Rebecca Solnit Is A Sniveling Idiot
I couldn't believe the piece by Rebecca Solnit I read in the Sunday LA Times Opinion section; mainly because I found it too stupid to publish.
Solnit mewls on for 1,863 words about how women are patronized and silenced by men.
But, wait. Let me check. (Peering down into pants and then panties) Yup, there's a vagina in my pants, which suggests I'm either a woman or there's a matched, escaped set of labia taken up hiding in my underwear. Most mysteriously, I don't seem to suffer the myriad conversational injustices from men that Solnit and so many other women apparently do.
Solnit opens her piece by describing how she was conversationally pummeled by a guy about Eadweard Muybridge, when she'd actually written the very book the guy was holding forth on. "Men explain things to me," complains Solnit, "and to other women, whether or not they know what they're talking about. Some men. Every woman knows what I mean."
We do? I think somebody forgot to send me the memo. Yet, Solnit claims this terrible injustice is something "nearly every woman faces every day," which "makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field," and "keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare." ("When they dare"? The woman writes like Mr. Darcy is going to pop up from behind the copier at any moment.) Solnit goes on and on about how this "syndrome" (yes, everything must be pathologized) "crushes young women into silence" and "trains" women "in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men's unsupported overconfidence."
First of all, I write a syndicated dating and relationship column, and I have to say, if there's one problem with men these days, it isn't "unsupported overconfidence." I likewise can't say I've ever felt "crushed into silence" or any of the maudlin rest. So...either my dad, who taught me to stand up for myself, and told me over and over that I could do anything boys could do, is unique among fathers in America, or there's a name for what Solnit's peddling, and it's "grassy-knoll feminism."
Meanwhile, Solnit herself, who, most annoyingly, Likes To Use Capital Letters For Emphasis All Over The Damn Place, says that even she, a woman who has "public standing as a writer of history," had a moment when she "was willing to believe Mr. Very Important and his overweening confidence over (her) more shaky certainty."
Sorry, but if you have "shaky certainty," do you blame men, or sign up for a little assertiveness training? So much of what women do blame men for -- women's lower starting salaries in the workplace, for example -- traces back to women passively accepting what's presented to them, whether it's some boorish jerk's assertion, or the first dollar offer they're made for a job. This is correctable, but not by writing long-winded screeds against men in the Los Angeles Times.
Although Solnit comes up continually short on guts in conversational situations, she's remarkably gutsy about aligning herself and other privileged Western women with a silenced sisterhood of women living under Islam, "where women's testimony has no legal standing; so that a woman can't testify that she was raped without a male witness to counter the male rapist."
Of course, the difference is that women in Muslim countries are not, by law, allowed to testify. Western women like Solnit simply refrain from speaking up. Some loudmouth cut her off? Wow. While Muslim women fear lashings and death if they speak their minds, Solnit's simply too limp-willed to say, as I've said numerous times, and to men and women, "Don't interrupt!" or "My turn to talk!"
When that doesn't work, as it didn't when I was on the TV show, "Faith Under Fire," with the booming blowhard Frank Pastore, I began removing my mike, and told the host I was going to walk off if Pastore kept shouting over me. (I may not have been born with balls, but I keep a little set in my makeup bag, and bring them out on an as-needed basis.)
Though there is a damping effect on women who live in a patronizing environment, you know I've seen somebody escape from that and make something of herself. That's the model to be emulated.
I wonder if "Solnit" is assumed, to fit the professional victim's role. Apology if not, but it seems apropo.
Radwaste at April 14, 2008 3:07 AM
So, she's at a dinner party, and some idiot starts holding forth on HER book, and she assumes it's because she's a woman? Sorry, it's because she's an audience, which the idiot wants. He'd do the same thing if he was talking to a guy - it's just the way some people (men and women) like to pontificate.
jen at April 14, 2008 3:33 AM
A relevant factoid - the word "testament", "testify" and "testicle" have the same root. Not a coincidence.
One of the things I learned as a result of completing a doctorate is that when you have studied a subject thoroughly enough to know what you are talking about, it is your responsibility to raise your head over the parapet when necessary, to give the rest of us the benefit of your learning. This is scary, but it's an essential part of how we obtain knowledge (as opposed to opinion, which is what the dinner guest was spouting). The scariness requires guts to overcome. My guess is that testosterone helps. But it's not men's fault they have more testosterone.
Norman at April 14, 2008 4:07 AM
The brunette in the photo accompanying your commentary has pretty eyes... She's beautiful when she's being brutally silenced by an oppressive male hegemony. I like that in a gal.
Let's review this woman's first paragraph: I still don't know why Sallie and I bothered to go to that party in the forest slope above Aspen. The people were all older than us and dull in a distinguished way, old enough that we, at 40-ish, passed as the occasion's young ladies. The house in Colorado was great -- if you like Ralph Lauren-style chalets: a rugged luxury cabin at 9,000 feet, complete with elk antlers, lots of kilims, and a wood-burning stove. We were preparing to leave when our host said, "No, stay a little longer so I can talk to you." He was an imposing man who'd made a lot of money in advertising or something like that.
Is there a single word in there that strikes you as sincere? Every syllable is posturing. And what the fuck is a "rugged luxury cabin?" That's like a "lilting atonal melody." And she's a writer, for Christ's sake.
Later: Dude, if you're reading this, you're a carbuncle on the face of humanity and an obstacle to civilization. Feel the shame.
We wonder why shy couldn't risk telling him so to his face. Maybe she, a demonstrably lousy houseguest, couldn't risk having her perceptions corrected.
Crid at April 14, 2008 4:33 AM
But she also writes:
Here, let me just say that my life is well-sprinkled with lovely men, including a long succession of editors who have, since I was young, listened and encouraged and published me; with my infinitely generous younger brother; with splendid male friends. Still, there are these other men too.
So, only the men who listened, encouraged and published (her) are exempt from her idiocy? Good, I hate to think she paints all men with the same brush. /sarcasm
I have worked hard all my life, and have been pounding it into my daughters' heads, to never let ANYone, never mind a man, or a boy in their case, tell them what they can or cannot do. When I was 11 or 12 years old, I went down to the playground at the end of our street, with 2 of my brothers, to the tryouts for the Pop Warner football team. Of course, I had my helmet on, with my hair stuffed under it (this was in 1970). I passed, kicked, and tackled with the rest of them, and the coach cut maybe 5 of the other boys that were there, pointed at me and said "you're in." I yanked off my helmet, threw it up in the air and my brothers and I, and a couple of the other neighborhood kids that were there, let out an "ALL RIGHT!" and were high-fiving each other. The coach freaked out, and started yelling at me, and I was all, "hey, you SAID I made the team" and one of my brothers said, "she played better than those other guys you cut!" and the coach was all, "I don't care, she's a GIRL! Why don't you try out for the cheerleading squad?" I just looked at him for a minute, all pissed off, and went home. My mom said, "I told you they wouldn't let you on the team." I was all, yeah, but I made it until I took my helment off. And she said, "Honey, the coach was trying to protect you. I'm glad you almost made the team, but in the long run, you're better off not playing. You could get hurt." I sulked for about a week, and my youngest brother said, "You didn't want to be on this team anyway. We'll be last in the league this year, these guys suck!"
Flynne at April 14, 2008 5:50 AM
heh, I'd almost say "what'd she expect, it's Aspen?" but I'll be nice...
Could've been an amusing article about odd people and the way they don't listen... I guess that wasn't the point. What is the point? Did I miss that moment where she boldly asserts how you deal with a person who explains-but-is-incorrect? Must'a missed the memo where this depended on gender. Double check your facts and present them, and be prepared to agree to disagree.
From that point on the most important issue is how much does their opinion matter to you? I have no compunction about walking away if it's necessary. I guess it would be different if I was trying to convince them not to shoot me or something... Interestingly she completely missed the part where this guy-who-explains desperately needed her attention. She had all the power in the conversation.
After 4 or 5 years, I guess she still hasn't figured that out, because she is still so traumatized by that one situation. I'd explain it to her, but I'm a guy...
SwissArmyD at April 14, 2008 8:05 AM
Y'know I do have some coworkers that occasionally discount my opinion. I assume that these people simply are not aware of how much smarter than them I am. Sometimes I get the feeling that I have to work a little harder to prove it to them because I am a girl. But I am smarter than them, and as long as I stand up for myself, and the truth, they eventually figure this out. (That is not to say I am really that smart, just that I work with idiots. Seriously, I just had to explain to someone that a number divided by itself is 1. *headdesk* And these people have graduated from college. Disgusting.)
Some people are just stupid. And sometimes stupid people think they are smart. And this, is where you get patronizing blow hards. The only appropriate response is to prove to this actually stupid person how stupid they actually are and then move on with your life. MOVE ON.
Shinobi at April 14, 2008 8:24 AM
Another "victim."
I'm overweight (it's pretty obvious to anyone that's watched my videos). I've lost 25 lbs since the videos from last year, but I'd be the first to admit I still have a way to go. Sure, I'm probably genetically predisposed to being overweight (I'm "skinny" compared to most of my relatives), but that doesn't make it something I still need to deal with.
When someone comments with a flame such as "hey fatty," etc, I don't think of myself as a victim. I think they are incapable of finding anything actually wrong with my presentation OTHER than my weight, which means it kicked ass and they lack the wit to come up with something better in response (IMO). I can continue to lose weight, they probably can't become less stupid.
If I responded to a "fat guy" comment with outrage and some sort of "victim" rant, then I just GAVE them power over me. When in fact, they have none. I think when someone takes issue with a characteristic of yours - and not your actions or subject at hand it speaks more to their lack of wit/character than anything wrong with you. But if you respond by crying "victim" you've just made them feel justified. YMMV
Jamie at April 14, 2008 8:36 AM
Totally agree with you here, Amy, but I'm curious for your thoughts. I think you've written about this, but do you think women who are are assertive and speak up for themselves have more trouble finding a guy that's comfortable with that? I've noticed sort of a vague trend in that direction in my life, but not enough to pinpoint as a direct correlation.
Mary at April 14, 2008 8:44 AM
There are some guys out there who are uncomfortable with mouthy broads who are not uncomfortable with similarly mouthy dudes. I'm thinking of, say, the ones who e-mail female bloggers threatening various sexual and physical degradations if the bitches don't just shut up. I've had to deal with them on a milder level in the real world, and it can be annoying. But I don't think she's talking about that here. She's talking about the fact that men tend to display more self-confidence in conversation...and, as Amy has pointed out, the way to counteract that is to increase your own level of displayed self-confidence, not to whine about how you're being "oppressed."
marion at April 14, 2008 8:46 AM
A comment I just left over at Pajamas:
Hi, I’m the syndicated columnist (banned from LA Times’ features sections, I might add) who wrote the above piece.
Regarding this comment from tanstaafl above…
Despite all the progress in recent years, there’s still truth in this observation…A big problem for women is …the double bind that tells a girl she is equal, but inferior, that her parameter of self-esteem is the approval of others and not the cultivation of self.
…can you explain how I, who grew up in this culture, and presumably, drinks from the same water supply as millions of other women, managed to become a woman who can muster the sheer courage to say, “Hey, ya big lug, lemme talk!”? I had no friends as a child, and became kind of a doormat as a result (desperate to be liked). I fixed that in my 20’s, and now, what I care about is whether I’m being true to what I believe in…which sometimes requires telling some blowhard to put a sock in it so I can be heard.
P.S. As I’ve written in my column: “There’s a reason they call it ’self-esteem,’ and not ‘What other people think of me-esteem.’”
If women are too concerned about what others think, I’d say it’s because they place too much emphasis on a relationship with a man as a shortcut to having a self. Never works. But, if I’m correct about that — are men to blame?
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 8:47 AM
So we've all met people who like, love, must bloviate. And if they don't know the topic, so much the better.
It has nothing to do with her being a woman. It's just a annoying personality that some people have, and yes, some women too.
Of course, if you go to Aspen, to a luxury cabin with older people, chances are you are self-selecting for the "successful", "alphas" who can afford a luxury cabin in Aspen. Don't be surprised by what you find there.
Amy, I hate email, but would you prefer offtopic links be posted in a post, or sent to you via email? If you've never heard of them (I may have gotten the link from you!) check out the Burka Band link from: http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=3349
I think there are two interesting elements of the above link: first, the Burka Band is terrific, second, why do you think a feminist law professor has to write, "Not really sure what to make of this, see what you think.", I think that waffling on the feminist law professor's part says a lot about political correctness and modern feminism, but maybe I am just bitter....
jerry at April 14, 2008 8:53 AM
One of the great things about being a woman in our modern society is that you can spout off the most ridiculous sexist bullshit without fear of contradiction.
The existence of her drivel in the newspaper contradicts the point she tries to make. What a dope!
Of course, none of us have ever encountered women who are brazen attention-whores and can't bring themselves to shut up, have we? Didn't think so...
Jay R at April 14, 2008 8:56 AM
do you think women who are are assertive and speak up for themselves have more trouble finding a guy that's comfortable with that? I've noticed sort of a vague trend in that direction in my life, but not enough to pinpoint as a direct correlation.
Sure. Guys can feel uncomfortable around a woman who makes them look weak by comparison simply by virtue of her personality in the world. The answer isn't, as LA PR guy Michael Levine advised me when I was having trouble finding a boyfriend, to pretend to be demure, but to find a guy who's strong enough and comfortable enough with himself to be comfortable with you.
There's a problem sometimes, with women who are bossy in their relationships with men. That’s a deal killer. Luckily, I’m girly in my relationship, and bossy to the outer world, when need be.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 8:59 AM
Totally agree with you here, Amy, but I'm curious for your thoughts. I think you've written about this, but do you think women who are are assertive and speak up for themselves have more trouble finding a guy that's comfortable with that? I've noticed sort of a vague trend in that direction in my life, but not enough to pinpoint as a direct correlation.
A long time ago, in a driving class, of all places, I was told there is a difference between assertive and aggressive. Being an assertive driver is a good thing, being an aggressive driver is not. (Being a passive driver is not quite as dangerous as being an aggressive driver, but it's similar.) I would like to think the same holds true in conversations and relationships.
(I've also been told that people aren't mind readers, and that if you don't ask, you can't expect to get. I tend to prefer people who aren't aggressive, but will speak, volunteer, interrupt, and not expect me to be a mind reader.)
There are women "know-it-alls" just as there are men "know-it-alls".
jerry at April 14, 2008 9:01 AM
Of course, none of us have ever encountered women who are brazen attention-whores and can't bring themselves to shut up, have we?
Who...me?
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 9:15 AM
do you think women who are are assertive and speak up for themselves have more trouble finding a guy that's comfortable with that? I've noticed sort of a vague trend in that direction in my life, but not enough to pinpoint as a direct correlation.
There is also a difference between a woman who's assertive and speaks up for themselves, and a woman who THINK they're that - but actually approaching men with the kind of prejudicial attitude that would make NOW go "hey, aren't you coming down kinda hard on the guy?" That's not a gender-specific thing, BTW. There was a time when I thought of myself as "assertive and confident," when actually I was being an arrogant asshole. I've mellowed somewhat since then - maybe...a little?
Jamie at April 14, 2008 10:05 AM
...And what the fuck is a "rugged luxury cabin?"
What an odd snark, Crid.
I found the piece pretty woeful - but not because of the "rugged luxury cabin" bit. She even provides handy contextual details "Ralph Lauren...kilims..elk antlers".
Not your sort of thing I'm sure, but you see the same tarted up high end retreats in Wyoming too - all hand-peeled beams salvaged from the Union Pacific Railroad, fossil stone floors etc - for about $5 million minimum.
Jody Tresidder at April 14, 2008 10:22 AM
There was an article in the NY Times I think, about five months ago, about how many of these rugged luxury cabins come with services so that you call ahead and when you get there it's all cleaned up, the venison is in the refrigerator, the wine is chilled, the flowers and fireplace and everything is all setup for your rugged weekend.
jerry at April 14, 2008 10:29 AM
My god, the cabin was decorated in faux-rustic. No wonder she was speechless. The pretension of that place must have drained her willpower, like a bizarre reverse energy field.
Now that I think about it, Ayn Rand wrote glowingly of being dominated by wealthy, overbearing men, and her writing career really turned into something big.
Maybe somewhere between the elk horn and the rhinoceros horn she could have found a sweet spot.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 14, 2008 10:41 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1540030">comment from jerryhow many of these rugged luxury cabins come with services so that you call ahead and when you get there it's all cleaned up, the venison is in the refrigerator, the wine is chilled, the flowers and fireplace and everything is all setup for your rugged weekend.
This is a problem?
My idea of "rugged" is staying in a Holiday Inn.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 11:01 AM
It's their money, so no, it's not a problem. It's only a problem for the dictionary definition of "rugged."
jerry at April 14, 2008 11:07 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1540035">comment from jerryWhat can I say...I'm a rugged relativist.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 11:19 AM
So her thesis is that men talk women's ears off. How did she get here from the Bizarro World?
Jim Treacher at April 14, 2008 11:46 AM
Slippery slope! Thanks to you we may as well kiss that definition of rugged goodbye.
I wonder if Half Priced Books will buy my now obsolete dictionary?
jerry at April 14, 2008 11:47 AM
Basically, never trust a decorator who uses antlers!
Jody Tresidder at April 14, 2008 11:56 AM
Personally, I'd love a set of antlers and a gunrack on my Honda Insight (hybrid)...just to confuse people.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 12:15 PM
> What an odd snark
There's something about brand-showiness the conflicts with my understanding of "rugged"
Crid at April 14, 2008 1:21 PM
I love the idea about acting differently out in the world than with your partner. I wonder how many people do that...
Mary at April 14, 2008 1:36 PM
I love getting into heated debates with my boyfriend. We don't really fight (we disagree about stuff from time to time but we don't yell and call each other names). But we both enjoy discussing current topics and when we disagree it's a lot of fun.
If it becomes more impassioned maybe he or I will raise our voices but I'm good at being able to voice my opinions. It's not a war, it's a conversation. Adding a little heat doesn't make me clam up and want to go rock back and forth in a corner. It makes me want to continue the argument, sans clothing.
Sometime I feel like men don't take what I have to say seriously but I always thought it was due to my age, not my sex.
Gretchen at April 14, 2008 1:45 PM
This really is a good example of how you're treated the way you ask to be treated. There are a lot of miserable SOBs out there with whom spending any amount of time is on par with running a cheese grater over your Great Aunt Millie's calluses.
I usually just think it's the person - shitty parents, weird wiring, cocky DNA, that causes their behavior.
Guys tend to be more aggressive because of their testosterone but if it bothers her (or anyone) they should be able to intellectualize this fact and CHOOSE to pro-actively assert themselves. You can start out small and work your way up to a point where you can have a normal interaction without wanting to piss yourself.
Maybe it would have benefited Mr. Important II to have an intelligent and confident woman tell him he's wrong and that she'd appreciate 60 seconds to say her piece before he starts up again.
Gretchen at April 14, 2008 1:57 PM
There's something about brand-showiness the conflicts with my understanding of "rugged"
To be fair, the writer also seemed to understand the contradiction implicit in "rugged luxury" when she wrote: "The house in Colorado was great -- if you like Ralph Lauren-style chalets."
(Doesn't make the piece much better, of course.)
Jody Tresidder at April 14, 2008 1:59 PM
mmmm, There are parts of Aspen that exist in an area of finite improbablity... so I'd have to chock a lot of the article up to that anyway...
SwissArmyD at April 14, 2008 2:38 PM
Maybe Solnit was writing about boorish behavior and not MEN? Maybe (actually, yes, actually) she thinks there are lots of MEN who can act decently. But there simply is a skewed gender distribution of boorishness. I see it constantly and call me fellow MEN out when they act like assholes. Sort of the way I would call Amy out for acting like one in this post. Solnit is not criticizing men for being men; she is pointing out that they too often act like jerks and think they are entitled to do so. Acting like one too is not really the answer. Maybe a conversation shouldn't require assertiveness training. Maybe Solnit doesn't feel like in order to speak she should have to act like an ass too. Or perhaps that is the fault of MEN too, Amy?
JJ at April 14, 2008 3:01 PM
And Amy dearest, I noted this slef-descrciption in one of your comments here: "banned from LA Times’ features sections, I might add)"
Maybe you are a tad pissed that Solnit is given column inches where you've been 'banned' for, no doubt, entirely unjustified reasons? Maybe that is why you felt compelled to count every last syllable the eds gave to Solnit? This post gets more laughable by the minute. After all its called self-esteem because you don't rely on others for yours - or do you?
JJ at April 14, 2008 3:08 PM
Oh, look. Amy's got her own blogstalker. I thought your ilk only pestered Dr. Helen.
brian at April 14, 2008 3:46 PM
I'm banned from the LA Times because I angered feminists with a joke I once made about my breasts in a piece they did publish in the LA Times Magazine. ("When you're a girl it pays to go to the police station in person; like, 'Hi, I have big breasts, will you help me find my car?'") In fact, I'm only banned from the features sections.
Furthermore, I'm in over 100 papers, so it's not like I'm exactly suffering. My syndicated column runs on the front page of the OC Register every Tuesday, with my picture, and it's extremely popular. Of course, my fan mail tends to be from people who appreciate common sense and rationality -- surely the exact opposite of Solnit's fan base.
I kick the LA Times' ass with some regularity in the LA Press Club Awards. I won first place two out of the last three years in a row for "signed commentary" -- beating their top op-ed writers (Kinsley and Bennett Ramberg) -- and for a funny advice column.
JJ, why no name? Would you be exposing yourself as a Solnit sycophant? I only post under my own full name. Because I'm a gutsy broad, unlike Millie Meek, Rebecca Solnit.
Finally, just because a paper will publish you doesn't mean you're good, rational, or have something valuable to say. As we see from Solnit's piece.
You Solnit friends and lackeys want to attack me, bring it on. But, do post in your own full names. The only honest way to attack somebody's work or behavior -- as you see from the example I set.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 4:06 PM
Maybe Solnit was writing about boorish behavior and not MEN?
Did you read her piece?
She refers to what she's experiencing as "a battle with Men Who Explain Things."
You continue: "Maybe Solnit doesn't feel like in order to speak she should have to act like an ass too."
FYI, Solnit "acts like an ass" by remaining mute when she has something to say.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 4:10 PM
Amy - No name because I am not making money on this like you are. THAT is why you only post under your own name, so cut the crap. And you seem happy enough with all the pseudonyms in the thread so long as they agree with you.
Oh, yes, I did read Solnit's piece yesterday. I happen to think she is smart and talented. And She doesn't really need me or you to tell her so. Being a "gutsy" broad makes you boorish just like the boys. Big deal. Solnit walked away and laughed. And she didn't make a scene in a setting where there were others involved. I'd call that manners. Perhaps you left that out of your book?
Yes, I too am good at what I do. I just don't need to tattoo it across my forehead so that I can demand people recognize me. It IS called self-esteem after all. And everything you've written here suggests that yours comes solely from external sources. Pretty pathetic Amy.
JJ at April 14, 2008 4:25 PM
Brian, Not a stalker by a long shot. Before today I'd never even heard of the gutsy Ms Amy. Having read Solnit's piece yesterday, I just stumbled across her screed and talked back. Sorry to disappoint you.
And before Amy stomps around any more demanding more due-to-others esteem, I've never so much as met Rebecca Solnit.
JJ at April 14, 2008 4:28 PM
Amy - No name because I am not making money on this like you are. THAT is why you only post under your own name, so cut the crap.
It has nothing to do with making money "on this." I wrote this as a blog item, but sent it to Pajamas because they're always asking me to write pieces for them, and they paid me a small honorarium for expanding it into an article. Lunch money, really. The piece is about 1600 words long. For that I'd get over $3,000 if I wrote it for a magazine.
FYI, I post in my own full name on ANY blog I comment on, on any topic. It's just not cool to attack people anonymously. Once you're doing more than talking about an issue, I think you need to put your name behind your words.
Oh yeah...I likewise do not post pictures that I do not have rights to or have not paid licensing fees for on my blog. You?
I likewise do not shoplift candy from the liquor store down the block. Which is stealing just as much as posting others' work without paying them.
I'm an ethical person, and because I am, I can show my name and my face wherever I go. You?
I counted the words because I was amazed the LA Times gave so much space to such a dim and whiny woman. Tell us, what in Solnit's piece do you find so wise, logical, and sensible? Lay out what you think makes so much sense.
Of course, perhaps we shouldn't expect much from you, since it was was unclear to you, per your remark above, that Solnit was writing about men.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 4:37 PM
I wonder if Solnit really thinks men do this on purpose. That we reserve assertive, shouting match behavior for women only, as a means of repressing them. Get this; my buds and I do it to eachother in heated arguments. Actually, now that I think about it, we do it to eachother all the time. Confidence, even overconfidence, gets you places in life; When guys get walked on, they're not supposed to cry about it. As far as I'm concerned, being patronized by another guy is something that happens everyday. It gives the opponent psychological advantage. You either step up to the plate and fire back or you don't. Why is it a silencing of women, when its done universally to both sexes?
Scott at April 14, 2008 6:09 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1540107">comment from ScottRight on, Scott. Women like me can run with the boys because we don't ask for special treatment. In fact, I'd find being conversationally coddled insulting.
I have to laugh thinking of Rebecca debating Pastore, or an equally big blowhard with a deep voice, Dennis Prager, who I went up against on Cybill Shepherd's old talk show. It's a little tougher when the guy has a booming bass, but most men don't have the pipes of Prager or Pastore. And, if you're smart, there's usually a way to maneuver to win or at least put up a good fight even without the pipes.
I'd like to recommend a book for Solnit, to help her be all that she can be: Nathaniel Branden's The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem. Perhaps her fanboy JJ can spring for it for her.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 6:39 PM
Dear Amy,
Learn to read:
"Here, let me just say that my life is well-sprinkled with lovely men, including a long succession of editors who have, since I was young, listened and encouraged and published me; with my infinitely generous younger brother; with splendid male friends. Still, there are these other men too.
So, Mr. Very Important was going on smugly about this book I should have known when Sallie interrupted him to say, "That's her book." Or tried to interrupt him anyway.
But he just continued on his way. She had to say, "That's her book" three or four times before he finally took it in. And then, as if in a 19th century novel, he went ashen. That I was indeed the author of the very important book it turned out he hadn't read, just read about in the New York Times Book Review a few months earlier, so confused the neat categories into which his world was sorted that he was stunned speechless -- for a moment, before he began holding forth again. Being women, we were politely out of earshot before we started laughing"
I guess you must've missed all that from the Solnit piece while you were running the word count? So, having stood there while another party to the 'conversation' interrupted the jerk to no avail and having admitted that there are, yes, men who don't fit that category, Solnit doen't need your snotty "I'm sooooo gutsy (just ask me, pleeaasee!?!?)" crap.
Do you feel good that you can compete in the shallowness end of the pool? Oopps, there is that self-esteem problem again. You seem incredibly hung up on the LA Times and with bragging about how much you get paid for this or that. As I said before, pretty pathetic. And frankly, your rules about how to post or comment are your own. You start out a post with gratuitous name calling and complain when someone doesn't kiss up to you for being "gutsy." Too bad.
Oh yeah, its called fair use. Its the law. And I have a legal opinion to that effect. But thanks for worrying about my ethics.
JJ at April 14, 2008 6:44 PM
It's more fun to read "jj" if you add in an "Arrr"
as in:
I see it constantly and call me fellow MEN out when they act like assholes. Arrr.
jerry at April 14, 2008 7:07 PM
Amy,
Here is a bit more from the Solnit piece that you seem not to have noticed:
Yes, it's true that guys like this pick on other men's books, and people of both genders pop up at events to hold forth on irrelevant things and conspiracy theories, but the out-and-out confrontational confidence of the totally ignorant is, in my experience, gendered.
Men explain things to me, and to other women, whether or not they know what they're talking about. Some men. Every woman knows what I mean. It's the presumption that makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field; that keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men's unsupported overconfidence.
I meant to put it into the last reply, but forgot. So, overlooking all the qualifier and letting your sycophantic, anonymous commentators do the same seems to be of a piece with the gratuitous title to the post. You are breaking down an open door. And to think, people pay you for this. What a world.
If you were less busy being resentful of The Times you might actually be able to muster up the ability to pay attention. As you say "its just not cool" (there is a standard of intellectual integrity!) pay no attention to what others actually say because you are intent on showing how you can run with the blowhards. Pathetic.
JJ at April 14, 2008 7:12 PM
Hi JJ, just a note regarding Amy's tolerance for all the anonymous posters here.
I have consistently posted here using my legal name as well as my business, so it's not really 100% anonymous booty-lickers doing her evil bidding.
Call me any time to discuss, I'm in the book under "Carpet".
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 14, 2008 7:14 PM
CMCR - Of course not everyone is anonymous. Even me. Amy managed to find me easily enough - after all, she's a gutsy woman! You might even say intrepid. But it is terribly hypocritical that she gives all the "booty-lickers" a pass when they criticize people anonymously but whines really loudly when someone talks back to her.
JJ at April 14, 2008 7:23 PM
There's a difference between attacking somebody and attacking somebody's ideas. When you attack me personally, I want to know who you are.
If you're just batting ideas around, no biggy if you're "Brian" or "Joe."
Because Solnit plays devil's advocate for a few sentences, and says there are men who are willjng to coddle her fragile little female self doesn't negate the rest of the piece, which is one long, pathetic whimper about men not allowing her to speak. See above: Somebody posted about how men push each other around. If you can't play in this world, stay home and have ladies' teas.
By the way, you're not exactly unbiased. I found your blog, girl detective that I am, and discovered that since January 2007, you have 62 mentions of Rebecca Solnit.
http://politicstheoryphotography.blogspot.com/search?q=solnit
I particularly liked this bit from the bottom of your blog:
While I allow anonymous comments, I prefer that people be willing to take responsibility for their views.
As do I, Mr. Johnson.
PS How amazing that you were able to afford to buy "Elegy To The Spanish Republic" and the Ansel Adams photo you posted recently, and the rights to all these other photos you post on your blog. You do have the rights to these photos, don't you? Sure you aren't just stealing them without compensating the artists and photographers?
No wonder you don't post your identity on my blog. If I were in the habit of robbing liquor stores or holding up old ladies, I'd be sure to wear a mask.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 7:57 PM
Amy,
Don't you just hate when someone takes you seriously? After reading your missives above, I went and searched your blog to see if this latest rant re: Solnit was a one-time dyspepsia or an ongoing problem for you. Low and behold I discovered that you wrote a rather complimentary post on RS just a couple years back. But I also discovered what seems like another hypocrisy. Earlier today you proclaimed:
"I likewise do not shoplift candy from the liquor store down the block. Which is stealing just as much as posting others' work without paying them.
I'm an ethical person, and because I am, I can show my name and my face wherever I go. You?"
Well, I guess the Liquor Store owner better watch out. On that earlier post you reproduce a big ole' chunk of a column that Solnit wrote on Alice Walton and Asher Durand. Of course, Solnit's essay was copyrighted. I guess you paid her for reproducing it here, right? You comin' down off that high horse any time soon?
JJ at April 14, 2008 7:59 PM
OH NO! I've been outed! I am soooo sorry Ms. Alkon. I really just wanted to know why you hadn't bothered to read before ranting. And I guess you will stop with the high and mighty, having 'stolen' copyrighted yourself. Hand in the cookie jar and all that. Imagine what we might find if we looked at more than two posts here?
You seem like the anonymous boys and girls who pucker up and flatter your self?-esteem. Funny how cranky you seem to be - intrepid girl reporter that you are - as soon as someone actually disagrees. Cranky enough to look up my email and Google it. What a clever trick. Of course, I DID leave that on the assumption that you might actually be able to take disagreement.
And, by the way, your anonymous fan base criticizes Solnit personally all the way through this comment thread and you utter not a syllable of protest. Why not rap a few knuckles Ms Alkon? Your fans are not just batting ideas around - they call names first and think second, if at all.
You start your post by calling someone an "idiot" and wonder why the discussion is not to your liking? You cannot possibly be that dim. You had to imagine that eventually someone might come along and wonder why you had your knickers in a knot. In that regard, I didn't "attack" you - I asked a question about a post. Why did you bother counting the words down to the fourth column? Seemed odd to me. Seems odd to me too that you are so unable to tolerate any disagreement.
As for being unbiased, I guess I'm busted again. You do seem to like to count, Ms. Alkon! SIXTY TWO "mentions" you say. Iam a bt surprised, but I defer to your systematic research into the matter. Well, I admit, I do read - yes read - Solnit's work. You ought to try it! Nothing in your post or subsequent remarks suggests you got that far. I like Solnit's work. I already said that here or did you miss that too? There is no secret there MS. Alkon. Did I mention that I have never met the woman?
Did you READ the fair use caveat on my blog? You know, the one I had written up on legal advice? Nope. In my line of work it just works that way. I attribute the work, I comment on it, and I make not a dime for what I write there. I put it up solely for the edification of folks like you. My conscience is clear and my ass is covered legally too. So, thanks again for worrying.
As for my comments policy. Maybe he is from your fan base, I hope not, but there is an anonymous fellow who is a racist, homophobic asshole who comes around pretty regularly. Didn't even leave an email trail to follow. When he started making cracks about my dead teenage son I cut him off and started moderating the comments. Is that OK with you?
JJ at April 14, 2008 8:31 PM
Not surprisingly, you take the weenie approach. Instead of standing up and being accountable for your actions -- apparently posting numerous photos that do not belong to you -- you come back with, "You steal, too!"
But, what I did was not post the article in its entirety, but post just enough to coherently represent what the author was trying to say in order to drive people to the original work! It's the antithesis of stealing, it's promoting her writing, and getting her more business.
The piece she wrote was 1886 words. I posted 704. I do like to post less of an excerpt, but sometimes I err on the side of making the person make sense. Here's the piece.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2006/02/wal-mart.html
If I were a thief, I would just post people's articles in their entirety. And do notice that I do not post a photo of the painting in the blog item you reference, because it does not belong to me, and I have not licensed its use. Once again, I link to it only. Because I am not a thief.
But, now, back to you? When are you going to pay all those photographers and artists whose work you have posted on your site?
Hmm, it occurs to me that you're beginning to see the difference between a shrinking violet like Solnit and me. I bet she never points out that you're using photos that you apparently have taken without permission or payment to their owners and creators.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 8:32 PM
Did you READ the fair use caveat on my blog? You know, the one I had written up on legal advice? Nope. In my line of work it just works that way. I attribute the work, I comment on it, and I make not a dime for what I write there. I put it up solely for the edification of folks like you
That's not fair use.
If I rob a liquor store, but give the proceeds of my theft away to the poor, I'm still a thief.
I'm happy when people excerpt and link my work, but if somebody posts an entire column on their site, even if they're not making money from it, it devalues the price I can get for it on the market. If a guy's photos are seen everywhere for free, why should anybody pay for them?
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 8:42 PM
PS Not being able to afford to license people's work is not a justification for violating their copyrights and taking it for free.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 8:45 PM
Amy,
Thanks for your valuable legal advice. It is worth just what I've paid for it.
Actually the "weenie approach" is just a way of saying you should really stop being a hypocrit. "I just like to post a little bit" is "stealing" too. Sort of like saying "I am a vegan" but I just love chorizo so I'll have a little bit.
"If I rob a liquor store, but give the proceeds of my theft away to the poor, I'm still a thief." Yes you are. Your assessment of what you need to post to convey coherence is just your arbitrary assessment. And you are sooo virtuous for not posting the image. I'm about to swoon.
You are splitting hairs dearest. I guess an advice columnist needs to lift a big ole' chunk of copyrighted text on an old painting and post it because .... well, because she just wants to be gutsy!
And,a s for the weenie approach, since you asked me to say what was plausible about Solnit's essay. I do like how you changed the subject instead of actually addressing the passages I posted. You know the ones with all the qualifiers that you completely ignore. Or did I steal them too? It is all so confusing now that you've called my ethics into question.
I am logging off for the night. this has been fun. Really. If you ever have the misfortune of being in Rochester, drop a line. (You do have my email.) I'll buy you a bourbon or two. Thanks for the argument. Really.
JJ at April 14, 2008 9:00 PM
PS: Couldn't sleep; and since you were so certain just above, so I thought I'd send along a simple explanation of FAIR USE:
NOTE FROM AMY: AN ENTIRE SECTION OF SOMEBODY'S WRITING WAS POSTED HERE, IN BOLDFACE, SANS LINK. SEND A LINK, JJ, AND I'LL POST THAT HERE. YOU CAN'T JUST POST OTHERS' WORK HERE WITHOUT LINKAGE OR ATTRIBUTION. AMY'S NOTE ENDS HERE.
So, as a nerdy academic (actually I think the pirate category is cool too) pretty much anything I post on my blog is covered. Likewise with all your advice blooging. Thanks again.
JJ at April 14, 2008 9:17 PM
Wow, you got me at 'vagina'. What was this about again?
Christoph at April 14, 2008 9:28 PM
JJ, don't post ugly bold text all over my comments section. Furthermore, those are somebody else's words -- you can't post other people's words without a link. And you can't post them in their entirety; you can merely excerpt. I'll delete most of that huge bold spew you just posted. Send me a link and I'll post the link within your comment.
I'm sorry that as a poly sci prof you aren't articulate enough to think this out and put this in your own words.
You do say this:
pretty much anything I post on my blog is covered
You're wrong. I don't, however, wish to educate you on fair use.
In short: You're taking copyrighted work that doesn't belong to you, and not posting thumbnails for purpose of discussion of the work.
Furthermore, you made a few weak remarks to defend Solnit, who you apparently have a major hard-on for. I responded to them. Again, the fact that she contends that some men coddle her doesn't negate the fact that her entire piece is pretty much a screed about how men keep women down (evidenced by her own inability to speak up, even about subjects she's written books touching on). Pathetic.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 9:45 PM
Poly sci prof? Aw, crap. I was hoping to get some carpet business out of this.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 14, 2008 10:00 PM
Cowardice, fear, apprehension, these are things every person must face in their life, and either overcome or give way to according to their private mettle....
I realize not everybody can overcome those things all the time, some never do. But feminists are the only people I know of who embrace those failings so adoringly, even proudly, and worse, make it into a career.
The only good thing about feminists is that they're easy to identify, I do not care to associate with cowards or buck passers, and that particular breed of both is as obvious a neon sign.
Robert H. Butler at April 14, 2008 10:06 PM
That was what got me about Solnit's piece: Her own cowardice was what caused her all the trouble, but instead of looking to personally improve, she blamed men.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2008 10:11 PM
Guys can feel uncomfortable around a woman who makes them look weak by comparison simply by virtue of her personality in the world.
Yes, they can. But it is far, far better to be single than to be with those guys. I want friends and romantic partners who are comfortable with me; my life is too short to pretend to be someone I'm not.
marion at April 14, 2008 11:25 PM
@JJ: Seems odd to me too that you are so unable to tolerate any disagreement.
If Amy was unable to tolerate any disagreement, your post would have been suppressed. What you are seeing here is disagreement. It seems you are not sufficiently familiar with it to be able to recognise it when you see it.
Norman at April 15, 2008 12:48 AM
Huh?
No, I've never had a problem with men explaining things to me, unless it's bad news about my car, in which case it's rather hopeless and I pull out a check. Anyway, by far, I've been silenced by other women than by men. In fact, as of late, I've been surrounded by a lot of bossy women. And being one myself, there are times when even I wish that I would shut up.
I agree. Assertiveness training? Enroll in Speech and Debate? Learn to to explain yourself better at dinner parties? Or maybe learn to make small talk conducive to "Pass the bread."
callie at April 15, 2008 12:53 AM
> To be fair...
No, we owe her no quarter. The whole passage is inane, and about 750% too offhand to be convincing. Read it again. Her tone recalls Dr. Evil's Childhood Soliloquy from the Austin Powers therapy session:
DR. EVIL Very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low-grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen-year-old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy... The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
My childhood was typical: summers in Rangoon, luge lessons; in the spring we'd make meat helmets. If I was insolent, I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds. Pretty standard, really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fifteen, a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum. It's breathtaking, I suggest you try it....
Maybe "Sniveling Idiot" is too harsh, but here's what I think Solnit wants to say:
I've crossed all the gates and velvet ropes of exclusion and am now in the presence of brilliant people and elegant things in a stunning setting... Not that I'm really into that sort of thing, because my tastes are even higher than that, of course... Wherever I go, I'm too hip for the room.
How do you read it? And what does it mean that the Los Angeles Times thinks that's the kind of the Californians want to read?
Crid at April 15, 2008 1:04 AM
Truly remarkable. That a purported professor should conduct himself so, no doubt that generations of great writers, orators, and educators now roll in their graves. Perhaps we could wrap them in copper wire & power a city with the energy they create?
I exaggerate of course...one can scarcely crack the smallest joke without doing that a bit.
But sadly, I exaggerate ever so slightly.
It is plain that, whatever his profession, professor or no he is not knowledgable of copywrite law. It has long since been settled in courts of law that the partial use of anothers work may be used in parody, criticism, review, summary, etc. As Amy pointed out, she used only a small part of the work, and did so with legal intent in mind. She did not reproduce the entirety or even the bulk of the work, she's on very solid legal ground.
Of course I won't say that Amy Alkon is completely without bias...but if you want to find someone who is without bias, find a graveyard. We all have our perspectives colored by our own experiences, by the rights and wrongs we've done and those that were done to us. The best that we can ask of others and ourselves is that we attempt a perspective now and again other than our own.
That said, the delightful miss Alkon has the unique job of advice columnist a la critic, and the rather sound notion that communication with her audience, this means that part of her job is to be interesting to read, even amusing, as well as to provide pertinent and reasonable advice. With regards to her blog, it is perfectly normal for even the unpaid to voice opinions and critique what they percieve to be weakpoints, in another's work, (as you have done JJ) how much more reasonable is it then, for someone who is paid? Having read the column, and miss Alkon's rejoinder, I cannot help but side with our lady of advice on this one.
The author in question, miss Silnot, wrote a piece that, if written by a man, about women, would never have seen the light of day in any respectable paper. Not least because it is an attack on the percieved nature of a gender. Moreover, as bad as the article was in treatment of men, (regardless of its "exceptions") I find it a far worse indictment against women. Consider her words, she speaks of men as oppressors, while she writes of women as cowards, to frightened of a man speaking to them to simply walk away from boors or bores, to shy to speak up...I'll not go on in that vein.
The critique by miss Alkon by contrast, was direct & to the point, it was amusing in its directness, reminding quite a bit of Denis Leary...minus the swearing.
Lastly, her criticism was spot on. Suffice it to say, I'll keep reading.
Robert H. Butler at April 15, 2008 1:38 AM
Isn't this sweet irony. JJ tries to do the same thing to Amy that Ms. Solnit complains about - and fails!
Radwaste at April 15, 2008 2:10 AM
Amy, I didn't figure you for one who keeps backup singers. Not exactly a Greek chorus though. Who would've thought, Amy Alkon & the Pips!
Amy I assumed you would be intrepid enough to figure out the passage is from Wikipedia. No attribution needed. Of course, just because the passage shows you to be completely uninformed about something that you apparently know nothing about, we can set that little matter aside. Rather than simply shouting YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE IS SAY SO! please go ahead an enlighten your little troop of admirers which of the four factors defining Fair Use I violate? Fair Use DEFINED BY THE COLLECTIVITY AT WIKIPEDIA" "allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review." No comments there, about except when mistress Amy shouts really loudly!
I truly am sorry to have offended your refined aesthetic sensibilities. I just used the bold to set off what were not my words from what were. But, after all, you set us off down this road by trying to change the subject. Thankfully, there is an intersection coming up and I can make a turn.
GMCR - I do need new carpet at the office call me any time to discuss.
The rest of you, it's been a real pleasure ...
JJ at April 15, 2008 3:51 AM
Robert B:
Thanks for making my point - "It has long since been settled in courts of law that the partial use of anothers work may be used in parody, criticism, review, summary, etc. As Amy pointed out, she used only a small part of the work, and did so with legal intent in mind. She did not reproduce the entirety or even the bulk of the work, she's on very solid legal ground."
If you'd been allowed to read my earlier post by Commissar Amy, you'd have seen that the Wiki passage says just that. Amy is too busy whining and yelling and carrying on to acknowledge the world. Bye all!
And Amy, the bourbon offer stands.
JJ at April 15, 2008 3:54 AM
Republishing somebody's photo is not "partial use of their work." That would be publishing a thumbnail that drives traffic to the original work. I don't just get my information off Wikipedia, either. I've attended two seminars on this; one by a copyrights/trademarks lawyer, and another by a web expert.
You do this rather often on your blog -- simply making an entry of another's photo or cartoons. Here's how Gary Larson feels about people taking his work without paying for it: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/tfisher/compuls99.html#N_49_
Whenever somebody violates my copyright and republishes my entire column I go after them, or send my syndicate's lawyer after them if they won't comply. Every time somebody reposts my column for free it means the site that paid for it is losing traffic, and I am less likely to be continued on their site. It actually does hurt the creators -- the people who do the work for a living. Do people get to attend your classes for free because they don't intend to have a career in political science?
Furthermore, you call me Comissar Amy because I don't want you taking over my blog with an entire page of bold text written by somebody else? How rude of you that you think that's appropriate.
As a political science prof, you should know that "Comissar Amy" would do exactly as you do -- ignore the rights of the individual. If it's from Wikipedia, credit the source and link back to it. How creepy that you don't, first of all, and how creepy that you think you can just shit out black text all over my blog.
As for the bourbon offer: I don't drink with people who don't respect others' copyrights.
This discussion is not one of fair use. Go away, JJ, and wank off over Rebecca Solnit. At least I am able to look at her work fairly -- to commend her for her earlier thinking, and say this thinking, in this piece is shit.
You're an intellectual automaton. Not a surprise you are employed by a university.
Amy Alkon at April 15, 2008 5:12 AM
JJ: IANAL, but fair use is not defined by Wikipedia. It's defined by the United States Congress.
Concerning written works, an excerpt (there's no defined quantity) quoted for purposes of analysis or commentary is allowed as a "derivative work" under the present law. See here for more information.
And, being a photographer myself, I happen to know a bit about the laws regarding image copyrights.
In the query posted above by Amy, the second post down (9-Apr-2008 08:09) contains a minimum of one violation (the Guardian photograph). I don't know if the first one was released under a CC license or not, but I know for a fact that Guardian (and, in fact, all major news organizations) hold an exclusive license on their images. A simple attribution does not get you off the hook. Nor does a link to the image on another's server.
The fact that you make no money off your site does not give you any rights to those images either.
If I was in the mood to be a dick, I'd go though your site to see if any of my images were there. And then you'd find out what the differences between "fair use", "derivative work" and "copyright violation" really are.
brian at April 15, 2008 5:49 AM
Isn't this sweet irony. JJ tries to do the same thing to Amy that Ms. Solnit complains about - and fails!
Heh heh...great point, Rad.
Yeah, JJ, you send Rebecca Solnit here, and have her read my comments to you, and she'll get a very good lesson in not only standing up for herself, but standing up for others' copyrights. How can you be an ethical person if you remain silent when you see somebody behaving unethically?
Amy Alkon at April 15, 2008 5:50 AM
Gretchen, this is like asking a woman to "CHOOSE" to be less emotional.
Read and watch this, and this, and this.
From the reports,
This fact is even evident in young boys, and in males of other primate species.
Social norms of conversation don't accept masculine communication styles. "Normal" is sex based. What's "normal" for a woman is likely not "normal" for a guy. Men tend to act out their thoughts in spatial ways, because their brain works by storing experience in areas for spatial reasoning. Women tend to emote when they communicate, because they store experience with emotional memory.
Can women get crazy emotional? Sure. Can men get too rambunctious? Sure. But here also there is a rational double standard. Femininity won't work as a universal definition of what a "normal" communication style is. Men already have a great tolerance for female communication styles. It's women who have become intolerant of masculine communication styles. Ms. Solnit's victim mentality is a good example.
Ms. Solnit is a cranky, feminist conspiracy theorist. I'm in her age group, and women like her are a common dating hazard in just about any major city. As a guy you just get used to it. It's not that these women hate men, they just hate masculinity.
Also, I tire of the notion than men must be "strong enough" to tolerate a woman's boorish nagging and irrational demands. There's nothing strong about a man who puts up with a bitch. It's telling that so many women delude themselves into believing that manly strength consist of putting up with their shit rather than insisting on good treatment. If a guy has to exert "strength" to put up with his girlfriend/wife, it's time for a polite exit back to single life.
When many or most American women define masculine 'strength' as the ability to handle a woman's bossy nagging or the ability for men to act like women or communicate like women or think like women --- something is terribly wrong.
Jeff at April 15, 2008 6:30 AM
"you should know that "Comissar Amy" would do exactly as you do -- ignore the rights of the individual." No to both of you. Back home before the fall of the iron curtain they would not block your work or ignore your rights. Extra shame on JJ for not knowing this. They would erase you completely. If she was acting as a real Commissar she would send a team to your house take you, your computer, all you personal posesions every picture of you on the net, in print or on the computer or anyones computer. Everyone you know would be told that they never knew you and you did not exist. If any of them ever mentioned you within earshot of the KGB of political personel you will likely no longer exist. That a poly sci proff would so lightly use the term commissar, Doc that's just wrong.
vlad at April 15, 2008 6:32 AM
May I bring out the obvious, which everyone has missed or ignored?
Why get sussed over some dinner conversation about Eadweard Muybridge? Especially when one has Wikipedia these days, and they'll figure it out on their own?
Why not flirt outrageously with the guy who has the guts to stand up with you? Offer him a martini or two? Tell him his Eadweard Muybridge explanation is simply moving and too hot to trot?
Truly, Ms. Solnit's flirtation and charm skills have long been abandoned. A shame. Another one bites the dust.
callie at April 15, 2008 7:42 AM
"Wherever I go, I'm too hip for the room."
I had the same problem, but I overcame it by dressing like Tyler Durden.
Wait, did I just out-hip myself?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 15, 2008 9:30 AM
I had the same problem, but I overcame it by dressing like Tyler Durden.
I love the bathrobe!
Wait, did I just out-hip myself?
Anything's possible in carpet-reclaimer-land! o_O
Flynne at April 15, 2008 9:48 AM
Something's rotten in Denmark.
First of all...I've never had a professor that would even CONSIDER wikipedia as a valid source. I find it hard to imagine a professor actually quoting it as though it were authoritative. (Although I could see one refering to the works cited by the article IN wikipedia, verifying it & refering us to that.
Its not that wikipedia is useless, actually I use it regularly not as a source, but as a means to find other potential sources, just by checking the references posted by the article's authors.
Its rather ironic that JJ refers to miss Alkon is "comissar", since in fact the point she makes is one that is shared only by self interested capitalists. Which is to say, protecting one's work to ensure a continued profit from it. Quite the opposite of what one might expect within a system occupied by "comissars".
One would expect a political science professor to be familiar with the concerns of a given political system.
Robert H. Butler at April 15, 2008 9:58 AM
> there is an intersection coming
> up and I can make a turn [...]
> The rest of you, it's been a
> real pleasure ...
No! Don't leave us! We need you here! We're totally under Amy's control!
Crid at April 15, 2008 10:11 AM
Flynn - Who is this Gog guy? What does his name mean?
You ever have that feeling that everyone else has been watching a sitcom that you haven't seen? Or reading a Bible you never made time for?
Maybe it has something to do with this
Crid at April 15, 2008 10:25 AM
Bush Cited "Gog & Magog" As Reason To Attack Iraq
Obviously, Gog did not clean the White House carpets properly! Thus Bush's reasons for invading Iraq - it's all Gog's & Magog's fault! Shame on them! But now you've got me wondering if they're related to the Gog and Magog of Celtic lore fame.
http://www.lordmayorsshow.org/visitors/history/gogmagog
Flynne at April 15, 2008 11:38 AM
Or perhaps he was ticked off at being beaten at golf:
http://www.golfeurope.com/clubs/gog_magog/
Flynne at April 15, 2008 11:46 AM
Also Gog and Magog were the Skull & Bone nicknames for George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
Joe at April 15, 2008 12:13 PM
Joe, seriously?? That brings a whole new ick factor into the equation.
Flynne at April 15, 2008 12:21 PM
"Also Gog and Magog were the Skull & Bone nicknames for George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush."
Listen, The Magog Brothers Atlantis Carpet Reclaimers has NOTHING to do with ivy-league fruitbats dancing around in the redwoods worshipping owls and practicing richcraft.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 15, 2008 12:55 PM
...Listen, The Magog Brothers Atlantis Carpet Reclaimers has NOTHING to do with ivy-league fruitbats dancing...
Woo, who's getting a little touchy!
Jody Tresidder at April 15, 2008 1:02 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1540283">comment from CridWe're totally under Amy's control!
I keep telling myself that, and then you (Crid) start posting Wikipedia links to "Voodoo" and "Self-Importance"!
Amy Alkon at April 15, 2008 1:05 PM
Has anyone noticed that the initial letters of The Magog Brothers Atlantis Carpet Reclaimers are TMBACR - that's just one more than the number of letters in STAN! I mean, SATAN! And A appears in both. A=alpha, you know?
Norman at April 15, 2008 2:09 PM
> ivy-league fruitbats dancing
> around in the redwoods
Remember also, participation in Skull & Bones is also said to require ritualized masturbation.
Just sayin'.
Crid (Big Ten, class of '82)
Crid at April 15, 2008 3:46 PM
Amy, In the main, you are right. Still, Stolnitz's story about Mr. Very Important I rang a bell with me. I've met guys like that many times. However, I'm a guy. In other words, this may be guy behavior (admittedly, I don't think I've ever met a woman like that), but it's not about women.
Lester Hunt at April 19, 2008 10:46 PM
nice one - snivelling was exactly the word that came to my mind, cept solnit's article had no space 4 comments
simon smith at April 19, 2008 11:04 PM
solnit might need 'assertiveness' training, but you just sound like a total bitch.
>
so you didn't confront pastore yourself, but made the host 'protect' you?!? who's the weak one now? fight your own battles, miss rambo.
Natalia Dargomyzhsky at April 20, 2008 11:02 AM
Atleast Solnit writes far better than you. Perhaps you're just jealous. :o)
chapi at April 20, 2008 11:15 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1541298">comment from Natalia DargomyzhskyUh, Natalia, what was I supposed to do, slug him?
He was not even in the same area of the studio I was in. It was some weird kind of remote.
It's a host's job to see that everyone gets a chance to talk. I wasn't getting a chance, despite telling Pastore to stop interrupting me (it's hard to rein in a boor -- but I did try). I then spoke up further -- not by shouting over Pastore's booming voice, which, frankly, doesn't come off well on TV (and probably wouldn't have been too effective since he's got some serious pipes), but by standing up for myself in a more effective way, by saying I wasn't going to participate in a discussion where somebody else repeatedly kept stealing the time allotted to me (when the host asked me a question, I would start to answer, and Pastore would cut in). Solnit, on the other hand, just sat there festering, time and time again instead of making any attempt to be heard. The point is to do something to be heard.
Am I a "total bitch"? Sure I am, to the deserving.
Otherwise, I'm a pretty good friend. Get cancer, I'll take care of you. Go to an inner city school, and I'll come talk to you once a month to demystify making it, and I'll send accomplished friends in to do the same. (A program I created.)
Fight my own battles?
Natalia, you're pretty funny.
Read my site, and watch me on Nightline from January. I'm writing a book now for McGraw-Hill called REVENGERELLA: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society.
Sit next to me and shout into a cell phone and see how "weak" I am. Or drive recklessly in my neighborhood and be shocked when I follow you in my car to 7-Eleven and chew you out for not caring that you might hit a kid or a dog.
Yeah, I'm reallll weak!
Again, if anybody knows Solnit, feel free to send her to me for a little boot camp in how to stand up for herself.
Amy Alkon at April 20, 2008 11:18 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1541299">comment from chapiAtleast Solnit writes far better than you. Perhaps you're just jealous. :o)
That would be envy you're talking about, and it's irrational.
My column runs in over 100 papers, so I'm not suffering too much from my terrible writing, thanks.
Amy Alkon at April 20, 2008 11:19 AM
At least Solnit writes far better than you.
Thanks to Arts & Letters Daily, I only have this piece and Solnit's LA Times column to go on.
Amy, you win in a walk.
Great piece; I loved reading it.
Jeff Guinn at April 20, 2008 4:09 PM
Thanks so much, Jeff. PS It made my day that Denis Dutton linked me.
Amy Alkon at April 20, 2008 4:24 PM
Amy, you rock.
Shame on the LA Times for giving this idiot a forum. Idiots like Solnit allow women (and men) with no backbone to go into full Martyrdom mode, which is just tiresome.
May there be more honesty and directness in the communication between people, regardless of their gender, and less gamesmanship and whining.
Susan Young at April 20, 2008 6:14 PM
Amy is still making hay off a post written so long ago and in her more recent bragging she noted how humorous she found Solnit sycophants commenting on her post. So, I figured I'd stop in and see if the comment thread had improved. No surprise, it hasn't. While I am here it would be a shame not to reply to some of the more insightful interventions.
Brian says:
"If I was in the mood to be a dick, I'd go though your site to see if any of my images were there. And then you'd find out what the differences between "fair use", "derivative work" and "copyright violation" really are."
First, I'll pass over the hypothetical. You know, like frogs in a barrel and that sort of thing. Second, don't flatter yourself I don't waste blog posts on Hallmark card photos. (Yes I followed Amy's intrepid lead and tracked down your web page.) Third, you, like Amy have but the vaguest grasp of the law. You seem to get that a law exists, you simply don't understand it at all. So even if I had posted one of your flowery shots, you'd be wasting your time being a dick.
Norman intones:
"If Amy was unable to tolerate any disagreement, your post would have been suppressed. What you are seeing here is disagreement. It seems you are not sufficiently familiar with it to be able to recognize it when you see it."
Well Norman. What I see is Amy ranting and all her regular readers falling into line to ... well, agree with her. As soon as I said something that didn't amount to kissing up, she had a fit.
So astute observer that you are you're right, she didn't suppress my comment. Big deal. She demanded to know who I was and how I might dare to ... well, disagree with her. And, of course, if she'd suppressed the comment she wouldn't act out her persona as a "gutsy woman." It is all part of the Amy Alkon show. So what you are seeing Norman is disagreement - with you. The problem is that you are so busy falling into line that you cannot see past the loyal reader in front of you.
Bob Butler worries:
"I've never had a professor that would even CONSIDER wikipedia as a valid source. I find it hard to imagine a professor actually quoting it as though it were authoritative."
Well Bob, I was not suggesting it was authoritative (although as you would've seen had Amy not blocked it out, all the references to legal texts you like are there; and compared to Amy's preferred source, a cartoonist, it seems pretty reliable); I was just using it to show that even the slightest amount of looking would have allowed anyone not already allied with Amy and her army of outraged copyright defenders to see that she and they are simply howling at the moon.(I am sure Amy will be back complaining that this is not the topic, but please lets remember that her tactic of changing the subject to my purported criminal ways is what got us off on this tangent in the first place.)
Finally Amy was yowling at length about how I used BOLD font and disfigured her lovely site. But all I did was take advantage of the permission she extends to commentators. As she says ~ "(You may use HTML tags for style)" Here is her complaint:
"Furthermore, you call me Comissar Amy because I don't want you taking over my blog with an entire page of bold text written by somebody else? How rude of you that you think that's appropriate."
So yes, all you folks who think the commissar crack was inappropriate, she censored my comment because it violated her refined aesthetic sensibilities (and, more importantly, would have shown her up as a blow hard on legal matters). That is just the sort of thing a commissar would do. So, Bob Butler I was commenting on her heavy handed behavior as much as her self-serving interpretation of the law (both qualities characteristic of the commissars of old). And vlad get a life, this is blog land. Amy may be nutty but even she probably stops short of assassination or re-education camps. Except, just maybe, for all you anonymous boys who have spent so much time here attacking me and kissing up to her. Anonymous comments, after all, are something she simply cannot abide.
Bye Amy. Bye boys.
JJ at April 20, 2008 7:24 PM
she censored my comment because it violated her refined aesthetic sensibilities (and, more importantly, would have shown her up as a blow hard on legal matters)
You are more than welcome to post a link to the content you copied and pasted in its entirety in bold text into my comments section, turning a discussion that was interesting into a defense of the way you take photographers' work without permission and post it on your blog.
You cannot post miles of boldfaced text here, you cannot post others' writing without links to it (whether it's Wikipedia or other text).
This is not a censoring site; it's a site that respects the creators of work. Also, I resent you boring the fuck out of people with your indefensible defense of your posting of work that does not belong to you.
I have in my possession an e-mail from somebody who's an expert in this area, but I'm awaiting permission from that person to quote directly from it.
To summarize, he rips you a new one for claiming "Fair Use" gives you the right to use imagery without obtaining the permission of the copyright owner/creator.
He quotes the law (www.copyright.gov) that states: "Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."
You are free, Jim Johnson, professor of poly sci, to post the link to the Wikipedia thing you copied at length into my blog, and to quote an excerpt from it here. Good manners (which you clearly do not have) and netiquette demand that you do not post the thing in its entirety.
In other words, Mr. Professor of Poly Sci -- http://www.rochester.edu/College/PSC/people/faculty/johnson.php -- I can't believe I have to explain this to somebody in your job, but you are not being "censored," you are merely asked to not be such a jerk.
I wouldn't dream of posting, and I'm guessing here, 1000 words of bold, black text, text that I have not written, in somebody's comments section, and besides that, without a link (let alone without excerpting and linking). It's astonishing to me that I have to tell you that this is inappropriate.
My dream is that people will go to your site --
http://politicstheoryphotography.blogspot.com/
and track down the photographers and artists whose work you have posted without paying rights or considering that it is not yours to take -- and e-mail those photographers and see how "fair" they find what you claim is all "fair use."
Amy Alkon at April 20, 2008 10:01 PM
As for people here supposedly "kissing up" to me, many of the people posting on this entry have never been to my site before, and were sent here by sites linking to this entry.
Furthermore, there are numerous people who have commented on this post, Crid and Rad, for example, who regularly bitchslap me when they disagree with me. This is a free speech site.
I think it's rather obvious that I don't shy from debate.
Amy Alkon at April 20, 2008 10:03 PM
How interesting. I have to admit I am surprised. Although before I proceed, if you must shorten my name, do shorten it to "Rob" I've never liked "Bob". *insert shudder here*
Actually for the record, a cartoonist is likely to be EXTREMELY well versed in copywrite law. Remember they are some of the people most frequently faced with the theft of their work. (Anyone NOT seen copywrite violations of Calvin & Hobbes? Bill Waterson never liscenced his work to anyone, so anything you've seen is a violation)
Of course I've nae bothered to track down your blog or anything of that nature, I've not got the time nor the inclination. But when it comes to "fair use" etc. well if you are publishing copywrited photos or pictures of someone else's design without the permission of the creator...well I am not sure how you can claim to not violate the law.
As far as "sucking up" or however it was that you put it, well this ought not come as a surprise to you, but those who read miss Alkon's work regularly, well we do so because we typically agree with her, or at least disagree well enough that we are assured of a pleasant discussion on the subject. I've disagreed with miss Alkon on several occasions. The difference is that we can disagree without having anything personal in the midst of it. Neither myself nor many of her readers have our egos linked to our opinions, and so we can almost all argue with miss Alkon and remain polite, friendly, and fans. We can, wonder of wonders in today's "sensitive" world, respectfully acknowledge each other's occasional good points in an argument, even if we do nae quite agree.
As a purported political science professor (I say this because I take nothing on the net at face value, not to accuse you outright of falsehood) I would expect you are schooled in rhetoric and debate, and familiar with the process of partipulation of an audience, and should know quite well the way to debate a topic in a proper manner. But instead from the start you attacked on a much more personal level, you made only the most cursory effort, if even that, to defend the actual opinion of your favored author, and focused on striking out at the critic.
Had you rather focused on the valid points (if any) in miss Solnit's work, things might have been much more enjoyable and amicable. If the tone displeases you in general, well it is the tone you set.
Issues of copywrite are relatively minor and unrelated to the discussion on miss Solnit in any case.
The simple bottom line is this, the article miss Alkon criticized painted men like oppressors and painted women as cowards, and acknowledges only those who helped her personally as being decent men. It was devoid of literary or intellectual merit. And lastly, quite frankly to me it sounds a little made up.
Come now...first of all: Does anyone here NOT ask someone's name before a long conversation with an unknown stranger? Wouldn't it stand to reason he'd have noticed the woman he was speaking to had the same name as the author whose book he'd just read? And wouldn't he recognize her from the picture on the inside cover? Sure it is possible there wasn't one, but I doubt that is the case. And then we are supposed to accept that she just stood there and let a complete stranger pontificate for goodness knows how long?
Sorry, but it sounds like a story made up so she'd have an article to write.
Last but not least, I find it odd that you're still around. Not to make an attack or some such...but that you return over this reminds me of the excessively "moral" persons who claim to watch porn just to complain about it.
Robert H. Butler at April 20, 2008 10:37 PM
Thanks for posting that, Robert. About the notion that I have a bunch of dittoheads here (I'd be horrified, because if there's anything I want to foster, it isn't nonthink) I'm reminded of a recent exchange with Patrick, who is a serious fan of my column, but believes I'm a blithering idiot when it comes to "alternative medicine."
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/the-prince-of-t.html#comments
For example, Patrick writes in one comment:
And for example, another comment from Patrick, same entry:
Patrick is wrong, and I pointed out why in subsequent comments. But, I love that he posted what he did, which gave me the opportunity to debate what he thinks.
In fact, one of the reasons I maintain this blog, which eats up huge chunks of my writing time and energy, and for no money (compared to what I can make writing for traditional publication) is that I absolutely love the level of debate here. There are some extremely smart, interesting people who post here, many of whom disagree with me with regularity. Crid, for example, thinks I'm an idiot about the Iraq war (I was against the Iraq war before I was against the Iraq war). Jeff can't stop going on about how wrong I am about a certain dating issue (I won't get into it here for fear of dragging that discussion over here). Etc.
I even posted a previous blog item commending a piece of Solnit's writing. I'm not anti-Solnit, I'm anti intellectual dishonesty and irrationality and plain old stupidity, and her recent piece, in my opinion, is rife with those things.
Amy Alkon at April 20, 2008 11:02 PM
Good one, Amy. Just discovered your blog via aldaily.com's link to Solnit's piece, adding yours as a perfect counterpoint. Solnit is a published historian, is in her 40s, and she carries on like that? So Naomi Wolf! Does she have a daddy complex? Lost her in that leap of logic from the patronising Aspen geezer to the whole of womankind, including Muslim women suffering under sharia law... What an amazing feat - for an historian, in her 40s!!
I'm in Australia. And will definitely be reading your blog again.
lizzylights at April 20, 2008 11:08 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1541391">comment from lizzylightsThanks so much, lizzylights.
Unbelievable, huh?
And speaking of Naomi Wolf...I'm no fan of her soggy diaper feminism either (just came up with that, but it seems to fit, since she so infantilizes women). Here's one of my columns where I mention Wolf's work:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2008/04/cruel-and-crull.html
Amy Alkon at April 20, 2008 11:12 PM
jj is for real? Weird.
jerry at April 21, 2008 12:14 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1541409">comment from jerryDisgusting, huh?
Here's one of Gary Larson's works that Jim Johnson (blogger and University of Rochester poly sci professor) posted on his blog -- as if he owns it.
http://politicstheoryphotography.blogspot.com/2007/10/anthropologists-at-war-hi-were-from-us.html
Note the little "Used with permission" on the side? I'm guessing the people who got the permission were these: Anthony Giddens and Simon Griffiths, whose sociology textbook it appears in.
I have great respect for Larson, and showed that respect by paying about $100 for a boxed set of his work, The Complete Far Side 1980-1994 (2 vol set) -- as opposed to stealing his work, which I find, to say the least, quite disrespectful.
Larson's work is devalued when posted on the Internet without payment or permission. Now, it's possible that Johnson posted Larson's work after asking permission and paying a licensing fee. I find that possibility unlikely, knowing what I know of Larson (my former editor at Creators used to work for him).
I sent an e-mail to the office manager at my syndicate -- which is also Larson's syndicate -- and got back an after-hours message with info on Far Side cartoon use. A few excerpts:
In case anybody's wondering what this has to do with Solnit, Jim Johnson, who links rather obsessively to Solnit (I think Safari counted 62 times in a year or so on his blog) has been hotly defending her silly piece here (sans substance), and, also, defending his "right" to take the creative work -- photos and paintings and cartoons created by others -- and post it on his blog, even when he hasn't paid for the use or asked for permission.
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 12:47 AM
perhaps men don't explain things to you because you are an idiot. Or, perhaps you don't realize how much is being explained to you because you are an empty head needing to be filled with mens explanations. The crassness with which you responded to the article devalued your opinion immediately.
megan Slaboda at April 21, 2008 5:49 AM
Based on the above comment, I'm guessing megan Slaboda really wishes she was a man.
Flynne at April 21, 2008 6:07 AM
Robert writes:
"Last but not least, I find it odd that you're still around. Not to make an attack or some such...but that you return over this reminds me of the excessively "moral" persons who claim to watch porn just to complain about it."
Just to clarify, while you are the one comparing this site to porn, I actually came back and commented because Amy herself had posted again in her inimitable sarcastic way about the pathetic folks who dared to disagree with her on Solnit. You can read the reason in my comment on that post.
Megan:
Beware, Amy and her minions will have their collective knickers in a knot very soon; you've actually questioned the group think at her site.
Amy wrote:
"... I'm anti intellectual dishonesty and irrationality and plain old stupidity ..."
If all those things were banned, Amy, you'd be out of a job. Later.
JJ at April 21, 2008 6:17 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1541504">comment from JJ"... I'm anti intellectual dishonesty and irrationality and plain old stupidity ..."
If all those things were banned, Amy, you'd be out of a job. Later.
You give no support for this. In fact, it's libelous.
How am I 1. Intellectually dishonest? 2. Irrational? 3. Plain old stupid?
Unlike Solnit, when I get my "knickers in a knot," I open my mouth and speak up. That's the point of this post, a point you have yet to address. That's what's most puzzling.
You must attack me, I guess, because you have no intention of taking responsibility for posting work created by, copyrighted by, and owned by others.
You also have nothing of substance you can criticize in what I wrote. I know you apparently have some huge hard-on for Solnit and/or her work, but how can you criticize me for saying, in short, "Women who want to speak up...should"?
Furthermore, Megan's remark is no problem and welcome here. She supports her contentions (she thinks I was crass in the way I replied) -- unlike you, JJ, James Johnson, University of Rochester poly sci professor and man who takes photographers' work and posts it on his blog without payment or permission to the photographers.
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 6:44 AM
Now you are an expert on libel law too? What a renaissance woman.
I started asking a question about Solnit (the comment starts with "Maybe") and then you started off down the road of accusing me of copyright infringement even though (1) you are ignorant of the relevant law and (2) consistently "steal" (your word) in the way you accuse me of doing. Pathetic.
JJ at April 21, 2008 7:32 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1541523">comment from JJI am anything but ignorant of the relevant law.
And I asked somebody who is anything but ignorant, and he gave me permission to quote from his e-mail about what you're doing which I will.
This is from photographer Christopher R. Harris, a professor in the College of Mass Communication at Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, who won his copyright infringement suit against the San Jose Merc news. The original is long, and he's given me permission to quote from it, so I've excerpted parts of his e-mail.
http://digitalprof.wordpress.com/2006/01/06/david-and-goliath-in-the-media-world/
Harris writes (and again, I post these e-mail excerpts with his permission):
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 7:44 AM
Ah, you mistake me Mr. Johnson, and I think, intentionally, but assuming you do not, let me clarify.
What I was refering to was the oddity of your continued return. Now there are people, as I'm sure you're aware, whom purport to be against pornography in general, for moral or social reasons. I'll not go into all of those, but within that group of people, there are those who view pornography regularly, and claim that they do so, in order to expose its evils more effectively. In short, they turn this pleasant little vice into an act of self sacrifice for "the greater good" of getting rid of it...a bit like claiming to snort coke so there will be less for everyone else to use.
In the same way, you continue to return to this site and claim to defend Solnit's abyssmal opinion column voraciously...however you've somehow managed to do so without listing even ONE virtue or positive of any kind about the article in question. Instead you have steadily attempted to undercut the credibility of the critic herself, Miss Alkon that is.
Ironically I might point out, were she like this Miss Solnit...she would be taking it meekly and blaming you for being a loud obnoxious man. Rather than, as I must point out with no small personal amusement, doing as she does, and speaking back to you firmly and pointedly regarding the expectations for conduct on this site, and on the relavent copywrite law you claim to somehow not be violating regarding the use of materials on your site.
Not surprisingly, your supporter, Miss Megan Slaboda, exhibits a similarly aggressive policy of attempting to insult, rather than refute, the critic.
Been a pleasure Miss Alkon, as always I depart very much amused.
Robert H. Butler at April 21, 2008 8:50 AM
Amy, I really do keep trying to leave. But since you keep piling it higher and deeper, I get drawn back in. As far as I can determine you are flat wrong - unless the jury verdict was overturned on appeal (I cannot track down any report on that) Chris Harris lost his suit against the SJMN. Isn't that embarrassing to you? And, of course, he is a photographer not a lawyer. So what authority do you think this reply provides. Are you really as dim as you seem?
You can find the PDN story on Harris's suit here:
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002952400
As with the initial Solnit piece, I recommend that you learn to read before ranting. Much less embarrassing for one in the game of offering advice.
I really will try to stay away now.
JJ at April 21, 2008 10:08 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1541558">comment from JJIt's an error by me, which I regret. I make mistakes from time to time and freely admit them.
He did lose the case. You're correct, and I'm wrong.
Now that I've given you an example of what it's like to be ethical and accountable, please address what in his e-mail I posted is incorrect.
Also, please feel free to address what points in my critique of Solnit's piece are wrong, and why. I doubt you can, which is probably why you have yet to post anything of substance criticizing my points.
I find it most disturbing that you're employed as a professor at a university; especially as a professor of poly sci. Unfortunately, I don't find it surprising.
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 10:29 AM
A subsequent e-mail from Chris Harris, which he has given me permission to post:
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 11:30 AM
Amy & Chris - I have replied to these comments over at my own place since Amy nicely forwarded them to me. That said, I really would like to do something else. Bye.
JJ at April 21, 2008 1:11 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1541598">comment from JJYou managed to post thousands upon thousands of words here attacking me (instead of responding to how you could possibly have the right to post others' creative work, in its entirety, without payment to them or permission from them) and suddenly you're shy?
Accountability is so hard for some people.
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 1:34 PM
re: "Yes, it's true that guys like this pick on other men's books, and people of both genders pop up at events to hold forth on irrelevant things and conspiracy theories, but the out-and-out confrontational confidence of the totally ignorant is, in my experience, gendered."
I've certainly seen men do this, strutting like a peacock -- and seen them rewarded for it, too, which is of course why the strategy is maintained. Wander into any bar and see for yourself. I’ve also experienced all too well the female version, as the self-absorbed peahen tells me all about how she’s admired for her feathers (ever seen a peahen?), how that thing she said the other day was praised as brilliant and how she really doesn’t think she’s model-pretty – hint, hint. You want a gender theory? This one’s had men laugh at her unfunny jokes, inflate her grandiose sense of self to delusional proportions, and considers anyone a boor who doesn’t play along. It’s not really her fault; the kind of attention a pretty woman gets in our society takes some serious grounding to counter.
What does this say about the female of the species as a whole? Not much. Let the vacuous get together. They’re happier that way, anyway.
Zane at April 21, 2008 1:58 PM
Maybe when JJ gets hit with a C&D or a DMCA Takedown Notice, he'll pull his head out of Solnit's pussy long enough to realize that he's not above the law.
brian at April 21, 2008 4:52 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html#comment-1541685">comment from brianHilariously, I went over there this afternoon to see if Creators' office manager had gotten around to making him take down the Gary Larson cartoon he'd posted, and I saw that he'd written below a post about me:
Given a 50-50 chance of being right Amy Alkon screws it up. That is frightening given her self-proclaimed status as "Advice Goddess."
Hilarious, huh? No, I don't like to make errors, but it's not like I call myself "Dr. Amy Alkon."
Yes, self-proclaimed status as "The Advice Goddess." Oh, how FRIGHTENING!...that somebody who calls herself something so silly might err!
Shall we all quiver together?
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 9:01 PM
I've never read Amy's blog before or read anything by Miss Solnik - I came upon Solnik's article and Amy's reply on Arts and Letters Daily. I am a woman and I agree with Amy. This is a free country. You don't have to listen to some boorish jerk go on about something that you know he is ignorant about. Solnik's problems are her own, not caused by men. She seems to suffer from a lack of self-confidence. If she did research for a book, why did she have to go Google something to prove the guy wrong? Makes no sense. It's not a man/woman thing, it's her lacking confidence in herself. Making yourself out to be a victim is pathetic, not admirable. And you're not a victim. Not in 2008 America. Comparing some guy talking stupidly to you to women being raped in third world countries is absurb. As for JJ, this man seems to have some sort of emotional disorder. It's one woman's critique of an article and he verbally attacks her and can't get over it. Try getting a life.
Sue at April 22, 2008 12:36 PM
Enjoyed many of the comments over at pajama media site too.
So, can we have the oh-so-fey Rebecca Solnit's reply to the grown-up Amy Alkon's scintillating critique?
PS loved "soggy diaper feminism".
lizzylights at April 23, 2008 2:59 AM
Solnit's article is a complete disgrace toward real feminists who are trying hard to create and authentic discourse. I think her article is really about being transparently absurd so as to create an angry and polarized response. Solnit should be ashamed of herself and so should whoever is gullible enough to print it.
Here is my rundown of what is wrong with the article.
>>>"I still don't know why Sallie and I bothered to go to that party in the forest slope above Aspen. The people were all older than us and dull in a distinguished way, old enough that we, at 40ish, passed as the occasion's young ladies. The house was great—if you like Ralph Lauren-style chalets—a rugged luxury cabin at 9,000 feet complete with elk antlers, lots of kilims, and a wood-burning stove. We were preparing to leave, when our host said, "No, stay a little longer so I can talk to you." He was an imposing man who'd made a lot of money."
These details don't make one very sympathetic to her since she comes across as snobby and judgmental. If you think your party mates will be "dull" why bother to go? Obviously this is not a very good way of establishing that your "credible".
>>>He cut me off soon after I mentioned Muybridge. "And have you heard about the very important Muybridge book that came out this year?""So caught up was I in my assigned role as ingenue that I was perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that another book on the same subject had come out simultaneously and I'd somehow missed it. He was already telling me about the very important book—with that smug look I know so well in a man holding forth, eyes fixed on the fuzzy far horizon of his own authority."
That makes her sound very insincere, and it it also explains why he was confused when her friend (rather than her) explained that it was "her". He asked a very straightforward question. We are left to wander how bad of a faux-pas he actually made if she subtracted all the hyperbole.
Here, let me just say that my life is well sprinkled with lovely men, with a long succession of editors who have, since I was young, listened and encouraged and published me, with my infinitely generous younger brother, with splendid friends of whom it could be said—like the Clerk in The Canterbury Tales I still remember from Mr. Pelen's class on Chaucer—"gladly would he learn and gladly teach."
Such purple prose, but it doesn't establish her credibility it makes her sound ridiculous.
>>>So, Mr. Very Important was going on smugly about this book I should have known when Sallie interrupted him to say, "That's her book." Or tried to interrupt him anyway.But he just continued on his way. She had to say "That's her book" three or four times before he finally took it in. And then, as if in a 19th-century novel, he went ashen.
Solnit doesn't bother to explain this to him herself so caught up as she is in her assigned role as "ingenue" (in her 40's)
>>>>"Being women, we were politely out of earshot before we started laughing, and we've never really stopped.
What does being a woman have anything to do with being "polite" enough to avoid laughing at somebody within earshot?
>>>"When River of Shadows came out, some pedant wrote a snarky letter to the New York Timesexplaining that, though Muybridge had made improvements in camera technology, he had not made any breakthroughs in photographic chemistry. The guy had no idea what he was talking about. Both Philip Prodger, in his wonderful book on Muybridge, and I had actually researched the subject and made it clear that Muybridge had done something obscure but powerful to the wet-plate technology of the time to speed it up amazingly, but letters to the editor don't get fact-checked. And perhaps because the book was about the virile subjects of cinema and technology, the Men Who Knew came out of the woodwork.A British academic wrote in to the London Review of Books with all kinds of nitpicking corrections and complaints, all of them from outer space. He carped, for example, that to aggrandize Muybridge's standing I left out technological predecessors like Henry R. Heyl. He'd apparently not read the book all the way to page 202 or checked the index, since Heyl was there (though his contribution was just not very significant). Surely one of these men has died of embarrassment, but not nearly publicly enough."
Some men disagree with you and its sexism by default? Not much credible information to go by here.
"Credibility is a basic survival tool. When I was very young and just beginning to get what feminism was about and why it was necessary, I had a boyfriend whose uncle was a nuclear physicist. One Christmas, he was telling—as though it were a light and amusing subject—how a neighbor's wife in his suburban bomb-making community had come running out of her house naked in the middle of the night screaming that her husband was trying to kill her. How, I asked, did you know that he wasn't trying to kill her? He explained, patiently, that they were respectable middle-class people. Therefore, her-husband-trying-to-kill-her was simply not a credible explanation for her fleeing the house yelling that her husband was trying to kill her. That she was crazy, on the other hand…"
So why is Solnit trying so hard to not be credible? High post-modern irony? (I'm not really kidding) Whatever reason she has, she is being highly irresponsible. It is reprehensible.
Why is she writing this article if she sees how horrible it is when women are not trusted?
>>>>"Men explain things to me, still. And no man has ever apologized for explaining, wrongly, things that I know and they don't."
Being wrong isn't crime even if your a man. This sounds an awful lot like this definition of "mansplaining" that has a lot of currency on the "feminist" blogs
This definition: "Mansplaining is when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do, or how you are wrong about something you are actually right about, or miscellaneous and inaccurate “facts” about something you know a hell of a lot more about than he does. Bonus points if he is explaining how you are wrong about something being sexist!"
Yeah that is right, you read that correctly, whenever a man says something to a woman who's smarter than him he's "mansplaining". This incredibly bizzare definition of mansplaining that looks like it could have been written in some snarky anti-feminist dictionary of radical feminism is the definition that has dominant currency within the "feminist" blogosphere. (it's the most relied on definition when someone tries to explain "mansplaining" within internet feminism)
Stuff like this which is full of transparent absurdities is everywhere within the "feminist" blogosphere. It's very hard to distinguish an "over the top" work of irony from authentic feminist thought. People like Solnit are tools, political hacks, who will stop at nothing to disrupt honest debate.
Culturally Critical at August 28, 2012 6:29 PM
My mother is very kind and understanding. We are real friends. She is a housewife. As she has three children, she is always busy around the house. She takes care of my baby sister Meg, who is only three months old что если. My sister is very small and funny. She sleeps, eats and sometimes cries. We all help our mother and let her have a rest in the evening. Then she usually reads a book or just watches TV. My father is a doctor. He is tall and handsome. He has short dark hair and gray eyes.
Vladunfaw at February 5, 2020 2:38 PM
The best sites http://advicegoddess.com
The best sites http://advicegoddess.com ShaneLAB at February 6, 2020 7:51 AM
Leave a comment