Significant Pink UFOs

Just shoot me.

AS THE “first pet” of the Clinton era, Socks, the White House cat, allowed “chilly” Hillary Clinton to show a caring, maternal side as well as bringing joy to her daughter Chelsea. So where is Socks today?

Once the presidency was over, there was no room for Socks any more. After years of loyal service at the White House, the black and white cat was dumped on Betty Currie, Bill Clinton’s personal secretary, who also had an embarrassing clean-up role in the saga of his relationship with the intern Monica Lewinsky.

Some believe the abandoned pet could now come between Hillary Clinton and her ambition to return to the White House as America’s first woman president....

Clinton’s treatment of Socks cuts to the heart of the questions about her candidacy. Is she too cold and calculating to win the presidency? Or does it signify political invincibility by showing she is willing to deploy every weapon to get what she wants?

This is one of the fucking stupidest fucking things ever written about the Clintons in a major newspaper, which is going some. What the fuck is wrong with the Times of London? Giving a pet you don't think you can care for properly to a family friend who can is not abandoning it, and... oh dear sweet Christ, just forget it. This story "cuts to the heart" of neither jack nor shit, though it does show pretty clearly that the media is completely obsessed with trivial bullshit.

Here's the punchline:

“In the annals of human evil, off-loading a pet is nowhere near the top of the list,” writes Caitlin Flanagan in the current issue of The Atlantic magazine. “But neither is it dead last, and it is especially galling when said pet has been deployed for years as an all-purpose character reference.”

Caitlin Flanagan, is it? Quelle surprise.

Comments

[NTodd]

Somebody needs to give away Caitlin Flanagan.

[feh]

zuzu's article by itself is just an angry screed. She doesn't make her point and she misses Flanagan's point.

In the excerpts that Zuzu quotes, Flanagan isn't saying "The Democrats left me", that's the Althouse pose, I am forced to vote for GWB because Kerry is a french guy that can't speak to the common person like George can and Kerry can't win the war."

Flanagan is saying, "Goddamn it, I am a yellow dog Democrat and I believe strongly in this party and I won't let your political correctness stop me from saying what I have to say."

And frankly, with organizations like FIRE (thefire.org) documenting through successful lawsuits the various speech codes on campuses and Free Speech feminists like Wendy Kaminer and Nadine Strossen discussing issues of political correctness, there's a lot to be said in favor of Flanagan's position.

Note, zuzu recently called out Yglesias for his male privilege based on Yglesias deciding that some study was questionable because its conclusions did not seem to fit reality as Yglesias experienced it.

Lots of people, zuzu included, dismiss lots of studies without reading them because conclusions do not seem to fit reality.

That's what people do. That's what people with experience do.

There was nothing male privileged about Yglesias view or experience, it was just a lazy and convenient way for zuzu to whip up agreement if not hate.

(Have we forgotten that we all were eating bran muffins for ten years there due to a famous study of 11 people?)

I don't know Flanagan from Finnegan, but I lived in Berkeley for 11 of the best years of my life, and while I consider myself a leftist and a yellow dog democrat, there are certainly lots of ignorant, unthinking, illiberal, anti-semitic, illogical bullies in the Berkeley scene. I am X because my friends are X. I am X because I bothered to discover what the alternative is. I am X because X is popular. I am X because the media says and I trust the media. (This sort of behavior is observable at virtually all such scenes. Sturgeon's law, 90% of everything is crap.)

I don't know Zuzu from Omega, but she is not afraid to be a bully and she won't shirk from it.

Majikthise seems to make the same argument.

Note once more, the Dems left me, I didn't leave them is NOT what Flanagan says. Her message is as she says, in the Time article Majikthise links to is "we're here, we're square, get used to it." and "I'm not leaving"

The Dems left me? Althouse, Neo-neocon, roger l simon, those assholes.

Disagreeing with aspects or much of feminism or perhaps even all of feminism does not make a person anti-woman, or a Republican.

Arguably, it may mean you are not a progressive liberal, but I don't think that's true at all. I think there is plenty of evidence, and people, that are completely and obviously progressive liberals when you examine their writings and behaviors and disagree with aspects or even much of feminism.

By the way, here's a better link to the timesonline article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2702804.ece

Which references this Atlantic Piece by Flanagan (available to Atlantic Subscribers, but why subscribe to the Atlantic, Fallows is amazingly great, but that's about it for that mag.)

Also, it appears to be available here, though there seem to be some differences:

http://www.powells.com/review/2007_10_09.html

It turns out that Flanagan is writing about much more than Socks, and what she talks about is much of what the blogosphere talks about, which in some sense is summarized by what I think I once read in Atrios' comments. "If Hillary were half as liberal as the right wing makes her about to be, I would be twice as enthusiastic about voting for her."

But if it's easier and more comfortable to rest with zuzu and majikthise and cast Flanagan into an Althouse, then well, so it goes.

[feh]

That should be: I am X because I haven't bothered to discover what the alternative is.

[Hecate]

My memory is that Socks was Chelsea's pet and Chelsea, as well-raised children do, grew up and moved away. Her dad, meanwhile, got a dog -- not an usual thing for an empty-nester dad to do, to whom he became attackd. Dog and Socks were not friends. Dad's secretary agreed to take Socks when the Clintons moved.

I'm not sure what Hil had to do w/ it.

I hope that when she's elected,she gets a boa as a pet and allows it to twine around her during speeches.

I do.

[Thers]

Feh:

Amanda Marcotte... GO!

[NTodd]

I hope that when she's elected,she gets a boa as a pet and allows it to twine around her during speeches.

This is precisely what caused Man to be expelled from Eden, and why a woman will NEVER be President.

[Echidne]

tsk, tsk. No link to my diatribes about Dear Caitlin? I read all her Atlantic book reviews at one point and took about six months to recover.

[zuzu]

Oh... it's feh. I guess I'm his Amanda.

Bill was allergic to Socks.

[julia]

Aw, gee, why would anyone want to move away from Caitlin Flanagan? It's an abiding mystery.

Maybe they just prefer whiny hypocritical privileged "full-time" mothers with full-time jobs and servants raising their children who write their own articles?

[julia]

Wow, is feh a man? I thought it was Caitlin Flanagan googling herself.

The Observer article has moved. It's here.

[feh]

I consider you both to be sexist bullies, but Amanda strives to be Ann Coulter: make outrageous statements, offend people, and then refuse to take any responsibility and claim it's a joke. It's certainly what feminism and progressivism need, our own Ann Coulter.

You're just a bully that doesn't want to give up your lazy bullying, or acknowledge your own privileges, and come on, which "pundit" does?

[julia]

"Our" own Ann Coulter?

You a feminist, feh?

By the way, since you claim not to be familiar with Ms. Flanagan's work, you might want to follow a few links. If she were in fact ours (something none of "us" believes), Caitlin Flanagan would be "our" Ann Coulter.

I do agree with you that we don't need her.

[NTodd]

I consider you both to be sexist bullies

Boohoohoohoohoo! Ann Althouse is among us!

Fetch me an eclair...

[Thers]

zuzu is a "bully"?

Hadn't noticed.

[¡El Gato Negro!]

make outrageous statements, offend people, and then refuse to take any responsibility

Joo of course can provide examples of one or two...

(bathe, bathe)

[feh]

zuzu senses male privilege by Matt Yglesias, but really and truly can't discuss it outside her heavily moderated blog.

I think it's wanking to call male privilege when Occam's Razor suggests there are other factors at work. I think it's bullying to call male privilege for an activity that everyone (including many feminists) performs. I think it's especially bullying to do so on the pages of a blog where comments are moderated so heavily and then to refuse to discuss it when called on that at other blogs.

We all agree Flanagan is not a feminist. Julia, your links, which I did read, showed that lots of people dislike Flanagan and many dislike her because she is not a feminist or because she's rich and a hypocrite. It didn't show that she is either a Republican or not a Democrat. So I wasn't sure what you were trying to suggest.

Yes, I consider myself a feminist, and I have since I was in middle school in the early 70s. I don't consider myself to be a "modern mainstream feminist" -- I find I agree more with the Wendy Kaminers and Nadine Strossens. The First Amendment comes first and As First Amendment Feminist Wendy Kaminer said, "But if the fallacy underlying much conservative opposition to sexual or racial preferences is the assumption that without them life would be a meritocracy, liberal advocacy of affirmative action often reflects another fallacy: the assumption that the use of group preferences is cost-free and that the socially desirable goal of racial and ethnic diversity can be met without harming individuals or violating fundamental liberties."

and

"My notions of justice require that we treat people as individuals and that we don't use sex as a predictor of character or behavior any more than we use race."

Thers, I am not surprised you don't see zuzu as a bully. There's a certain "friend of my friend is my friend" and "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "to be a full person, I must 100% agree with feminism and what it advocates" present in abundance in our side of the blogosphere. I wish you did see things differently, and I think one day you will, but it doesn't surprise me that you don't at this time.

It's a shame because as Jessica Valenti, et. al., note, young women do not see feminism as a title, label, or movement to embrace. They apparently flee from it.

If you and I in the reality based community were to find our views similarly mistrusted and disliked, we would go around asking people why they thought that was, and actually listening to what they had to say. We would consider if other people maybe right and we maybe wrong.

If as a confident progressive you attempt to have a discussion at at many of our brighter sites, and the site bullies immediately label you as a concern troll, because god forbid anyone say anything bad about "our side". Do that at many feminist sites and you are dismissed and labeled as an anti-feminist, and quite likely banned. And there are many academics that have felt worse abuse on campus. (See thefire.org for more.)

So you can argue with me and call me names (NTodd) because you don't like what I say, or you can attack my argument and say, "zuzu DID make her point" or "Flanagan's position IS like Althouse."

You can go back to the Yglesias link and the zuzu post it points to and say "Yglesias WAS speaking from male privilege".

You can argue that Kaminer and Strossen aren't feminists or explain why the first amendment does need to sit down and stfu on campus (and elsewhere).

You can argue that Daphne Patai and many other feminists that have documented the thought police in the women's studies department were wrong or disgruntled or what have you,

You can do what zuzu does and just inflate yourself to the Holy Amanda Marcotte and be proud of yourself and avoid any questions about your bullying.

Whatever, enjoy your blogtopia. I hope it's everything you wish it could be.

[feh]

make outrageous statements, offend people, and then refuse to take any responsibility

Joo of course can provide examples of one or two...

(El Gato Negro, your schtick is getting a bit tiresome.)

Yes, many of us noticed Amanda's take on Duke at the Airport.

I'll point you to KC Johnson, the liberal and Obama supporter, the historian that had to fight various thought police in his own department. (Google for Johnson's story of his tenure battle. Really interesting tale of what happens in tenure discussions.)

Marcotte white papers over her Duke Airport rapist comments by saying in essence "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

(One of Amanda's dirty secrets is how many feminists, gays, transgendered hate her because of her privilege and the way she uses it to lie and smear other people. No links to that, cause I'm hungry for dinner. And that you can find using google and looking for her on the gay and transgendered blogs. But lots of people including left, libertarian, right, men, women, gay, straight, white, people of color dislike Amanda because of Amanda's behavior and her refusal to take responsibility for her actions. And that behavior is documented if you look for it. Ask echidne, she knows some of this.)

[julia]

um.

feh, I really, really think you need to get out more.

[zuzu]

zuzu senses male privilege by Matt Yglesias, but really and truly can't discuss it outside her heavily moderated blog.

Yeah, except for all those comments I left over at Yglesias' place.

Please explain how a woman who makes a living pissing all over working women can claim the title of feminist.

[Molly Ivors]

Please explain how a woman who makes a living pissing all over working women can claim the title of feminist.

Well, she has a job.

(I keed! I keed!)

We have an especial distaste for Caitlin Flanagan around these parts, because we know she didn't have to turn out this way. Nothing's more depressing than a decent human being gone astray.

[Thers]

Thers, I am not surprised you don't see zuzu as a bully. There's a certain "friend of my friend is my friend" and "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "to be a full person, I must 100% agree with feminism and what it advocates" present in abundance in our side of the blogosphere

What if I just see zuzu as a friend?

[zuzu]

Awww!

[NTodd]

I'm still a little hazy on the "bully" thing. Did zuzu post her targets' home addresses and threaten their kids? No? Then it seems pretty fucking hard to "bully" anybody online...

[Jeff Fecke]

feh, are you sure you're not one of the MRA's from Shakesville in disguise? 'Cause that would explain a lot.

One of Amanda's dirty secrets is how many feminists, gays, transgendered hate her because of her privilege and the way she uses it to lie and smear other people. No links to that, cause I'm hungry for dinner.

Well! I'm convinced!

[feh]

Yeah, except for all those comments I left over at Yglesias' place.

Only one of your comments addressed the male privilege charge, and the one that did address it merely asked, "Meanwhile, perhaps you could explain what was so sexist about pointing out that Matt's perspective on this matter is a little limited, given that he's never going to face the choice of whether or not to abort." I immediately pointed out that your response was sexist on its face, "Matt can't think X because he doesn't have female genitals" And you never addressed the issue again at Yglesias blog though others asked and discussed the issue. To contrast, at your own heavily moderated blog, you were seen the next day again stating that The problem is that he can’t see the full range of incentives that are relevant, so he thinks that women would respond more to illegality than they do. Because, again, he’s never going to know the sheer terror that a pregnancy scare can produce. He’s never going to have to worry about having another mouth to feed, or whether this will destroy his health, or being tied to an abusive husband, or what have you.

Matt supports choice. Few people would claim Matt is not a liberal. But Matt, and any male will always be trumped because their genitals make it such that their brains cannot conceive of the actual details, facts, and theories that women can.

That's not saying "Matt has a limited perspective", and I don't understand how anyone can claim that your arguments are not a sexist attack.

Please explain how a woman who makes a living pissing all over working women can claim the title of feminist.

No one here says that Flanagan is a feminist. The question in your article is whether she identifies as a Democrat or as an Althousian "The Democrats left me...." In fact what she says is that "You and I may disagree about feminism, but not on other issues, and I'm not leaving the Democrats, no matter how much you try to push me out, get used to it."

NTodd you pose a quaint and old fashioned definition of what bullying is. Not surprising given your usual behavior in the Atrios' comments. The rest of us understand that verbal harassment, calls for shunning, systematic name calling, dehumanization, and labeling of a person as "an other" or exclusion from an "in group" constitutes bullying.

When zuzu goes beyond the logic and the data and states that Matt cannot think things correctly because he is a male, and when she is joined in that behavior by her colleagues Jill and Amanda many people (NTodd excepted) would conclude that's a sexist, bullying attack the point of which may be to either keep Yglesias in line, keep others in your group in line, suggest to outsiders they need to respect the line, or just whip up fervor in the group.

It's pretty much the kind of ingroup crap most of us came online to avoid while seeking out rational conversations.

Thers, that you consider her a friend speaks well for you, I guess. de gustibus non est disputandum.

[zuzu]

Or, you know, point out that Matt's talking out his ass on gender issues.

[Spokane Moderate]

The rod up feh's butt must have a rod up its butt.

[feh]

If you want to point out that Matt is talking out his ass on gender issues, that is a perfectly fine argument. And it is made by me and others on Matt's blog ALL of the time.

But that's not what you did.

You said Matt was incapable of a certain kind of thought, and by extension, most men, or all men are incapable of a certain kind of thought, and that is not because we are not aware of the situation, but because our reproductive organs do not have your approved configuration so as to enable us to understand that thought.

Few would claim that Yglesias, when given the facts will not acknowledge them.

Fewer people would claim that Matt, when given the facts and an argument, would not understand the facts or the argument. But that's exactly what you did, and you said that was due to his being unable to give birth.

You said Matt, due to his penis and lack of even one ovary, is unable to understand why a woman might get even a dangerous abortion and why that is rational choice.

I think Matt understands the facts. I think Matt understands the argument. I think he may disagree with you. That is not male privilege. That is called a disagreement.

As I said earlier, your going to male privilege is wankery and bullying.

[Thers]

Feh, I think you've ground your axe pretty much to the haft by this point. Arguing in comments about an argument in someone else's comments is getting too met even for me...

[NTodd]

NTodd you pose a quaint and old fashioned definition of what bullying is. Not surprising given your usual behavior in the Atrios' comments. The rest of us understand that verbal harassment, calls for shunning, systematic name calling, dehumanization, and labeling of a person as "an other" or exclusion from an "in group" constitutes bullying.

Oh, boofuckinghoohoohoo. Get over yourself, you whiny little pissant.

[NTodd]

Or, you know, point out that Matt's talking out his ass on gender issues.

Posted by: zuzu | October 22, 2007 at 01:28 PM

The rod up feh's butt must have a rod up its butt.

Posted by: Spokane Moderate | October 22, 2007 at 03:51 PM

YOU MEAN OLD BULLIES!

[runs home, sobbing, trips over shorts, pisses self laughing]

[Righteous Bubba]

Arguing in comments about an argument in someone else's comments is getting too met even for me...

There can be only one blogosphere.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Here's my argument in a nutshell.

Flanagan claims that she's being snubbed at the cocktail parties of the New York intelligentsia. Specifically, she maintains that people are hostile towards her because she's married with children.

If Flanagan is getting the cold should at tony parties, it's not because she's a housewife. First off, she's not a traditional housewife in any sense of the word.

Some stay-at-home parents feel isolated and alienated from the public sphere because they give up their outside interests and public personae in order to care for their children.

However, Flanagan is not in that position. She's an author who publishes in the New Yorker and the Atlantic.

Those are gold-plated credentials. To New York's "high brow" writers and pundits, Flanagan's achievement are analogous to being a CEO in the Fortune 500.

The fact is, Flanagan is a working woman raising a family. In the circles she travels in, that's the norm, not some outre exception. That's wonderful. I wish everyone had as much freedom to pursue their careers and raise a family.

There's no way anyone is looking down on Flanagan for being married or having children or making Halloween decorations out of dried corncobs.

Flanagan also claims to care about a socially liberal agenda. She hates war, she loves the environment, she cherishes reproductive choice, etc.

Okay, let's suppose that she's right that some people in her predominantly Democratic social set are being mean to her for whatever inscrutable reason.

Is it rational to think the solution is to support the Republican Party--even though the Republican platform goes against values she claims to hold dear? Does this playground mentality reflect well on Flanagan as a political thinker? No.

Entertaining the idea makes her look obtuse and frivolous.

[NTodd]

Lindsay's a big bully.

[feh]

Is it rational to think the solution is to support the Republican Party--even though the Republican platform goes against values she claims to hold dear? Does this playground mentality reflect well on Flanagan as a political thinker? No.

Entertaining the idea makes her look obtuse and frivolous.

Knowing nothing about Flanagan but the links above, one to TIME, and one to her Atlantic review that I read at Powell's books, I don't see Flanagan supporting the Republican Party. Does she do that somewhere?

I'll note that we have seen NARAL support Republicans which was great for them and horrible for the rest of us.

I think Flanagan has a point though, I have no idea why unions today are pro-Democrat, because as Democrats we mostly disrespect the union agenda the union member itself. We have lots of free trading, outsource supporting Democrats, who, like Brad DeLong say the answer is not fair trade, but free trade with a better social network. Though we've NEVER seen any Democrat able to get that better social network in place since 1980, the DeLongs still say, "Free Trade with a better social network."

And as for the union laborers, we send their jobs away, and we pretty much do play into their fears of the horrors of identity politics. And one way we do that is to fall into the trap that Wendy Kaminer points out:

But if the fallacy underlying much conservative opposition to sexual or racial preferences is the assumption that without them life would be a meritocracy, liberal advocacy of affirmative action often reflects another fallacy: the assumption that the use of group preferences is cost-free and that the socially desirable goal of racial and ethnic diversity can be met without harming individuals or violating fundamental liberties."

The collective punishments, the zero tolerance policies, the speech codes, all of that unnecessarily pushes many Americans into the hands of the Republicans.

JFK initiated affirmative action, but it was not a collective punishment affirmative action, but a collective reward affirmative action.

Jeez, why vote Republican? Well, it seems that many of the antiwar candidates that actually understand how to pushback in the Congress are Republican.

Between DiFi, and what seems to be a powerless or clueless Reid or Pelosi, taking impeachment off the table, I can't say I am convinced that the best alternative is not a Republican.

Bernie Sanders, an independent, was heard saying on the Thomm Hartmann show that while he disagrees is almost every way with Ron Paul's social policies, that Sanders considers Ron Paul to have real integrity as a person.

Apart from Sanders and Feingold (and Franken) and a few others (Waxman, Conyers, ...), I would definitely take a good long look at a slate of Republicans with real integrity.

Anyway, I am curious if you can point us to where Flanagan advocated support of the Republican Party.

[Thers]

feh, are you at all familiar with the term "baited"?

[feh]

Uh, yes and no. If you wanted to spell it out for me, I honestly would appreciate that.

[Thers]

5:09 PM

[Pinko Punko]

Well, for my money, which is a meaningless expression, I'd like to see this thread go the way of Lindsay's comment. Just make your points, kids. My point is that if you'd like to wrap every known or hypothesized mega-cliche about Hillary Clinton being some sort of hollow opportunist, sinking to the lowest of the lows, exploiting a widdle kiddy cat for her emotionless agenda of whatever, then it is impossible for me to respect you. You have no apparent understanding for how major figures are portrayed in our media society, nor do you seem to have a clue about the sexist stereotypes bubbling through history to both push a particular femininity on women, and to punish those who take nonconforming roles that deviate from this particular femininity.

Even if feh is massively annoying to various persons or personages, just ignore or engage.

I'll start (just use this as your openers, kids):

"Leaving aside any axes feh wishes to grind concerning Matthew Yglesias or zuzu, in order to keep this argument from becoming multidimensional and impossible to follow, I will restrict myself to points a, b, c. After discussion of these points, I will possibly respond to feh's assertions of x, y, z, after reading the backstory of 30 posts and 1000 comments and the pure concentrated grudgery relating to Amanda Marcotte. I sadly will not be able to support the scratching out of her eyes, regardless of the Byzantine consortium of gay, straight, transgendered, cisgendered, vegetarian, meatatarian, Pastafarian, purple, alien and others arrayed against her media empire, known as a fucking blog."

[zuzu]

I find it incredible that Flanagan can attack Clinton on rehoming a cat she was never really that connected with (it was Chelsea's, after all) when we have Mitt Romney strapping his dog to the roof of the car for 12 hours and hosing him down mid-trip when the stress and fear made him lose control of his bowels.

I don't have a subscription, but I doubt she mentioned that little factoid, next to which giving Socks to a couple who had the time and inclination to care for him is insignificant.

Her timing's a little off, too, what with the whole Ellen DeGeneres saga of rehoming a dog, only to have the rescue group snatch it away. Many people are sympathetic to Ellen, and aren't likely to see what Clinton did as too far removed from that.

[aimai]

I think people are missing the point of the attack on Clinton for whatever happened to Socks. Its pretty clear that whatever her other failings Clinton was a damned good mother. Chelsea has turned out well and even the right wing has to acknowledge that she did so while, at the same time, knowing in their hearts that Mr. and Mrs. Family Values Bush produced two drunken party girls so illmannered and thoughtless they were asked to leave a foreign country (Chile, I think) by our own ambassador.

The attack on Hillary for handing off the cat simply stands in for the attack that Flanagan would otherwise be making if Hillary were younger and Chelsea were younger. Its a proxy for "she's not really maternal *at all.*" Of course the flip side if, somehow, Hillary could be argued to be so attached to her cat that she "travels everywhere with it" or if she "said in an interview how much she misses her cat" we would be treated to endless rounds of either "fake" or "see, sentimental wimmins, they're not cut out for military leadership."

oddly, no one ever said that about Mr. "I need my special pillow" Bush. But that is part of the gendering of the two parties in which traits that are seen as indicative of feminine weakness in a female democratic candidate (or a democratic male candidate on the way to being feminized) are indicative of charming, down home, normalcy in a republican male.

Let us be honest, despite Feh's attempts to derail all conversation, and admit that Flanagan's shtick, like Jacoby and Althouse, Brooks and a host of others is simply to launder right wing smears and present them as personal medidations arrived at after long thought. since in every case we can predict the entire column (rather like a mallard fillmore strip) two months before it is written I think we can dismiss the sincereity or thoughtfullness of their writing for what it is: more shtick.

aimai

[feh]

Yeah, so I apologize Thers, but I couldn't figure out what you meant by that. I think I saw that as bait of some sort, but I didn't understand your message, so I sidestepped it. Sometimes I need clearer instructions, so for instance, aimai's claim that I am derailing the thread by discussing how zuzu's article that you linked to failed to prove zuzu's point is really helpful.

zuzu, I don't think Flanagan is a Romney supporter. Does every "attack" on one of our Democratic contenders have to be balanced by an attack on a Republican?

Also zuzu, since I provided the link to the review at Powell's it's rather telling that you decided you couldn't read the actual review and determine what the main thrust of the review was. Hint: the main thrust of the review was not about Socks, that's justs what the UK Times Online decided to lead with because they are the fair and balanced media.

Still asking for the link to where Flanagan supports the Repubican Party (she might, as I said, I know jack shit about her.) But I can point you to the links where Jacoby, Althouse, Brooks and a host of others do.

This seems to be a "Get Your Hate On" thread. I understand we're not supposed to like Flanagan, it would be nice if you folks would post the links to support your claims.

[aimai]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the thread was "all about Feh." Next time I'll write all about Feh. However, my points about Flannagan stand. She makes her living writing contrarian "I love my life as a homemaker" and "screw you NY" stuff *for wealthy upper class new yorkers* and is occasionally read and referred to by right wing culture warriors as one of their own. She is supposed to tell the rest of us feminists that we got it all wrong--and she does so with alarming frequency--while living a life of luxury and wealth that few aspire to. Her martha stewartesque life style is wholly supported by a rich sugar daddy and although she represents it as a "choice" between evil work in public and noble maternal sacrifice her actual accounts of her life reveal her to be (evilly) working for lucre while relying on the labor of lower class women to construct the ideal household she claims all women want to run themselves. Even more grotesquely, she thinks that not working and sacrificing for her husband (which she doesn't do but never mind, its her shtick) results in his caring more for her when she was sick than other women's husbands care for them. She traduced all of us, working and non working mothers, when she wrote passionately about how she had wisely traded off personal fulfillment in exchange for her husband not abandoning her when she had cancer. Mysteriously, the rest of us chose men who did not require utter self abnegation (fake or real) to give us lifetime respect and love. She's not only a faux feminist, she's practically a faux human being.

aimai

[julia]

Um, feh? She wrote an essay about being a "yellow-dog Democrat" in which, because journalists who are working mothers (at least one of whom is not a Democrat) disagreed with the (somewhat dishonest) content and (needlessly provocative) manner of something she'd written, she announced that Democrats are forcing mothers Who Really Care About Their Children out of the party by being hostile to their interests.

People who have read her work are looking at her current ginned-up buy-my-book controversial statements (named friends are quoted in one of the linked articles as saying that she says outrageous things to offend people deliberately to get free publicity) from the position of knowing something about her work. You, on the other hand, are arguing with their analysis for some reason other than knowing anything about what they're discussing. As you keep repeating that you haven't read her work (much of which is available online, btw) you're really not qualified to discuss it. Looking at the reviews on Amazon is not a substitute.

The fact that the hearing you're getting for taking that stance is less respectful than you'd prefer has as little to do with anyone here getting their hate on as Flanagan's pity party does with the Democrats being hostile to mothers who don't work for money (a group she doesn't belong to).

None of it is really all that complicated.

Now, might you have gotten a more sympathetic hearing if you hadn't made it clear that you're here with fists flying to carry on the next battle of some war you think you're having in some other comment section and you aren't the least bit interested in what everyone else is here to discuss?

Try it some time and see.

[feh]

Julia,

Here's Caitlin Flanagan:

"despite all that, there is apparently no room for me in the Democratic Party. In fact, I have spent much of the past week on a forced march to the G.O.P. And the bayonet at my back isn't in the hands of the Republicans; the Democrats are the bullyboys. Such lions of the left as Barbara Ehrenreich, the writers at Salon and much of the Upper West Side of Manhattan have made it abundantly clear to me that I ought to start packing my bags."

Here's Joan Walsh replying:

"First of all, Barbara and I haven't talked for almost a year, unfortunately, but when we last discussed projects we might tackle together, driving people out of the Democratic Party wasn't one of them. The Democrats do that well enough themselves,"

Apparently, they both agree that the Democrats drive people away from them. They are just disagreeing on who is behind the wheel.

Caitlin says Joan Walsh is part of the problem. Joan Walsh, says, "I have nothing to do with it, it's everyone else!"

That's this Joan Walsh....

One doesn't have to be overly perceptive to notice how non-minority liberals are eager to define what the political concerns of minority groups should be, and to offer opinions on what is or isn't racism or homophobia or misogyny. Salon's Joan Walsh is an example of this type of "liberal" in that her articles frequently try and dictate what should or shouldn't be the gay liberal agenda.

If Atrios finds that Joan Walsh is trying to dictate what should or shouldn't be the gay liberal agenda, should I find it hard to believe that Flanagan finds that Joan Walsh is trying to dictate the liberal agenda in general? Or the liberal agenda regarding feminism?

This Joan Walsh?
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_02_06_archive.html#110800578903847761
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh022003.shtml

http://blog.prospect.org/mt-tb.cgi/13387
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_01_26_archive.html#90255755
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_11_archive.html#117163417857990655

I'm not qualified to discuss Caitlin Flanagan's latest review that I did read, but zuzu, who hasn't even read the review being discussed is?

zuzu failed to make her point. I pointed that out with links.

zuzu came by and said she was just my Amanda, somehow I was stalking her, and she proceeded not address any of my points. And I'm the one with the feelings left over from the previous fight?

If you want to support your buddies, fine. If you just want to pile-on as NTodd does, you'll save yourself a lot of time. If you want to refute an argument, try not to use ad-hominem attacks to deflect the issues away.

[julia]

Walsh fervently disagrees with Flanagan on that point, as you'd know if you read the linked pieces you claim to have read. She thinks the Democrats are driving people away by, among other things, not opposing bullying social conservatives enough.

If you want to discuss the work, a review won't do. If you want to discuss the review, a conversation about the work isn't the place to do it.

You're being silly, feh.

[zuzu]

Also zuzu, since I provided the link to the review at Powell's it's rather telling that you decided you couldn't read the actual review and determine what the main thrust of the review was. Hint: the main thrust of the review was not about Socks, that's justs what the UK Times Online decided to lead with because they are the fair and balanced media.

Funny, I don't recall making any claims about what the "main thrust" of Flanagan's article was. Though having read the review, I see that she spends about half of it talking about the Socks Issue as metaphor for how evil Clinton is.

In any event, to talk about placing rehoming a cat somewhere in the "annals of human evil" when there's a Presidential candidate whose far more shocking display of animal cruelty goes unmentioned is rather disingenous.

[feh]

That's right zuzu, Flanagan complaining about finding a new home for the cat is an asinine argument on Flanagan's part. Just like saying that Yglesias is talking out his ass is a perfectly reasonable statement to make, and one I make (and try to support) all of the time.

But that doesn't make Flanagan a Republican or an Althouse, Brooks, etc. And it doesn't mean that Yglesias was making his argument because of male privilege.

But sheesh, I guess from now on, any liberal or Dem that wants to say anything critical about Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich or the rest must first inoculate themselves for you by stating that Bush is far worse.

Do you have some boilerplate or legaleze that everyone can just adopt? (Something whimsical like "Not that there's anything wrong with that" would probably catch on real quick.)

Progressives and Democrats have been complaining about Clinton's weaseling around the issues, triangulation, lack of sincerity for quite some time now. What Flanagan says in her review is neither new or remarkable.

(If you're anal and count the letters, or use a naive word counter, you'll find the split is more like 37% Socks to 63% Clinton behavior, and much closer to 1/3rd than 1/2.)

Julia, sure, and Atrios and Flanagan disagree with Walsh on that point.

On the pages of Salon daily, or in the letter sections that is, I see Joan Walsh and her behavior driving people out of the Democratic Party and out of the Salon readership.

(For the most part, based on past reading of Walsh's and Atrios' articles on a daily and weekly basis, I'll place Atrios heads and shoulders above Walsh any day.)

[grouchomarxist]

On the pages of Salon daily, or in the letter sections that is, I see Joan Walsh and her behavior driving people out of the Democratic Party and out of the Salon readership.

Well, damn, feh, what you "see" sounds like a pretty representative sample to me. Why, if this dry-gulching, sidewinding feminist bully Walsh and her gang ain't stopped dead in their tracks, the dust and tumbleweeds'll soon be blowing through the empty comment threads, and the Dems will have no one left but zuzu and the Larouchites.

Now that (I hope) you're finished taking a break from fighting the good fight where you're obviously most needed -- over at Salon -- go get 'em, Tiger!

It's true that many of us on the Left are quite critical of Hillary, but that has something to do with her record in the Senate, and the campaign company she keeps. The "cold-hearted, emasculating bitch" meme is pretty much exclusively the province of the Right, no?

(Maybe if we started a "Find-a-Dominatrix" service for these "journalists", they'd learn to live with these dirty little obsessions, and start reporting some real news.)

Flanagan's amateurish musing over where Hillary's finding Socks a new home registers on the scale of evil is mind-bogglingly petty. If you ask me, this is a woman looking for an excuse to go Republican.

[julia]

Aw, c'mon, feh. Walsh didn't say what you or Flanagan said she did, but Flanagan disagrees with what she did say, and now Atrios is in this?

Much as I have to say that you've lifted my day to new heights by telling me that I'm descending to the mindlessly combative tactics of a Quaker dude, you really are flailing here.