Self-Service

When a non-anonymous man directs a sexual slur at a woman--here in Minnesota--the act is considered contemptible and indicative of misogyny. A left-wing woman, on the other hand, can feel free to unleash any evidence-free animadversion she likes, at zero reputational cost.

This state of affairs would appear non-progressive--though prevailing liberal McCarthyism prevents such common-sense-based thinking from eliciting any response.  'Progressive' club membership is arbitrary--and controlled by the aggressively unintelligent and the corrupt.  (If you question this state of affairs, your disquiet counts as evidence against you.)

Hamline Law Prof. Jessica Pieklo asserts that some man she detests is contemptible, in part, because he masturbates.  I have no idea against whom Pieklo lobs this ugly charge--though I would like to say a word in defense of her vendetta's object:

Masturbation is an extremely widespread phenomenon among both adolescents and adults--married and single.  It appears to be more common in men than in women:  In face-to-face interviews 38% of American women admitted to having self-pleasured during the previous year--while 61% of men did.

While very common--and generally physically and psychically harmless or even beneficial--we know also that masturbation is a stigmatized practice.  For this reason, a very large portion of adults likely feels extremely uncomfortable about discussing their chicken-choking face-to-face with anyone--white lab coat or no.  (I'm therefore tempted to adjust the above numbers upwards--significantly.)

How do we know that masturbation is highly stigmatized--even in a society that's now willing to accept gay marriage?  I present one piece of evidence:  Prof. Jessica Pieklo--forever tweeting of her self-admiration for her love of booze, the Grateful Dead, reproductive freedom, voluntarily euthanized free-range poultry, anti-racism, etc.--also believes masturbation to be deeply shameful and repulsive.  (See her recent tweet, above.)

I disagree with Prof. Pieklo:  Speaking about masturbation entirely as a cultural phenomenon, without speculating on Pieklo's orgasmic tastes or commenting on my own, I strongly reject Pieklo's bluenose assertion--that a person who occasionally masturbates ought to be shunned by the DFL ice cream social.  Nonsense.

A Hypocrisy Exchange

On Tuesday Minnpost published Tim Pawlenty: The manufactured candidate, by Shawn Lawrence Otto.

I commented:

As an assessment of Pawlenty's character, the article is naive. To enter the public square is to sculpt an identity that cannot mirror the politician's private thoughts. When a private acquaintance discloses a discrepancy between a pol's public and private views, he embarrasses--most of all--himself.

In 2002, Pawlenty, seeking the GOP endorsement for Governor, faced a fierce challenge from his right--and was asked if he was 'a Carlson moderate'. Pawlenty had one option, in answering the question--and he delivered it predictably. That Arne Carlson would take offense at Pawlenty's reply says more about Carlson's identity-acknowledgment needs than it does about Gov. Pawlenty.

  

A commenter responded:

Naive or not, holding personal views other than those that you claim as your "rock solid" beliefs is nothing other than hypocritical.

This sort of hypocrisy has removed the middle ground from the public discourse, to the detriment of our country and it's traditions.

It's the equivalent of Newt's claim that his serial infidelities didn't matter because what he said was more important than what he did.

Really? Doesn't the matter of character enter into it?

  

...to which I replied:

  

In crafting an identity, people withhold information about themselves which they know others will consider unattractive. We put effort into associating our names with socially-accepted values, appearances and tastes. To identify an instance of public behavior as 'hypocritical,' then, is of little interest--since almost all public behavior is hypocritical. When we play hunt-the-hypocrite, I wish we'd feel greater need to describe why this specific form of hypocrisy ought to be deemed egregious. For those interested in the topic of Political Hypocrisy, I recommend David Runciman's book--and his Bloggingheads appearance.

My Bluestem Comment

I comment below on this Bluestem Prairie post.  Sally Jo Sorensen, Bluestem's author, does not allow me to comment on her blog, for reasons never disclosed though presumably relating to Jeff Fecke's hurt feelings--so I post my comment here:

Thanks for the post. I read Rebecca Rodenborg's article, in which I made my first acquaintance with Parry and Kath.

The budget battle is a classically political contest. People assign villainy to their political opponents (Parry--in Sorenspin-- 'the wannabe bully' having the 'public meltdown' and 'tantrum', i.e.), though I prefer to maintain a PhileasFoggish stance.

Either side can end a game of chicken whenever it likes--and so Sen. Parry's position is not groundless.

When/if the government gets shut down (however phony that phrasing proves), Minnesotans will feel wrathful toward legislators, but will blame one party more than the other--hence the incentive for the game of chicken to continue: Both sides believe the public will blame the other for a shutdown's inconveniences.

As a practical matter, who's right? Republicans believe the public will look to the executive branch--and blame DFLers for a shutdown.

The public--imho--views the DFL as pro-government and the GOP as the anti-government party. As such, when the govt gets shut down--no matter who's governor--the public will blame the GOP, in the belief that the pro-government party is the more reluctant participant in any shutdown.

Partisans and activists will lob personal invective at the other side, using fake 'character assessments' to advance their ball downfield; people who value their own dignity will refrain from such unseemliness.

Remembering Mother Teresa

'...a simpering Bambi narcissist and a

thieving fanatical Albanian dwarf'

At 1 PM on Saturday July 2, an authorized, unabridged public reading of Christopher Hitchens' The Missionary Position will be held at the Edina Library. 

The event is free and open to the public--and projected to require approximately three hours.

Please consider volunteering to read a page or two.

People who simply want to listen, without participating at the lectern, are warmly welcome to attend all or part of the event.  Please help spread the word!

**

Props to Rick Rohrer of Minnesota Atheists and to Marie Alena Castle of Atheists for Human Rights, to Chelsea Du Fresne and Jeffrey Mondloch of the University of MN CASH (Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists) and to the Third District Heathens Guild for helping get the word out on this event.

Thanks to Verso Books and to Christopher Hitchens (who will alas not be in attendance).

Pussy Control

In his interminable attack on Scott Adams, Jeff Fecke builds to a rhetorical crescendo: Men shouldn't rape.  Fecke is very proud of his clean record on rape; he acknowledges his wise choice repeatedly.  (If you see him, please give him a biscuit.)

Fecke comments often on the topic--and believes American men ought to engage in unending reflection, so as to stop the horror.  Deep examination of our language is called for--since subtle pro-rape messaging is everywhere, once you start looking for it--assures our guide.

The expert consensus appears to accept a dramatic decline in rape, in the US, in recent decades.  Yet Fecke almost never takes any interest; it might get in the way of his signaling.  Were one to develop some chops in dealing with the reduction of a ghastly social ill, you might expect the plunder-opponent to take greater interest in explaining our happy trend line--so as to continue and accelerate the reduction.

In PZ Myer's turn at Adams-smashing, Minnesota's beloved evo-devo pugilist outdoes Fecke in his protestations of personal psychosexual hygiene:

Raping, cheating, and being offensive" are "natural" to men. You know, I have never in my life felt even the slightest urge to rape anyone; I'd go so far as to say that I'd have to be forced to rape, would probably find myself physically incapable of the act, and would find violent assault to be incredibly unnatural. I've also never been tempted to cheat on my wife (that's a little bit unnatural, but then she's got magic powers). I confess, I can be offensive to people, but that's just me — most people quail at the thought of offending others. So here we have some presumptions about men that are just plain false.

Is it common for mentally healthy men to ponder a rape fantasy once or more, during an average decade?  Fecke and Myers seem to suggest such woolgathering ought to remain tainted.  But an acquaintance assures me that rape-fantasizing is as common as peanut butter, among both sexes, in his remote jurisdiction.

The observed drastic reduction in rape has occurred alongside an explosion in the availability, acceptance and use of hardcore pornography, however--with its plethora of cartoonishly compliant fictional bimbos, trannies, boy-toys, you-name-it.

Many normal adults retain and develop repertoires of lurid sexual fantasies, in short, without apparent harm.  Speaking honestly about one's sexual fantasies remains so negatively labeled that when an identified man (P-Zed, say) publicly protests he's never had a straying thought, he's wasting his breath. 

If we want to gather information about what men and women actually fantasize about, such research has to be predicated on assurances of anonymity.  Otherwise--the cynics here at gavinsullivan.com insist--you're going to empower sanctimony and compile worthless results.

In Defense of Fact-Checking

In contemporary culture, civility's role is considerably misunderstood.  

To distinguish civil and uncivil statements and acts, one ought not impose a border by fiat.  The civil/uncivil demarcation shouldn't be imposed via humiliation, particularly when one has no persuasive argument.

Americans should demonstrate reluctance prior to lashing out at others--particularly prior to hurling insults impugning the character of people with whom we disagree.  Groundlessly attacking people's rectitude should be embarrassing; I am saddened by the omniscient mien of the aggressively offended.

Yesterday I noted that a featured speaker at Netroots Nation has published a dubious autobiographical paragraph.  Commenter JK misunderstands my post--and apparently didn't look very closely at the Rutgers Law page to which I linked. The page includes many students' names--not just the featured profiles--and each name's affiliation with Rutgers can be easily established.

Seeking to stigmatize inquisitiveness, a number of commenters suggest that to verify a featured speaker's self-representations constitutes 'creepy' conduct.  Balderdash.

This ethical point is not controversial:  Internet-based self-representations are fair game for fact-checking--and the predictable efforts to disparage fact-checkers should not be honored.  A Syrian lesbian blogger would still be at it today, absent non-sycophantic authentication.

JK asks why I decided to fact-check this person's bio.  The truth-seeking blogger need offer no justification for fact-checking this person as opposed to that person.  It is my prerogative upon what to focus my attention.  Were another writer to publish exclusively in response to my own public statements, I would welcome their contribution with open arms--and lash out only in reaction to substantive problems with their output.

Responding to Lindo:  I have contacted Rutgers University Law School--twice--but have not heard back from the institution.  John Lee's claim is of interest, but does not constitute a satisfactory basis upon which to accept Maxwell's claim--to have matriculated no later than 2008, to have taken only one brief break and to currently being an enrolled full-time student in the class of 2013.  (Six years?)

Perhaps Maxwell's claim is true.  Your fact-checker must cling to reasonable doubt, however--or he wouldn't be a very good fact-checker.  (I'll believe it when I've found evidence for it.)

Lizz Winstead also tries to denigrate skepticism--'Your behavior is disturbing.'  Pshaw.  We should examine the iffy autobiographical claims of public commentators.  Winstead's insistence that Maxwell is 'not someone who is a public figure' should offend Maxwell.

When published writers claim status-enhancing institutional affiliations, they deserve to be integrity-checked.  Winstead wants a culture of submission and credulity; we have an honest disagreement.

Finding Zerlina

Netroots Nation is an annual, national lefty conference which will take place next weekend in Minneapolis.  A featured speaker at the conference will be one Zerlina Maxwell.

She has almost 5,000 followers on Twitter--and has tweeted 61,684 times.  She claims to be a student at Rutgers Law School.

If you look at this web page, you'll see the names of many Rutgers Law School students.  If you google any of their names, you'll generally see a rutgers.edu link on the first page of your organic search results.  (In some cases, you'll need to google 'firstname lastname rutgers'.)

Yet when I google zerlina maxwell rutgers, I don't see any rutgers.edu page in the search results.  Do you?

Surely there's some innocent explanation?

Sen. Hann's Butt-Kissing

In contemporary American politics, playing the victim is deemed illustrative of great cleverness.  My state Sen. David Hann argues that when I pay lawfully-enacted taxes, I should view the civic responsibility as theft. 

Archbishop Nienstedt wrote a letter to Gov. Dayton and Sen. Hann replied.  Hann tells the Archbishop he has 'great respect for you, your office and the work the Archdiocese does.'

I don't share Sen. Hann's admiration for Archbishop Nienstedt:  I tend not to like people who lie for a living.

Archbishop Nienstedt rose in the collared ranks by sedulous submission to unaccountable, geriatric, misogynist, anti-gay authority--and Twin Cities Catholics correctly view him as the robotic dogmatist par excellence.

Nienstedt blames the Catholic Church's child-sexual abuse problem on the Sixties.  He has attacked Pres. Obama in the standard oh so offended Bill Donohue manner--and appeared publicly alongside ultra-right-wing congressional candidate Teresa Collett the same week her campaign's URL was registered.

When a questioner at a February 2010 event asked why he doesn't just come out and say 'Vote Republican,' he explained that he doesn't need to, since--wink--'...people can connect the dots.'

Were he to quit tomorrow and become a short-order cook, we should respect Nienstedt more.

To the dustbin!

Dear Minnesota Feminists,

I have marshaled evidence and reason to show that Hamline Law Prof. Jessica Pieklo is unintelligent, unethical and dishonest. 

My arguments have struck a nerve:  Pieklo's husband commented on my blog, without challenging a single assertion of mine--and without defending any of his wife's claims.

In response to my upright, straightforward criticism of Pieklo, a McCarthyite cabal of DFL feminists coalesced, advancing a whispering campaign alleging misogyny. 

The charge is nakedly political and faith-based.  To your mild credit, no local blogger has published any statement defending Pieklo's misogyny claim.

Once Pieklo's misogyny charge achieved escape velocity, I appealed to a respected, feminist-friendly, high-profile blogger.  I went to Jeff Fecke--requesting that he review the evidence (to wit, none) and offer a reasoned, informed opinion upon the charge.

Instead, Fecke published his infamously-uninformed hit-piece, too stupid to merit additional debunking.

Jeff Fecke has repeatedly lashed out at Michelle Rhee, calling her, in effect, unintelligent, unethical and dishonest. 

I'm happy to supply quotations if you're willing to pursue this--or you can easily pull them yourself from his blog and Twitter feed.  Please don't take my word for it:  Review the record.

So I've called Prof. Jessica Pieklo unintelligent, unethical and dishonest, and Jeff Fecke has called Michelle Rhee unintelligent, unethical and dishonest.

In other words, Jeff Fecke and I have published sustained, hearty critiques of specific, high-profile-by-choice women--charges of equivalent severity.

So why the double standard?