What do her tits have to do with anything?
| August 7th, 2005Liberal blog Fables of the Reconstruction provides a “conservative blog taxomony.” Some of it made me chuckle (”Dean Esmay is popular among right-wingers as one of those centrists who just happen to hate liberals and Democrats”) , but his description of Michelle Malkin is pretty deplorable:
Far-right affirmative action hire who is so bigoted she’d arrest herself for trying to cross a border. Famously published a book praising internment of Japanese-Americans that was (a) incoherent and (b) probably not written by her. If she didn’t have tits, she’d be stuck writing at Townhall.com.
One comment-writer at Fables, Disputo, wrote in response: “I could do without the sexist language. Isn’t Malkin’s writings enough fodder for complaint? Must you also denigrate her for being a woman?” As far as I can tell (and it’s very possible I’ve missed a bunch), Disputo is the one and only lefty to object to the sexism - even though, as David Bernstein at Volokh points out, plenty of lefties have provided admiring comments or links.
Before anyone tells me “it was just a joke, you can’t object to jokes,” how would you have reacted if he wrote “if she wasn’t a slant-eyes….”?
Not the first time Malkin has received bigoted criticisms, and far from the grossest. Still, it would be nice if the allegedly anti-sexist and anti-racist half of the political spectrum was more, y’know, consistently anti-sexist and anti-racist.
UPDATE: See also Sivacracy and The Debate Link. From The Debate Link:
…Under this view, Malkin’s popularity is partially premised on her position as someone conservatives can point to and say: “Look! We’re not racist–some minorities agree with us!”–a status that is interwoven with her status as a woman and minority. And one could then extrapolate that if Malkin didn’t provide that particular service to conservatives (IE, being a conservative minority woman), she’d be a non-entity.
That argument is sophisticated, controversial, and debatable (I make no comment on whether or not it is correct as applied to Malkin). It is not, however, conveyed in a crude posting that marks Malkin’s success as solely attributable to her “tits.” Make the latter argument, but the former should be an anathema to true liberals.
August 7th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
I think it’s one thing to argue that a pundit is where she is because she’s a good-looking woman. Quite another thing to argue that she’s where she is just because she’s a woman. Sounds like it’s the latter that was going on here.
Maybe it seems like splitting hairs to some to try and make that distinction, but since Pundit-land is so heavily marketed on/through TV, I think that it does tend to emphasize women who are beautiful, young, thin, and showing lots of leg. Y’know, like the rest of television.
If Reconstruction had stated, “If she weren’t a young, pretty woman, she’d be stuck writing at Townhall.com,” I don’t think it would leave such a bad taste in my mouth.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
I was under the impression that it was a joke about how she is used as a token. Either way, it was meanly worded and didn’t come across as it should have.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
We Are (Are We?) Better Than This
I remember once reading Andrew Sullivan on Michelle Malkin. Now, Sullivan is not a fan of Malkin (nor, for that matter, am I). But I distinctly recall him saying that regardless of our disagreements with her, Malkin endures far more than her fair sha…
This comment was written by The Debate Link.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
In addition to the trackbacked post, I’ve also written an update to the subject. It isn’t trackbacked because it doesn’t link to this post, but I think you’d find it interesting. It’s entitled “Standpoint Theory, The “Voice of Color” and “Uncle Toms”: Positioning Minority Conservatives”
This comment was written by David Schraub.Hope you enjoy!
Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
As I noted on one blog objecting to the perceived sexist language, it may be crude but I don’t view accusing righties of using women (and non-white men) to fulfill some kind of “hey, look at us, we’re not REALLY all rich white men!” quota - which I believe they do - is sexist at all. And I applaud the crude usage in this case for the same reason. These folks are a nasty piece of work, and they DO like to shove anti-women females and racist non-white conservatives in liberals’ faces as some sort of way of awardin them self-hatred medals. And ignoring this practice isn’t going to make it go away; it needs to be mentioned often, and bluntly.
This comment was written by Elayne Riggs.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
That doesn’t strike you as patronizing in the slightest? It completely denies the agency of minority conservatives–it acts like they’re automatons. All due respect, but that’s racist too. I think that many conservatives do (if only subconsciously) “use” their minority compatriots in the manner you describe. But that is completely irrelevant to how we react to the minority conservative herself (in the case, as one Atrios commenter put it, comparing her to Thai child prostitute).
I subscribe to the liberal view on race relations–but I’m not so convinced of my own moral superiority that I’m willing to spit in the face of minorities who see the world differently than I do.
This comment was written by David Schraub.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
No, David. It affirms the agency of majority conservatives. No disinterested third party would single out Michele Malkin for anything. She has nothing going for her. Majority conservatives aren’t above using people to shore up their own credibility.
It would undermine the agency of minority conservatives to say that they’re only motivated by favors from majority conservatives. I’m sure Michelle Malkin is sincere and that she’d be ranting about her pet issues, systemic incentives or no systemic incentives. That’s what I do. Why should I assume she’s any different?
On the other hand, she can’t write and she can’t think. If this were a meritocracy, nobody would ever have heard of her.
This comment was written by Lindsay Beyerstein.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
I specifically said that I think some majority conservatives do use minority conservatives in that manner. However, Mithal’s post wasn’t attacking those conservatives–he was attacking Malkin, in terms that would clearly be sexist in other contexts.
If I said “Nobody would listen to Catherine MacKinnon if it weren’t for her tits”, I think we’d all agree it was sexist. This is true EVEN THOUGH MacKinnon specifically posis the value of her scholarship as being from a woman’s perspective (which I too think is valuable–minority perspectives are needed to counteract majoritarian bias). If she was a man, she couldn’t be writing from the “authentic female” perspective she claims she is–her sex is integral to her status as an academic. Hence, we get the following formulation:
“Catherine MacKinnon, whose popularity comes from her being a woman, should not be subjected to slurs saying that she’s only valuable because of her tits”
but
“Michelle Malkin, whose popularity comes from her being a woman, can be subjected to slurs saying that she’s only valuable because of her tits.”
While in a “pure” meritocracy (whatever that means), it may be true that we’d dismiss Malkin and laud MacKinnon (certainly, my conception of what’s right and wrong would suggest that), I’m not so confident in my vision of the moral order that I’m willing to skip the argumentative stage and go straight to demonizing my opponents.
One might add that a criticism “she can’t write and she can’t think” would presumably suffice to describe the negative view of Malkin. The “tits” reference–at best a jab at OTHER conservatives, not Malkin, at worst an example of latent sexism by which a woman’s perspective is inseparable (different from informed by) from her gender–seems gratutious (and hence why I see it as meanspirited).
This comment was written by David Schraub.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
No disinterested third party would single out Michele Malkin for anything. She has nothing going for her. [...] she can’t write and she can’t think. If this were a meritocracy, nobody would ever have heard of her.
Honey, have you seen the white men who are on talk radio and cable news? When did Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh become great minds?
This comment was written by PG.I agree that Malkin doesn’t come across as exceptional, but neither do they. It’s just a low standard for conservative commentary, period, and to claim that Malkin is any worse than the rest does smack of racism and/ or sexism. “Merit” in today’s media often is based on how inventively unpleasant one can be, not on how well one writes or thinks, and unfortunately Mithras’s sudden increase in hits is reflective of that general trend.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
Mithras Who Peed in the Sandbox
As there appears to be an impression that racism and sexism are considered acceptable among liberals, I feel obligated to write what otherwise seems like an unnecessary post*, just to say that “If she didn’t have tits, she’d be stuck writing at Town…
This comment was written by Half the Sins of Mankind.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
I think you’d have to have your head in the sand not to think Malkin is another example of someone whose career is based, at least partially, on her minority status. For god’s sake, she wrote a book defending Japanese internment. While she’s not Japanese, I imagine the conservative establishment figured that she’s Asian-American would suffice to shield her from criticism.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
And apparently Liberals think that being Filipino is “close enough” to Japanese that she’s a race traitor.
It’s so annoying when one is trying to dismantle Malkin’s awful arguments to have to contend with this sort of backdrop…
This comment was written by David Schraub.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
No, I don’t think that. I just think conservatives couldn’t find a Japanese-American person to write the book, and were racist enough to think Filipino would do in a pinch.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
And see how you tried to use her race to shield her from my criticism?
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
So does this mean that you think the claim behind that book isn’t hers to begin with?
This comment was written by Shawn.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
No disinterested third party would single out Michele Malkin for anything. She has nothing going for her.
Really? She’s prolific, at the very least, and links constantly to other sources of information. That gets people a long ways in blog-world.
On the other hand, she can’t write and she can’t think. If this were a meritocracy, nobody would ever have heard of her.
Same goes for “5 Open Threads in a Row” Atrios. If he’s ever written anything that was (1) eloquent, or (2) thought-provoking, or (3) insightful, I must have missed it. His whole schtick is providing quick links (if that) along with cursory notes of his outrage over something or another. But guess what: That type of blog seems to draw a lot of readers, if it is indefatigably prolific.
Majority conservatives aren’t above using people to shore up their own credibility.
So what? One could just as easily say that black people are using those white liberals who support affirmative action.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
Really? She’s prolific, at the very least, and links constantly to other sources of information. That gets people a long ways in blog-world.
In no way, shape, or form does this preclude the theory that conservatives offer her extra support for her race and her sex. She’s popular for a number of reasons, and this is one and another is that her status as a racial minority makes it easier for her to dodge criticism for her own racism.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 8:11 pm
I just think conservatives couldn’t find a Japanese-American person to write the book, and were racist enough to think Filipino would do in a pinch.
And the hypothesis that Malkin HERSELF decided to write the book, isn’t even worthy of mention.
Because those Filipina gals don’t have personal agency. They only act when us white guys tell ‘em to.
I think there’s an interesting tie-in here to the thread about multiracial feminism, and white women’s assumptions.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
These racial arguments get infinitely circular. I used her race to shield her? From what–the charge that Filipinos effectively the same as Japanese? Guilty. It can’t be from the charget that her book is terrible–I agree with that. I just don’t think it makes the slightest bit of sense that her Filipino heritage gets drawn in as a criticism of HER.
This comment was written by David Schraub.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
The briefest of visits to FreeRepublic will show that, for that particular demographic, Malkin’s tits do make a difference. (As do Coulter’s.)
And the hypothesis that Malkin HERSELF decided to write the book, isn’t even worthy of mention.
Heck, she doesn’t even write all of her eponymous blog.
This comment was written by ahem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
“I just think conservatives couldn’t find a Japanese-American person to write the book, and were racist enough to think Filipino would do in a pinch.”
I got tired of those paranoid leftie fantasies a long time ago.
And as for the racist, sexist insults directed at Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell and others, well, I was hearing bigoted pseudo-progressives say things like that 35 years ago. The left’s tendency towards bigotry is nothing new, it’s just that as its credibility declines it becomes more desperate and shrill.
This comment was written by pst314.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:13 am
In this case, I have to disagree. It was crude, yes, but no more crude than saying of some underqualified/unqualified schlub who has his underlings do his work for him, yet gets rewarded nonetheless, that “his dick got him the promotion” - e.g. the Wal-mart Class Action lawsuits. Which is crude and true and not sexist, either.
In general I do agree (and have argued longer and louder than most) that the Left is severely lacking in actual gender equity and progressive stances, on the whole, having been Borgified in large part by both the Right Wing Noise Machine and the unregenerate culture the Hegemony exploits.
But in this particular case, the earthiness seems appropriate, more so than saying discretely “valued for her XX chromosomes” or “her female pulchritude” or any other euphemism for being the token pair of nipples trutted out to show that “we’re inclusive” - just as when Pam in Durham calls Armstrong Williams et all “Step’n'Fetchits” and makes other harsh references to our racially-exploitative past, this is not itself a demonstration of racism.
(Note that I also took the author to task in a subsequent post for exluding women as an audience for the erotic, rather than passive objects…)
This comment was written by bellatrys.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:24 am
It’s the difference between saying “Ann Coulter is a cunt” and “Ann Coulter is where she is because she has a cunt” - the first is sexist ad hom, not simply insulting. The latter is insulting, because it argues (in capsule form) that her supposed qualifications are non-existent: that she is only a right-wing superstar because of her sex-appeal, not for any originality of thought or brilliance of intellect.
It’s like saying “Clarence Thomas has a job because he’s darker than a paper bag” - bald, true, not racist, uncomfortably invoking our swept-under cultural racism. All of them are willingly being exploited for traits that a) they have nothing to be praised for, b) ordinarily would get them disrespected by the same people who are using them, except c) they’re being played as pawns in a psy-ops game. (”See! We’re really more PC than those supposedly-PC hypocritical liberals!”)
The rhetorical shock-value of “cunt/tits” as apposed to “vagina” or “womb” or “bosom” in such statements can be valuable because it strips away the haze of romanticism and phony reverence of The Feminine that the conservatives have invoked from time immemorial, the glorification of a sanitized Motherhood that comes from people who really, when you scratch the surface, regard us as nothing more than a piece of tail…
This comment was written by bellatrys.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 5:05 am
From what”“the charge that Filipinos effectively the same as Japanese?
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.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 5:07 am
Or as belltrys put it above. It’ s funny to me that conservative rail against affirmative action when they actively seek out women to put down feminism, racial minorities to argue for racist policies, young people to argue for using the law to control the young, etc.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 5:11 am
In fact, I’m beginning to think it was a stroke of genius to get a Filipino-American to argue for the internment of the Japanese because you get a double benefit–not only does her race shield her from criticism, you can immediately acccuse anyone who points this out of thinking that Filipino and Japanese are the same thing. A double disingenous dose of bullshit. Well done, well done.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 5:44 am
But the author was ostensibly addressing other liberals, not trying to shock conservatives out of a romantic view of womanhood. Which makes the comment a type of locker-room talk, “just amongst us guys.” The fact that Malkin is Filipino also reinforces the nastiness of the comment, because of the whole passive-Asian-woman stereotype (”Oh, she’s just doing what those white guys in Conservativeland tell her to do.”) Filipinos and women have just as much right to be misguided, talentless, or crazy as white guys, without their inadequacies being tied to their race or their gender but evaluated on their merits (or lack thereof).
That said, many liberals are just as guilty of using minorities for their own purposes as many conservatives. Otherwise, we won’t be hearing so many “more inclusive than you” statements, with nose-counting statistics. Bleah. My sister’s family answers the race question with “Human,” which should be the answer we’re all striving for.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 5:46 am
David, I’m pleased to see you posting here, since I’m a fan of your blog. But I’m frankly puzzled by this incendiary comment of yours:
If that’s a reference to Amanda’s comment (which is how Amanda took it), then it simply makes no sense - Amanda didn’t say or imply that Malkin is a “race traitor.” By seeming to accuse her of saying such a thing, you in essence started a flame war for no good reason.
If you were referring to Amanda, then I think you owe her an apology. If you intended to refer to something other than what Amanda said, then please clarify what it was you were referring to, in the hopes of ending this needlessly acrimonious exchange.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 6:32 am
Totally wrong. Atrios made a name for himself pseudonymously. He built up his blog without disclosing his race or his gender.
Atrios doesn’t write that much original commentary, but when he does, it’s very good. Check out his stuff on Social Security.
This comment was written by Lindsay Beyerstein.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 6:37 am
All of them are willingly being exploited for traits that . . . b) ordinarily would get them disrespected by the same people who are using them
If you’re claiming that conservatives single out conservative minorities for special praise and acclamation, it doesn’t really make sense to accuse conservatives of having “disrespect[]” for those minorities.
If a given conservative says (crudely): “I dislike white liberals, and like white conservatives; and I dislike minority liberals, and really like minority conservatives,” how is the conservative treating minorities (as minorities) with any more disrespect than whites?
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 6:56 am
“The briefest of visits to FreeRepublic will show that, for that particular demographic, Malkin’s tits do make a difference. (As do Coulter’s.)”
Well, no they don’t. Her “tits” don’t mean anything. And she should not be criticized based on her body parts. What needs to be criticized is that someone, somewhere is using her as a token. **THAT** is the real issue; but it hides nicely behind her “tits”, doesn’t it? She is not responsible for being tokenized. She is, however, responsible for her shitty politics. Big difference.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 7:37 am
In fact, I’m beginning to think it was a stroke of genius to get a Filipino-American to argue for the internment of the Japanese because you get a double benefit”“not only does her race shield her from criticism, you can immediately acccuse anyone who points this out of thinking that Filipino and Japanese are the same thing. A double disingenous dose of bullshit. Well done, well done.
And all you had to do to avoid our cunning trap was to treat her as an individual human being instead of as an Other.
“…to get a Filipino-American to argue for the internment of the Japanese…” - because, again, it’s simply impossible for a nonwhite to have agency.
I would respond further, but I have to go induce Clarence Thomas to argue in favor of the Fugitive Slave Act. The conservative agenda never sleeps!
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 7:47 am
To my mind, it’s the AA reference that’s troublesome; it plays into the conservative mythology that AA means unqualifed.
The so-called ’sexist’ charge doesn’t have traction; folks like Malkin, Ingaham, Coulter, et al, would be virtually anonymous if they were 50-ish, white guys with bad combovers.
This comment was written by Natty Bowditch.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 8:09 am
Michelle Malkin’s views — and especially her apologetics for internment — are pretty obnoxious. But I’ve been uncomfortable for a long time with the sexist, racist attacks on her that you can find regularly in (for instance) the unmoderated comments on Eschaton. The rhetoric can get pretty vile. It’s also pretty annoying when people discuss work by people like Malkin as being something that someone else (i.e., some shadow right-wing hegemony) “got them” to do. I’ve got no doubt that Michelle Malkin’s quite capable of coming up with her own ideas, obnoxious as they may be. It’s one thing to acknowledge that the novelty of her ethnic background may have given her a “leg up” as far as making a career out of having these ideas is concerned, and another to say that she’s simply a puppet. That being said, though, anyone who’s got a sense of history might recognize that there’s nothing terribly “novel” about an ethnic Filipino having issues with the Japanese, especially relating to events in World War II. The Japanese occupation was brutal, bitterly resisted, and bitterly remembered as well.
This comment was written by nolo.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 8:26 am
I guess the main thing I’m trying to say is really two-fold: First, those on the right who think Michelle Malkin is “brave” for criticising other Asians, and those on the left who think she’s a “race traitor” for doing the same thing are both engaging in their own subtle form of racism. “Asians” are far from being a monolithic culture, and they are also far from having monolithic interests. Second, and on the same theme, a more cogent criticism of Michelle Malkin’s opinions regarding the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII might be that as an ethnic Filipina, she may be too close to the issue to be objective. Given that she’s only one generation removed from the occupation, my bet is that there are lots of stories in her family about how bad the occupation was. If she’s being “contrarian,” it’s probably not been a purely intellectual exercise on her part.
This comment was written by nolo.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 8:29 am
Except of course that the right chose her specifically for her race and sex, Robert, knowing that conservatives could be counted on to disingenously claim that anyone criticizing her, no matter how correct in their assessment, could be accused of racism and/or sexism. Regardless of what we say.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 8:33 am
I don’t think, by the way, that Malkin is a “race traitor”. She’s just racist, period. There’s no reason whatsoever to think that a Filipino-American has any special reason to care about the fate of Japanese-Americans, except of course basic human decency, something Malking showed she didn’t have when she wrote a book apologizing for the internment of innocent people, some of whom had family fighting for the US forces.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 8:35 am
And I never said a non-white doesn’t have agency, Robert. Malkin has plenty of agency. She is not dumb and is totally willing to play the token for the cold, hard cash.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 8:53 am
And apparently Liberals think that being Filipino is “close enough” to Japanese that she’s a race traitor.
I have noticed that liberals do not use the term “race traitor.” “Race traitor” is, traditionally, a term used in the USA by white supremacists. And I think that we can safely classify white supremacists as belonging to the right side of the American political spectrum. Look who first brought the term into play on this thread (hint: look at comment #12).
I find your attempt to brand liberals with terms used by mostly white supremacists to be despicable and indicative of your desperation to find anything to maintain the image that the right is being actively persecuted. It somehow brings to my mind the trick question, “When did you stop beating your wife?”
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 9:20 am
It’s pretty interesting, too, that conservatives in this thread want so badly for “was promoted by other conservatives and given jobs in think tanks” to mean “has no agency”.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 9:39 am
Keerist, Amper! What did you expect from a liberal blog
This comment was written by ddjango.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Except of course that the right chose her specifically for her race and sex, Robert…
“Chose her” for what? Our secret breeding program to create hyper-conservative Asian-American youth?
It’s pretty interesting, too, that conservatives in this thread want so badly for “was promoted by other conservatives and given jobs in think tanks” to mean “has no agency”.
But you didn’t say that she was promoted or given jobs. You SAID: ” it was a stroke of genius to get a Filipino-American to argue for…”
That’s a denial of agency. She didn’t act; we acted, when we got her to do our bidding. She didn’t have a stroke of genius; we had a stroke of genius. And so on.
Even when you backpedal and say that she does have agency, you cast it explicitly in terms of her whoring for someone else’s agenda: “She is not dumb and is totally willing to play the token for the cold, hard cash.” Why not say that “she is not dumb and is totally willing to work with people she agrees with in order to advance her agenda”?
Because - again - its impossible that she could actually believe what she says, and be saying it because she believes it to be important.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 9:53 am
Streeeeeeeetch harder, Robert. If someone I knew hired someone to do a job, and I said, “Who’s that new person you got to do X job for you?”, would you really say that I’m denying that new employee has agency?
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 9:55 am
Thanks, Q. I was beginning to feel rather alone here.
And, no, bellatrys, I don’t think that insults based purely upon a possession of female body parts makes for legit criticism or even very funny insults. Strictly speaking, it’s Ann Coulter’s Barbie-Doll-On-Speed persona that keeps her in the spotlight and the conservative yutzes panting and buying. I’m sure that there are any number of Rigthie females out there who could rail at liberal “traitors” and what not just as well, if not better, than Coulter. However, they probably have the misfortune to be short or over forty. Perhaps they are “cursed” with thick glasses, big noses or big butts. In other words, they are “cursed” with looking more like me or some other random woman riding the bus to work than they do like a hyperactive supermodel. Male pundits can get away with not resembling movie stars or sex godesses as they rocket to fame. Female pundits can’t.
Look, I’ll cop to using gender-based insults from time to time, but I don’t think that they represent my better side. I would try like the blazes to keep them out of any critique of a Right-winger meant for publishing. This has less to do with good manners or fear of looking mean than with a desire to keep the main issues being discussed front and center.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 10:13 am
Jake Squid:
If you think that liberals don’t use the term “race traitor,” you haven’t looked very hard. Try reading up on what some liberals say about Clarence Thomas. For example, Manning Marable explicitly says that Thomas (and other conservative blacks) are race traitors. So does a book edited by two Georgetown professors. Use Google, and you’ll find plenty more references. (Such as this Margaret Cho article about none other than Michelle Malkin, or this article about Condi Rice.)
Amanda — you seem to be smart enough to understand what “has no agency” means. It means that when you describe Malkin by saying that “the right chose her specifically for her race and sex,” and that “it was a stroke of genius to get a Filipino-American to argue for the internment of the Japanese,” you are describing a situation that does not exist: Some (unnamed) people on “the right” decided that a book needed to be written on Japanese internment, looked out over the field of possible candidates to accept such an assignment, and then “got” Malkin to write the book. Not only does that situation not exist in the first place, it denies Malkin agency, i.e., it assumes that she is an empty vessel, a tabula rasa, with no ideas of her own, just sitting around waiting for her next assignment from her controllers.
At least give her the credit of coming up with stupid ideas on her own.
I had said,
Lindsay responds:
So he built a name pseudonymously? That is completely irrelevant. The point was, you said that Malkin must be trading on her race/sex because there is no other explanation for her popularity (because she can’t write or think). I wasn’t trying to come up with a counter-example of a liberal who is also trading on race/sex. That would be a tu quoque fallacy (remember your philosophy!). Instead, my point was that being able to write/think are not the only qualities that make a blogger popular. Indeed, when I look at Atrios, Daily Kos, and Instapundit, I think that writing/thinking are completely pointless when it comes to building a successful blog. What matters is whether the blogger posts about timely topics incessantly and around the clock, along with occasional grunts that satisfy the partisan instincts of a particular set of readers. That’s all it takes: No heavy thinking or eloquent writing necessary.
Thus, Malkin’s success might also be explained by the fact that she blogs a lot, and does so with comments that satisfy partisan readers.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 10:14 am
Um, why does the blockquote function turn text bold at random intervals?
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 10:34 am
Niels: You need to put an empty line both before and after the blockquote function, or it turns the rest of the comment into bold. Amp explained it once.
About this Michelle Malkin business… Well, she writes fairly decently (that is, technically decently, no comment on human decency) and is probably quite intelligent. However, it seems pretty obvious that if someone looking like Archie Bunker would have written “In Defense of Internment” the book wouldn’t have the extra (fake, as she is Filipino, check what nolo said) credibility that it has now, her being Asian(Filipino)-American, thus “the same race” as American(Japanese)-Americans (and thus discrediting Asian-Americans who criticize internment as being part of “special interest” and partisan politics). Of course conservatives that have edited/distributed/marketed her book know this, and intend to take every advantage of the fact (they finally get to call their opponents racists too).
Her looks should be irrelevant to liberals and conservatives both.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 11:34 am
No, liberals don’t use words like “race traitor.” They say “oreo,” “Uncle Tom,” “banana,” “coconut,” and other code words that mean the exact same thing as “race traitor”, so they can look innocent when they’re called on it.
This comment was written by M. Scott Eiland.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Amanda, you write:
and
You keep using phrases like “the right chose her specifically” and “they actively seek out women”. Who are ‘the right’ and ‘they’? Do you really believe there is some sort of shadowy and powerful cabal on ‘the right’ which actively seeks out weak and submissive minorities whose minds can be captured and manipulated for their evil masters? This seems similar to the problem hilzoy talked about at ObsidianWings with her article Who, Exactly, Is This “Left” About Which I Hear Such Strange And Dreadful Things?
This comment was written by Sebastian Holsclaw.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Do you really believe there is some sort of shadowy and powerful cabal on ‘the right’ which actively seeks out weak and submissive minorities whose minds can be captured and manipulated for their evil masters?
We prefer “vast” to “shadowy”.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
I’m not going to put words into Amanda’s mouth, but this is how I would address the question were it asked of me.
Leftwing bloggers have charged that Malkin is not the sole author of her blog, and by extension she may not be the sole author of her books. This would suggest that she is partially a sock puppet for some individual or group of individuals pushing an anti-liberal agenda.
This isn’t a charge of a vast rightwing conspiracy. Just a small and sloppy one:
Ghost Blogging?
This comment was written by Ryan.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Jake Squid…while the term “race traitor” may initially have been used by white power groups, Malkin has been accused by those on the left of being “a traitor to her race”…in other words a race traitor. Therefore your argument falls flat.
This comment was written by Eve.Amanda, apparently you believe that the only way a conservative non-white woman can get anywhere is if she is “chosen”. That sounds very prejudicial. And perhaps its because your head is buried in the sand, but have you ever noticed the way “liberals” or “the left” or Democrats also trot out their minorities to say “Hey look we have some blacks and a couple of Latinos, look how progressive we are!”
To assume a priori that a non-white minority can only be liberal and if they’re conservative then its some sort of conspiracy is simply racist…not all minorities agree with the White Liberal Establishment, as much as you want to pretend they do. In fact, the black community on a whole tends to be more socially conservative; just check out opinion polls on issues such as homosexuality and gay rights, you will find that a majority of blacks agree with social conservatives when it comes to that (indeed, the anti-gay marriage bill recenly passed in Oregon had an equal number of black and white voters voting “aye”).
I also tire of the liberal portrayal of all non-white minorities as victims in need of assistance from progressive white liberals. That view itself is simplistic and a touch racist because it presumes that minorities cant do anything for themselves unless they are “helped”. If we look at the examples set by Asian Americans, including Southwest Asians such as Indians, we see that it is possible to advance in this country without white liberal poseurs pretending to be your friend to assuage their own sense of guilt. This is especially pertinent since affirmative action policies routinely discriminate against high-achieving Asians in favor of low-scoring blacks or Latinos. That blacks and Latinos are the favored subjects of progressive policies and yet as a demographic consistently score lower or achieve less than their white and Asian counterparts says volumes about how “helpful” such “progressive” policies and attitudes have been.
For progressive liberals to be so harsh to a minority woman who disagrees with their prescrptives for “improving” the race indicates more about their own racist and patronizing beliefs than it does about Ms. Malkin.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Ryan:
Leftwing bloggers have charged that Malkin is not the sole author of her blog, and by extension she may not be the sole author of her books.
On what evidence have they made that charge? The mere fact that Malkin is prolific? Why are they picking a minority woman against whom to make that charge, as opposed to any number of other bloggers that I could name.
This would suggest that she is partially a sock puppet for some individual or group of individuals pushing an anti-liberal agenda.
The link that you posted merely speculated that Malkin’s husband might help her out on the blog. Um, ok. So that makes Malkin a “sock puppet”? How does that figure?
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Niels,
There’s no reason to come after me. I was just responding to a question posed by Sebastian above.
Why are they picking a minority woman against whom to make that charge, as opposed to any number of other bloggers…?
I’m not sure I understand this question. It seems to suppose that race has something to do with the motives. Auguste, the main blogger at Malkin(s)Watch, uncovered some evidence on the blogger he chose to follow. He’s explained in the past that Malkin just happened to be the topic he chose to write on when he decided to jump into the blogging game.
As for your conclusion that this is all mere speculation, I believe it is Auguste who has put his reputation on the line to make these charges. No one has been able to refute him, and your response to the charges is identical to all of Malkin’s apologists - totally without substance.
This comment was written by Ryan.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
Tuomas wrote:
They should be, but as Pundit-land is at least as much about show biz as it is about politics, I see no reason to pretend that looks are irrelevant. The people running Pundit-land and the rest of the media certainly don’t find looks irrelevant, however much they might claim innocence if pressed on the issue.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Amanda, apparently you believe that the only way a conservative non-white woman can get anywhere is if she is “chosen”.
Actually, I think every conservative who has her support and funding is “chosen”, regardless of his/her color or sex. Someone chose to let Ben Shapiro and Mike Adams publish at Townhall. They’re “chosen”.
Have any of you ever had support or a job or anything? Then clearly you have no agency.
It’s cute, really. But Malkin is an ugly racist and you can’t use her race to deflect criticism from her as much as you’d like.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
When it comes to defining a woman as being a sum of her body parts, well, liberals and conservatives can be equally good at doing that. Sexism is not exclusively a conservative, or liberal vice. And a woman, who can’t walk down a city street without some man yelling “nice tits” or “show me some”, it’s just piles more sexism into the day to read this crap.
I’m not saying that in defense of what Malkin has done, said or written, and I’m not qualified as I’m not familiar with her product to enter into that discussion.
I just think that maybe, people could just criticize words, and actions of her aand other women, and not bring female body parts into it. When I see someone saying or writing if it weren’t for her tits/breats, whatever, I just don’t take them seriously as anything but yet another sexist leftist fighting sexism, maybe at large, but not inside his own head.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
No one has been able to refute him?
Well, what is it supposed to take to “refute” him? A 24-hour-live-video-feed of Malkin actually typing out all of her blog posts? Come on. It’s enough to say that all Auguste has in the first place is “speculation.”
No, I take it back. Even if what Auguste speculates about is true — i.e., that Malkin’s husband helps her out — that’s no reason for you or anyone else to label Malkin a “sock puppet for some individual or group of individuals pushing an anti-liberal agenda.” Even if Malkin’s husband helps her, why are you assuming that he’s forcing his ideas on her rather than vice versa? Quite an anti-female assumption to be making here.
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Why not say if she were not an attractive woman(as alsis said earlier) so that at least she would be defined as a person and not a body part(s)?
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Amanda —
I guess you are silently backing away from your spurious and mean-spirited accusation that “it was a stroke of genius to get a Filipino-American to argue for the internment of the Japanese,” as if 1) someone out there (not Malkin) decided to have someone write such a book, (2) picked Malkin, and (3) then force-fed Malkin the words to say.
Why bring in the subtly racist and anti-feminist assumption that minority women can’t have ideas of their own, and that if they say something stupid, it’s because some conspiratorial force told them what to say?
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Heh–if I said that Ben Shapiro was chosen to write a book condemning young people because he’s a young person, I doubt you guys would be all puffed up with fake outrage at my secret youth hatred.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
I never said they forced the words. How can you people not understand the difference between having a check waved under your nose and physical force? She chose to be a racist twit and she’s made out handsomely. But yes, I don’t doubt there’s “guidance” for young conservatives into writing on topics that older white men can’t get away with writing about.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
But of course you’re all right. Because Malkin is a woman and racial minority, I should assume she sprung fully formed from the head of Richard Scaife and was never ever guided into writing on certain topics by people with ulterior motives.
Also, when I fart it smells like roses and diamonds pop out.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
No, you should assume that she says what is in her own mind, and then address her arguments on their own merits (if you’re going to address her at all). Is that so hard?
This comment was written by Niels Jackson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Ampersand–
I certainly didn’t intend to start a flame war!
As I said, it is getting phenononally 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.
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 :-/
This comment was written by David Schraub.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
David wrote:
That’s not what I said, David. I actually agree that crude taunts are stupid and undermine emphasis on the real issues/content of the woman’s work. At least radfem seems to grasp the distinction I was trying to make: It’s not at all enough to just have “tits.” You have to have a certain kind of “tits”, as well as a certain nose, legs, hair, age bracket, wardrobe, etc.
To not consider that as a factor makes no sense to me, especially on a feminist board.
If that was the approach Reconstruction had made, I would actually have agreed wholeheartedly with him.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
Malkin is a twit. That’s in her own mind. However, unlike all the other racist twits out there, the majority of whom are white, she’s a handsomely paid racist twit. Which is the result of many factors, including the convienent factor that her race gives conservatives an opportunity to pretend any criticism of her is racism. This does not mean there aren’t lots of racist twits out there who are white and handsomely paid. The conservatives in this thread want one thing to preclude another and that’ s not going to happen.
Let’s be clear–Malkin chose to be a twit on her own, and her twit-ness is useful, and the fact that she is Asian-American makes her twit-ness all the more useful. None of these things makes the other things untrue.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
I’m confused–you weren’t the person my post was directed at. It was more to Amanda and a few others.
This comment was written by David Schraub.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
For what it’s worth, I’ve never been a person to fling racist or sexist insults at Malkin, because I don’t care really what her race or sex is. Her twit-ness is the problem. But let’s not play pretend-conservatives-don’t-hire-tokens. That’s just silly talk.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Well, you didn’t exempt me, David. So there really wasn’t any way for me to know. You said “nobody,” as opposed to “almost nobody” or, “nobody whose well-known in liberal blog-land.” :p Ah, never mind.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
“That being said, though, anyone who’s got a sense of history might recognize that there’s nothing terribly “novel” about an ethnic Filipino having issues with the Japanese, especially relating to events in World War II. The Japanese occupation was brutal, bitterly resisted, and bitterly remembered as well. ”
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Finally. It always amazes me that people discuss Malkin’s book all the time without acknowledging that the unpleasant history and lingering ill feelings between the Filipinos and the Japanese may have something to do with why Malkin decided to write her book. I know one middle aged Filipina woman who won’t even eat Japanese food and won’t let her grandkids watch anime because her hatred and distrust of Japan is still so strong. There’s a lot of bad blood there, and it dissapoints me that so few people on the left seem to be aware of the history that might be motivating Malkin.
I see a lot of both sexism and racism when the Left discusses Malkin. Her ideas in and of themselves are sufficiently obnoxious and idiotic to attack her on those grounds. Why the urge to go so quickly to the race and gender based insults?
So, the “tits” comment was way out of line. If anyone wants to make the comment that Malkin is promoted in part based on her gender it would make more sense to point out that her success is largely due to her being young and pretty (ie, a symptom of the way the media works in general).
However, I do think that the Right is PROMOTING her (as opposed to the idea that they somehow induced her to write a book in defense of the internment, when in fact I’m willing to bet that no inducement was needed - Malkin may be obnoxious, but she’s quite capable of being obnoxious all by herself with no assistance from anyone else) because they are counting on the inability of the american masses to tell the difference between a Filipina and a Japanese woman. They’re using Malkin’s book as a way to soften up the public so that they can push for removal of the civil rights of Muslims using much the same faulty logic that was used to justify the Japanese internment. So sure, Malkin’s being used, but it’s possible to point that out without describing her as some kind of a mindless fembot or resorting to sexist insults.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
Britgirl wrote:
My Jewish, Polish-born grandmother was the same way about Poland and the Gentile Poles, right up to the day of her death. :(
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
alsis39: I think we can all agree this thread is rapidly getting quite overheated. I’m being accused of being a conservative who loves Michelle Malkin, which is false. As a result, I got defensive and lashed out against “everybody” (or, since I was using negative terms, “nobody”). These things happen when emotions are running high–but its better to be specific than to group everyone together as an attacker.
So, bygones?
This comment was written by David Schraub.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Of course, David. Since I’m to the Left of most of the liberals here, I’m sure we can find something else to flame about in good time. ;)
As long as I’m on that subject, I never meant to imply that liberals and those further Left never partake of racism, sexism, homophobia, and the rest of the “-ism” salad bar. Plenty of threads here are testimony to that fact.
I’m not sure how I feel about Amanda’s assessment of Malkin as a token, because frankly I don’t keep up with the conservative wing enough to know if she’s literally the only Asian of any prominence there. Does anyone else know ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
I doubt that she’s all that rare, alsis. But my gut feeling is she’s a smart, smart person and is using the the fact that any and all criticism of her will be met with a swarm of conservatives who pretend they are suddenly concerned about racism and sexism, when of course they didn’t care enough about it to protest her apology of imprisoning innocent people and stripping them of their property. And of course, my supposed racism is far more vile than that of her buddies the Minutemen, who try to dress up what is essentially human-hunting as noble patriotism and yet tolerate the presence of neo-Nazis in their midst, people who, unlike the Japanese interned in camps, proudly align themselves with fascists who killed Americans.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
That actually is worth saying too–the attack on Malkin is clearly not “worse” than her attack on Japanese Americans. There is a clear difference between a sexist insult and advocating the complete subjugation of an entire class of people.
But as I wrote in the title of my own blog post–I thought we were better than this? The mantra of liberalism shouldn’t be “meaningfully less racist than Michelle Malkin.” It should be “opposing racism: anywhere, anytime, towards anyone.”
This comment was written by David Schraub.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Conservative for a Day
I’m tired. Defending minority conservatives has drained a lot out of me. It’s a thankless job, for obvious reasons. Liberals aren’t happy because they don’t like being interrupted while flogging an easy target. Conservatives aren’t happy because m…
This comment was written by The Debate Link.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Niels -
You bring up a couple good points. Before giving me an inch in this argument you wrote:
All that her critics want is a statement. Now, what you’ve brought up here leads to a point I’ve been wanting to make for awhile. Malkin is a hypocrite for not making some kind of public statement about the allegations. For much of the 2004 Presidential Election, Malkin railed against Kerry for not releasing his military records in full.
On Hardball, she even went so far as to say that the records would clear up any question that Kerry shot himself to get out of his second tour in Viet Nam early. She had absolutely no evidence to support this allegation - not even “speculation”, as you put it. Sometimes, chickens come home to roost, as they say.
On to your acceptance phase….
First off, if Malkin finally comes out and admits that her husband is her part-time ghostwriter, then there’s a bit of a scandal there. Her audience is under the false impression that every word on her blog comes from her fingertips. Her defense will likely be what you’re saying: that Jesse “helped”. If Malkin is able to get away with this without a damaged reputation and crippled credibility, then there will be no semblance of ethics coming from the Conservative blogosphere.
Now, if Jesse “helped” Michelle by writing under her name on the blog, then that by definition is using her as a “sockpuppet”, regardless of what he posted. And because he is embedded deeply in the conservative think tank culture, it is reasonable to assume that what he writes is meant to further an anti-liberal agenda.
I stand by these statements and reject out of hand any attempt by her apologists to conflate them with racism or misogyny. No one is claiming that Malkin is having anything forced upon her; I tend to believe that she agrees with the tripe that is published under her name.
This comment was written by Ryan.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Well, color me wrong. I’m not just taking Eve’s word for it, though (if anybody has links to liberals using the term “race traitor” seriously, I’d love to see them).
Mostly it is David who has proven me wrong. David, I still think it is putrid to use the term “race traitor” as it evokes visions of white supremacists & nazis. It disgusts me even more that, as a self-proclaimed liberal, you would choose to accuse someone, who clearly meant nothing of the sort, of possessing that attitude.
So, to sum up. “Race traitor” is not a term to be bandied about lightly lest you appear to be a US nazi. Thank you & good night.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Good comment, BritGirl.
I do think it is more accurate to say that Malkin is useful and is being promoted alongside certain goals rather than to imply that there is some puppetmaster conspiracy at hand.
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Jake: Niels gave you the links (see comment #45). In any event, I already said that the comment was overheated. But the underlying claim–that Amanda’s case only makes sense via views of “authentic” and “inauthentic” minority perspectives (with Malkin being in the latter), which does have racist implications–I stand by (see comment #65).
This comment was written by David Schraub.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
Just to backtrack a hair…
M.Scott Eilland wrote:
Okay, now THAT’S funny. Not the terms themselves, but Eilland’s assertion that these terms are the exclusive province of liberals, by which I’ll guess he means White liberals. The people I know who use these terms are people of color, often enough people of color who have no use for either liberals or conservatives. Most White liberals I know are extremely twitchy about discussing race at all (I guess you can include me there, since I’m sort of an ex/post-liberal :/), and would no more think of using any of these terms than they would of using the ‘n’ word. Right or wrong, it’s something I’ve noticed over the years.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
That’s because those terms are ingroup terms. I’m black, and calling someone an uncle tom connotates that your black card has been pulled, that you are servile to whites(who do not have black interests in mind, and often oppose them)
This comment was written by Shannon.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
[drift] Shannon, that “Liberal Bingo” you link to on your site is an absolute scream. [/drift]
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
Okay, now THAT’S funny. Not the terms themselves, but Eilland’s assertion that these terms are the exclusive province of liberals, by which I’ll guess he means White liberals.
You guess wrong. As Shannon notes, the terms originate within the groups in question, but I’ve noticed in practice that white liberals are more or less given a free hand in directing them at conservative minorities, to the point where I’ve seen white liberals do so without thinking about it and apologize when called on it. I’ve been noticing this for quite a while–I remember vividly during Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings being in a meeting with a liberal law professor with whom I was friendly, and being shocked when she casually suggested that any black man with Thomas’ political views had to be mentally ill. By the time that Julianne Malveaux publicly expressed a wish for Thomas to die young–only to suffer precisely zero consequences for it–I had ceased to be surprised by this sort of thing. To liberals, conservative minorities represent not just political adversaries, but turncoats–and as such are considered fair game for their most vicious rhetoric.
This comment was written by M. Scott Eiland.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 9:50 pm
To liberals, conservative minorities represent not just political adversaries, but turncoats”“and as such are considered fair game for their most vicious rhetoric.
In fairness, white conservatives do something similar to minority liberals - we sometimes tend to assume that they hold their positions for pecuniary or peer-pressure reasons, not honest convictions. Jesse Jackson is a race hustler, not an honest ideologue. It’s a relatively mild but very pervasive racism.
(Now, as it happens, I think Jesse is a race hustler, rather than an honest ideologue - but I’m going on the evidence of the years, not my stereotypes.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
I guess that you and I run with different crowds, M. Scott.
Perhaps this was out of line, but it’s not as novel as you aparently thought it was at the time. James Baldwin wrote some forty years ago that he regarded Black folks that sincerely believed in the whole John Wayne/Apple Pie vision of America as being basically deranged.
Perhaps I’d feel sorrier for Thomas if he hadn’t referred to his S.C. review as a “high-tech lynching.” When it comes to hyperbole, he had already proved that he could dish it out.
If you want every pundit and commentator that indulges in hyperbole to be “punished” somehow, you’re going to find yourself with a list of potential practitioners long enough to reach to the moon and back. It sure as blazes won’t be limited to boosters of one party, either.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
Me,me,me
It is true that I remarked upon the ramifications of a minority woman serving as at least a partial front for xenophobic opinions held by her white husband. But I also said “Don’t misunderstand; Michelle is clearly very capable - she wouldn’t be abl…
This comment was written by Malkin(s)Watch.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 10:10 pm
[Baldwin] regarded Black folks that sincerely believed in the whole John Wayne/Apple Pie vision of America as being basically deranged…
Well, a black person, or any person, who believed that vision had or has been fulfilled, I would worry about.
Of course, believing that vision has been fulfilled, and believing that a vision is an ideal to strive for, are two different things. I haven’t seen the Kingdom of Heaven, but believing in it ought not make me a priori nuts. (YMMV.)
For all that I tend to rip at them, I’d rather not hold up idealists as being deranged. Not sure if Baldwin meant to or not.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
I’d help you out with pinning down the specifics if I could, Robert. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the specific essay the comment was in. The book I read the essay in was something like 800 pages long, so a random search wouldn’t be likely to turn it up. Sorry. :/
Hell of a book, though, The Price of the Ticket. “Nothing Personal” and “The Devil Finds Work” are worth it all by themselves. 8)
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
You are right David - I absolutely missed comment #45. Thanks for pointing it out. And thanks, Niels, for the links.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 12:55 am
Anne said:
Um…Anne?
You do know who publishes Malkin’s books, right?
Regnery is a right-wing controlled puppetmaster conspiracy. They don’t just randomly decide what they’ll publish, and authors don’t turn in completed manuscripts and ask them to be printed up. No, they make contracts in accordance with their right-wing agenda of what they want to publish, and they’re not idiots. Evil, yes; idiots, no.
Why? Because they’re a book publishing company, and one with a specific agenda beyond just selling books. They want to push a message. How they push that message is a result of many decisions along the way.
Malkin didn’t just publish her books on the web for free or anything; a book doesn’t just spring out of your head like that. She didn’t sit down and write a complete book one day or over the course of several days; there were negotiations, contracts, editing meetings, and strategic political plans related to any book she’s ever written, BEFORE it was written.
She was specifically hired by Regnery to write this book. Maybe they approached her, maybe she approached them; ultimately that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that at some point — before the book was written, mind you — Regnery made the decision not only to publish a book on the subject of the Japanese internment camps being justifiable, but also to hire this specific person to write that book. And then she sat down and wrote it (or, possibly, had someone write it for her, although you’d think that if she were going to hire a ghostwriter, she’d hire one who could actually write).
Writing a book isn’t just about having a good idea, or about being a decent writer; it’s about convincing your publisher that YOU are the right person to write THAT particular book.
Recognizing this, of course, isn’t a conspiracy theory of any kind — it is simply how the publishing industry works.
Malkin was hired by Regnery to write a hit piece against Japanese-Americans. The fact that she’s the most prominent Asian-American woman on the right should be enough to give people some pause here.
By the way, everyone keeps comparing Malkin to white fat combover 50 year old guys. Has anyone been curious as to where all the Asian-American men are on the right? The real comparison is whether or not Malkin would — sans “tits” — be as accepted if she were a Philipino guy. What do you think?
–Kynn
PS: I winced at the “tits” line and I wish he thought of a different way to make his point — note, though, that it’s not an attack on Malkin, it’s an attack on her fans and promoters — and I did laugh at the first sentence about arresting herself. The thing that Malkin seems to forget is that the majority of Muslims in the world — like, those who are from Indonesia — actually look a lot like a Philipino person would, to Western eyes. Remember, white Anglo culture thinks that Brazilians look like Asian terrorist guys (before they get eight shots to the back of the head), so it’s ironic that if Malkin ever got her wish for increased racial and ethnic profiling, including incarceration, she’d be considered a suspect herself.
This comment was written by Kynn Bartlett.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 12:56 am
Hmm. It seems that the mere existence minority conservatives brings out very nasty traits out of many liberals (mind you - I’m not accusing anyone here, I’m talking more about the original post and the links). It seems rather similar to the Kos scandal, as this too shows that “our side” (I’m using the term very broadly and internationally here) shouldn’t take the titles of tolerance and anti-bigotry so easily. Resisting bigotry such as racism, sexism and homo/transphobia is very real work starting with oneself.
This rampant bigotry is just one more example of partisanship winning over ideology/morality, the “we” must win “them” at any cost - mentality. “Us” and “them” being political affiliations this time.
I wrote:
Alsis wrote (#55):
Sad but true.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 5:38 am
Oh jeezus, Ampersand.
That’s not sexism, that’s the truth.
This comment was written by Martin Wisse.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 8:15 am
I’m not sure it’s bigotry as basically looking at the facts. Malkin spends her time complaining about the evils of immigration, but her own parents were immigrants. Also, black conservatives spend their time allying with people who are against any advance in civil rights at all, ever, and pretty much have negative attitudes towards blacks. It is natural to wonder why people attack the group they are in. White people have gotten that treatment too(What’s the Matter with Kansas or why poor white folks vote against their own interest) it just isn’t clearly labeled. I’m not saying that there aren’t nicer ways to say it, but I can’t blame anyone for bringing up the question.
This comment was written by Shannon.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 11:08 am
“It always amazes me that people discuss Malkin’s book all the time without acknowledging that the unpleasant history and lingering ill feelings between the Filipinos and the Japanese may have something to do with why Malkin decided to write her book. I know one middle aged Filipina woman who won’t even eat Japanese food and won’t let her grandkids watch anime because her hatred and distrust of Japan is still so strong. There’s a lot of bad blood there, and it dissapoints me that so few people on the left seem to be aware of the history that might be motivating Malkin.”
Thanks, BritGirlSF, for catching my post, and sharing my disappointment with my fellow lefties on this one. This is historical ignorance on the level of not knowing the difference between a Serb and a Croat, or an Irish Catholic from an Ulster Protestant, and it keeps many of us from being able to recognize (and speak) the obvious truth, which is not that Malkin’s a “race traitor” (or Uncle Tom, or Oreo, or shill for her whitebread husband, or whatever other term you want to use for someone who acts contrary to one’s own best interest). She’s just a racist, period.
This comment was written by nolo.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
It seems to me that it’s perfectly legitimate to discuss and refute Malkin’s arguments without referring to Malkin’s background in any way at all. It’s the arguments that matter, in this case, not the person making them.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
I agree completely, Ampersand. There is, however, a sort of meta-text of assumptions about group motivations, goals and allegiances in which the debate about the significance of Michelle Malkin’s opinions has been taking place, which I think you’re trying to tackle in some way in your most recent post on the use of the term “race traitor.” It is that debate which I am trying to grapple with also (without, I hope, giving it more legitimacy than it deserves) by pointing out that the debate itself, all issues regarding its legitimacy aside, depends on a critical misconception, which is that Asians are a single ethnic group with with monolithic interests and concerns. Aside from being somewhat ironic, it has gotten both the left and the right very off-track — especially seeing as it has sent otherwise astute people off into a debate about whether Michelle Malkin is “bucking a trend” or is somehow “brave” to be espousing what appear to be anti-Asian sentiments, when in fact Ms. Malkin comes from a cultural background in which anti-Japanese sentiments are part of the common discourse.
This comment was written by nolo.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
sorry about the tag not closing. Bad fingers on my part.
This comment was written by nolo.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
…when in fact Ms. Malkin comes from a cultural background in which anti-Japanese sentiments are part of the common discourse…
Actually, folks are assuming this cultural background - or imputing it to her genetics. You don’t know how she was raised.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Well, there are 2 separate debates. One is about Malkin’s arguments. The other is about the symbolic signifigance (and the weight it does or does not give to Malkin’s words) of her gender & race.
I think that her gender & her race is irrelevant to the former but that those are the substantive issues of the latter.
Of course, nolo is right about the misconception in this case of “Asian” being viewed as a monolithic culture.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Robert, you’re absolutely right that I may be wrong (though you’re very incorrect in pretending that I’ve made a “genetic” argument — those are your words, not mine). Despite the fact that her immigrant parents are either members of the generation that experienced the Japanese occupation directly or were born very shortly thereafter to parents who had experienced the occupation directly, I suppose it’s still very possible that Michelle Malkin’s parents (or grandparents) never said anything about the occupation and never said anything negative about the Japanese. I have no direct knowledge either way, and of course anything’s possible. But if you had to place a bet, Robert, where would you put your money?
That being said, my intention was not to add grist to the sideshow that is the debate over the significance of Ms. Malkin’s ethnicity. It was to point out that speculation about the significance of her ethnicity, aside from being irrelevant to the merits of her arguments, can also lead to wildly inconsistent conclusions depending on the facts you have at hand. Oh, and also to needle folks on both sides of the symbolism debate for the somewhat racist misconceptions upon which their respective positions are based.
This comment was written by nolo.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Nolo, your point was perfectly clear to everyone except Robert, and entirely worth making in order to demonstrate the absurdity of viewing “Asian” as a homogenous identity. Frankly in many ways the Phillipines has more shared history and cultural links with Spain than it does with, for example, Japan, just to demonstrate how silly it is to view Asia as some kind of monolithic entity.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
I am still intrigued with the question of whether Malkin is the token Asian in Conservative-land. Frankly, if conservatives are sincere about not wanting Asian voices to be perceived as some kind of monolith, with liberal (or liberal-sympathetic) voices as the supposed default, they ought to be asking themselves that, too. If there’s room at the top for all those White guys, isn’t there also room for more than one Asian ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
Frankly, if conservatives are sincere about not wanting Asian voices to be perceived as some kind of monolith…
Conservatives, generally, don’t care about the question. Worrying about whether the People’s Committee has the proper number of ambidextrous Wiccan socialist lesbians of color is a leftist fetish. (Rightist fetishes involve Ann Coulter, a copy of Tip O’Neill’s book about black dysfunction in the inner city, and creamy brown gravy. Lots and lots of warm, sensuous gravy.)
If there’s room at the top for all those White guys, isn’t there also room for more than one Asian ?
As many as win themselves an audience. Or, pace Amanda, as many as we choose to grant audiences to. (I know I have a spare audience around here somewhere; maybe if you get around to starting that blog and promise to write about how feminism is eeeevil, I’ll assign it to you.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
I don’t see why conservatives should have it both ways, Robert. It’s kind of tough, to my mind, to avoid charges of tokenism when you elevate one member amongst millions of a single race to the top tier of your profession. It may not be your intent to have that one person as a universal spokesperson, but it ends up being an easy trap to fall into.
I’m confused. Did Malkin “win” as one wins a lottery ticket or did she “win” as one wins a marathon ? Who passed out the awards ? And if the awarders are largely White men, why should they get to be the only ones to bandy about terms like racism when it comes to their opponents ?
Hey, enjoy your stand-up act, but I was actually quite serious.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
” don’t see why conservatives should have it both ways, Robert. It’s kind of tough, to my mind, to avoid charges of tokenism when you elevate one member amongst millions of a single race to the top tier of your profession.”
The problem is you use ‘elevate’ but do not identify who you believe is doing the ‘elevating’. Who are these ‘conservatives’ who want to have it both ways. We need to names here. :)
This comment was written by Sebastian Holsclaw.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Neither did Robert. I just assumed he meant the audiences for shows, political writings, and blogs. But those audiences don’t just wander out into some idealogical equivalent of a highly diverse, untrafficked ecosystem to find everything in that forrest to be equally visible and accessable, do they ?
Sebastian, are there not foundations that exclusively cultivate conservative voices ? Think tanks ? Politicians ? Publishers ? Blogs ? As I tried to say a couple of times before, politics isn’t all that different from show biz in the sense that it’s marketed like a product. Someone, or several someones, are doing the marketing and laying out the money for it, in hopes of getting both tangible and intangible returns. Despite Robert’s jokes, that’s not a wild-eyed conspiracy theory. It’s the market. You know, the one that conservatives so often talk about as the be-all and end-all of human existence. The one that you say is inherently “free” and that I say is exactly the opposite of “free.”
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
It’s kind of tough, to my mind, to avoid charges of tokenism when you elevate one member amongst millions of a single race to the top tier of your profession.
What “race” do you believe Malkin to be the sole exemplar of?
Who “elevated” her? From what I can see, she worked hard in high school to get the credentials that won her a place at a prestigious college. She worked hard at that college which bought her the chops to get a job at two metropolitan papers. She worked hard at the papers, which won her an audience in the community and the respect of her peers. That opened the door for her to get in at a prestigious think tank, where pundit-wannabes often spend a year or so burnishing their credentials. She did all of this while also being a wife and mother. (Well, not the high school and college part.)
She spent 15 years becoming an overnight success. I don’t see a whole lot of elevating. Perhaps you do.
Did Malkin “win” as one wins a lottery ticket or did she “win” as one wins a marathon ? Who passed out the awards ? And if the awarders are largely White men, why should they get to be the only ones to bandy about terms like racism when it comes to their opponents ?
She “won” by writing stuff that people want to read, that is informative, thought-provoking, or what have you.
The bizarre worldview where a cabal of white men decide who’s going to be successful had a glimmer of truth, in the days when citizen media meant whatever the paperboy chose to yell. Michelle Malkin got 80,000 daily readers pretty much the minute she opened her blog. The Ivory Tower Of Power Conspiracy doesn’t have that many members.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Robert, this thread is as close to us having a real discussion as I can recall in the entire history of this blog. Please don’t fuck it up by being willfully dense. You’ve read the thread. Don’t be obtuse. It just misdirects the conversation.
That’s all well and good. What I don’t get is the idea that somehow she’d be the only Asian in the entire U.S. to have been good enough to compete at the top tier of a White-male-dominated profession. I don’t consider that a Lefty “fetish,” since you’ll find similar tokenism throughout the political world in one form or another.
Robert, you can try to dismiss what I’m asking by trotting out terms like “cabal” and “conspiracy,” but you’re contradicting your own point by simultaneously describing the structure that helped put Malkin in the public eye and then denying it exists. Honestly, that’s just weird.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
you’re contradicting your own point by simultaneously describing the structure that helped put Malkin in the public eye
The “work hard and go to college” structure?
As for why there aren’t many top-tier Asian journalists, beats me. Democrats run the newsrooms; maybe they hate Asians. On my side of the ideological fence, there doesn’t appear to be any particular bias against them; Ramesh Ponnuru, Malkin, Dinesh D’Souza, and so forth.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
[rolleyes]
Forget it, Robert. I don’t know why I even bothered to assume that you could for once conduct an exchange without playing your usual games of disingenuous bait-and-switch. But we’re not here for genuine exchange, of course. We’re here so you can have something to poke with a stick for your own amusement. What was I thinking ?
Show’s over, Folks. Move along. Nothing to see, etc…
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
“Democrats run the newsrooms.”
No, they don’t. Although one oft-quoted study found that print journalists are more likely to pick opinions on various issues more aligned with liberal thought, the publishers who own most of the publications they right for are political conversatives. And if you don’t think that higher management and publishers influence content of a news reporters writing, then you haven’t worked in journalism, or haven’t very long.
There’s glass ceilings in journalism like anything else for men of color and women, including Asian-American women. Conservative, Liberal, racial discrimination still exists in the workplace.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
A big Doh!, too, because I looked up Malkin and realized after seeing her picture that she’s one of the “new wave” columnists in our daily newspaper(which has got to be one of the most right-wing dailies in the country right now) op-ed section which I’ve been boycotting since the most leftist columnist who survived the purge(goodbye Scheer, Goodman and Page), was Maureen Dowd….
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
Maureen Dowd is a Lefty in the same way that Tony Roma’s[tm] is a BBQ shack. :p
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
The James Baldwin book is probably No Name in the Street. A classic, underrated in part because it was radical enough to make liberals rather uncomfortable.
This comment was written by Mr Ripley.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 7:43 am
Ripley, I know that No Name was included in the collection. Not sure whether it’s the one where I saw that particular comment, however.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
August 10th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
alsis, dooooon’t take away the clooosest thing our newspaper has to a leeeefist nooooow!
**the only positive thing was that they did “recycle” out Ann Coulter**
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 7:27 am
Under the Rock
Granted, Katherine Harris is making her femininity an issue when she stands at a ¾ view to the camera and thrusts her breasts out, and it’s great to examine how she’s using it and what kind of an atavistic role
This comment was written by No Tickling!.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 9:32 am
“What I don’t get is the idea that somehow she’d be the only Asian in the entire U.S. to have been good enough to compete at the top tier of a White-male-dominated profession. ”
Connie Chung does fairly well. I know that I don’t even watch TV news.
This comment was written by Sebastian Holsclaw.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
[sarcasm:]
Well, I guess that puts my worries to bed once and for all. Thanks, S !
[/sarcasm]
Radfem, they just hated Ann cuz’ she’s beautiful.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
March 6th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
, they focused on the use of the word “tits”. If I had said “If she were a white male, she’d be stuck writing at Townhall.com” (because conservatives use her sex and ethnicity as a shield), no one would have blinked, even though it means exactly the same thing. And, unfortunately, there are liberals who latch onto this tool simply to attack others for their language when they can’t win a substantive argument.
This comment was written by Fables of the reconstruction.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 am
[...] to generate that kind of crap?” This was the question Pepper asked in the comments for Auguste’s Ghost Blogging post here. Pepper was, of course, talking about Michelle and Jesse Malkin’s talking-point turd-polisherof a blog.*The answer is, apparently, yes. Yes, according to the independent sources Auguste had in his Rolodex before “Ghost Blogging” was posted and yes again, according to the new sources who have come forward since.According to one source:Jesse Malkin is the driving force behind Michelle. He is a control freak. Michelle is no innocent victim either. She chose to be with the guy, and apparently they have been successful as this wingnut juggernaut. She needs him as much as he needs her.It’s a match made in heaven, perhaps. Or at Oberlin.*As opposed to my talking-point turd-polisher of a blog.III. So What Does it Matter? - AugusteThe most common question asked of me following this post goes a little something like this:Okay, let’s say you’re right. What difference does it make?That’s a good question. First of all, as noted in this post by LA, I am right, as has been confirmed by sources who have come forward since the original post. I was cagy about some of the evidence I had for multiple reasons, none of which I’ll go into here.Second, I am not attempting to destroy Michelle’s career, nor am I foolish or crazy enough to believe that I could even if I wanted to. Worse has been done than anything I’m suggesting of Michelle by many people. That said, I’d like to suggest a few reasons why this might matter, if only a little.Disclosure: The Liberal Avenger and I had many discussions about this story prior to its publication, and some of these ideas more likely belong to him - he’s already written about some of them in his comments section, as well.It’s the lying. As I noted in my initial post, Michelle has gone out of her way to promote the idea that she is the sole proprieter of her blog. Perhaps her resolve slipped in recent days, for as LBC noted, the new Immigration Blog lists simply “Malkin” as a byline. It just seems that she’s guilty of protesting too much in, without prompting, taking full credit for “her” output. Maybe it’s just another right-wing lie, or maybe it’s more significant.It’s the scandal.Michelle has always been very hot on the idea that blogs are home to better reporting than the mainstream media. Well, one of Rick Bragg’s biggest transgressions was allowing others to write stories under his byline. If Michelle were to admit that “Michelle Malkin” is a generic byline for both herself and Jesse, then fine. Except, of course…It’s the persona.A quick glance through Technorati reveals, if one didn’t know already, that Michelle is something of a right-wing darling. She’s not the only one, on either side, either - this is the age of celebrity journalism. She’s bright, photogenic, and talented, and, in my opinion, finds a much more forgiving audience because of it. While, as I noted in my original post and continue to state, I have no doubt that she is responsible for much of what appears under her name, the introduction of Jesse into the equation does tend to confuse the issue. This is not to say that opinions are more or less valid coming from a minority female than a white male, or vice versa, although I am sure that is what I will be accused of saying. Rather, it is a statement of fact that the public, en masse, often reacts this way. It seems more than possible that Jesse Malkin, a white male, producing anti-immigrant, racially focused writings, would only ever be a face in the crowd.It’s the questions it raises. As LA notes:Has “Michelle” ever blogged or written about topics related to what Jesse was working on for the government at the think tank while Jesse was still connected with the think tank in any way?It’s none of the above. At the bottom of all of this is, honestly, “I report - you decide.” As I noted on LA’s comments thread:I chose a topic for a blog…My topic happens to be one particular writer.Then I realized my topic is actually two particular writers, so I wrote that.Michelle/Jesse love, love, love the idea of bloggers replacing the MSM as the source of investigative reporting. This is just playing by their rules.IV. Me,me,me - Auguste (8/05 semi-followup)Far-right affirmative action hire who is so bigoted she’d arrest herself for trying to cross a border. Famously published a book praising internment of Japanese-Americans that was (a) incoherent and (b) probably not written by her. If she didn’t have tits, she’d be stuck writing at Townhall.com.Hoo-doggie. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Mithras didn’t quite expect the backlash he got from this post (not to say he’s upset by it.) Interestingly, it wasn’t until just this minute that I even realized that his original post was from a week ago today. Funny how, in a supposedly instantaneous medium such as the Internet, things can take as long as they sometimes do to get rolling.Case in point: The Liberal Avenger and I wrote our little “ghost blogging” series just over four months ago, and, as an indirect result of Mithras’ “probably not written by her”, it’s just now starting to get the notice of indignant righties. Like some others, I’m not altogether happy with some of his verbiage. Regular readers (thanks guys!) know that I have gone on record as being against the all-too-common ad hominem attacks, not just because they’re wrong but because they give the righties permission to be outraged rather than to respond. (I even got in trouble with Atriots/Eschatonians over it, which nobody enjoys.)”Ghost Blogging” was not an ad hominem attack. It was a confidentially sourced series written by nonjournalists (me, and the Liberal Avenger) reporting facts. It was not embarked upon because she is a woman, or a minority, or a minority woman, as some commenters at Volokh, Alas, a Blog, and probably others, would have it. It is true that I remarked upon the ramifications of a minority woman serving as at least a partial front for xenophobic opinions held by her white husband. But I also said “Don’t misunderstand; Michelle is clearly very capable - she wouldn’t be able to handle the media as well as she does if she weren’t - and certainly is responsible for much of what is written in her name.”Here’s a reprint of a comment I wrote defending myself at Volokh:Well, I didn’t come here to get into a rehash of a 4-month-old short post series, but perhaps I misspoke if I led you to believe I was talking about ’secret information.’ What I really meant was sources who prefer not to be identified who informed me about, for example, her post of Sept. 8th which was posted while she was on a plane to Berkeley for a speech; pointed out that she posted within minutes of another talk; that “Michelle’s” most in-depth posts are often about health care, Jesse’s particular area of professional experience; that Jesse has at least once defended something “Michelle” wrote by writing a defensive e-mail to a critic - without her knowledge; that, yes, the royal we has been problematic; that her output is amazing for someone who has repeatedly claimed that she has no help whatsoever; what the topic of her next book would be four months before it was announced; that “Jesse Malkin is the driving force behind Michelle. He is a control freak. Michelle is no innocent victim either. She chose to be with the guy, and apparently they have been successful as this wingnut juggernaut. She needs him as much as he needs her”…all of which were mentioned in my posts - and the Liberal Avenger’s - of the time.This surely sounds defensive, and it probably is. But whatever. Unlike (the) Malkin(s), I don’t generally consider myself part of some “new media.” I also am not trained, nor do I plan to be, in the proper crediting and/or protocol regarding confidential sources.That’s okay, though, because I’m pretty sure I could open my entire e-mail account for examination and it still wouldn’t end this discussion. Hope you all come and visit my blog again.———————-[Bloggers! Please add a link to this post to your site. It infuriates a certain pair of rightwing blogosphere nutjobs...] [...]
This comment was written by The Liberal Avenger: Ghost blogging?.Report this comment to the moderators