSeattle on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:38:11 PM EST
    Plain Courtesy.  

    I have no problem with Plain Courtesy (none / 0) (#88)
    by halstoon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:54:51 PM EST
    but I do have a problem with walking on egg shells in the public square. I simply think people are too quickly offended and take advantage of the Plain Courtesy Rule to shut down criticism and discussion.

    PC stands for shutting down dialog. PC stands for (none / 0) (#93)
    by jerry on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:44:19 PM EST
    Read some of "Free Speech" feminists like Wendy Kaminer, or Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU.

    Contrary to what some people on the left would like you to believe, PC is a real force, a real obnoxious force, and supporting it does no one on the left any good.

    We on the left used to be defenders of the first amendment.  We have ceded that to the right and it is shocking.  We did so because we wanted to stop the speech of people we disagreed with and we wanted to force certain "educational" programs onto other people.

    Wendy Kaminer can be read The Free For All.

    When I grew up, I was so proud to be Jewish, liberal and supported the ACLU who worked to permit the NAZIs to march in Skokie.

    PC most emphatically does not mean, "Plain Courtesy."  What it means is that many so called liberal bloggers will call you a sexist or a racist merely for asking questions.


    Nice company... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Camorrista on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    Contrary to what some people on the left would like you to believe, PC is a real force, a real obnoxious force...

    Absolutely.  Ask Rush Limbaugh.  Or David Horowitz.  Or most of the gang at National Review and Pajamas Media.  They agree with you: down with PC!  Let the words fall where they may, and devil take the hindmost.

    Those guys are all in favor of watermelon jokes, and coon jokes, and tamale jokes, and raghead jokes, and implant jokes, and waxing jokes, and cellulite jokes, and tampon jokes and, of course, articles in the Dartmouth Review and the American Spectator and The Weekly Standard telling us how stupid and cowardly we are to even consider the sensitivities of others.   PC whores, the lot of us.

    But toss around honorifics like k*ke, or y*d, or hymie, or harp, or dago, or Jesus-freak; or--better yet--tell a holocaust joke, and suddenly PC isn't such a menace any more.  (Some of us are old enough to remember what happened when Jessie Jackson called New York "hymie town"--the ACLU didn't rush to Jackson's side, anymore than it rushed to Senator Clinton's side when she was accused--by an enemy with a grudge--of an anti-Semitic tirade.)

    But if you think it's all okay, let the gibes (and chips) fall where they may, tell me how you like this joke:

    "Say what you will about Auschwitz, it saved the German lampshade industry."

    Funny, right?  No?  Do you find it offensive?  Why? It's a joke--the war was over more than 60 years ago.  Where's your sense of humor?


    Yes, it's pretty funny. (none / 0) (#109)
    by jerry on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    Wanna hear some good Jewish foreskin jokes?

    The Constitution and the Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee us the right not to be offended.  So even if I found your joke to be offensive, so what?

    If we don't believe in free speech for people we disagree with, we don't believe in free speech.  (Chomsky I think.)

    Wendy Kaminer rails on the ACLU's backing away from free speech for everyone.  I like her take on the issues and encourage you to read her.


    I'll pass on Kaminer, thank you (none / 0) (#112)
    by Camorrista on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM EST
    You want me to read Wendy Kaminer on the freedom of speech?.

    Well, I suppose I should be glad that the eloquent scold who helped lead Women Against Pornography and was (politically) joined at the hip to the horrific Catharine MacKinnon has seen the light and become so fierce a protector of the First Amendment.

    But you'll forgive me if I don't trust her any more nowadays than I did when she was a stalwart of one the ugliest attempts to suppress free speech the country has ever seen.

    Like Kaminer, I'm an atheist, and we atheists are wary of converts.

    (As to Chomsky, well, as a political thinker, he's a great linguistics scholar.)


    You seem to have switched positions with Kaminer (none / 0) (#113)
    by jerry on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:35:22 PM EST
    She was apparently against free speech and is now for it.  You apparently were for free speech and are now against it.


    But thanks, I'll add to the grain of salt I use when reading her.


    The wikipedia, for what it's worth (not much) (none / 0) (#114)
    by jerry on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:39:35 PM EST
    provides a similar, but different view regarding Kaminer and Pornography.  Basically saying she was either against restricting it on speech grounds, or growing into that view.

    And not to knock you, but you did apparently take the other route, growing into the view that PC speech restrictions are just polite and innocuous and only a Rush Limbaugh (presumably you're thinking of me) could be against them.

    Well, we all need to grow.


    Let go of the bone, Rover (none / 0) (#118)
    by Camorrista on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:10:15 PM EST
    You apparently were for free speech and are now against it.

    Nowhere and not once did I advocate the suppression of anybody's speech, nor did I mention restrictions, or codes, or anything of the sort.

    But since you were interested in making your own point rather than listening to anyone else's, you ignored what I actually wrote and relied (wrongly) on extrapolation to turn me into an enemy of free speech.  As a debating trick, not uncommon around here (especialy from Obama's admirers), but pretty unappetizing nonetheless.

    To repeat my point:  most of those who adamantly oppose PC want the right to call other people ugly names without being called ugly names in return.  It's possible you're an exception, but in any event  I did not accuse you of that behavior; what I did was note the company you keep.  

    And not to knock you....Well, we all need to grow.

    Spare me the hypocrisy; and the condescension.  The first is offensive; the second ineffective.  


    Pardon me, if I fail to see the difference (none / 0) (#119)
    by jerry on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:20:49 PM EST
    I did not accuse you of that behavior; what I did was note the company you keep.

    I keep no company with Rush Limbaugh or the others you mention.  There are lots of proud liberals that are free speech zealots.  I think it's a pity that more liberals are not.  You accused me of hypocrisy and accused me of keeping company with Rush Limbaugh and others.

    And then you complain when I turn that on you and make the assumption you must be for speech codes.

    Give it a rest.


    The test is whether (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:34:00 PM EST
    it would have been said that, say, Obama had "gelded" Samantha Power.  Doesn't make sense, huh?  Then why does it make sense, why is it funny, to say that a woman candidate castrated an advisor?

    (My other test, btw, has to do with people who start by saying "My problem with feminists. . . .")


    Your lack of comedic sense is appalling. (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:29:57 AM EST
    Could Samantha power be gelded? Let's see why a joke about castration would not be funny when applied to a woman?? Hmmmmmm...I can't figure out why, Cream?? Could it be b/c Samantha Power is not a male, and thus incapable of being gelded?? Thus the joke is not funny b/c it is inapplicable?????? It would be a stupid joke. Not b/c it would be sexist, and not b/c it would offend an Obama supporter, but it would be stupid b/c it just wouldn't fit.

    It's funny when applied to Penn for several reasons:

    1. He has balls, so a joke about them being cut off is actually applicable, as opposed to Power as noted above.

    2. He's been this big, swingin' d*ck that even Clinton supporters have grown tired of, with several people calling for his ouster (including your own BTD) for a while. He finally got put in his place, so it's funny.

    3. It's one of those words that looks like a dollar word but then you realize it's a penny-ante joke.

    4. Yes, he works for the ultimate ball-breaker (aside from Beulah of Porky's fame).

    Now, it would have been funny if we talked about either of them being "smacked down." 'Cuz, you know, all us chauvinist white guys would love the image of a black man smacking a white girl and the image of a white woman smacking down a fat white guy....

    easily offended (none / 0) (#100)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:36:17 AM EST
    yeah, cream - it's just that your lack of a sense of humor is the real problem according to halstoon! ha ha. Like that defense of sexist language hasn't been used ad nauseum - you just need a sense of humor so you can get over it!

    Thanks, tree and cream - but please, stop engaging with the deniers. It really does no good. Don't you get that the new progressive position this season is that fighting against sexism is just equivalent to being "the PC police"? Sound familiar? Well, that's because that's what republican men have always called it. Welcome to the new lefty world!


    Dr. Molly. (none / 0) (#111)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:44:02 PM EST
    I'm not intending to be a denier. I know sexism exists. I just don't think Sen. Clinton should be put up as exhibit A. There are real victims and real purveyors of discrimination, but a woman who sits at the height of power is not a good example of a victim.

    Sen. Clinton is a public figure. Public figures are regularly caricatured and teased. When that happens to Sen. Clinton, it is not sexism. It is including her along with all the boys, not singling her out. Just ask John Edwards, John Kerry, Barack Obama, or President Clinton; they'll all tell you the jokes don't stop.

    Also, this joke was not at Sen. Clinton's expense. It was at the expense of Mark Penn. To make it about Clinton is overreaching and ultimately smacks of pettiness.


    Sigh. Okay, Halstoon, try this (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:34:18 AM EST
    Obama gelding Austin Goolsbee after he went balls-out in talking to a foreign country.

    Go for it.  Let's see if you get it yet.


    You don't get it. (none / 0) (#110)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM EST
    Goolsbee was a nobody. Penn was the man. People love it when the man gets taken down.

    You don't get it, Cream. What's more, you don't want to get it. You want to be exempt from it.

    When people call Obama feminine they're not being racist. They are picking on an aspect of his personality. When they call Edwards prissy, they're not being sexist. They're making fun of his personality, a guy who cares too much about his hair.

    When Penn--a guy who portrays himself as some big bada**--gets his nuts caught in a sling, it's not a joke about his boss.

    Public figures are constantly being made fun of. When the public figure is a woman, it's not sexist. It's a response to her being part of the public forum. What's ridiculous and what p*sses people off is when an otherwise strong and capable person flinches at criticism and calls foul when they get made fun of.

    I think sexism is real. I just don't think Clinton is the poster girl for victimhood, and making her such is drawing attention away from women who really do suffer.


    You really misread me (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:01:28 PM EST
    but no surprise, you misread so much here.

    Done with you and your mouth.


    Good-bye. (none / 0) (#116)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:50:42 PM EST
    Thanks for playing...

    I don't misread; I disagree, and here that is not taken all that well...


    I rated you up -- I am really wondering why (none / 0) (#92)
    by jerry on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:38:46 PM EST
    my opinion comment was deleted.

    Shakespeares sister is filled with that sort of very weak logic and name calling.

    I said this earlier in slightly stronger terms, namely it is my opinion the name calling their involves smearing good people, and that comment was deleted, and I don't know why.

    What I said about Shakespeare's sisters was certainly less strongly worded than what is said here about Keith Olbermann or the Daily Kos.

    If anyone wants some specifics, google Glenn Sacks site:shakespearessister.blogspot.com .  The analysis of Glenn Sacks' blog posts are outrageous smears.  Read what Sacks writes in the posts that were critiqued.  Read how the posts were critiqued.  Read Sacks' response.  Note how none of Sacks' concerns or corrections were ever noted.

    If someone wants to delete this post, I would appreciate a reason for this.  I find Shakespearessister to be among the worst, most un-democratic of the liberal blogosphere.


    nonsensical to the extreme? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:57:23 PM EST
    Who would ever suspect Josh Marshall of being misogynous after his defense of David Schuster's remark about Hillary 'pimping her daughter out?'

    That's nonsensical too right?

    As for KO not sufficiently adoring of 'our' chosen candidate...umm, that is insulting to anyone with half a brain.

    Under the theory that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then, you apparently still need to go hunting.

    Josh should be careful... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:11:24 AM EST
    He could suffer from DK meltdown... as it appears evident now what this campaign is doing for DK traffic and it's not so good.

    Probably isn't doing much for Keith Olbermann or Air America either but I don't have access to on air ratings trends

    More likely bad writing w/o editing (none / 0) (#11)
    by rilkefan on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:34:08 PM EST
    I've no reason to suspect JMM of sexism.  Being susceptible to group-think, yes.  Not being open to criticism, yes.  Needing an editor, yes.

    So (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:02:13 PM EST
    when men throw around accusations based completely in misogynist language and sexism such as "gelding" you think he's not sexist but just missing an editor?  An editor for what? To edit out his obvious sexism?

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#61)
    by nemo52 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:28:29 PM EST
    Good for Liss at Shaxville.  I suspect that she leans more Obama than Clinton, but she always recognizes the dogwhistles (and more obvious sexisms) rampant in this campaign.

    Way to beg the question (none / 0) (#64)
    by rilkefan on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:34:06 PM EST
    But of course you're a mind-reader so you don't need to worry about that.

    Josh lets 'TPM reader' do the bashing (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:51:32 PM EST
    It's the tidy, new passive-aggressive way of pounding on one's enemy du jour without having to be accountable, doncha know.

    JMM's contribution to this Nu Skool Jurnalizm is to print substance-free crud from a TPM reader, which JMM of course has no choice but to featire or something somewhere would explode or something.

    Not-JMM smacks HRC for some awful thing, or provides illusionary foundation for the gratuitous slam, or buttresses smoke and mirrors "support" for bad behavior, but not, of course, JMM.

    And so it goes. The Too Good to Be True candidacy would even more empty without this Presto-Digitation.

    I'm skeptical the Obama campaign will survive beyond the primaries based on its own inherent weaknesses, having nothing to do with HRC.

    Passive-aggressive or outright, they're having a field day falling over themselves on HRC-hatred now for the UNTHINKABLE crime of running for office, using routine political as usual.

    Should Obama's campaign of fluff survive the primary process, if he does close in to the one-party dream of Unity with all those actually anti-progressive forces, he'll get hit with such a roaring blast of oxy-acetyline fueled flaming it's actually going to hurt bad.

    The prog-blogs are burning through their own credibility here. (TIP: burning effigies indoors is a bad habit to indulge without containments.)

    There was a good reason to foster them with readership and donations when they were accumulating cred by combining no holds barred opinion with irrefutable, neutral information.

    Megaphoning the "news" that HRC is a monster because we hate her and she totally is? doesn't meet that standard.

    There's no reason to read the faux prog-blogz or otherwise support them when all they provide is more static than signal. Hope they enjoy the roast today. They won't have much to feast on down the road.


    TPM & KOS...need real work (none / 0) (#39)
    by Elijah Trotsky on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    ...the kind that when you insult somebody you get your a** kicked, not the kind that you can throw a slur and then hide behind your computer.  Just a bunch of loudmouths....

    You are suspended (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:25:16 PM EST
    yet again Moopsy.

    Do not come back until Saturday please.

    were these guys ever really progressive? (none / 0) (#47)
    by miguelito on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:35:43 PM EST
    and I mean in the progressive sense that sexism and and racism and all types of intolerant views invoke equal disgust?  It looks like misogyny was way more prevalent than previously let on.  Were they using the issue as a wedge that they no longer feel they need?

    um... (none / 0) (#48)
    by webmacher on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:39:15 PM EST
    I'm a woman, and while I acknowledge that Hillary Clinton has been the target of some appallingly sexist comments... I'm honestly not seeing it here. I can find examples of other places where the term "gelding" has been used without a sexist connotation.



    The first serious female presidential candidate... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:56:32 PM EST
    ...will go down in history as being unfairly run out of the race by rabid, horribly sexist Obama supporters in the media and in the back rooms.  Whether you want to talk about the absurd and sexist insistance that she "just drop out" since Super Tuesday, the disgusting and sexist media coverage, or the ignoring or Obama's sexism, I am simply ashamed of the progressive community.

    except (none / 0) (#55)
    by miguelito on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:59:14 PM EST
    history hasn't been written yet.  She is not dropping out.

    My belief is that (none / 0) (#65)
    by nemo52 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:34:36 PM EST
    we are watching a seriously important moment in history -- a democratic nomination race in which both a multiracial man and a woman are strong contenders.  If Hillary is not the eventual nominee, I do think she will have earned a place in history, after which any female presidential candidate will find a much less attacked and smear-fraught road to follow.  

    Clinton already has made history (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:45:16 PM EST
    as the first woman to win a primary in this country, and that was some months ago.  You can bet that will be in the next editions of many a textbook, probably already edited into some on the presses right now.

    The others making history in this campaign will not come off as well -- I'm a reader of many historical texts, especially about American politics.  The media, the blogs, and those who use and abuse gender in strategies and tactics will have to explain it to their grandchildren reading about them in textbooks for decades to come.

    It really can happen.  A late, lamented friend of mine helped to found our state chapter of NOW and was in a famous photo of the group.  She hadn't seen it, didn't recall it for years . . . until her daughter showed her the photo in her grade-school history textbook, proud to report that her class decided that her mom used to be cool.


    It is being written right now (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:37:53 PM EST
    as my campus has a guest speaker coming soon, a scholar who is writing a book on media and gender in this campaign.

    I've said before that I bet the blogs are being watched closely and content-analyzed, too, for many a book, dissertation, and thesis to come. . . .


    I hope you're right Cream (none / 0) (#101)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:40:29 AM EST
    A friend of mine who edits/owns a feminist newspaper says that this primary season has just exposed to the world (in a useful way) an old feminist axiom that men on the left are, in general, no different than men on the right when it comes to the use and/or acceptance of sexism. She says that many academics will analyze it and write about it.

    I don't know...

    But if something can be learned from all this in the end, maybe at least it would feel a little better. Right now, it just feels disgusting.


    You can bet on it (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    that books are being written right now -- and, yes, that this is deja vu all over again . . . we might as well be back with the boyz of the left in 1840, 1848, 1866, 1874, 1886, the 1890-1910s "Progressives," etc., right through to the 1960s "civil rights" (for men again) movement, media and men's treatment of the 1970s women's movement and of the ERA into the 1980s and ever since.

    Then as now, what we do today will have to be for our daughter's daughters.


    Why would proggy bloggers ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:00:57 PM EST
    worry about a castrating anything, when they clearly don't have ...?

    Oh, you get the idea.


    Sticking my neck out here, (none / 0) (#58)
    by RickTaylor on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:03:12 PM EST
    I didn't think anything of Joshua's article when I first saw it. He was just asking what roll Mark Penn was playing in Hillary Clinton's campaign, something that's of interest here as well. When I saw the post linked above, I looked TPM's post again, and looked in my dictionary. Along with the first definition of "gelded", there was figurative definition, "To deprive of strength or vigor; weaken." I'm pretty sure that was the definition Josh intended, and it certainly fits the rest of the post he wrote. It's true Hillary Clinton has been subject to plenty of sexism during this campaign; Shakespeare's Sister documents other instances, the video in a previous thread shows others, and there have been times during the campaign I've been seething at Chris Mathews. I'm just not convinced this is one of them. And in an environment where everyone's on edge, I think it's important to try not to automatically assume the worst of each other. I'll just add that there have also been plenty of instances of Obama supporters taking offense at what I would say was imagined racism during the campaign as well.

    I would think that (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by nemo52 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:37:21 PM EST
    the LITERAL meaning of "gelded" would be first, as in "castrated."  Being metaphorically castrated, or made tame, comes after the literal.  Check your OED.

    Gelding (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:45:25 PM EST
    And why, do you imagine, is "geld" defined as ""To deprive of strength or vigor; weaken."

    Would anybody ever write that a woman had been "gelded"?  Nooooo.  Two guesses why.

    To say that a woman has figuratively "gelded" a man is to say she has figuratively castrated him-- deprived him of his maleness and thus his strength and vigor and made him into a weak little woman.



    And when was the last time (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:45:28 PM EST
    that someone demoted by a man was termed "gelded".  

    Nope.  The term was a dog whistle for those who buy into the "castrating b**ch" meme.

    It falls right in line with the "periodically when she's feeling low" meme.


    defending Josh Marshall's misogyny... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:50:34 PM EST
    is an enterprise that I would wish on no man...first of all, he doesn't pay anything and second, it's the gift that keeps giving.

    The fact is that guys never pick up on the misogyny...but women never miss it.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#106)
    by nemo52 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:42:03 AM EST
    someone should send him a Hillary nutcracker.

    a generation raised on (none / 0) (#62)
    by bigbay on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:28:40 PM EST
    gangster rap , Reagan , and Motley Crue...what do you expect ?

    Wow (none / 0) (#68)
    by Keith G on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:52:07 PM EST
    Maybe since I grew up in the country around horses, sexism was not a thought that I entertained when I read Josh's post.  I guess I thought instead of a stallion once out of control being tamed in a most harsh and permament way.

    I thought it fit.  Whenever an aid or assistant to a candidate becomes the story, it's time for that person to go.  Mark Penn had been the story too many times.

    MOM is sexist (none / 0) (#70)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:07:39 PM EST
    if nothing else, HRC's campaign has revealed sexism to be an even bigger problem in America than racism. republicans are clearly a lost cause on both counts, too stupid to even know what your talking about when you speak of racism or sexism. But in progressiveland too there are clearly many dolts when it comes to sexism and Marshall, Olbermann, and Moulitas (MOM) are the poster boys.

    On the bright side (none / 0) (#75)
    by Coral on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:31:27 PM EST
    I am wasting a lot less time online these days. I even picked up the NY Times and read Krugman on real newsprint this morning.

    Totally OT (none / 0) (#80)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:26:25 PM EST
    And I was enlightened and horrified at the same time.

    Globalization isn't all about selling cheap plastic trash to Americans.....


    Thus proving once again (none / 0) (#102)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:30:38 AM EST
    The idea that by using the verb 'to geld' he is part of some larger sexist conspiracy is nonsensical in the extreme.  I understand these are difficult times for Clinton supporters.  But this is just desperate, and frankly, sorta weird.

    That some progressives just aren't all that progressive after all. Like when they rush to excuse behavior that is obviously sexist and then condescendingly lay the blame at the feet of those "desperate" Hillary supporters.

    That any so-called "progressive" would do that is something I find, quite frankly, sorta weird. Or I would have before I discovered that acceptance of sexist behavior is quite acceptable in the Democratic Party. Which is part of the reason I am now an Independent Voter for Hillary.

    No conspiracy (none / 0) (#103)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:56:36 AM EST
    It's right out in the open, actually.  It's not a nefarious web of bloggers being sexist. It's just a bunch of democratic boys that are misogynists and are using it to shill for their candidate while attacking the other.  It works, apparently, since now we have people defending sexist language by the old Republican playbook of : "Settle down! You're being way too PC."  Hm. Last time I heard that kind of language was from Republicans trying to make a racist joke.

    I don't object to Sen. Clinton at all. (none / 0) (#108)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:31:37 PM EST
    I think she's a brilliant woman who has fought her way to the top of the heap, and I applaud her for that. I admit to being jealous of both she and her husband.

    I think the world of Sen. Obama, but I laugh at the jokes at his expense when they're funny. I didn't consider this particular joke to be at Sen. Clinton's expense, but since you insist it was, whatever. It was funny.

    What I said was we (I should have said I) laughed b/c of the joke at Penn's expense. When I expanded the list of reasons to laugh, I was fair and included the Clinton angle.

    The explanation was being intentionally ridiculous, as I saw Cream's comparison of the same joke at Power's expense. It was antagonizing her, as she likes to do me in equal measure.

    And it's not sexism!!! It's humor!! When you enter the public forum, it's a grown up place. Sometimes the humor is bawdy or juvenile, but it gets spread around. People make fun of Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and on and on. If Clinton and her supporters wish to be part of that group, they should accept that as part of the game. Call it a boys' club if you want, but when you join don't act surprised and offended when you get picked on. But again, this joke was at Penn's expense.

    You know (none / 0) (#117)
    by RTwilight on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:18:12 AM EST
    I'm not at all surprised at HRC's treatment by the press (though still disgusted)...

    This is the same treatment that many other prominent women have gotten when they dared to be heard as well as seen...look at the treatment of Barbara Streisand, Madonna, Rosy Odonel, heck, even Susan Surandan at one point...I like to call it the Madonna effect, since she has been most consistantly hit by it over a wide range of forums and an extended period of time