Have we lost our Gallant Heroes?
'Hero' directed by Zhang Yimou
The fact that women fought for many years to be taken seriously in the areas of government and public policy, makes attacks on successful women based purely on their looks reveal a deep double standard - not always of men against women, but often of women against their own gender.
While healthy civic discourse involves disagreement on issues of policy, too often these women are prone to bully and harass their opponents with attacks on physical appearances, when they are unable to articulate a valid and logical opposing argument.
'Has our culture become so shallow, and our sensibilities so numb, that we will accept from adults the sort of vicious behavior that we would never accept from our children?
Apparently so.
Examples all seem to involve attacks on successful conservative women, and invariably the attacks are coming from the left. As Cherri Pierson, a Republican candidate for the U.S. House noted, feminists are strangely silent about such attacks:
"Their silence speaks volumes about their convictions and partisan leanings. After all, it is mainly conservative women who have been the victims of this sort of media slashing, sad to say, with few exceptions, the circling vultures are left-leaning women."
Conservative women, such as Katherine Harris, serving her second term as a Republican in Congress, a woman with impeccable credentials that span back to being Florida's secretary of State, State Senator, an IBM marketing executive and a Vice President of a commercial real estate firm. She has a Master's Degree from Harvard University having specialized in international trade and negotiations. Yet, despite her credentials she has been repeatedly ridiculed, not for her ideas or policies, but her looks. She was described by a female Time magazine journalist as Cruella De Vil, and in a the New York Times subtitle, "Mascaragate 2000". The latest scathe in the Washington Post that "she applied her make-up with a towel", was challenged by her as she accused the paper of manipulating her photo to purposely make her look over made-up.
Then of course there is Condoleezza Rice, the American Secretary of State, who started college at the age of 15, and earned a Doctorate in her early 20's, listed in Forbes as the most powerful woman in the U.S. Nonetheless, she has been mocked and ridiculed, not for her intellect or knowledge of international diplomacy, but for her hair. Her critics are not content to stereotype her as a dowdy relic from the supposedly subservient 50's, but went further describe her as a "dominatrix", for wearing fashionable boots and a fitted black coat.
I was recently posting comments on one of my favorite blogs, called The Volokh Conspiracy. I particularly like the forum one encounters at the Volokh Blog, as it is frequented by young intellectuals, law professors and students, and even some occasional Judges and high ranking politicians, which makes the exchanges interesting and as the language policy is strict, one doesn't get the obscenities experienced far too often on some other equally popular blogs.
On this particular occasion, last Sunday, the subject was a very successful Conservative blogger called Michelle Malkin. A journalist by profession with impressive credentials, Malkin has emerged as one of the leading figures in a new generation of conservative writers and pundits, achieving above 80,000 hits a day on her Blog.
All was well, until the above mentioned subject came up. Michelle Malkin, and the obscene comments she receives on a daily basis as a result of her race and gender, calling her "a Bangkok whore, saying that if she didn't have "tits" she'd be stuck writing at Townhall.com". (I read much worse recently on her blog). David Bernstein, having written a perfectly argued and justifiable post, got pretty much overrun by a barrage of epithets, some undermining their own credibility by commenting on Malkin's work which they had not even read. I couldn't believe how many, seemingly bright individuals went into a complete spin and absolutely annihilated her, often on a purely race and gender level without offering any constructive criticism. Yes, some critiqued her recently published book, very obviously never having read it, but mostly the comments were concentrated on derogatory remarks about her being a successful conservative woman of dare I say it 'color'. One word summed it up really: 'Schadenfreude'.
Here is an excerpt from just one of the exchanges I had on the subject, in this instance with someone who simply chooses to call himself "Larry". There were 123 comments posted on this subject in the Volokh Conspiracy, I would say approx.115 of those written by the male gender.
Somewhere about a quarter of the way through the discussion I voiced my opinion which amounted to the fact that the comments written about Malkin on other blogs are simply offensive, based on race and gender, and that the issue is not political but both simpler and deeper, and basically an excuse to be rude and crude. A way for a limited mind to express itself.
"Larry", feeling safely anonymous, responded in two comments:
"The fact that you are “offended” means that the comments, whatever they were, had a point. Indeed, they appear to have touched you on a very deep level and made you think about something. It is too bad that you are unable to respond to them. Instead of whining about how you are offended, explain why the comments are WRONG, not how you just wish they were not made."
"Criticizing anyone by making comments based on their race and their sexual anatomy is not justifiable. Period."
I disagree. However, since you are incapable of explaining your reasoning (perhaps because of your anatomy or race) I won't tell you why you are wrong. Period."
A.v.M. response:
"Larry, Our man of a few words. Why don't you explain your reasoning. Which part of offensive do you not understand? You obviously haven't read the comments, written on Atrios and are just flying blind. Be that as it may, the fact that these comments are "offensive", is not even a debate worthy subject, and certainly no one is going to bother babysitting you through the read.
"The fact that you are “offended” means that the comments, whatever they were, had a point. Indeed, they appear to have touched you on a very deep level and made you think about something. It is too bad that you are unable to respond to them. Instead of whining about how you are offended, explain why the comments are WRONG, not how you just wish they were not made."
Yes, they touched me at a deep level of disgust, and no, they did not have a point simply based on affecting me in some way, and yes, they did make me think of something - how many rude and sick people there are out there like you who seem to think these comments are acceptable on any level and for any reason whatsoever. But then Larry, 'our man of a few words', if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything. Period. Pray tell, explain to us what is your learned view then?"
Larry:
"Alexandra von Maltzan, In my culture there is no such thing as “offended.” A girl in my family who ever claims that they are “offended” by something without providing an explanation as to why whatever she didn't like is wrong is subject to being disowned. This happened to my sister. Nobody in my family will ever talk to her again. Because she claimed to be “offended.” And talked about a Supreme Court case without reading it.
Look, stereotypes, as much as we don't like to admit it, form much of our knowledge about the world. Sure, some government usage of stereotypes have been deemed unconstitutional, but for the most part, people use stereotypes in hiring. Kids under 12 are rarely allowed to drive (legislatures also use stereotypes). After assuming that quiet Asian girls were smart for far too long, I now consider that they spend too much time partying in college and really are not hiding any intelligence. Sure, they can rebut that assumption, but for me to presume that they are intelligent would result in wasted time. (I have been burned a few times, and it isn't funny.) Anyway, I have a proud culture, but if any daughter of mine ever claimed that she was “offended” rather than providing specifics, she would be out of the will and disowned. My culture has standards!"
A.v.M.response:
"Larry Without A Surname, No one has time to babysit you through the derogatory Atrios comments, read them yourself, then tell me that anyone needs to explain themselves further as to why they consider them rude and crude. Secondly, I don't understand your insistence upon repeating the word "offended". If you are specifically referring to me and my earlier comment, I said that "the comments were highly offensive", which is a viewpoint proven to be not too uncommon in the 70 odd comments posted so far, of which 96% are made by the male gender. Whether I was personally offended by them or not is irrelevant, they were "offensive". Period.
"A girl in my family who ever claims that they are "offended" without providing an explanation as to why whatever she didn't like is wrong, is subject to being disowned. [...] Anyway, I have a proud culture, but if any daughter of mine ever claimed that she was “offended” rather than providing specifics, she would be out of the will and disowned. My culture has standards!"
Well in 'my culture', if anyone comments on any given subject without reading the material referred to, is not taken seriously. Therefore, I would not have been so hard on your sister for voicing an opinion without reading the entire Supreme Court case; you have done just that in this blog, despite being directed to the relevant material by several comments.
And now, without wishing to sound disrespectful, on what basis do you assume that Malkin can be stereotyped as a partying Asian college girl with little or no intelligence? I can only assume you must be referring to her. Whilst I am personally not a Malkin defender per say, she is quite capable of doing that herself, I find those comments a par with some other equally rude remarks I refer to. I was after all spot on in assuming earlier that you indeed do not find any of the comments David referred to, as derogatory. Well in 'my culture' that is considered 'ungentlemanly behavior', although we don't generally disinherit for that."
Finally a blogger comes to the rescue and comments:
"Larry, I'll answer your question about my being offended as soon as you respond to this statement:
Larry blows goats.
Your response? Or is that statement, so ridiculous (I assume), so thoroughly stupid, not worth a dignified response. My feelings about Mithras' pap." Patrick
So there you have it, this is how boys solve discussions on race and gender, and fix each other. Permanently. Larry was not heard from again, but many were born in his place, and took forward the banner of racial and sexual prejudice.....
As for Michelle Malkin, like every other successful woman, she will always be in the firing line. But with 80,000 hits a day on her blog, she can take it with a big smile on her face, and her finger firmly pointing upward.
For us lesser mortals, we are left with the famous question: Have we truly lost our Gallant Heroes, well perhaps not all, there is always Patrick.
Monday, August 15th
UPDATE:
There is a brilliant young man out there in the Bloggosphere by the name of David Schraub, who has in my opinion written one of the most succint 'Liberal' views (comment #65) on the subject:
"As I said, it is getting phenomenally frustrating to watch the racial/sexual aspects of this discussion get infinitely circular. For whatever reason, nobody seems convinced that I cannot stand Malkin or her ideology, but merely don’t think she should be subjected to crude taunts based on her sex. Instead, we’re grouping the two distinct types of criticisms of Malkin–Malkin is a conservative hack versus Malkin’s success is entirely attributable to her “tits.” I subscribe to the former, but not the latter.
Please read this slowly: No, you used her actual race as a way to accuse me of being racist for criticizing her. When of course it’s clear that she was chosen specifically so that people hesistate to criticize her because she’s Filipino.
Note the conflation. I don’t ever protest Amanda’s criticisms of Malkin per se (how could I, I agree with them!). I protest the specific gender/race-linked criticism. The racism accusation kicks in insofar as Amanda cannot even conceive that Malkin might be considered persuasive by the type of reader already suceptible to her ideological bent. So my “read this slowly” would be that Malkin’s race (like anybody’s race) is a shield against criticizing her on account of her race. If Eric Muller wants to KO her on arguments, I’ll be cheering with all the rest.
Put another way, for a particular branch of the conservative blogosphere, the way you become successful is by engaging in crude polemics and shoddy reasoning in favor of a set ideology. When white male bloggers do it and are “successful,” nobody thinks its because of their race. When Malkin does it, it’s immediately assumed that it is her race that is the cause, despite the fact that by the “objective” yardstick (good at shoddy polemics), Malkin is indeed quite talented.
In other words, the very stereotype that supporters of Aff Action (like me, contra Amanda’s insinuation (”It’ s funny to me that conservative [sic] rail against affirmative action…”)) desparately try and combat–white as the norm, minorities as deviant (unless they act like we expect minorities to act).
In this discussion, Ms. Malkin has gotten entirely “raced” (”sexed”?). Her views have gotten tied up wholly into her minority status. This isn’t to say I don’t think that status is relevant–I think it is on several levels, both as a standpoint issue for minorities as a whole and as one for minority conservative specifically. But the race/sex issues have become indivorcable from the ideological ones–it’s become impossible to oppose the conservative without opposing the Filipino Woman (which then in turn makes a race a proxy for political ideology, with both sides saying the other is illegitimately using (hiding behind/attacking) her race, the objective being to prove the other side is racist. This presumably is why Jake Squid thinks I’m a conservative, when I’ve tried to stress that I’m a liberal who subscribes to Critical Race Theory (and who just happens to take all of its conclusions about how we race people seriously)). The implication of some of the commenters here is that Malkin is popular because she is deviant from the stock minority. She’s the conservative (read: odd) minority, as opposed to just a plain old “normal” (read: liberal) minority. This is the context of the “race traitor” comment (which may have been a bit overheated, I was frustrated)–Amanda’s argument necessarily is premised on Malkin’s view somehow not being “authentically” minority (even her view is authentic insofar as she geniunely believes it, its still somehow deficient in that it is irrepresentative of what a minority “should” believe–otherwise, conservatives would have no reason to trumpet it!), her minority status just a facade so that conservatives can pretend to be tolerant. If her view isn’t “authentic” (indeed, standing in direct challenge to the “authentic” view), though, what is it?
This is what I’ve been writing about on my own blog–the parallels between the experience of minorities in general and minority conservatives in specific. Both are typecast and are bitterly attacked when they stray from their roles. As Professor Bell notes, to the right, a minority who speaks out against racism is presumed to be biased, gunning for her selfish interests, and otherwise (as a default rule) not an objective witness. A minority who speaks from a traditional conservative view, by contrast, gets “enhanced standing” as a rebel, someone who looks past her own group politics, etc (this is the stance Amanda and others are criticizing). However, what’s being missed here is that liberals do the exact same thing, but reversed. Minorities who speak against racism (or take left views generally) are assumed to have the proper “standing,” they’re “from the bottom,” “experienced,” etc., and thus they get “enhanced standing.” Minority conservatives, by contrast, are assumed to be bought and paid for, speaking from an “impaired consciousness” (MacKinnon’s term), or at best useful dupes who’d otherwise be totally obscure. The impact is the same–minorities who agree with us are the only ones who possess merit. Those who don’t are commie radicals (to conservatives)/uncle toms (to liberals).
So if I agree that many conservatives do grant enhanced standing (with the corresponding subordination of liberal minorities) to minority conservatives, AND I believe that liberals do the reverse, why doth I protest so much? Simply put, with race politics as entangled as they are, I’m very reluctant to posit one side as entirely blameless and the other as demons (outside of particular policy positions–like Malkin on internment). It is not proven that Malkin would be a nobody if she wasn’t a Filipino woman (which of the bloggers in her ideological neighborhood are smarter? LGF? Hugh Hewitt?). Because of that, and mindful of the harsh legacy of sexist and racist discrimination levelled against all minorities by all of mainstream society, I will be prudent and refrain from automatically assuming that her tits are the root cause of her popularity.
Somehow, I don’t think that will stop the flame war though…sorry "
I'm not quite sure why you trackbacked to my post regarding Mr. Oliphant's column, as you didn't link it in this post, but this is a very well written and thoughtful post. Nice work.
Posted by: Giacomo | Sunday, August 14, 2005 at 05:14 PM
I agree that it's thoughtful.
Ms. Malkin is certainly entitled to her success in the blogosphere, and I've never really understood why the people who disagree with her make the effort and time to be offensive in their commentary.
Posted by: PhantomObserver | Sunday, August 14, 2005 at 06:08 PM
Michele Malkin certainly does inspire some bile. Thoughtful post. As far as attacks are concerned, they are an unfortunate side effect of success in certain forms (not every kind of 'success' brings attacks - usually it's success in some form desired by someone else). More women are being successful, and that's good. More women therefore are being attacked. Not so good, but also not avoidable.
Posted by: Mr. Snitch! | Monday, August 15, 2005 at 04:12 AM
Thanks for stopping by and reading Blogger Beer and tracking back to it, but a reference would be appreciated.
Your article is good, the comment you note about how the criticisms must be hitting target because of the reaction is notable. I think that comment is typically a dumb one.
Nobody should feel obliged to ignore lies and a respone to a criticism does not imply validity of the criticism.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius | Monday, August 15, 2005 at 11:49 AM