Hyerdahl wrote:
> Philip Lewis wrote:
> > http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_02_24_05hm.html
> >
> >
> >       Feminists Get Hysterical
> >       First it was Harvard vs. Summers-and now Estrich vs. Kinsley.
|
> 24
> > February 2005
> >
> (edit)
>       >
> >For the last three years, Estrich's female law students at USC have
> been counting the number of female writers on the Los Angeles Times
> op-ed  pages (and she complains that there aren't more female policy
> writers?  Suggestion to Estrich: how about having your students
master
> a subject  rather than count beans.). She provides only selective
> tallies of the
> > results: "TWENTY FOUR MEN AND ONE WOMAN IN A THREE DAY PERIOD [caps
> in > original]" (she does not explain how she chose that three-day
> period or > whether it was representative); "THIRTEEN MEN AND NO
WOMEN"
> as authors of
> > pieces on Iraq.
>
> I don't see that she needs to explain which three days; the odds are
> terrible.

She absolutely does.  All she's pulling is a variation of the old
feminist stunt that simply counts beans and nothing else.

>  She's merely exposing the kind of sexism that men don't like
> acknolwedging.

No, she's not.  Perhaps she can prove that the quality of submissions
made by women equals or exceeds that of those made by men.  If she can
do that, she might have a case.

Of course, the Times is not obligated to print x amount of articles by
women in some sort of artificial attempt to attain balance.  And it's
certainly not as if women don't have enough forums to express
themselves.

>  It isn't that women are hysterical;

I agree.  It's the feminists that are hysterical.  Just look at
Estrich's tone throughout her e-mail exchanges.  Threats and doofus
attempts at extortion and insulting Kinsley's physical condition.  Yep,
she's all class, that gal.

> it's that men have
> their backs up.

And it's about time that a man told a hysterical feminist that he
wasn't going to accomodate her.  Applause for Kinsley.

>
> Several questions present themselves: how many pieces by women that
> met the Times's standards were offered during these periods?
>
> Actually, a more important question might be to count the numbers of
> women/men in the press who wanted to report those pieces and the
number
> of women/men who did.  That would more accurately reflect the reality
> of sexism.

Desire and ability are two different things.

>
>
> What is the ratio of men to women among experts on Iraq?
>
> Reporters are seldom "experts" on one part of the world; they are
sent
> to many parts of the world for news.  However, a more valid point you
> could make to support your position is that women sent to Iraq cannot
> go in the same places that men go when they are sent there.  Thus,
men
> could provide a more complete story, absent a woman's point of view
or
> mingling with Iraqi women.  And it's disputable as to whether female
> reporters could get any more info from Iraqi women than male
reporters.
>
>
> Estrich never bothers to ask> these questions, because for the
radical
> feminist, being a woman is > qualification enough for any topic.
>
> For western women, it's certainly appalling to run into situations
> where they can't be as free as western men, but I think this is one
of
> those situations.

No, it's not.  First of all, newspapers are under no obligation to
provide balance in their opiniion spaces (if they were, would you see
them so uniformly to the left?).  Second, women have ample outlets for
their views, and a failure to get published in the L.A. Times doesn't
exclude them from being published anywhere.  And finally, Estrich has
done nothing to prove that the number and quality of female submissions
equals that of men.

Which, even if it did, would not obligate the newspaper.  Let the
reading consumers decide which columnists they want to read.

>  It's not necessarily about "expertise" as it is
> about limitations imposed by fundamentist culture both in Iraq, and
> Afghanistan.
>
> Any female is qualified to write on  Iraq, for example, because in so
> doing, she is providing THE FEMALE
> > PERSPECTIVE.
>
> Well, there is that, but in places ruled by fundamentalism, it's hard
> to say just how much of the picture a female vs male reporter will
get.
>  The real issue keeping female reporters from competing is the actual
> societal limitations of women in those countries.

I'll agree with some of this, but I don't believe Estrich was limiting
herself to coverage from Iraq.

>
>  (This belief in the essential difference between male and
> > female "voices," of course, utterly contradicts the
premise of the
> anti-Larry Summers crusade.)
>
> No, it doesn't.  Women need representation by virtue of belonging to
a
> group called women, and women's interests are not always the same as
> men's interests, albeit equal rights.

And where women's interests differ from men's, you prefer that women be
given priority.

> Summers point was offering a reason, based on different levels of
> intelligence as to why women were not equally represented in the
> sciences.

No, he was speculating on gender differences as a group--he made no
comments whatsoever regarding intelligence.  However, given Hopkins
hysterical response, others are certainly free to question *her*
intelligence and emotionalism.

>   Women professors IN the sciences know that is bullocks!

You don't speak for female professors any more than you speak for women
in general.  And some women *in* the sciences not only concur with
Summers but are ashamed of Hopkins' reaction.

> Men tend to hire other men and that is rife in the sciences.

Perhaps there are more qualified men than women.

>
> Thus, to buttress her claim that Kinsley > "refuses" to publish
women,
> Estrich merely provides a few examples of women
> > whose offerings have been rejected: "Carla Sanger . . . tells me
she
> can't get a piece in; I have women writing to me who have submitted
> four piece  [sic] and not gotten the courtesy of a call-and they
teach
> gender studies at  UCLA. . . ." It goes without saying, without
further
> examination, that each  of those writers deserved to be
> published-especially, for heaven's sakes, > the gender studies
> professors!
> >
> ????  Is Carla Sanger any relation to Margaret Sanger?  :-)  Again,
> it's important to look at the numbers of the press trying to get
> published vs 'God's chosen'.  :-)  In that regard, we would get a
much
> clearer picture, but I'm not sure it's her job to do that study.
>
>
> >       Self-centered? Thin-skinned? Takes things personally?
> Misogynist > tropes that sum up Estrich to a T. It is the fate of
> probably 98 percent of > all op-ed hopefuls to have their work
silently
> rejected, without the  "courtesy of a call." But when a woman
> experiences the silent treatment, it's > because of sexism.
Similarly,
> it is the fate of most e-mail correspondence  to editors to be
ignored.
> But when Estrich's e-mails are ignored ("I sent > e-mails to my old
> friends at the Times. Neither time did they even bother to >
> respond."), it's because the editor is a chauvinist pig.
>
> Estrich is entitled to her opinion as to why she was ignored, and her
> words may inspire someone to do an actual study on why women
reporters
> are ignored, if they are.

If it's a feminist study, we can all save time and ignore it before it
gets completed.

> >
> The assumption that being female obviates the need for any further >
> examination into one's qualifications allows Estrich to sidestep the
> most fundamental question raised by her crusade: Why should anyone
care
> what the  proportion of female writers is on an op-ed page?
>
> If 50% of those trying to write an op-ed page are female, it's
> important to address why.  Perhaps women just aren't intellectually
> capable enough to be writers, eh?  :-)

Establish that women constitute 50%, first.  Then, look at the overall
quality of submissions.  Then, realize that no one is under any
obligation to achieve gender parity in the newspapers.  And finally,
look around and see if men constitute 50% of submissions in, say, Ms
Magazine.

>
>
> If an analysis is strong,  it should make no difference what its
> author's sex is.
>
> Discrimination is an important story on its own so yes, it IS
important
> when a social group is excluded from the process.

Sorry, but women are certainly not excluded from communicating their
views.  The fact that they can't do it anywhere and everywhere at their
whim and regardless of their abilities would fall into the Tough Shit
category.

>  You don't like that,
> but who cares?

It's looking like Kinsley doesn't care that Estrich is lying on the
floor drumming her heels and holding her breath.  :)

>
>  But for Estrich, it  is an article of faith that female
representation
> matters: "What could be  more important-or easier for that
matter-than
> ensuring that women's voices
> > are heard in public discourse in our community?" Her embedded
> question-"or > easier for that matter?"- is quickly
answered. She is
> right: Nothing is easier than ensuring that "women's voices" are
heard;
> simply set up a quota
>  and publish whatever comes across your desk. But as for why it is of
> paramount importance to get the "women's" perspective on farm
subsidies
> or
> > OPEC price manipulations, Estrich does not say.
> >
> Now you're suggesting that women are not of the same caliber, as
> reporters, as men.  Prove it.  :-)

Doesn't have to, because that's not what was suggested.  It's pretty
clear that the position is that "women's voices" are not the most
important thing to be heard.  In this context, that's true.

>  The woman's perspective will
> continue to be important whether or not you find it so.

Whether or not it's important would seem to be a determination to be
made by those paying to listen, or paying for the submissions.  You're
making the old leftist/Marxist mistake of assuming that freedom of
speech obligates another to provide you with an audience.

>
> She provides a clue to her thinking, however. For Estrich,
apparently,
> having a "woman's voice" means being left-wing. She blasts the Times
> for > publishing an article by Charlotte Allen on the decline of
female
> public intellectuals such as Susan Sontag. Allen had argued that too
> many women  writers today specialize in being female, rather than
> addressing the broader  range of issues covered by their male
> counterparts. For Estrich, this  argument performs a magical sex
change
> on Allen, turning her into a male.
>
> Well, I liked Allen's argument and tend to agree with it,

So now you agree with it, when before, you were agreeing that numbers
alone demonstrated discrimination?

> but it does
> not really address the degree of discrimination going on in the
> sciences and technology.

How so?  If indeed too many women specialize in "being female" (and I
do agree that there's no creature on the planet as self-absorbed as a
feminist),then they have only themselves to blame for a lack of
quantity and quality submissions.

>  For women to participate on the same level in
> those areas, they'd have to be equally included, which they are not.
> Summers made excuses for their lack of inclusion.

Nope, he was speculating, and speculating based on some pretty solid
science.  Not one time did he even hint that this should be a reason to
exclude any women who showed aptitude in the sciences.

The mistake you and other feminists make is confusing differences with
superiority/inferiority.  I can understand this, since you all use it
so often when you perceive a difference as demonstrating female
superiority, but it's really all smoke and mirrors on the part of
feminists.

Unless, of course, you're really *trying* to say that feminists are too
simplistic to tell the difference.   :)

> Women have always
> written about their world, as THEY experience it, and if they still
> face exclusion, their writing will be limited as well.

Uh-huh.  Tell you what:  why don't you go ahead and show how women
don't have ample opportunities to express themselves.

>  It's like the
> chicken and the egg;  do we exclude women from work because they are
> inexperienced or do we continue to call them stupid because they
can't
> get experience unless they work?

If female writers didn't have plenty of opportunity to get published,
you might have a point.  But they do, so you don't.

> Sexists just want women to be quiet, bear children and do the unpaid
> work at home.

And other sexists just want men to be quiet, pay for children they
didn't father, and do the bulk of paid work as well as half the unpaid
work.

>  In the meantime, women are going forward,

Looks to me--and plenty of others--like Hopkins and Estrich are setting
women back.   :)

Or perhaps more accurately, revealing feminists for the hysterical,
overly punitive harpies they are.  :)



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/28/05 5:35:04 PM ---