Discuss amongst yourselves
it's easy to be defiant of the majority it you put yourself in enough of a social bubble--you;d think Estrich's fans and loyal students could give her the reassurance she needs to stay fighting the good fight...
Given the state of women today
...and that is, Prof. Estrich? No doubt dire!
But she fell out with NOW's national leadership for making "racially insensitive" remarks on the air about O. J. Simpson's being a wife-beater.
That's another illustration of how philosophically and ethically corrupt more than a few leftists can be. The reaction towards Tammy Bruce reminds me of all those liberals who are far happier when people give the benefit of the doubt to Saddam Hussein instead of George Bush, to fanatic Palestinians instead of westernized Israelis. What's really galling is that most of those people of the left believe their ideology is somehow predicated on and devoted to human kindness.
Ms. Estrich needs a grammar lesson. "[N]either she nor them is in the Times" ought to read "neither she nor they are in the Times."
But I'm just one of those pathetic females who majored in English.
re: Susan Estrich...
Are the libs losing their minds? With the melt-down of their protectors at the MSM this last election cycle, they seem to be going into a tailspin.
The specter of John Kerry is still running around, claiming to have won an election he lost by over 4 million votes. (Case in point: when's the last time anyone heard Hillary whining about the Electoral College?)
Now Susan Estrich is rattling her chains, fighting ludicrous gender battles that no one seems to care about.
It's Halloween in February!
Tammy Bruce was, and is, an annoying showboat. And in that she's a lot closer to Susan Estrich than you might be willing to admit, Cathy. After all Bruce's lesbianism has served her much like Estrich's liberalism -- as a posture of convience.
As for Cecile, if Iwo Jima is upsetting her I hope you're keeping her away from the latest news out of Iraq.
After all Bruce's lesbianism has served her much like Estrich's liberalism
Huh? What does Bruce's homosexuality have to do with her political-cultural philosophy? I'd say your analogy would be understandable if Bruce were as liberal as Estrich is, meaning that to compare the two or to observe differences between them required the splitting of hairs.
What I don't get about Charlotte Allen is that she whines about how women talk too much about gender-- yet that is exactly what she does too! Bashing feminism takes up a large portion of the IWF Inkwell. If feminism is such a failure, why does the IWF devote so much time to it? And why are they so concerned with gender issues if that's what women ought not be concerned about? It's just more victim politics, I'm telling you.
"What does Bruce's homosexuality have to do with her political-cultural philosophy?"
You tell me, mark. After all in post- Guckert America, aren't such issues in your camp?
And I do mean CAMP !
"Liberal" Joan Walsh takes a swipe at me -- without mentioning my name, of course.
I get the feeling that Estrich is-- how to put this?-- playing solitaire alone with a deck of fifty-one.
Tammy Bruce's lesbianism has everything to do with her being on talk radio right now, IMO. It's her gimmick -- if she were a heterosexual man voicing the same opinions, she'd never make it. I've listened to the show a few times, and inevitably there are more technical foul-ups than on other shows; once Tammy unprofessionally and deliberately left her mic on so she could laugh over the Paul Harvey spots. She also misses commercial breaks, plays them at the wrong time...comes off as barely competent, frankly.
I can often enjoy right-talk radio, but not her. It's just painful to hear her screw up all the time. If she was that bad back when she was on the Left, it's no wonder they kicked her out.
I've never seen this much bashing of anyone on this blog except maybe for Ann Coulter.
It's too bad no one has bothered to refute her numbers with their own. And the word feminist isn't interesting to me either way. I do know when I'm not seeing the numbers in my checks, or selling the cartoons the men are, which is much of the time.
Some of us have to use our imaginations here. If you went into a newsroom of a section of a paper and saw all men, you would think you had stepped back to and old b/w movie of the 40's, and if you were a woman, I bet your heart would beat a little faster. It would be strange and a little shocking. That is what she is saying.
A year ago Purina had an online cartoon delivery sign-up site that sent several dog and cat cartoons to everyone each week. It lasted 3 years, and was run by Sam Gross, who has put out most cartoon collections in the last dozen years. He used 22 men cartoonists, including himself, for those 3 years. Just picture 22 men sitting in a room drawing - what the f--k is WRONG with this picture??? (and even more annoying, there has been a stereotype for years that women cartoonists prefer to do only cartoons about cats...Yup, heard that one. Just not this time, I guess.) Of course, I called the Purina Pres, the company that owns Purina, advertisers, etc. No change.
In the 10 or 12 calendars & books he did, for major publishers, Roz Chast & I were the only women in them out of 30 cartoonists or so.) And I believe he included one (1) of mine in each one just because he knew me. (Time marches on, even in the stuffy New York offices, and now he uses one or 2 more women.)
I won't go into details on the New Yorker, WSJ, and some other places.
Just continue to talk about Estrich's screechy voice, and her accent, etc., and ignore the fact that law classes sometimes might focus on sexism - and how hard it is to prove this.
I would be happy to sign her letter.
Latest FaBlog: Birthday Present
After all in post- Guckert America, aren't such issues in your camp?
Who? What? Huh? I've been too busy dealing with that leftwing goofus formerly at CNN. You know, the bigwig executive who accused the US military (on two different occasions) of going after journalists, and I mean going after them, as in aiming guns, bombs, tanks or what-not at them.
If you went into a newsroom of a section of a paper and saw all men, you would think you had stepped back to and old b/w movie of the 40's, and if you were a woman, I bet your heart would beat a little faster.
This is one instance where because the predominant social-political biases of most of the people in the profession you're referring to lean left, I'm either less willing to suspect them of male chauvinism or I'm more willing to blame them for being a bunch of phoneys when it comes to their probable pro-diversity attitudes.
I'll admit that if you were trying to break into some exclusive country club, then, yea, what you are describing likely would be a case of garden-variety discrimination, if not outright bigotry (and when rightists are guilty of judging people based on their superficial traits, not on their honest-to-goodness merit, that's idiotic and pathetic). However, there is some odd ambiguity about what exactly you're confronting, even more so since I know the ratio of male to female students in the field of journalism (not to mention law or medicine, etc) has changed drastically over the past 20 years.
Hey Mark, did you see JimJeff just now on CNN being interviewed by Anderson Cooper?
Fun, fun, fun!
Mark,
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but these are not editorial cartoonists, at all, that I am talking about. I would say that many are pretty conservative old folks in the New Yorker.
And these are cartoons of kitties & doggies. Hard to assign political bias.
Not to Mark! :)
Oh, and happy b-day, DE!!
Happy Birthday David...enjoy the villainy that is Duran Duran! (heh!)
I think Donna has a good point. It is the reason I threw the "softball" out there earlier. Of course, if it was such a softball I wonder why no one has talked about whether there is or isn't an institutional bias on the Op-ed page, or even speculated.
I also think Donna has good points regarding cartoons. It is amazing to me that Little Lulu, one of the comics Donna says she collects, was created by a woman, but that the comic books about Lulu were drawn by men. Needless to say I have a great number of thoughts on the issue regarding "comic strips" and women. But I will keep them between Cathy, Donna, and me. I will email them my thoughts on my own to get comments/advice.
Great column! I first "met" Ms. Estrich on CNN during the Willie Kennedy-Smith rape of the "blue-dot" woman. Susan was explaining, first, why Smith's personal past with women was of great importance and any and all court records should be included in the trial, and then immediately afterwards proclaimed Ms. "blue-dot"'s past was protected personal information. I don't know law, but I know "unfair" when I hear it. And believe me, I am NO fan of the Kennedy's!
Loved your friend's lament about ONE job that would never be open to Ms. Estrich. Although, I'm not sure if it's true. Is there a 900 number for men who want to speak to an "ex-wife"?
Thanks all!
And now as a special Birthday treat --
Here's Anderson Cooper's interview with JimJeff
It's Meltdown City boys and girls!
Jim and Howie sittin' in a tree.
Charlotte Allen, whose Sunday opinon piece in the L.A. Times so enraged Susan Estrich, has some thoughts
When Estrich is quoted as expressing this particular thought...
Just ask Harvard President Larry Summers. His days are numbered. The opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times would do well to consult with his fellow Harvard man on the topics of women and the cost of arrogance. His are, too.
...I guess Kinsley should ask, "is that a threat, Susan?"
Estrich comes off as a real fool and has lost even more credibility when she refers to Harvard's president (who probably is as liberal as Estrich is, but merely is willing to be candid about biology and human nature) in a manner of "we'll tar and feather you if you don't say what we say, if you don't do what we do, and if you don't do what we demand you do!!"
Hard to assign political bias.
I was referring to the type of people who screen material in the media. A high percentage of them do lean left, which doesn't guarantee they'll necessarily be non-discriminatory in who they approve or veto. After all, look at Hollywood. Full of liberals and yet many of their film and TV projects follow predictable patterns when it comes to the type of characters that are favored and the physical nature of the people (including their race and gender) hired to play those characters.
But, then again, you have the example of Cathy Seipp's mother who several decades ago made her way into a field of interest otherwise dominated by males. I'm sure such a woman at that time would've encountered a fair share of resistance if she took her education and turned it into a career (back in the era of "I Love Lucy"---although that TV show's star certainly did quite well in her profession). But the glass ceiling definitely has been raised, if not shattered, in the past 45 years.
"I was referring to the type of people who screen material in the media."
Like who? Kinsley? Seems to me that's Kinsley's interested in providing the LAT with a number of different op-editorialviews. Moreover he's just demonstrated his opposition to the nonsense Estrich has been spewing.
So while his politics may be liberal he's hardly doctrinaire.
Or do you take the position that liberals should be allowed to speak or hold positions of editorial authority in any way shape or form?
Susan's complaints are sounding a little stalker-ish-- by her reasoning, the Times should publisher her rants because she had Mike over for dinner and introduced him around. Woman scorned? Does she have a big crush on him? She has that Fatal Attraction quality.
And some of the 50 fab gals who signed her letter aren't all that fab--women studies profs, screenwriters and the producer of a Stuart Little movie.
And why does she care where he lives--doens't Scheer live up north?
Susan Estrich certainly could say "I will not be ignored.."
Definitely from the mid-career Glenn Close repetoire.
Re all that"Gorilla mask" talk from yesterday --
And then there's WaPo's Editorial, summarized in this from the first paragraph:
If Lawrence H. Summers loses his job for the crime of positing a politically incorrect hypothesis -- or even if he pays some lesser price for it -- the chilling effect on free inquiry will harm everyone.
And along the lines of "We are all neocons now" what about this from TNR. Liberals have a big problem: They've run out of ideas.
Liberals? What liberals.
"Jeff did his thing,I did my thing."
SNERK!
What are her students doing counting the male female ratio of op ed writers for the LA Times? IWhat bar exam is that going to be on? Is that supposed to enhance their resumes?
The way I see it, the one whose days are numbered isn't Kinsley.
Oh Gucky, please Sue! Please, please PLEASE!!!
I'VE GOT IT!
Ideal casting for the (inevitable) made-for-TV movie "Bulldog": The Other Side of Jeff --
It's the role he was born to play!
This sucks. I am truly speechless.
This sucks
Indeed. Duke is dead. Long live the Duke!
It's very sad, but once again demonsrates the fact that people who ostentatiously display firearms eventually use them. (See also Phil Spector and Donald Cammell.)
I think it's just mildly sad. Hunter S. Thompson was a self-destructive asshole his whole life, and his suicide was just the final note in that theme. My thought reading the news: Well, that's that.
Self-destructive, most definitely. But over the last few hours I've been in touch with several people who knew him personally (I myself never met the man) and for all his craziness genuinely loved him. Moreover he could be genuinely loveable right back.
But waste is waste, alas.
I enjoyed reading "Hell's Angels" but apparently the Oakland Chapter felt quite betrayed by him, claiming he fabricated large portions of the story. Of course he didn't have the benefit of taped recordings for accurate backstabbing.
Probably felt left out of the whole Merry Pranksters, hippie, Angel, hot and sour soup.
Strobe lights beam create dreams
walls move minds do to...
Angels sing, leather wings
jeans of blue Harley Davisons too.
on a warm San Francisco night
-EB
So while his politics may be liberal he's hardly doctrinaire.
I'm dealing with Estrich's assertion that people running things in the media, certainly (as she sees things) the op-ed pages of the LA Times, are influenced by old-time biases, against females in particular.
I do admit that a higher percentage of liberals, unlike many conservatives, push the idea of (or like to talk about) upholding supposedly honest, sincere diversity, even if it's often corrupted into diversity for diversity's sake. Therefore, if Estrich is aiming the accusation of discrimination at someone like very liberal Michael Kinsley, then I think she's really stretching her credibility far more than anything she's doing to Kinsley's.
However, Kinsley could be similar to one of those phony Hollywood-type liberals, the ones who, again, favor certain kinds of stories, characters and actors/actresses, including the race and gender of such people, which in most instances end up being not too different from various versions of the "OC" or "Friends" TV show, or the 3 main anchors on the daily network news shows----meaning that something like the UPN or WB network is on one side of the fence, everyone else is on the other. Or what's evident at the get-togethers of many families throughout the US, in which the guys will migrate to one side of the house, the women will migrate to the other side.
> I think it's just mildly sad.
> Hunter S. Thompson was a self-
> destructive asshole his whole life
Amy, thank the hell out of you for popping the cork. I've been waiting for someone to come out and say that for all the precious pixels that are glowing for this guy today, he didn't really amount to much. This was not Orwell. Can I further add that I think that his petulent, sneering, drug-addled tone spoke to an infantile, hollow, and best-forgotten part of 1972's boomer heart?
PS- I belittled Sontag when she died, too. Game on, people: Public life is for the judgmental.
Donna B. said: If you went into a newsroom of a section of a paper and saw all men, you would think you had stepped back to and old b/w movie of the 40's, and if you were a woman, I bet your heart would beat a little faster. It would be strange and a little shocking. That is what she is saying.
It's not true though...as least from my own experience.
I've spent some time in large metro newspapers and they're full of women and minorities. And minority women. And various permutations of same.
I couldn't say about comics. Aren't most of them bought from syndicators?
-Joy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...s/1506863/
posts
Susan Estrich was promoting her book on Hannity on Oct. 11. He challenged her about Juanita Broaddrick's rape accusation. Estrich totally dismissed it, saying that she had talked to Bill and he had said he didn't do it. Sure, Susan. he would lie to his wife, daughter, attorney, the grand jury, and the American people while pointing his finger but he'd never lie to Susan.
Juanita and I have communciated several times over the years, so I suggested to Susan that she speak with Juanita and get her side of the story. As a fellow rape victim, it would be a good idea to hear the victim's side of the story.
Juanita welcomed the opportunity to speak with her. Estrich sent me an email this morning with just two words --- "not interested."
Estrich now has zero credibility. She doesn't want to know. But you know what? She knows. She is just a partisan phony.
Commenting by HaloScan
