Pajamas Media

Email This to a Friend

Are Privileged Western Women Being Crushed into Silence?

According to an op-ed by Rebecca Solnit in the Los Angeles Times, it's not only Muslim women who are fighting a war for their rights. Someone forgot to tell Amy Alkon.

April 14, 2008 - by Amy Alkon

I couldn’t believe the piece by Rebecca Solnit I read in the Sunday Los Angeles Times Opinion section; mainly because I found it too stupid to publish.

Solnit mewls on for 1,863 words about how women are patronized and silenced by men.

But, wait. Let me check. (Peering down into pants and then panties) Yup, there’s a vagina in my pants, which suggests I’m either a woman or there’s a matched, escaped set of labia taken up hiding in my underwear. Most mysteriously, I don’t seem to suffer the myriad conversational injustices from men that Solnit and so many other women apparently do.

Solnit opens her piece by describing how she was conversationally pummeled by a guy about Eadweard Muybridge, when she’d actually written the very book the guy was holding forth on. “Men explain things to me,” complains Solnit, “and to other women, whether or not they know what they’re talking about. Some men. Every woman knows what I mean.”

We do? I think somebody forgot to send me the memo. Yet, Solnit claims this terrible injustice is something “nearly every woman faces every day,” which “makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field,” and “keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare.” (“When they dare”? The woman writes like Mr. Darcy is going to pop up from behind the copier at any moment.) Solnit goes on and on about how this “syndrome” (yes, everything must be pathologized) “crushes young women into silence” and “trains” women “in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.”

First of all, I write a syndicated dating and relationship column, and I have to say, if there’s one problem with men these days, it isn’t “unsupported overconfidence.” I likewise can’t say I’ve ever felt “crushed into silence” or any of the maudlin rest. So… either my dad, who taught me to stand up for myself, and told me over and over that I could do anything boys could do, is unique among fathers in America, or there’s a name for what Solnit’s peddling, and it’s “grassy-knoll feminism.”

Meanwhile, Solnit herself, who, most annoyingly, Likes To Use Capital Letters For Emphasis All Over The Damn Place, says that even she, a woman who has “public standing as a writer of history,” had a moment when she “was willing to believe Mr. Very Important and his overweening confidence over (her) more shaky certainty.”

Sorry, but if you have “shaky certainty,” do you blame men, or sign up for a little assertiveness training? So much of what women do blame men for — women’s lower starting salaries in the workplace, for example — traces back to women passively accepting what’s presented to them, whether it’s some boorish jerk’s assertion, or the first dollar offer they’re made for a job. This is correctable, but not by writing long-winded screeds against men in the Los Angeles Times.

Although Solnit comes up continually short on guts in conversational situations, she’s remarkably gutsy about aligning herself and other privileged Western women with a silenced sisterhood of women living under Islam, “where women’s testimony has no legal standing; so that a woman can’t testify that she was raped without a male witness to counter the male rapist.”

Of course, the difference is that women in Muslim countries are not, by law, allowed to testify. Western women like Solnit simply refrain from speaking up. Some loudmouth cut her off? Wow. While Muslim women fear lashings and death if they speak their minds, Solnit’s simply too limp-willed to say, as I’ve said numerous times, and to men and women, “Don’t interrupt!” or “My turn to talk!”

When that doesn’t work, like when I was on the TV show, “Faith Under Fire,” with the booming blowhard Frank Pastore, I began removing my mike, and told the host I was going to walk off if Pastore kept shouting over me. (I may not have been born with balls, but I keep a little set in my makeup bag, and bring them out on an as-needed basis.)

I drew on further personal experience when Solnit ventured into familiar territory — restraining order-land. I call it familiar territory because two jerks (Katherine Morgan and Robert Feist of the sound house Ravenswork) took out a restraining order on me a few years back. Not because they had any proof I was violent (I’m not, and they clearly didn’t think I was, since they never called the police to accuse me of, get this, using unladylike language on Morgan when Ravenswork employees were usurping neighborhood parking). Yet, easy as pie, Morgan and Feist filed a restraining order against me in Santa Monica court; apparently, as a revenge move. Naturally, it was eventually dismissed.

Forgive me if, in light of my experience, I find it a little hard to believe this bit from Solnit: “Even getting a restraining order — a fairly new legal tool — requires acquiring the credibility to convince the courts that some guy is a menace….”

Yeah? Tell that to David Letterman, who had a restraining order taken out on him by a New Mexico woman who claimed he was sending her coded messages through her TV. Clearly, there’s a very high standard of evidence here.

Solnit’s own standard for evidence leaves something to be desired. She next tosses out a statistic, “About three women a day are murdered by spouses or ex-spouses in this country. It’s a leading cause of death among pregnant women in the U.S.” And where’s this stat from? We really can’t say, because Solnit, who’s billed as a historian, doesn’t bother to offer any sourcing. I guess we’re just supposed to take it on faith that men are such horrible, women-crushing creatures that her stats must be correct.

Yeah, those men… if they aren’t raping or murdering us (or driving across town to bring us fresh chicken soup for our cold, in my boyfriend’s case), they’re insisting we’re “delusional.” Solnit writes about objecting to the behavior of a couple of men, only to be told (apparently by the men) “that the incidents hadn’t happened at all as I said they had, that I was subjective, delusional, overwrought, dishonest — in a nutshell, female.”

Sorry, Rebecca, but based on what you’ve written in this op-ed piece, I’m not having a whole lot of trouble finding you “subjective, delusional, overwrought, dishonest.”

Solnit continues: “Most of my life, I would have doubted myself and backed down.” And clearly, men are the culprits! To further prove her point, Solnit trots out another dinner conversation with another man of Capital Letters; in this case, “Mr. Very Important II,” who disputed something she said. Solnit writes that “his scorn was so withering, his confidence so aggressive, that arguing with him seemed a scary exercise in futility and an invitation to more insult.”

Again, it’s the fault of men that Solnit kept her lip Krazy Glue’d shut, and waited until she got back to her hotel room to Google the information — despite having researched and written a book that touched on the subject. And, yes!… ding, ding, ding!… we have a winner! It seems that, per Solnit’s Googling, Solnit, not “Mr. Very Important II,” was correct. And so, years after that dinner, Solnit unleashes this little gem for him — in print, in the LA Times: “Dude, if you’re reading this, you’re a carbuncle on the face of humanity and an obstacle to civilization. Feel the shame.”

“If you’re reading this”? Years later?!

Uh, Ms. Solnit? See directly above? The carbuncle bit? Say that. That is, if you can’t first get your wee voice above a squeak to say, “Hey, ya big lug, close your yap for a minute! I wrote a book on this!”

Solnit rounds out her 1,863-word pity party with two particularly ripe paragraphs. First this:

”The battle with Men Who Explain Things has trampled many women — of my generation, of the up-and-coming generation we need so badly, here and in Pakistan and Bolivia and Java, not to mention the countless women who came before me and were not allowed into the laboratory, or the library, or the conversation, or the revolution, or even the category called human.”

Finally, Solnit, who again sees no shame in connecting her level of freedom of speech with that of a woman in Pakistan, claims, most melodramatically, that “the war” for a woman’s right to speak “won’t end in (her) lifetime.”

“I’m still fighting it,” she continues, “for myself certainly, but also for all those younger women who have something to say, in the hope that they will get to say it.”

Poor dear. I have to say, I feel for soldiers, and even sent some of our men and women over there in the Middle East some care packages early on. I’m willing to provide the same service now for our warrior against the zipped female lip, the brave Rebecca Solnit.

Rebecca, if you’re out there, I’ll give you one free hour with me in training in how to become a loud, bossy broad when situations call for it. Reading some of Cathy Seipp’s work might help you prep for our session.

And here’s a bit of shocking news for you: Women in the West are allowed in the laboratory, the library, and the conversation, and have been for quite some time. But, sometimes, people, even people with vaginas like me, are conversational self-serving jerks who will roll over meek little women like you with reckless abandon.

Four words: “Speak up already, lady!”

Amy Alkon is a syndicated advice columnist in over 100 newspapers, blogging daily at advicegoddess.com.

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

117 Comments

1. Tony Ryan:

I think Solnit is correct.

Indeed it was only at the last Man-Meeting (those covert monthly meetings when all 2.5 billion men meet up to discuss how best to oppress women) that someone mentioned that it was very unfair to whiney feminists that they should have to learn to speak up for themselves and that, in future, everyone should stop talking in their presence and listen to all their pathetic little grievences. YAWN!!

Lack of confidence is a human condition that both males and females suffer from. Its an upbringing thing and not a male induced syndrome. Feminists like Solnit will never be taken seriously, not because they are female, but because they constantly demand special treatment without meriting it.

Apr 14, 2008 - 4:39 am 2. Morgan:

Not every female runs away like a scared rabbit when a man ‘explains something’,

‘”Speak up already, lady!”?’

How about: “Put on the big girl pants, grow up and deal with it”. Solnit is a perfect example of what is wrong with most whiny people…male and female.

Apr 14, 2008 - 4:42 am 3. Joe Buzz:

MEN no doubt feel sorry for Rebecca when she whines and therefore feel it is their responsibility to FIX her by explaining things to her…. IF she knew of what she spoke or at lease came across that way, men would converse with her. I really enjoyed the one or two conversations that I ever had with a WOMAN that was way more knowledgeable about whatever it was that I was explaining to her!

Apr 14, 2008 - 5:58 am 4. Smarty:

So womyn are equal to men in every way, except for being whiney little self-involved navel-gazers.

Apr 14, 2008 - 6:07 am 5. beefytee:

I am 30 years old, and the youngest of 4. My parents are 64 and 63. I grew up in a house where my father was educated, and my mother, not so much. He would often “explain” things to her.

So since we often reflect and refract (ladies, thats when light bends, or slants) our parents practices, I will sometimes find myself explaining something to my wife. Sometimes it’s warranted, we run in 2 very different career circles, but you know what happens if I explain something to her she already knows about or understands? She makes me feel REAL REAL dumb. Usually making fun of me.

I’m thankful really, because as a doctoral candidate trained in discourse, she will RIP into someone she is not married to if anyone else attempts this with her.

The author of the original article, needs to learn how to stand up for herself. This is an issue in self esteem, not in oppression. Western women right now have it better than they EVER have. Although there does seem to be a bit of backlash as the empowered teen uses her sexuality more aggressively to try and get what she wants: a)I’m not so sure this wasn’t always the case and b)I don’t hear teenage boys voicing their concerns at this “reverse oppression”

Apr 14, 2008 - 6:13 am 6. Mommynator:

This nitwit of a woman never ran into me or my daughters.

If you don’t know where you stand after speaking to one of the three of us, you are thicker than pudding in a freezer.

Apr 14, 2008 - 6:44 am 7. uburoi:

Why do I get the feeling that for all her accredidation, Ms. Solnit doesn’t really belive she has earned the status she keeps telling us she deserves? She’s like an Ivy League grad that keeps telling anyone who will listen how smart they are by pointing out where they went to school or the elite job they hold, but rarely by demonstrating any real insight or wit.

For some reason, when I run into such people at bars or parties, I have an almost irresistable urge to find their psychological blind spots and pound away. Call me an intellectual bully, but the experience of pouncing on a quota crybaby or a feminist wimp at a dinner party is just too delicious to pass up, mostly just to watch them scurry from the table, speed-dialing their therapist for a quick boost of self-worth. I cannot help but feel a sense of vindication: for years, their family and their professors shielded them, lied to them, coddled them, and told them how goddamned precious and thoughtful they were, and here they are are in the big, bad world, and someone is contemptuously dismissing everything they hold dear in public. You should have learned to put up your dukes in college, girlie, but you figured it was easier run over to your Women’s Studies advisor and have everyone you disagreed with censored.

Apr 14, 2008 - 6:53 am 8. A. N. Pierson:

What makes this so ridiculous is that women are well known now to be the majority in law and medical school and the younger generation is out-earning men. The LATimes is such a tired institution they are not even aware of this.

Apr 14, 2008 - 7:06 am 9. njartist:

The last suppressed spouse I met was a male artist, a superior artist than his wife, who was dominated into both artistic and conversational silence. Conversation with the woman is a monologue — one woman at an art group meeting timed her at 40 minutes.

Members of both sexes need to learn to stand up for themselves.

If Solnit has problems with dominating boyfriends, she should get therapy before she obtains the next one; else, her next one also will be a subject for another column. Which may be what she wants.

Apr 14, 2008 - 7:23 am 10. tanstaafl:

men’s unsupported overconfidence “…his scorn was so withering, his confidence so aggressive, that arguing with him seemed a scary exercise in futility and an invitation to more insult.”

I think that’s about the particular man, the individual. The weakest and least secure men (usually ignorant, too boot) seem to need to find targets to bully or to patronize. And that target is frequently a woman. Or a pet. Or a child.

You shouldn’t take it personally or waste energy arguing with it. Just remove yourself from it. As far away from it you can get.

Resistance that doesn’t engage is a far more potent weapon than getting all worked up or feeling “put down”. After all, the point was to make you feel “put down”, thus puffing up the bully.

“where women’s testimony has no legal standing; so that a woman can’t testify that she was raped without a male witness to counter the male rapist.”

I think the ruling is that a (Muslim) woman’s testimony is weighted 1/2 that of a man’s. And she needs something like 4 witnesses to “prove” rape, good luck with that.

Despite all the progress in recent years, there’s still truth in this observation…

A big problem for women is …the double bind that tells a girl she is equal, but inferior, that her parameter of self-esteem is the approval of others and not the cultivation of self.

Apr 14, 2008 - 8:07 am 11. KateCoe:

Here’s the telling moment:

“Being women, we were politely out of earshot before we started laughing,”

I’m female, and I’d have laughed right there. Why is she such a wuss? I’m roughly her generation, and I’m not silenced by Guys Who Know Everything–even members of my family, who are older, better educated and sometimes clearly out their depth.

Solnit might be a victim of her nice manners, but it’s easy to work a lacerating remark into otherwise polite conversation. But then, she might get a rep as a bitch, and who knows where that could lead?

Apr 14, 2008 - 8:43 am 12. Amy Alkon:

Hi, I’m the syndicated columnist (banned from LA Times’ features sections, I might add) who wrote the above piece.

Regarding this comment from tanstaafl above…

Despite all the progress in recent years, there’s still truth in this observation…A big problem for women is …the double bind that tells a girl she is equal, but inferior, that her parameter of self-esteem is the approval of others and not the cultivation of self.

…can you explain how I, who grew up in this culture, and presumably, drinks from the same water supply as millions of other women, managed to become a woman who can muster the sheer courage to say, “Hey, ya big lug, lemme talk!”? I had no friends as a child, and became kind of a doormat as a result (desperate to be liked). I fixed that in my 20’s, and now, what I care about is whether I’m being true to what I believe in…which sometimes requires telling some blowhard to put a sock in it so I can be heard.

P.S. As I’ve written in my column: “There’s a reason they call it ’self-esteem,’ and not ‘What other people think of me-esteem.’”

If women are too concerned about what others think, I’d say it’s because they place too much emphasis on a relationship with a man as a shortcut to having a self. Never works. But, if I’m correct about that — are men to blame?

Apr 14, 2008 - 8:45 am 13. colagirl:

[i]their professors shielded them, lied to them, coddled them, and told them how goddamned precious and thoughtful they were, and here they are are in the big, bad world, and someone is contemptuously dismissing everything they hold dear in public.[/i]

Speaking as someone currently in grad school–not at all. At least my experience has been, professors do *not* “shield” or “coddle” you; instead they bounce back and forth between treating you as a drudge to do arduous and sometimes dangerous lab or research work they’re too important to do, tearing you apart for deviating from the line/theory they want you to parrot, and blowing you off for months despite insistent entreaties when all you’re asking for is their comments on the latest draft of your thesis/proposal/dissertation (without which you cannot advance in the program). They don’t treat you this way because you’re a woman (or a minority) but because you’re a grad student; it comes with the territory. Not all professors act this way, but quite a few do. It takes a robust ego to survive grad school intact (which may explain why so many of the ones who do make it are egomaniacs), and if she came in without a lot of confidence to start with, it’s not surprising she’d be beaten down to a little nub by the process.

[i]I think that’s about the particular man, the individual. The weakest and least secure men (usually ignorant, too boot) seem to need to find targets to bully or to patronize. And that target is frequently a woman. Or a pet. Or a child.

You shouldn’t take it personally or waste energy arguing with it. Just remove yourself from it. As far away from it you can get. [/i]

Agreed. It’s not just men, women do it too, and it *is* about being an insecure bully who needs to build themself up by tearing others down. I generally take tanstaafl’s suggested course; people who behave like this aren’t going to change, so simply leave them alone to argue with themselves. I agree Solnit’s comparison of the situation of women in modern America to the plight of women under the Taliban or fundamentalist Islamic rule is just ludicrous.

Apr 14, 2008 - 9:13 am 14. Assistant Village Idiot:

Some pr*ck failed to recognise that Solnit is Princess of Quite A Lot. That’s all that happened.

Apr 14, 2008 - 9:26 am 15. Misanthropicus:

“… no, no no, God damn’ America…”
I read Rebecca Solnit’s effort in yesterday’s LA Times: a non-sequitur belched by a cranky & irrascible hag obsessed by herself – yawn. Yet, while the object of Solnit’s piece is silly, in her list of (alleged)
damning evidence I found something that illustrates time and again the liberal(s) pathological narrow-mindedness (yo! you, the open-minded & the
enlightened!} and irresponsibility – that is her Berlin/McCarthy indignant tale:
“[...] how Women Strike for Peace, the extraordinary, little-known antinuclear and antiwar group founded in 1961, helped bring down the
communist-hunting House Committee on Un-American Activities [...] I had written a book that drew from primary documents and interviews about Women Strike for Peace. [...] I found that Eric Bentley in his definitive history of the House Committee on Un-American Activities credits Women Strike for Peace with “striking the crucial blow in the fall of HUAC’s
Bastille.” [...]”

Pathological liberal narrow-mindedness & irresponsibility, yes – leaving aside nowdays liberals’ McCarthy, Huac and Hollywood Black List hilarios
obsession, the Red Scare was fully justified and Sen. McCarthy’s actions were fully justified, too. Little I know about the 1960-s Women For Peace, but I am convinced that they were, at best a crew of silly & hysterical commie dykes manipulated by the KGB, or, directly and knowingly Soviet enablers/agents of influence (mixture thereof possible, too).
Now, the standard liberal answer at this would be the invokation of a … conservative pathological obsession with the Cold War and the Soviets – I know, I know. Yet, with the Venona Papers and countless other revelations about the attempts of the KGB/Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact to subvert the American foreign policy during the Cold War as background, the Women
Strike for Peace are… nothing but a crew of silly, hysterical & irresponsible dykes manipulated by, and enabling a ferocious enemy of this country.

For the mental giant Rebecca Solit:
Misanthropics Q: Amongst the Auchwitz guards, clerks etc. were many (active) homosexuals/lesbians – does that redeem them? And if yes, in what extent?
Rebecca Solits: YES. YES. Totally.
Misanthropicus: Hah-hah. Q.E.D.

Courtesy to Rebecca Solit, Eric Lichtblau, James Riesen, Don Bacquat, Dana Priest and, alas! so many other liberals and lefties, and with the Women Strike for Peace as inspiring muses no wonder that the “… no, no, no, God damn’ America!” mentality thrives in this country.

Apr 14, 2008 - 10:46 am 16. S. Weasel:

Solnit opens her piece by describing how she was conversationally pummeled by a guy about Eadweard Muybridge, when she’d actually written the very book the guy was holding forth on.

She couldn’t manage to blurt out, “whoa! That’s so cool! I actually wrote that book you’re talking about!”? Why not?

Sounds like a pathologically limp personality to me.

Apr 14, 2008 - 10:59 am 17. gordo:

My two daughters would think that Solnit is from Mars. They are doing quite well on their own and can hold their own in any circumstance. When will these grievance-mongers go away? They actually hurt the people they purport to help – young women. What a load of BS; and its getting Tiresome and Boring.

Apr 14, 2008 - 11:15 am 18. Colin:

Solnit has basically said, “Don’t speak harshly to women! They can’t handle it!” Doesn’t that sound like an old-fashioned rule? It sounds like a rule my grandfathers would have stated. My wife doesn’t wither when we’re having a heated discussion about something — she returns fire without hesitation, and she has shut me down numerous times. Solnit doesn’t need the U.S. to change; she needs to change herself.

Apr 14, 2008 - 11:30 am 19. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Okay

“Are Privileged Western Women Being Crushed into Silence?” — Editor, of Amy Alkon’s entry

Your option, vis-a-vis me on AdviseGoddess was to kick/ban/kill me?

Interesting think, that.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]

P.S. Or was it over my overt christian response to the topic?

Apr 14, 2008 - 1:52 pm 20. Lou Shumaker:

There’s another perspective to consider.

For many people, it’s never easy to stick your neck out and let fly with opinions that might possibily twist someone’s nose. It doesn’t matter what they wear in their pants. It’s a personality fault, not a gender distinction.

Apr 14, 2008 - 1:52 pm 21. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. Obviously, your claim that I was ‘killed’ EVERYWHERE, isn’t quite ‘accurate’……

Apr 14, 2008 - 1:53 pm 22. Peter St. Onge:

Deborah Tannen discussed male & female communications styles. She posits that men communicate to solve problems, and so men feel lame if they don’t offer information/solutions, while women often communicate to empathize or share.

For example, if a guy tells another guy his car won’t start, and the friend says “gee, that’s too bad”, that’s not considered a useful conversation among guys. Likewise, if a woman complains about work and the guy offers solutions, it might sound patronizing to the woman, while the guy think he’s just helping her fix a problem. Not blaming either side, but it’s often a good-faith misunderstanding.

So, in this light, maybe Solnit is confusing the male penchant for problem-solving as aggression, and she might be surprised what a good reaction she gets from a little friendly assertion. My guess is she’d get a “oh, sorry” and a bit of a blush from some of these guys.

Apr 14, 2008 - 2:05 pm 23. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Lou Shumaker
RE: I Think….

“For many people, it’s never easy to stick your neck out and let fly with opinions that might possibily twist someone’s nose. It doesn’t matter what they wear in their pants. It’s a personality fault, not a gender distinction.” — Lou Shumaker

…that there may just be a significant gender-based difference.

I’m always will to speak my ‘mind’. I do it everywhere. And, as a result I’ve got a number of notches on my keyboard for the times I’ve been kicked/banned/killed on various blogs.

At the moment, the women-folk who operate blogs have a definite edge on the men-folk operated blogs; Amy Alkon, being the most resent. [Note: That was not a misspelling.]

Andrea [I do Tim Blair] Harris and Rachel Lucas are in the mix too. All three of them over my christian ethics and willingness to express myself, as you state.

Not that I haven’t been kicked/banned/killed by guys. Even HERE on PJM, I’ve had more ‘entertainment’ from the women columnists than from the men. Just last month some woman deleted several days of comments by myself (mostly) and some others.

Hope that helps….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Woman, n., the unfair sex. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary]

Apr 14, 2008 - 2:05 pm 24. Rubicon:

In what I find to be an additional irony…. there really are men who enjoy intelligent conversation with women. In fact, for me, if ya ain’t got the smarts, I ain’t got the time!
So, it seems to me the lady lacks the confidence to speak up for herself. It can be done, even when you may turn out to be wrong.
Its called, conversation!

Apr 14, 2008 - 2:07 pm 25. rob:

Anybody else sick and tired of Modern Western Women? I know I am. Seems like an increasing trend. Nice vulgar intro. to the article, BTW. I’m really starting to understand precisely why there’s a marriage, dating, & mating strike against Modern Western Women. VAWA & IMBRA shows the sick character of American Women.

Apr 14, 2008 - 2:14 pm 26. bour3:

Pardon, what were you were saying? Sorry I wasn’t paying attention.

No. Seriously. The thing about guys is we’re incredibly resistant to a new point of view. I do believe this is chiefly a Western thing. We tend to be less collaborative at arriving at some idea and more inclined to bulldoze our way through a conversation. It’s an observation I’ve made over time where to an observer, I lose an argument by being bulldozed by some apparently dense blowhard. But then later, sometimes moths later, I hear my own point of view being expressed as if it originated in the other guy’s mind. I can tell this is happening when I recognize my own vocabulary, the particular combination of words that was so difficult for me to contrive in the first instance. That phenomenon used to be infuriating but now it’s rather satisfying. Here’s what to do when faced with an apparently dense conversational blowhard; hold up a finger and strike your best point. Then, here’s the tricky part, smile knowingly and quietly turn away. You’ve done your damage with the certainty the seed has been planted and you could never get any farther conversationally.

I really like the balls in the handbag bit. That’s a good one. Wouldn’t it be cool to actually whip out a set of clackers ad start cracking ‘em? You’d have to stand back because they’re quite dangerous.

Apr 14, 2008 - 2:25 pm 27. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Solnit

I wouldn’t know her from Eve.

Amy may be absolutely correct in her observation of la femme autre—pardon my French.

But I will say that women tend to be more circumspect in what they will say—out loud—than men.

My point, in these few missives, is that women are more likely to practice ’silencing’ of opposing opinions; given the (1) power and (2) chance.

This claim that men are silencing women just strikes me as (1) projection and (2) an interesting measure of an ability of men to express themselves a bit more saliently in ‘hard’ issues, e.g., law, fact, etc., than most women can.

Amy may decry Solnit over such business, but she—herself—has definite ‘issues’ of a kindered nature to deal with before she can see the topic clearly. And….she is NOT alone…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago; Matthew 7:3-5]

Apr 14, 2008 - 2:34 pm 28. Steynianism 111.5 « Free Mark Steyn!:

[...] Law is Averse to Gender Discrimination”; meanwhile, in the self-pitying West: “Are Privileged Western Women Being Crushed into Silence?” …. (weaselzippers, [...]

Apr 14, 2008 - 2:43 pm 29. Joanne Jacobs:

I grew up in the ’50s and ’60s. “Women’s lib” didn’t come in till I was in high school. But nobody “silences” me.

My high school French teacher was deaf. She assumed students with confident body language were answering questions correctly; those who looked tentative she assumed were making errors. Once I figured this out, I sat up straight, spoke confidently (but not too audibly) and raised my grade for classroom participation to an A.

My social studies teacher warned me that I might be perceived by men I met in college as a “castrating woman” because of my assertiveness. As I walked out of class, I told my best friend that any guy who could be castrated by a little conversation would have no interest for me. This proved to be true: I like confident, talkative men; blowhards aren’t that hard to avoid.

For many years, I worked as an op-ed columnist and editorial writer, paid to express my opinions.

I think comparing the inconvenience of Western women who meet jerks at parties with the sufferings of Muslim women who face “honor killings” and 400 lashes is deeply stupid and callous.

Apr 14, 2008 - 3:00 pm 30. Aglifter:

To quote a man, who’s name I have unforgivably forgotten, “Women have gotten good at being men, but have failed terribly at being gentlemen.” Frankly, given the attitude expressed in the LA Times article, I’m surprised the man didn’t simply pay the bill, provide the columnist w. cab far, and leave — life’s too short to tolerate any “womyn”.

The LATimes writer exemplifies the type of behavior that men use to justify the dismissal of women — the pettiness, idiocy, and passive aggressive revenge years later. If some poor soul ever has the misfortune to marry/have any type of relationship with her, I pity him, and hope he remembers that he has the full rights entitled to a human being as quickly as possible.

Apr 14, 2008 - 3:58 pm 31. kat-missouri:

“I lose an argument by being bulldozed by some apparently dense blowhard. But then later, sometimes moths later, I hear my own point of view being expressed as if it originated in the other guy’s mind. I can tell this is happening when I recognize my own vocabulary, the particular combination of words that was so difficult for me to contrive in the first instance.”

I’ve met plenty of bulldozers, the male and female variety. Most of them are not necessarily “confident” in their position, but confident they can shut down an argument by being the loudest and longest.

Most of them, I find annoying and not worth the time to try to convince, but this comment above is sometimes right on the money.

One of the most annoying “bashing the argument into the ground” people is my brother. He often “wins” arguments with just about everyone because he simply will not give up or shut up long enough for anyone to get a word in edge wise and, if they do, he simply responds by cutting them off and talking louder and longer.

Recently, we were having a discussion about why oil prices were high. He talked about war, I talked about expanding economies, decreasing output, damaged infrastructure, etc, etc and he simply kept claiming, louder and longer, that it was the war and Bush’s cronies who kept the price high to get rich. Over and over again. Finally, I gave up and walked away.

Three weeks later…we were at a BBQ with friends where someone argued his point that it was war and get rich fat cats…next thing I know, my entire argument about the myriad of things that are causing rising fuel prices came pouring out of his mouth.

I came to realize after many years of dealing with this phenomena that this is really an issue with people, of either gender, who have to insist that they are right, even in the face of actual facts. They can’t “lose”. These kind of folks just get lucky because, as one other commenter noted, most people are not so invested in an argument that they are ready to spend hours trying to get their point across in something they decide is a losing battle. Most arguments, such as one over the historical significance of this or that moment, are simply not worth almost coming to blows or any other extremely loud and disruptive event.

You have to be really motivated by your subject and passionate about its outcome to do that.

I could tell you some stories, if you really wanted to hear them, about some numbskull being rude or condescending because I’m a woman (yes, really), but they are little anecdotes of oddities in a lifetime of being a fairly successful woman. I just chalk those instances up to a few left over troglodytes that simply do not equate to or diminish the value of my self esteem and don’t necessarily represent the entire male gender of our species.

Then again, I actually like men. Not so sure about other folks.

Apr 14, 2008 - 4:03 pm 32. kat-missouri:

“I think comparing the inconvenience of Western women who meet jerks at parties with the sufferings of Muslim women who face “honor killings” and 400 lashes is deeply stupid and callous.”

Second that.

Apr 14, 2008 - 4:06 pm 33. hitnrun:

“makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field,”

Perhaps she should go home and have babies?

Women fought for the right to participate in the world. The world did not fight for the right to accept women. The world, particularly the business world, did not change with women’s entry into it, and if anything has grown more ruthless in the interim.

If you can’t break the stereotype of the traditional woman, then perhaps you should be a traditional woman.

Apr 14, 2008 - 4:35 pm 34. tanstaafl:

“Regarding this comment from tanstaafl above…

Despite all the progress in recent years, there’s still truth in this observation…A big problem for women is …the double bind that tells a girl she is equal, but inferior, that her parameter of self-esteem is the approval of others and not the cultivation of self.

I like to deal in reality.

In quoting that passage (granted, it dates from the 70’s), I’m not talking about your personal journey or any single individual’s enlightenment or personal strength in seeing through the BS and stepping up to the plate. (is that enough clichés ?)

I’m talking about reality, a reality that persists for many women today.
And whether or not any particular woman or women “stand up to guff” doesn’t affect a reality still prevalent.

An example currently in the news might be the women in the Texas Latter Day Saints compound. Their particular bondage (long, modest dresses, sexual availability at puberty to creeps 50 years old) is not especially far removed from the view of the world radical Islamists would impose.

are men to blame?

Nobody should be blamed for lingering cultural attitudes and conditioning of (some) women.

Blame is beside the point.

Just keep doing what you’re doing.

(Advice R Us)

Apr 14, 2008 - 4:58 pm 35. Kimberly:

Let me get this straight. Because Rebecca Solnit has met a jerk or two in her day and didn’t put him in his place, we’re all being held down by the patriarchy? And a woman who’s published a 2,000-word whine about nothing other than her ridiculous opinion – in a national newspaper, no less – is claiming solidarity with women who are forbidden by law to vote, drive, or show their faces in public?

How is it possible that such mindless, pathetic drivel is still being published in the 21st century? Frankly, I’m insulted by her assumption that all women are as wimpy as she is, and appalled that she equates her situation with that of women who truly live in subjugation.

Apr 14, 2008 - 5:02 pm 36. JFP:

Do men who are the strong, silent type exist in Solnit’s universe?

Apr 14, 2008 - 6:14 pm 37. Beauty News » I am beautiful when I’m angry:

[...] am beautiful when I’m angry April 14th, 2008 Friends of Jack & Hill Nancy and Amy have both sounded off today with some righteous fury about a recent trend in journalism: the [...]

Apr 14, 2008 - 6:48 pm 38. Wacky Hermit:

Tanstaafl: the existence of that Texas compound (and by the way they are NOT affiliated with the mainstream LDS church) does not in any way mean that this sort of oppression is “reality” for most or even many women in this country. Most women (even most genuine LDS women) don’t live in a compound, wear burqa-like dresses, and marry their 15 year old daughters to pedophiles. If you want to deal with reality, don’t look at people who ran away from it for examples.

Apr 14, 2008 - 6:59 pm 39. Anna:

Solnit indeed insults us women!Personally ,I have rarely not been taken seriously by men,or treated
badly.Oh yes there have been occasions, jerks are everywhere but they also come in the female version let’s not forget.!
Kat-missouri..right on !

Apr 14, 2008 - 7:14 pm 40. Cerabus:

What do you say to Rebecca Solnit when she has 2 black eyes? Nothing, a man has already told her to shut up twice. Winy bitch, back to the kitchen!

Apr 14, 2008 - 7:45 pm 41. Amy Alkon:

Regarding Pelto’s claims that he’s been persecuted by me and others because he’s a man, the truth is, everybody eventually bans Chuck.

Here, from Armed Liberal, who happens to have a penis:

http://www.armedliberal.com/2002/11/chuckle.html

Dear Chuck Pelto:

You’re a troll.

I’ve banned and killfiled you, and as soon as I can get logged into the server, I’ll ban your whole subdomain.

Please go play with yourself somewhere else.

Buh-bye.

Your host.

(if sufficent non-Chuck folks want, I’m happy to repost our whole sad correspondance)

Apr 14, 2008 - 8:06 pm 42. ddc:

Apparently her mother never taught her how to stand up for herself. Growing up with brothers would have helped.

Apr 14, 2008 - 8:10 pm 43. Fred:

Being conversationally pummeled by a loudmouth know it all is common to both men and women. There are people out there who are convinced they can do no wrong and have all the answers. Some of those people are male but some of them are female. You can have all the facts on your side but they will exude such complete confidence in their own…”facts” that there is no getting through to them.

Can they be intimidating? Quite frankly yes some of them can be. But that’s not a male female thing. That’s a personality thing.

But mostly they are just not worth the effort. Never argue with a fool, they can’t be taught.

Apr 14, 2008 - 8:11 pm 44. MH:

I admit…I blew her off at a bar. I’m sorry that you’ve all had to suffer due to my prescience

Apr 14, 2008 - 9:57 pm 45. FP:

>someone said (again exposing the pernicious nature of salacious demagoguery, given the actual topic here):

“sexual availability at puberty”

———
Why shouldn’t wimmin be made to remain sexually available?

Men putting endless barriers around females (as their male reproductive strategy for marginalizing other males) is why we have the ambition, greed, political problems(triangulation: immigration, feminism etc) and the pyschological/pathology, chaotic economic and overall ‘growth’/environmental problems we do in western culture.

Islamics and Polynesians and etc indolent cultures are non growth based –ie non enviromentally destructive and non chaotic/ non pathologic– specifically because the males are content…

…given the “sexual availability” of their females.

=====
It is ironic that the west’s sexual revolution’s and “free love” lead to the price of sex going through the roof (thereby exacerbating male competition to generate more for themselves –at other’s expenses– so they can buy some acceptance and fidelity from a creature so en-pedalsteled that she rarely offers any.)

======
People in western culture are like children that don’t understand what they really advocate. It’s just tanturm and endless political triangulations/ realignments.

——
I find it fascinating that liberals have no problem advocating “redistribution of wealth” but are blind to the real wealth –that biologically underpins and motivates all the other kinds of competition/ wealth aquiring.

Redistrubte the real wealth of the parasite elites…

“control the females”.

——
“People in western culture are like children that don’t understand what they really advocate”…

——-
I know it’s hopeless, ’cause you are all dunce congenitally. But my well placed contempt for mankind is such that I push post anyway…

Apr 14, 2008 - 10:29 pm 46. FP:

Says
Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Solnit

…My point… is that women are more likely to practice ’silencing’ of opposing opinions; given the (1) power and (2) chance.

—-
That is very true.

Liberals in general and females specifically are not bogged down with the self defeating anglo/american “freedom, liberty and justice” grand political conceit (which allows anglo /american males to feel cosmically more nobel than everyone else while they breed themselves into extinction).

—–
The root point of the LATimes article actually (though I will not read it of course) is that even the male instinct towards helpfulness and protective display is “oppressing females” (…with policy implications for the imaginative…).

Apr 14, 2008 - 10:46 pm 47. jw:

Rebecca Solnit is another Marxist-feminist, turning personal, harmless incidents with man into universal generalizations about men, trying to promote a war between the sexes. Her only goal is power. Saying that her situation, or that of women in the U.S., Canada, the West generally, is like that of Muslim women in countries ruled by sharia shows her moral ignorance.

Apr 15, 2008 - 12:17 am 48. FP:

jw:

“Rebecca Solnit is another Marxist-feminist…”

—-
Oh you mean the people you keep fighting the wars for. [sarcasm]

Good thing it’s only that… For a minute there I though mankind was in trouble. [sarcasm]

———
And btw way the socialist countries don’t have this “Marxist-feminist” problem. It is unique to the capitalist british dominated world.

Apr 15, 2008 - 1:39 am 49. Mary Jackson:

Just last month some woman deleted several days of comments by myself (mostly) and some others.

If you mean me, and this post, I certainly didn’t delete any comments. I don’t have edit facilities at PJM, and don’t delete comments at my own blog unless they are abusive.

Coming back to the original article, yes, Solnit is a wimp and should just speak up.

Apr 15, 2008 - 2:50 am 50. alison:

Wow. That really showed her!

There is ZERO weight to her argument but i think Rob up there in the thread gets the prize for replicating the whiny style of the journo being criticized – with a unique brand of generalising that sits so very well with Modern Western Male. Especially the kind that blogs. Poor little man! There there there.

Does everyone feel much much better now they’ve trashed her? Getting personal in taking on her opinion really shows you up to be as whiny a bunch of twits!

Apr 15, 2008 - 6:08 am 51. Snippet:

Hi Everyone,

I’m working on my PHD Dissertation for my Men’s Studies degree.

My tentative topic:

Women, The Passive Aggressive Sex

I’m not trying to outsource my research or anything, but does anyone have any suggestions as to where I might find some supporting materials?

Thanks for any information you may be able to provde!

(Soon to be) Dr. Snippet

Apr 15, 2008 - 8:46 am 52. Snippet:

Oh.

My.

God.

I’ve really stuck my foot in it this time.

My inbox if rapidly filling up with terrifying warnings from “womyn” threatening to write articles several years from now, which, if I read them, will “psycho-emotionally castrate” me.

I’m sorry if anyone was offended, and I promise NEVER to even THINK a negative thought about any non-Republican member of the sisterhood again.

Looks like I’m shopping for a new PHD dissertation idea:

Men, Evil Creeps Who Make Women Cry

How’s that ladies? women? non-penis-challenged persons?

Apr 15, 2008 - 9:21 am 53. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Everybody?

“Regarding Pelto’s claims that he’s been persecuted by me and others because he’s a man, the truth is, everybody eventually bans Chuck.” — Amy Alkon

Obviously you are mistaken.

The vast majority of people who have kicked/banned/killed me have been atheists, like yourself, dearie. And all because I was expressing my christian ethics in a manner that was obviously proving to be too effective for your personal form of ‘Faith’ to cope with.

And you, here, are only manifesting the sort of behavior you’re whining about Solnit.

As I said (above), it’s all a matter of (1) opportunity and (2) power. You have it on your blog. But do you have it here?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. About our mutual ‘acquaintance’ Armed (il)Liberal….

….all I said to him was ‘Just Kidding’. Just like he said that feminazi he was defending did. The one who suggested that all men should be chemically neutered.

And for this I get ‘killed’.

Typical (il)Liberal behavior. Just like yours.

Apr 15, 2008 - 9:48 am 54. Laughing Man:

I can’t help but chuckle at the thought of this Rebecca Solnit article. Why? Because I once had the misfortune of attending a dinner party where Solnit was a guest. And she went on and on with her rants and extreme opinions, assuming everyone within hearing range would agree–and for the most part I didn’t agree. I could have started an argument, but I chose to mostly remain silent.

Chuck and FP have it exactly right: “women are more likely to practice ’silencing’ of opposing opinions; given the (1) power and (2) chance.” But I’d modify to say, judging from my experience–especially women like Solnit.

Apr 15, 2008 - 10:08 am 55. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. That ‘link’ you offer to Armed (il)Liberal’s thread doesn’t seem to provide the “whole sad correspondence”. But it does indicate that some people wanted to see it all. Maybe he reposted it all somewhere else.

I hope he didn’t behave like Oliver Willis did, deleting posts.

After all, it was rather interesting….AND, I do believe I was winning. Hence my sudden demise.

Apr 15, 2008 - 10:09 am 56. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Laughing Man
RE: Excellent!

“….I once had the misfortune of attending a dinner party where Solnit was a guest. And she went on and on with her rants and extreme opinions, assuming everyone within hearing range would agree–and for the most part I didn’t agree.” — Laughing Man

Your report is very interesting. It speaks to Solnit ‘projecting’.

Maybe Dr. [InstaWife] Helen could do something on this. And, being as she hasn’t ‘killed’ me yet, we could study the idea of which gender is more likely to ‘project’.

Thanks,

Chuck(le)
[Mouth, n., the gateway to mens' souls and the outlet of womens' hearts.]

Apr 15, 2008 - 12:34 pm 57. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: Yes….

“If you mean me, and this post, I certainly didn’t delete any comments.” — Mary Jackson

….I meant YOU.

Well…as I mentioned over on that thread, I’ve got all the ‘disappeared’ comments, as I copy everything I comment on these days; having had my comments ‘disappeared’.

So….please ask ‘tech support’ at PJM how the comments became ‘disappeared’. They were, in no manner, any worse than the ones I’ve posted here; or at Amy’s or anywhere else, for that matter.

We’re talking PJM possibly practicing ‘Crushing into Silence’ here.

Also, where can I get a copy of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) that PJM operates under? That includes the ROE applied to columnists.

I e-mailed PJM about this when I noticed the deletion of comments on your thread. I was looking for who had authority to delete comments. But I got no response….to the best of my knowledge.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]

Apr 15, 2008 - 1:33 pm 58. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. Abusive?

“I…. don’t delete comments at my own blog unless they are abusive.” — Mary Jackson

Isn’t ‘abusive’ in the proverbial ‘[minds-]eye’ of the beholder?

I’ll wager dollars to donuts that people like Solnit and Alkon think comments like I make here ‘abusive’; when, what they REALLY are is ‘accurate’.

Apr 15, 2008 - 1:36 pm 59. MarkD:

Chuck,

It’s not all about you, honest.

Apr 15, 2008 - 1:47 pm 60. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. Perhaps this is what Solnit-Alkon-Jackson are all complaining about…..

….I get to be one of those ‘obnoxious’ men who keep going on-and-on-and-on-and-on about a topic. ‘Dominating’ the discussion.

And Solnit-Alkon-Jackson would rather ‘Crush into Silence’ such contributions.

Solnit, according Laughing Man, does what she complains men who won’t be silent for her does, i.e., projection, rattles on and on and on about something Solnit (1) cares a LOT about and (2) does as a matter of her very being, i.e., rants.

Solnit objects to people who won’t (1) listen to her and (2) accept, without discussion, what she believes.

Alkon comes along an objects. However, Alkon, and perhaps Jackson, do the same, themselves. More projection on Alkon’s part. Perhaps something different on Jackson’s part….we’ll see about that in the fullness of Time.

The point here is that Alkon is, in practice, no different than Solnit. Except Solnit does not have the advantage of ‘killing’ people at a social gathering. And therein lies the source of Solnit’s angst.

Alkon has the ’satisfaction’ of ‘Crushing into Silence’ those who ‘misbehave’ in the presence of the ‘goddess’. Such temerity! These men who learned the concept of ‘maintenance of the objective’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Back to making dinner……just ground up 16 pounds of pork shoulder. Tonight? Grilled Garlic-Sage Sausage, with fresh lime juice squeezed over them. Heck. The temp is pushing 90°F. It’s Summer in mid-Spring here along the Front Range.

Apr 15, 2008 - 1:47 pm 61. Emanuelle:

Aah, Miss Amy, how lucky you are! Such a brave and independent woman (under 35, I suppose), who will have none of that stinkin’ feminism, right.

Let me just tell you that as a woman of a certain age, I wholeheartedly agree with Solnit’s observations on MWEThings. Why, had two close encounters with them just last weekend, in a professional setting, where they generously explained things that happen to be my area of expertise (and which they knew nothing about, though they thought they should lecture me anyway). After it became obvious that they knew close to nothing, they just scurried away, with no acknowledgment of their ignorance or, good heavens, an apology. No doubt to nurse their bruised egos by finding some other woman to which they could explain things more thoroughly. Needless to say, I enjoyed Solnit’s article–it’s very timely, and eternally so, I’d add.

Apr 15, 2008 - 1:53 pm 62. Emanuelle:

What’s fascinating to observe is that a majority of the commenters here did exactly what Solnit described in her piece–denied the validity of her experience. And, as if that was not enough, personally attacked her.

A perfect illustration of her points.

Apr 15, 2008 - 2:04 pm 63. Cerabus:

What would a liberal be without victimhood from which to hide behind? Not much….

Amy, you are so kind to leave my posts ao that others may see what a fool for you I am.

Apr 15, 2008 - 2:11 pm 64. FP:

>Emanuelle:

>etc.

——-
A [psedo] educated wimmin.

…More vemon for the viper.

Apr 15, 2008 - 2:12 pm 65. Chuck Pelto:

TO: MarkD
RE: Really?

“It’s not all about you, honest.” — MarkD

Who’d a guessed?

Personally? I don’t give a rat’s fourth-point-of-contact about myself. But does that require me to be silent? Or ’silenced’?

You got something to contribute? Jump in. I don’t mind. Indeed, I welcome it.

However, allow me to point out that from Alkon’s perspective—and likely Solnit’s—it IS ‘all about’ me. Or, rather men like me; who know the importance of (1) expressing themselves and (2) ‘maintenance of the objective’.

So, please explain why did she ‘kill’ me?

I eagerly await your explanation.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The field behind rhetoric is oft mined with equivocation.]

Apr 15, 2008 - 2:45 pm 66. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Emanuelle
RE: Retiring Men

“After it became obvious that they knew close to nothing, they just scurried away, with no acknowledgment of their ignorance or, good heavens, an apology.” — Emanuelle

Actually. I’ve met a number of such myself.

Crossed swords with a president of a college just last week. Something about closing an city arterial route that passed through the college and my requests for information substantiating the request.

I found his responses to my questions for justification of this measure…..’disappointing’. Especially after explaining my (1) background and (2) need to know.

The point here is that YES there are men who behave thusly. Just as there are women who do such. However, the question seems to be WHICH ‘gender’ has the greater predilection to do so?

My personal experience? Suggests women.

And to re-enforce my suspicion, I offer that your comment doesn’t seem to provide any factual evidence to support your claim.

I could well say the very same think. But, I’ll wager dollars-to-donuts that if I made such a claim as you have, I’d have men AND women asking for evidence….like I ask of you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. So….

….MarkD….

….is it STILL ‘all about me’?

Apr 15, 2008 - 2:55 pm 67. FP:

>Emanuelle:

>What’s fascinating to observe is that a majority of the commenters here did exactly what Solnit described in her piece–
>denied the validity of her experience.

“denying the validity of her experience” means …challenging her. A contest to a child is not necessarilly oppression of the child. And number two, children should be controled and disciplined.

>And, as if that was not enough, personally >attacked her.

I did not agree with the type of attacks/arguments against her. Especially since I don’t want a society of hard bitten, psychologically tough females; for the harder the females, the harder the males have to be to still be the males. The problem with that is the males –unlike the females– are capped in how tough they will allow each other to be (despite feminism’s belief to the contrary). Consequently the hard bitten females will go on to be the toughest members of the community. (Christians/ american conservatives don’t think their beliefs thru, because they are anti rational [not just ir-rational].)

But solinit is not a shrinking violet–she is a political activist advocate! A speech making big mouth blabber mouth. This makes her contention (’shes being bullied’) that much more absurd.

>A perfect illustration of her points.

Actually a perfect illustration of why females shouldn’t be involved in public.

Apr 15, 2008 - 4:11 pm 68. Chuck Pelto:

TO: FP
RE: Hard-Bitten Females

“Christians/ american conservatives don’t think their beliefs thru, because they are anti rational [not just ir-rational].” — FP

May I suggest a reading?

Try the latter part of Proverbs 31….to understand the way Christians see REAL women.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Know your enemy.....-- Sun Tzu, The Art of War]

Apr 15, 2008 - 4:25 pm 69. Mary Jackson:

Chuck – once and for all – I did not delete your comments. I have no more ability to than you have to delete mine. I don’t work for PJM but send in the odd article. Two, to be precise. Which is not to denigrate PJM, but to explain the position.

I don’t have an agenda. But you do. That’s for sure. Get a life.

Apr 15, 2008 - 5:13 pm 70. Tom W.:

Chuck(le):

Are you this boring in real life?

Apr 15, 2008 - 8:15 pm 71. Misanthropicus:

Heavens! Is this thing Chuck Pelto real? Wow – now that’s a sad, sad life! Imagine, just imagine to have to sit by him in an airplane for a few hours! That’s conversational cruelty! Or, how long did his marriage last? Ever another woman considered the opportunity? Terrible, terrible – what a boring, humorless & full of nen-sequiturs nag! What a sad life, surfing the web just to fart in every room annoyance and irritation!
P.S. “[...] surfing the web just to fart [...]” Correction, actually he’s surfing the web when he’s not in the mall by the bathrooms, beach hat, sunglasses, walkman, trenchcoat, hands in the pocket, ogling who ever goes in/out.

Apr 16, 2008 - 2:01 am 72. alison:

Wow Snippet. You sheathed your long knife and whipped out a nail file – you’re a man with a full arsenal.

Apr 16, 2008 - 2:31 am 73. FP:

>Chuck Pelto:

TO: FP
RE: Hard-Bitten Females

“Christians/ american conservatives don’t think their beliefs thru, because they are anti rational [not just ir-rational].” —

May I suggest a reading?

Try the latter part of Proverbs 31….to understand the way Christians see REAL women.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Know your enemy…..– Sun Tzu, The Art of War]
>

———-
I do know my enemy.

By “real christians” you really mean cults from the outback.

“Real christianity’s” belief regarding females (or anything else) is a manifestation of the rustic pyschological effect that occured during the colonial occupation of the continent.

The mainstream of christianity is christianity and it is liberal at its psychological root and it always has been. From its inception through its entire history in Europe, it is a cult of infantiles and slave dolts getting rid of the better men; this ultimately leads to “feminism”, the same way geting rid of the alpha male wolves leads to a she-wolf coup against the puppy males that are left over.

The fact so called “real christians” (the various neo-masculine cults of the rustic american out back) allowed themselves to
be so easily marginalized and demonized (and if we are to believe that they are the “real christians” then also “hijacked and
redefined”) and _conscripted_ as warriors against themselves is all I need to know about my enemies and my allies.

If you have a need to believe in the boogieman in the sky who looks out for you and is always on “your” side whatever your biologic compunction, then Islam is a much better way to go. It at its inception is a society creator, while christianty is a society destroyer (first Rome than the North Euro out back). Note though (and this is a problem): If Euro males did convert to Islam, I presume that they –and especially the north western types– being left over puppies, would warp islam into a chivalrous feminist religion.

Christianity has had plenty of time to put up a successful contest to liberalism. But what it has done instead is be the pyschological underpinning of liberalism’s motivation (through its desire to emasculate everyone) –_and fought all its wars for it, for over a century_.

A given thing is not what you want to believe it is or what it says it is as ink on paper. A thing is what it actually is in reality. Christianty –just like capitalism– is the backbone root of feminist ascendency –”proof is in the pudding”:
Feminism is unique to the christian capitalist world. Coincidence? Or proof in the pudding?

——
>Proverbs 31….

Is that the one where ‘wimmin should not cutteth their hair shorteth?’

Doesn’t do anything.

I like the one where ‘the enemy babies are smasheth upon the rocks’.

Eugenics is good; ‘turn the other cheek’ is bad. You teach people how to treat you. Old testament is for building cultures; the new testament is for under-minning them. (The new testament vibe –and the lingering effects of the early monk’s desire to geld the barbarians– is preventing us from instituting the ‘wimmin hair style’ policies of proverbs.)

Know your enemy… indeed.

———
What I meant by the comment “…[american /christians] are anti rational (not just ir-rational)” was amercians have
demonstrated that they are anti intellectual, historically (especially when it comes to the cause and effect epiphannies of
the naturalist materialist “darwin” thing). This is preventing them from solving problems because they don’t properly diagnose them; and it is likewise preventing them from processing the domino effects of the things they do allow, advocate, fight for and create.

Apr 16, 2008 - 2:31 am 74. Snippet:

Alison:

I’m just trying to make it in a wimmin’s world.

Apr 16, 2008 - 4:56 am 75. alison:

“womyn” “wimmin”

Well, there’s a start right there Snippet. Next you’ll find they are individuals who don’t all share Rebecca’s opinion and who knows what doors will open for you.

Apr 16, 2008 - 7:30 am 76. TalkinKamel:

Men silencing women is as nothing compared to the way women silence other women. Even condescending men take the trouble to be, well, condescending. When a woman wants to put you down, she just goes for the jugular. I once attended an all-female writer’s workshop; it was like going swimming, circled by angry sharks. Never again!

Apr 16, 2008 - 2:11 pm 77. ddc:

Emmanuelle,

“What’s fascinating to observe is that a majority of the commenters here did exactly what Solnit described in her piece–denied the validity of her experience. And, as if that was not enough, personally attacked her.

A perfect illustration of her points.”

Good point. +++++

Apr 16, 2008 - 5:07 pm 78. Amy Alkon:

This isn’t the case. And Chuck, I’ve only banned, I believe, five people, since 2003 — most of them for posting libelous stuff under the name of an actual real person. (One woman in Wisconsin pretended to be a guy in Texas from “Ain’t It Cool.”)

Plenty of people of faith post on my site and are not banned, because I believe that free and open debate is the best way to advance thought on an issue. Also, I really enjoy it. You have to be REPEATEDLY abusive to get banned from my site, and to a great degree. Shockingly, it seems I’m one of many people who has considered you repeatedly abusive. If many of those who ban you are atheists, perhaps that’s because you post on a lot of atheists’ sites, and are anything but “Christian” in your behavior.

Finally, I bet a lot of people here post on a number of sites. Like me, they have probably never been banned by one of them. And not because they necessarily have opinions concurring with those whose sites they post on, but because they are not abusive jerks who turn every discussion into a personal grandstanding opportunity. When you buy the bandwidth, you’re free to turn your own comments section into a tedious and highly repetitive flurry of posts about your MENSA membership, and what it means. Have at it.

Misanthropicus, above, clearly gets it.

To Emmanuelle: I’m 44, and what does age have to do with being gutless? I know ballsy older women who wouldn’t let themselves be silenced by anybody, man or woman. And let’s be clear on this: She wasn’t actually silenced, she simply didn’t have the courage or personal fortitude to speak up. Perhaps she can get by in the knitting circle with this sort of behavior, but in the real world, you have to unzip the old lip and stand up for yourself. If women want equality, they actually have to act equal, not demand special treatment under the guise of equal treatment. Naturally, you try to connect this with some form of persecution.

As for this from Emmanuelle: “Denied the validity of her experience”

Oh, please. People dispute what other people say all the time. I do it to men and women. The fact that Solnit is so limp as a human being that she can’t dispute their disputation using her words at the time, instead of the LA Times probably years later, isn’t a reason to blame men, but a reason to go in for some apparently much-needed therapy.

Here, let me help. The late Albert Ellis, one of the cofounders of cognitive behavioral therapy, has a list of therapists around the world who were trained by his non-profit Institute: http://www.albertellisinstitute.org/aei/index.html#

Apr 16, 2008 - 11:55 pm 79. Snippet:

alison said: Well, there’s a start right there Snippet. Next you’ll find they (women/womyn/wimmin) are individuals who don’t all share Rebecca’s opinion and who knows what doors will open for you.

Actually, this sort of intellectual individualism is a masculinist/patriarchal conspiracy to break cohesive groups up into little pieces, so they can be preyed upon and exploited.

Real women/womyn/wimmin never stray from the One Truth.

That’s what my university-assigned re-education counselor told me, and she’s never been wrong. In fact, she has taught me how to view the world in such a way that it is literally impossible for her to ever be “wrong.”

I have a long way to go, but I think I’m getting it.

Apr 17, 2008 - 5:49 am 80. I am beautiful when I'm angry:

[...] of Jack & Hill Nancy and Amy have both sounded off today with some righteous fury about a recent trend in journalism: the [...]

Apr 17, 2008 - 6:46 am 81. Jim:

I agree with the feminists on most issues. I am proudly pro-choice. I believe that a woman should be able to be whatever she wants to be. I believe that not every woman will be satisfied with a life as wife and mother. I believe that the double standard that calls a man is a “stud”, but a woman who exhibits the same behavior is a “slut” is hypocritical. I believe that young women should be able to enjoy sex without being judged for it. I believe that popular culture sells horrible and degrading messages to young women. I also believe that socialization based on gender stereotypes puts women at a serious disadvantage in the world.

That being said, the problem I have with feminism is that most feminists embrace victimhood instead of moving beyond it. I don’t think I have to tell anyone here that if a woman sees herself as a victim, then she is probably going to remain one. Yes, women have been wronged throughout history. But there comes a time when you have to stop complaining and start becoming the change you want to see. If a man tries to verbally dominate a discussion, speak up! (Hint: It’s not because you are a woman – these same men try to do this to other men all the time.) If you don’t like domineering, misogynist jerks, don’t date them! There are plenty of men out there who appreciate a confident woman who can think for herself.

Of course, I also have little patience for the men who whine about feminism because they can’t get laid. They are the male version of the feminist victim. Also, there are the women who want equality until it’s time to pay for the date. With rights come responsibilities. Either you are an equal or you are not. You can’t have it both ways.

Apr 17, 2008 - 6:52 am 82. Amy Alkon:

Sorry, forgot this — Kimberly makes a great point: a woman who’s published a 2,000-word whine about nothing other than her ridiculous opinion – in a national newspaper, no less – is claiming solidarity with women who are forbidden by law to vote, drive, or show their faces in public?

Circulation of the LA Times on Sunday, the day Solnit’s piece was published — in the op-ed section headed up by a man:
1,253,849

They say, next to this figure on the LAT’s site, “The Times Sunday circulation is greater than the next 10 largest local newspapers –
combined!”

And, excuse me, this is a woman who’s been “silenced” by men?

Apr 17, 2008 - 7:41 am 83. Amy Alkon:

Also, there are the women who want equality until it’s time to pay for the date. With rights come responsibilities. Either you are an equal or you are not. You can’t have it both ways.

Equal doesn’t mean biologically the same, and this is a common error people make. I write about this stuff — and based on data, not just on my opinion. Men need to pursue women. We have very old psychology that doesn’t know from birth control. I’m not saying men should always be the ones who pay, but the guy should do the asking, and should pay on the first and probably the second date. And these dates should not be dinner (you don’t treat a near-stranger to dinner — it’s a sign that you’re scammable/desperate), but drinks. If you can’t afford to buy a girl a couple drinks, you need to go earn a living before you start dating. Men prioritize looks in a woman in a way women don’t in men, and women prioritize men’s status and ability to provide — even women earning millions of dollars look for a richer, more powerful man. It’s basic evolutionary biology, and 40 or so years of feminism and the invention of the pill haven’t changed our genes (researcher Don Symons says that takes hundreds or thousands of generations, I believe).

Apr 17, 2008 - 7:47 am 84. Chuck Pelto:

TO: FP
RE: Knowing Your ‘Enemy’

“I do know my enemy.” — FP

I have serious doubts to your veracity here.

Allow me to point out WHY.

“By “real christians” you really mean cults from the outback.” — FP

You don’t know me, buckie. Especially with THAT comment. Or are you a columnist for the WaPo?

I crossed swords with one of them back in the 90s about this sort of disingenuous tripe.

Ask Amy about my back ground. Maybe she’ll even tell the truth.

““Real christianity’s” belief regarding females (or anything else) is a manifestation of the rustic pyschological effect that occured during the colonial occupation of the continent.” — FP