Wow, those people are pathetic!

These people voted.

Okay, that's enough. There are idiots on-line. I don't think you are, Amy, and I try not to be.

I'm enjoying the irony of having a Web site which demographic is crazy cat ladies claim that you don't have a life. No Flaming Wite-out® there!

Audition to comment?!?!?!

Fine. I'm not teaching you the secret knock to get in my girls' clubhouse.

@Juliana - HA! My thought exactly.

I often wonder how women have managed to not take over the world by now, and then I read stuff like this and realize that Jezebel is one of the more popular "women's" sites out there, and it all makes sense.

Amy, just like the President shouldn't bother attacking radio talk show hosts, you shouldn't bother with the simpering little girls at Jezebel. It's punching down.

Hey, darlin'! This is what I found most interesting...

I have left commenter accounts unapproved for breaking community rules, for being abusive toward the site or toward other commenters, for not contributing to the discussion, and for straight up being boring.

The fourth point ("boring") is far to subjective for a conscientious moderator to even consider. It can be used, and probably is used, as a convenient catch-all for anything that moderator simply doesn't agree with.

Interestingly enough, each of these four points become increasingly subjective.

Patrick,

On top of that, you can go through the comments on amy's piece there, and find submissions that violate every single one of those "rules".

Hypocrisy, thy name is feminism.

What never ceases to amaze me is how a discussion where both sides have valid points can erode into name calling dribble. Allow comments that don't back up your article. Amy does that. Why can't Jezebel? What is it that they are so afraid of? I would say that Amy's article touched a nerve for someone to spend so much time writing such a nasty comment. Notice that not one of Amy's points were addressed. Insead it was a straight put down. Jezebel found the time to approve that one but not one defending Amy's point of view? Points for Amy. No matter what the subject she always welcomes discussion and opinions that differ from hers. While I don't always agree with Amy and I'm the single-mother commenter here, I've never felt disrespected in any way by her or on this site. Its nice to be able to disagree and actually discuss it.

I'm a single mother, too, Kristen, and totally agree with you. Furthermore, while I've never visited the Jezebel website, after what Amy posted here, I feel no need to. I deal with enough of these feminazis in real life that I have no desire to read their insipid comments online.

Amy, that they called you anti-feminist has got to be the absolute best compliment an intelligent woman could get. That idiotic comment reeked of SadlyNo trolls.

Imagine being here and finding everyone basically agreeing on every topic, then discovering that Amy was blocking the commentators with different opinions. Now, that would be boring!

I wonder if those who frequent Jezebel know about this. The security they feel in their "group think" consensus may have to be reevaluated.

It would be interesting to know if the person who called you irrelevant has had half the career you have.
It takes zero talent to be a critic without facts.

"skahammer promoted this comment
Mireille is Cattery-Operated approved this comment"

This is actually the bit I found most interesting... clique via technology. I wonder if they all use the email address "heather@jezebel.com".

"It would be interesting to know if the person who called you irrelevant has had half the career you have. It takes zero talent to be a critic without facts."

Yeah, also note that most of the put downs were about her having no husband and no kids. Some feminists!

Imagine being here and finding everyone basically agreeing on every topic, then discovering that Amy was blocking the commentators with different opinions. Now, that would be boring!

I think that almost everyone who comments on Jezebel probably already knows. It's pretty obvious when all of the comments on all of the articles go one way, and just repeat what's been said previously over and over again. Check out the other commentary. It's very repetitive, like it's being written from a template.

Jezebel used to have some cred as a woman's site, but has fallen into the same trap as many others. They try to create a 'safe space', where women don't feel intimidated to express themselves, but end up homogenizing the commentary. They've also managed to attract an unusually nasty group of commenters, who only seem to have become nastier knowing that they're never going to be confronted on their behavior.

I should have said something in one of my emails about the "insipid little dog" comment - that one really pissed me off. I have a large goofy oaf of a dog, and if someone was nasty about her, I'd be livid. I've never met Amy or Lucy and yet I'm pissed about the insult. I don't care if you're a cat person or a dog person or not an animal person at all - what kind of lowlife do you have to be to talk shit about someone's beloved pet?

"They try to create a 'safe space', where women don't feel intimidated to express themselves..."

Isn't that really the antithesis of feminism? They need a "safe space" because they're so fragile?

Why is anyone surprised by this? Modern Feminism, as constituted in the USofA, is a monolithic block: wander too far off the reservation, and you're magically no longer a member of the club.

Notice that Amy's thesis was not attacked, Amy was.

In other words, "I can't refute her argument, but I don't like what she's saying. Tantrum follows. Please join me in a pity party."

The proper response is pity, or if one is charitable, maybe point the poor man toward some arguments to bolster his position. There must be some, right? Somewhere?

I don't pretend to be politically correct. I am a guy who is not attracted to unattractive women. MrsD doesn't read Amy and doesn't need to, so I have no need to pretend. I am a lucky guy.

Sorry, dude. I can't help you.

Isn't that really the antithesis of feminism? They need a "safe space" because they're so fragile?

My take on Jezebel is that it's been taken over by an older group of women who just want to rant and be vindictive. You can tell, because the issues that they focus on, and 'analysis', are kind of dated. They just rehearse the same criticism over and over and over again. It's like you took a class of women's studies majors from 1992 and gave them control of a website. That's where I think the 'safe space' attitude comes from. It's part of the weird therapy Feminism that took hold in the 90's.

The funny thing is that the only women I know who comment on Jezebel are SAHM's, and they're totally dependent on their husband. Maybe that's why they're so angry?

I used to read Jezebel frequently, but eventually got sick of it. If you're looking for a woman's site where you can have an intelligent debate, try http://www.thefrisky.com/ - it's a much nicer group of people, who aren't afraid to have their arguments challenged.

Just picture the "little dog" comment as coming from the Wicked Witch of the West. Good for a laugh.

Jezebel isn't a feminist site. It's a site for celebrity, sex and fashion. This doesn't seem to have much to do with feminism at all. Especially the commenter slamming Amy for being a childless single woman.

I am confused? So because you decide to not have children or get married, you are a loser? But if you decide to get married and have children you are a sell out? Are you not a women that feminists should be emulating. Doing a job you love. Living a life of style and grace?

God help me? They say you can never seem to satisfy a woman and to me I think feminists are the worst!

Feminist bitches are totally into me.

"The funny thing is that the only women I know who comment on Jezebel are SAHM's, and they're totally dependent on their husband." Wonder if that's exactly it. If the hubby turns in to "an insensitive fuck head" she'll have to put down the bon bons, start using make up and drop the damn day time shows. Either to keep him around or to get chump number 2. Fear turning to anger is mainly a human trait. This goes double for those SAHM that have never had a career. This is why I have the opinion that I do. While these may not be indicative of all SAHM (so I've been told) these are exactly what we had where I grew up.

Feminist bitches are totally into me.

OK, I laughed.

The point they're trying to make is that Amy just doesn't know how hectic a mom's life is and how this necessitates letting yourself go. Like publishing two books, a regular column, blog, and giving TV interviews isn't hectic. The fact she does all that and still looks great must means she has too much time on her hands because SAHMs just can't manage it.

It's bull. I was a SAHM (working) mom and I still found time to care about my appearance. Yes, you're near the fridge all day, but that doesn't mean you have to open it.

Gregg, last night: "They go after your dog?"

Oh, P.S. He took me to dinner last night so I wouldn't have to "sit home" with my "insipid dog."

You have to "audition" to get your remarks posted on Jezebel? Oh, puh-leeze! Amy, you're more fair-minded than these naysayers, and certainly more firmly based in reality. It would be nice to think that one's appearance doesn't matter in this complicated old world, but alas, it's not the case. My dear late mother taught me that. As a young woman in the 1940s working hard to build a career so she'd no longer have to live with her abusive mother, Mom quickly found out that her beauty and poise opened doors for her, though it was her intelligence, compassion, and strong job skills that kept her there in her long, successful careers as an administrator at the Bronx Supreme Court and St. Vincent's Foundling Hospital.

They don't have time to dress themselves, but they can spend hours bickering over an online article?

If they take things to nonsense extremes -- like pretending Amy said you have to be a stunning supermodel to get and keep a guy -- they can ignore the reality: that it's just not that hard or time consuming to do the basics of self care. Everyone has the time. Not everyone has the energy or motivation.

You don't have to be crazy but every little bit helps

http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/how_to_trick_people_into_thinking_youre_good_looking

Standard operating procedure across the world, really - comments that agree with the opinion of the speaker, article or website/channel are treated better than ones that disagree. Plenty of places that don't do that, but still plenty that do. Most talk shows give the impression that everyone agrees with the points made, and those that don't are shouted down or painted as kooks.

Perhaps the choice of name for their site is less ironic than they intended.

Don't you just laugh at how screetchy those Jezebel women are? All I could think when I read those emails is how jealous of Amy these bitches must be. People who are happy with themselves don't go around attacking the person they disagree with. Happy, healthy people attack the message, not the messanger.

@vlad:
I count myself as a SAHM, even though I work 2 12 hr shifts in a normal week. My husband and I have been together for almost 12 years, and I still work hard to look good for myself AND him. That goes for all of my SAHM friends, too. We'd rather go to the gym than read Jezebel, thank you very much.

I would like to add, though, that sadly I see this type of personal attack so often with so called "liberals". My best friend was at a party once discussing politics (she's a very conservative republican) and a man who disagreed with her said 'Well, you couldn't understand, because you obviously grew up with a silver spoon in your mouth and had everything handed to you." Har. She grew up dirt poor with an alcoholic father and worked 2 jobs to get through college. But that's how a lot of those 'liberals' are...

"Isn't that really the antithesis of feminism? They need a "safe space" because they're so fragile? "

Lola got the right answer to this one.

A lot of women who consider themselves feminsits are shocked and disuusted when they come across internet feminism. They flat out don't recognize it. Unofrtuantley it's what the brand has become, so when someone is flaming on you about feminists and feminism, or because you have said something that they misintepret as coming form that atitude or body of opinion, bear that in mind. It's a form of strawmanning.

"Feminist bitches are totally into me.
OK, I laughed. "

So Patrick, do you just bat your eyelashes at them and tell them to dream on?

And that bit about auditioning to comment made me spit tea.

If its any comfort, there is a higher grade of commenter at Feministe - people who can actually disagre with each other like each other. They can be sanctimonious and precious too, but they are not sheltered hypocrites. They despise Jezebel and the commenters, call them a bunch of racists.

Does anyone have any doubt how those running the website in question voted on Tuesday? While I'm not suggesting that those right-of-center politically are anyways near perfect, I do strongly believe that there's a strong totalitarian streak amongst those on the Far Left of the political spectrum.

A pundit recently said: "Except for sex & drugs, the Left feels the need to control everything else in everyone's lives." I used to doubt this assertion but there's too much anecdotal evidence supporting it.

"I do strongly believe that there's a strong totalitarian streak amongst those on the Far Left of the political spectrum."

There is always a totalitarian streak in social reformers and visionaries. They may not start ou that way, but we lumpen masses tend to balk at thier visions for us or else not to see them clearly and quickly enough to allow all the changes they want to happen fast enough for thier tate. So they get coercive. It's all for the betterment of society of course.

UW Girl, I hear you. If anything, people who have had to work for what they have tend to be more conservative. As in: "I had to work for it, si should you"

I like that saying of Churchill's: If you aren't liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you aren't conservative when you're older, you have no brain,

The fragile femme stereotype exists for a reason. As Larry Summers found out.

I have no patience or tolerance for rhetoric about equality. Either one can do and is doing the work that is required of them, or they can't and are not.

Life is about making choices and sacrifices. The very purpose of feminism seems to have been to ensure that women do not need to make choices that don't lead to undying joy.

Want a career and a child? Why make a choice? Do both! Parenting can be a part time job right?

Want a child but no father for him or her? Sure! He can be a cash machine, or be tossed into jail if he fails to supply cash on demand.

Want to progress to the top levels of various institutions from government to the sciences, why shouldn't you be able to do that, AND take months off to have kids (not counting the times ducked out of work), other people should pick up the slack so you can continue to advance.

Feminism is about making sure women have it easy, and screw everyone else, including their children.

Yeah I know some women say, "I'm a feminist and that is NOT what I believe, I believe in equal pay for equal work! Feminism isn't monolithic!" And for some such women, that is the honest to god truth. But you've attached yourself to the wrong label. Quite frankly, you need to come up with your own label, any small virtue feminism might once have had has long since been buried.

Robert, I've decided I'm a genderist. I'm all for empowering of both genders. :)

And before stating your disagreement regarding the nature and intent of feminism as a movement, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas
(Its quite well cited, else I would not post it)

Note the endorsement of this psychotic bitch BY the leader of the National Organization for Women. If THAT isn't telling, what the hell would be?

Jessica: I LIKE IT! :) It has a nice ring to it. I can picture the howl of the vegan progressive segment though when they point out that you're neither supporting the equal rights of animals to people. ;)

I like that saying of Churchill's: If you aren't liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you aren't conservative when you're older, you have no brain,

But when and why did leftism become associated with liberalism? They are completely different? One if for control, the other is for individual liberties.

Want to progress to the top levels of various institutions from government to the sciences, why shouldn't you be able to do that, AND take months off to have kids (not counting the times ducked out of work), other people should pick up the slack so you can continue to advance.

Amen. I am sick to death of covering for coworkers who constantly have to leave or call off altogether due to sick kids, parent-teacher conferences, field trip chaperoning, babysitter didn't show up, teacher in-service days, etc etc etc. Actually, that's not what I'm sick of. What I'm sick of is these same coworkers complaining that it's not fair when they are passed over for promotions or get minimal raises. They actually believe that time they spend away from work during the work day somehow "doesn't count" if it's because of their kids.

BTW, I'm pretty sure this is generational - I don't think working mothers in the past expected they could maintain a fast-track career path AND be a full-time primary parent. My mom went back to work when I was 6 weeks old. My dad worked graveyard so he could be with me during the day, and brought me to my grandmother's for a couple of hours in the afternoon when it was time for him to go to bed.

When my brother and I got to be school age, my mom knew she could no longer be a corporate dynamo. She worked full time, but in administrative jobs that had no little to no growth potential, but allowed her the flexibility to pick up sick kids. She knew she couldn't have it all.

There is always a totalitarian streak in social reformers and visionaries.

This seems to be true. People who will commit themselves to an ideology tend to subordinate the welfare and interests of others in pursuit of their ideals. They fail to realize that they are only pursuing their own narcissistic fantasies of power and virtue. This leaves us in the awkward position of having to save the world from people who want to save the world.

@Beth -
Amen, girl. Know why I went back to school and get a BSN after 10 years in the workforce? So I could continue to work part time after I had kids. Nursing was one of the few occupations that would allow me to be with my kids during the day, and still be able to work. The night shift sucks, but I'm lucky to have a spouse who is happy to pitch in and cook dinner and put the kids to bed on the nights I do work.
I'm sick and tired of parents who expect single people to pick up their slack because they have to take off to take care of their kids. If you don't want to commit to raising your kid, get a fucking cat and keep working 60 hours a week. It's a child, not an accesory.

Damned right, its bad enough in the corporate world, but even worse is when it involves taxpayer dollars. Know how much it costs to train a soldier? To put one through basic training, advanced individual training, send them to their unit, how much it costs in pay and benefits, housing and utilities, hours in administration and individual management of personnel...only to find that said soldier has gotten pregnant and not only will not deploy with the unit but, because she has no husband or family willing to support her child care needs (this of course is at her discretion, she may consider them unfit), she must now be chaptered out of the army, oh and by the way, it is not considered a dishonorable discharge, so she may still draw some benefits of having served.

All that money is tax payer dollars, its not magic beans or fairy dust and unicorn farts, it represents the fruits of every American's labor. And if you think this is a rare circumstance, go talk to any soldier who went on deployment, I promise you they'll have personally seen at least one, and probably more, and know of multiple others.

Thank YOU, Amy. I was told along time ago, if you want to treat the disease, be a doctor. If you want to treat the patient, be a nurse. There's nothing like the feeling you get when you know you've made a positive difference in a patient's day.
But yes...some days I so do wish I could actually be Nurse Ratched. Especially to the grown-ups who are drugged out of their skulls (on meth, not the legal stuff) and try to bite me.
And your dog is awesome.

I'm partial to the insipid dog, myself. I have, however, trained her to use a litterbox.

You're my hero. How did you do this?

And thanks, UW Girl

Ditto. When we got my mother's terminal diagnosis (which the doctor had sort of dicked his way through), and I started to cry, her nurse hugged me like I was family. I will never forget her.

Nurses are awesome, but I confess I'm partial to the naughty kind! ;)

I adore my kids, but I understand why some people choose not to have them. Though if I were such a person, I'd get a BIG dog, like a great dane or something, I like animals that play rough.

Side note:

I find it interesting that they chose the name "Jezebel".

Consider a moment, its understandable that they'd want to choose a powerful female figure out of history, and given their probable hostility to Judeo-Christian western society, at first glance she makes a fine choice. After all Jezebel was a powerful Queen who upset the apple cart, won over her husband the King and came very near to toppling the established order, she was also, if the stories are to be believed, very "liberated" regarding sexuality, which also appeals to the to common feminist notion that being a slut is the same thing as being powerful.

But these are just first glances.

Jezebel was a Phonecian princess, a member of a society that was renowned for their sailing and mercantile skills, and the founders of Carthage (for those of you not familiar with them now). What we know of the Phonecian and Carthaginian society mostly comes from sources that were less than favorable. But amongst those assertions is the practice of child sacrifice as a form of Ba'al worship. For a long time this was just thought to be Roman propaganda, but evidence unearthed of the burned bones of infants at temple sites suggests that this at least, is true.

We can't really fault Jezebel for being true to her culture, and we can certainly admire her for going to her death with courage, but at the same time we must also remember that she was a bloodthirsty woman that did not hesitate to impose her way of life on others (something the west is often accused of doing) and almost certainly participated and had an active role in her homeland of those same brutal child murdering rituals.

Really? This is the best symbolic figure that the women at "Jezebel" can come up with???

Well lets face oh dear lady of advice, your dog is well suited to you, I find it hard to picture you walking Marmaduke somewhere. :)

"But when and why did leftism become associated with liberalism? "

Good question. Here's my theory: it started after the 1968 elections. From the end of Reconstruction until about 1960, the Democratic Party had consisted of a somewhat uneasy alliance between two groups: the classical liberals, and the populist left. The classical liberals embodied a lot of what we now call "libertarian", although that was tinged by their belief, forged from the WWII experience, that the creation of a utopian state of existence for Man was possible if only there were enough smart people to run everything. The populists considered themselves the keepers of American values; they leaned towards authoritarian government when it suited them and they didn't trust the classical liberals' emphasis on civil rights or its belief in utopianism. Racist views, although not universal, were widespread among the populists. The two groups hung together because they shared a few top-of-the-list beliefs, such as the need to maintain a vibrant economy, opposition to Communism, and a belief in American exceptionalism. (The Democratic Party? Yes friends, it's true; they did once believe that, not so long ago. Back then, it was the Republicans who were suspicious of American motives and actions.)

Enter George Wallace. The race-baiting firebrand Alabama governor became wildly popular, not just among Southerners, but among populists around the country. 1n 1968, he lost the Democratic nomination for President to classical-liberal favorite Hubert Humphrey. In a fit of pique, he started his own party and ran for President as that party's nominee. The election was close, and Wallace won enough states to swing the election to Nixon. (Wallace was the last third-party Presidential candidate to carry a state.)

The classical liberals, needless to say, were furious. They had been growing increasingly uncomfortable with the popuist wing of the party anyway, and now they started looking for a way to separate themselves. It was at this point that they started playing footsie with the socialist left. They thought that a liberal-leftist alliance could build a new base for the party and they wouldn't need the populists anymore. Of course, the leftists came in with their usual soothsaying, playing on the classical libs' longing for utopian existence (and the political naivety that went with it). The classical liberals, many of them WWII vets getting up in years, were happy to let the young, vibrant leftists take over leadership positions and put forth the effort of running a political party.

So the classical liberals made a deal with the devil, and the left went to work marching through the institution. By 1972, they had taken many of the leadership positions in the party. There was one more showdown with the populists remaining. Wallace had returned to run for President as a Democrat, after promising not to go third-party again. This time he was a serious contender, and he won several of the early primaries. But then, just as primary season was getting hot and heavy, Author Bremer shot Wallace in a parking lot in Maryland. Wallace survived but suffered debilitating injuries, and he was done as a Presidential candidate. Wallace had no heir apparent on the national stage, and the populists' last best chance was gone.

Well, that was just the break the leftists were waiting for. They immediately went to work purging the classical liberals from the party. They rammed through George McGovern, a hard-left candidate, as the party's nominee. When McGovern was clobbered by Nixon in a historic landslide, the left succeeded in controlling the media narrative and pushing the story that they lost because the classical liberals had been both immoral and wimpy.

That was the practical end of classical liberalism in the United States. There's a lot to admire about classical liberalism, but the 1960s version of it was perhaps a bit intellectually tired, and their attempt to incorporate utopian/pacifist beliefs had done them in. The socialist left took over the Democratic Party, and other than a somewhat respite during the Clinton years, that's the way it's been since. Some of the classical liberals re-examined their views and became libertarians; some become neocons, others just dropped out of politics. But the classical liberals who transformed became one of the predecessors of today's Tea Party movement.

The ironic thing is that the Democratic populists, the group that the classical liberals had worked so hard to push out, were about to disappear anyway. They were dying out as Reagan won in 1980, and within another decade they were pretty much gone. We saw the last echo of that on Tuesday, as the GOP took control of the state legislatures of North Carolina, Alabama, and Arkansas for the first time since Reconstruction.

Women and minorities are given extra harsh treatment for not towing the feminist or liberal lines. Congratulations!

*Ring Ring!*
Hello? Hi, Pot, it's the kettle calling.

This is so hilariously unself-aware and hypocritical that I am shaking with laughter.

7th grade bullying, indeed.

Posting this exchange is the ultimate in tacky and petty, and frankly, I'm embarrassed FOR you.
I'm not exactly sure what you think you are accomplishing, but from where I stand you just look like a vindictive, petulant child.

Good luck with that!

Do you even go here?
Do you spend any time on ANY Gawker media sites, because if you did, you'd know they happily tolerate dissent, what they don't tolerate is irrelevant, useless tripe.
ALL Gawker media sites require an audition. It's a way to keep down on the trolls.

The person who was 'savaged' left a pointless comment which was likely an ineloquent repeat of more insightful comments further down in the thread.
If you'd done any actual research YOURSELF, you know, as a journalist, you would have realized that the commenting culture and structure on Jezebel (as on IO9, Gawker, Lifehacker, Deadspin etc.) works on a tiers in an attempt to prevent trolls, otherwise they'd have to employ 100 moderators each.
The reason that thread wasn't promoted is because none of the commentariat (including moderators) decided it was fit to promote.
That means that the hundreds of approved commenters on the site, personally and individually, read the comment themselves and by not responding to or promoting it decided it wasn't worth anyone's time to read or that it wasn't valuable to the discussion at hand.
You might want to do your own legwork on the subject before working yourself up into some pointless froth over nothing? Because the fact that I have to spell this all out for you means you have absolutely zero context for this post in the first place.

Bravo.

Funny, we here at Amy's site manage to discuss hundreds of issues without "moderators". Sure, there's the odd troll, who will post something crazy or irrelevant, but those are the only comments that ever get deleted here...not dissenting opinions.

You all really must be fragile if you need moderators to assure that every comment meets approval and isn't "boring". Doesn't it bother you that you're not getting the other side?

And, I don't always agree with Amy, but one thing I know is that she backs up everything she writes. You can't challenge her on the science because you're wrong.

kiki, this is the much vaunted transparency, wherein you don't hold anything back. I've commented over at Jez before, and "oh my" they never showed up. Could be the connection is bad, packets got lost in translation or mercury is in retrograde.

Or maybe I was boring.

At it's base, rejecting comments this way is all about making sure that comments displayed are in line with what the moderator believes. To show the POV that the site want's to project. It ISN'T about the free exchange of ideas, where thoughts live and die based on their relevance to the reader.

If you read through this site you will see people over and over that agree on some things, disagree on others, and in many cases don't care much about a given subject. It is profitable to be challenged to think your way through things, even when people are getting under your skin.

If they're trying to keep the comments from being "boring," they've failed. I was bored mindless by reading the same comment over and over, using slightly different words.

"The world doesn't owe us anything"

This also applies to the internet, Jessica. You didn't get approved to comment on a blog, you weren't shot in the face. Chill out.

If Jessica had written her original comment even half as well as she wrote her letter to Jezebel, I'd be willing to bet it would have been approved. Jezebel is echo-chambery, yes, but all the Gawker Media sites are hard on first time commenters - and Jessica's original comment just wasn't that well-written or interesting.

Props to skahammer for the well-executed critique of laramee's idiotic comment.

Kiki,
I'm proud to say I'm one of Amy's "regulars", and there is plenty of room on this site for differing opinions. We've got parents, singles, right wing christians, left wing atheists, and everything in between posting on here.
Jezebel's insistance at "screening" the postings reminds me of an interaction I had with my friend's girlfriend years ago.
We were commenting on the fact that so many in the news industry voted for Bill Clinton. The girlfriend, who happened to be a reporter and a flaming liberal, said "Well, that's because we reporters are far more intelligent than the average person."
Now, I don't like to make snap judgements, but something tells me a conversation with you, Kiki, would be alarmingly similar.

@Cousing Dave:
Good question. Here's my theory: it started after the 1968... Book titles, please. I find it interesting, that now liberals are against freedom of choice. What happened to "i may not agree w/ you, but I'll defend it" or something like that.

@VickieW:
Isn't feminism about choice? The choice to have an abortion, the choice to have any career, the choice to do whatever? Why is having no kids worse than having an abortion? Why do so many feminist love Hillary or Michelle, but detest Meg Whitman or Palin? Did Meg or Palin become famous after their husbands became famous?

Define "Jezebel" google search . . .

wife of Ahab who was king of Israel; according to the Old Testament she was a cruel immoral queen who fostered the worship of Baal and tried to kill Elijah and other prophets of Israel (9th century BC)

a shameless impudent scheming woman

An evil, scheming or shameless woman; an immoral woman; The Phoenician princess and Queen of Ancient Israel who appears in the Old Testament (1 Kings). She incited heresy and lured the Jews away from their God and back to paganism. ...

# Jezebel is a blog aimed at women's interests, under the tagline "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion. Without Airbrushing." It is one of several blogs owned by Gawker Media.

'Nuff said.

"Or maybe I was boring."

Nah, Swiss, it's because you have a peeeeee-nissssssss. Which means you can't POSSIBLY have anything a woman of their vaunted readership would POSSIBLY want to read!!!! On the flip side, I don't read Jezebel (I'm not vaunted enough) AND I enjoy your posts.

Ditto for Lovelysoul's observation- we have all sorts of discussions here- some of 'em get pretty heated (where ARE Crid and Brian?) and we don't need a @#$%ing BABYSITTER. I can see it now over at Jezebel. "Souxie, your post got waayyy more remarks than Sinnamon's. You're going to have to sit out for a few days."

PS.

So liberals are liberals in name only, but leftist in ideology and thus discriminatory against all other ideas?

Well, biff, count the times somebody gets shouted down, and then see who's doing the shouting.

> Does anyone have any doubt how those running
> the website in question voted on Tuesday?

Was it election day in Canada?

I realized Jezebel was pretty much worthless after this (older) thread:

http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have

"Do you spend any time on ANY Gawker media sites, because if you did, you'd know they happily tolerate dissent, what they don't tolerate is irrelevant, useless tripe."

This is of course the same Gawker Media that felt compelled to publish (supposed) intimate details of Christine O'Donnell's sex life. Because, you know, they don't like her. So that makes it OK. Actually the Gawker empire is coming across a lot like a high-school mean girls' clique, with a Web site.

I realized Jezebel was pretty much worthless after this (older) thread:

http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have

Wow. That's very telling. Disgusting, actually.

Wonder how many comments against domestic violence towards men were blocked.

If you don't want to commit to raising your kid, get a fucking cat

A fucking cat? That would solve two problems. You wouldn't need a husband/boyfriend either.

"Funny, we here at Amy's site manage to discuss hundreds of issues without "moderators". Sure, there's the odd troll, who will post something crazy or irrelevant, but those are the only comments that ever get deleted here...not dissenting opinions."

True, but Amy's blog probably has a couple dozen regular commenters whereas Jezebel has hundreds. It's like me saying "I manage to throw parties at my house without any bodyguards, so I don't see why you need security at your nightclub." There's is a good way as any to filter out spam and trolls.

FYI, I have hundreds of regular commenters, and I still manage to let the speech fly here.

Jezebel gets millions of views every month and I'm going to guess has many more commenters than you do. They use comment moderation to prevent trolling and spam. Why is this so hard to understand? Further, you don't have any obligation to let people comment on your articles. Does your local newspaper print every letter they receive? No, they don't, they filter the letters so that people who read the newspaper are intrigued by the content.

Does your local newspaper print every letter they receive?

No, my local newspaper limits the number of letters they print because they have only so much space after selling ads. Blogs are a different animal.

But you are are right: You are free to post what you please. And we are free to criticize you for it. As you say, "Why is this so hard to understand?"

So just to be clear,
Bitch, Shannon, kiki, Carol F, VickieW
but the comments calling Amy

a man
a whore
a traitor to women
a welfare recipient
a childless haridian
a shamless self promoter
a shrew unable to keep a man
a well known joke in scientific circles
a failed business woman for renting as opposed to owning a home
and those attacking her DOG

Those were all fine, civil, and relevent to the conversation of a scientific article(not one of which ever commented on the science)

But the comment which essentually boiled down to "Whats wrong with trying to make my guy happy and keep him interested in me" was deemed 'boring' and off point?

As for the commenting system, why not just let people comment and let the readers moderate? ahve a little flag comment link and once a certian threshold is met then moderaters look at the comment iin question and decide wether to remove it or ban the poster?

Why must everything be preapproved? Especially in a situation where such approval is, by their own addmision, both sporatic and subjective?

Good god. It's now going to be a "My vagina is bigger than your vagina" BITCHfest.

Luj,

You, as much as anyone know just how hypocritical feminists like those you named (and by the way, glad you own up to being a bitch, bitch), are. It's about group think, and silencing dissent. Always has been. The majority of them don't have a clue as to what the science says, so instead of them actually attempting to read and understand what amy backs up her article with, they show just how selfish and stupid they are, by launching ad hominem attacks, and don't touch the substance of what is said.

And they still don't get, that by coming over here and commenting as they are, that they prove the point that feminism is an extension of the high school cheerleader clique. Small, petty and vain (wait, guess they aren't vain, as they don't agree with the article - even though they previously did). This, is a link that a_random_guy posted, that is basically the same thing amy did (just without the science to back it up), and they thought, yeah, so what?

Thanks, Kiki for that explanation. What I'm still missing though is why the criticism of Amy made it in yet anything in support of her somehow didn't make it past moderators? I'm not sure why out of all the threads promoted or considered valuable not one was an opinion that was different. Maybe its me but I prefer a forum where discussion is open. There's been many times I've gone back and forth with other commenters and times its even been heated, but that's the great part of this blog. No matter how different we're always free to speak our mind even when vehemently disagreeing with Amy. I'll take that any day over a generic bunch of bullshit. And as far as that insipid little dog goes? What did that dog ever do to them?

I find it interesting that the first letter from Jezebel said Jessica's comment probably got lost in the archives because the busy, busy moderators just don't have the time to read everything (why be a moderator if you can't? Isn't that the job description?). The next letter, from a moderator, said that the comment was too boring. Hmmm.

Now, I totally understand the need to have moderators to keep out spam and trolls. But those are pretty easy to spot. Sorting through every single comment to decide what's "boring" takes up a lot of time (if, in fact, they are doing that). Why not let all comments that aren't spam or trolling through and, like someone above suggested, have the other posters call it out for being boring? I'm agog that a moderator would go so far into the subjective and still claim that the site allows all views. "We want to keep out spam and trolls" is fairly objective and easily done, I would think. "We want to keep out comments that don't add to the discussion--never mind the fact that a great deal of the comments that were approved say exactly the same thing--or those we deem boring" is very far into the subjective. Dangerous, that.

@crid. Yes, not happy with the results. Mayoral race. Sorry, very off topic but...

Chick fight!

My money is on Jezebel, because well she'll beat me up if I bet otherwise.

Feminists are so cute when they get angry. Cut them some slack, reality is hard to deal with!

;)

Now one of the Jezebel talking heads is criticizing my writing? "If the original comment had been half as well written..." Well, excuse me. My comments on a blog are not held to the same standard as, for example, actual articles on my own blog. Or articles I've written for peer-reviewed history journals...or my useless but reasonably well written thesis. Yes, those are different, too...as is a letter.

A blog comment is a reaction, not a piece of eloquent journalistic analysis.

Also, every decent newspaper I've ever read - even those that obviously lean one political direction or the other - try to print a diverse sample of letters to the editor. They make sure to represent the varied points of view, even though they are unable to print them all.

The world is not as we wish it to be. How gauche of Amy to point that out.

I'm sure they got it when the target of the advice was the dude with the infatuation for the defenseless waitress. That's different, I'm sure.

I am still puzzling over the fact that they must audition to comment. And that they are proud their bitch quotient is high enough to not be boring.

It sounds like a thoroughly toxic place filled with venomous people. I shall avoid it.

People are being excessively hard on Jezebel. As one of the Gawker Media sites, they have literally millions of pageviews every month. First-time commenters must be approved (and they're pretty harsh), but after that, can post what they want, as laramee did. No moderator specifically approved laramee's post; in fact, the fellow commenter who promoted it only did so to critique it.

So yes, it's an echo chamber in a lot of respects, but the commenting policy isn't as unjust as people are thinking.

It does seem effective at keeping casual commenters out. Hell if I have the patience to be "auditioning" for websites.

I'm still reeling from reading that piece on abusing your boyfriend/partner that LS linked to.

Holy moly macaroni, Batman. The pride they take in slapping a man around...I wonder, do they feel empowered? Because it's all about empowering ourselves via poor control of our emotions and tempers and lashing out at one of the people we love most. I have a temper sometimes but I've never said mean things to my husband or done anything remotely violent out of frustration. If I feel that heat rising up from my feet I leave the room and go kick the couch or take a walk or whatever. The point is: I know how easy it is to get mean, say cruel things and just be all out pissed. But it passes. And you'll hurt the person. I was raised by someone who didn't understand this and also prided himself on being the powerful one in the house via intimidation, threats and violence. It's my life's mission to be the opposite. These women offering their stories are abusive and if a man acted like them these same women would call him a monster and say he should be in jail.

One comment by TheKadinskyPapers:
"You're right. Violence is violence. And violence is usually wrong. But I can tell you that I don't feel one ounce of shame for what these women have written for the simple fact that too many of us have experienced the soul shattering fear that comes when you realize a man is evil enough to want to rape you."

Logical fallacy much? It's scary to realize rape could actually happen to you. It's even scarier when you find yourself in a situation where rape is an imminent threat to you (even worse, if you've actually experienced this atrocity). But am I to believe that because I could get raped by a man at some point in life, I should hit my husband today? Did I miss a sentence? Or is this really just the kind of quality of thinking on Jez?

All the commenters say something like "yeah violence is bad and women shouldn't hit men but [fill in blank: I was really mad/ he was being mean/ he was annoying me/ X happened]". Do any of the readers realize that this thought pattern is the same for men who are habitual abusers of their girlfriends/wives? An abuser always deflects blame to the victim. A mature adult will take responsibility (or not hit in the first place), apologize, get into some therapy to figure out and hopefully, get your ass dumped so the full weight of your actions are felt. It's the only way to possibly warrant some change in your behavior.

There are two times when I condone violence:
1. If someone hurts you first - then by all means kick the living shit out of them.
2. If the parties involved are hurting each other with consent. Like tonight at Lombardo's in Randolph - my friends from my fighting club have fights. GOOOO SOUTH SHORE SPORTS FIGHTING!!!

Gretchen- I was not surprised at the violence against men in the link. Feminism these days (or feminazis) promote women at the expense of men. If they could figure out a way to make men irrelevant, they would do so with zeal. They do not like men, and don't seem to like other women, or even themselves. What a way to go through life.

"Had Jessica F. posted something more feminist talking point-friendly, do you really think her comment would have been drop-kicked? That's the point."

Her comment wasn't drop-kicked. It wasn't approved, which is different - they're harsh on all first time commenters, only picking some of them for posting privileges. I maintain that if the writing in her first comment was up to the standard of her subsequent letter, it would have gotten through regardless of the fact that many others posters would disagree with the content.

Now, once you're approved, whether your comments get promoted or you get a star - that DOES have a bit of an ideological bias. But they'll let most anyone who displays a bit of well-written cleverness or usefulness have basic posting privileges, and Jessica's first comment didn't meet that standard. Is anyone disputing that her letter much better written than her comment?

@CB, as I said in a previous comment, the quality of writing in my blog comment echoed the style utilized in the echo chamber. A blog comment is a reaction, not a letter or a paper.

But no, I'm certainly not disputing the difference in writing. I'm disputing their supposed reasons (ostensibly condescending, boorish - in other words, apparently fit right in with the rest of the comments) for not publishing my comment. If we're going to base this instead on quality of writing, take a look at the other comments - are they somehow superior in writing to mine?

Monica and lujlp nail it.

Jessica, you're totally right, plenty of comments have a similar tone to yours, and not all of them have superior writing. But the difference is that they all come from commenters whose accounts had already been approved. Maybe they've been posting there for years, and escaped the audition process. Maybe they got lazy once they were approved. But the point is, under the current comment approval scheme at Gawker Media, your first comment wasn't up to snuff.

I don't even know how Jezebel can sell itself as a feminist news source (celebrity, sex and fashion news!), someone here likened it to highschool and I completely agree, that was my impression as well.

I find it odd that they have thousands of posters (big point with them eh) yet not one of them has an original opinion. Much like pathetic teenagers who so desperately want to fit in that they parrot the 'in crowd.'

Since they have taken the time to come to this blog maybe one of them can explain how Amy's article is sexist and counter to the feminist agenda.

Thanks to Jezebel I think I will stop saying I am a feminist and start saying I am a 'homo sapienist.' Would that work? I believe all people should be subject to the same laws and enjoy the same rights.

But the point is, under the current comment approval scheme at Gawker Media, your first comment wasn't up to snuff.

Posted by: CB

No, the point is any comment that suggested a woman might want to make a man happy wasnt up to snuff.

Okay, I just checked out the Jezebel article on violence against men, I am so grossed out I cannot believe these people are the same species as me let alone the same gender. It has now been confirmed, anyone associated with Jezebel has a two digit IQ, there can be no other explanation. Wow. I am so shocked.

That article about hitting boyfriends? Oh my god, is that fucked up. How can hurting someone you love be *funny*? It's so foreign I can't even form a coerehent thought other than to reiterate that it's completely fucked up.

Awww give'em a break. They're only girls.

That is why they think its OK to hit men.

That is why they can behave like 7th grade girls and expect to get lauded for it.

And, replacing 'em' with "us" and "they're" with "we're" and you have the crux of feminist calls for favoritism. A self respecting and driven woman should be insulted by being affiliated with the label "feminist"

A self respecting and driven woman should be insulted by being affiliated with the label "feminist"

Only if we assume that a website full of e-angry people who may or may not be adult women are the voice of feminists everywhere. It's helpful to step back every once in awhile and realize that no one is entirely real on the Internet.

The women too often buy into the idiotic notion that a man "should" love them for what's within. Well, I think to myself (since the women aren't writing me), you get with your husband's penis, and give it a good lecture, and see if you can get it to stand up straight.

Sorry, I just can't get the picture out of my head now, of my wife getting down to eye level and saying "look, you will stand up straight and perform as expected, got it"?

Great line Amy.

I'm majoring in Gender & Women's Studies and getting a certificate in LGBT Studies.

kind of says it all, doesn't it?

"Only if we assume that a website full of e-angry people who may or may not be adult women are the voice of feminists everywhere."

Your point being? Look at NOW, the woman that became their head called the author of the SCUM manifesto one of the most important defenders of their movement. And if you don't know, SCUM stands for "The Society for Cutting Up Men".

I don't need to identify the individual beliefs of 50 million individual women. When THE major spokespersons and their organizations endorse hatred of men and the superiority of women, someone adopting that same label is painting themselves with the very same brush of their own accord.

Lets say there are moderate and reasonable feminists, I'm sure you're dead right, I'm sure there are, but have they managed at all in even the smallest way to reign in the ridiculous excesses to which feminism has extended itself? Given the fucking dumbass briefings I've had to sit through on sexual assault, date rape, sexual harassment, and equal opportunity, I'd say certainly not.

I like Jessica's suggestion, you're more of a "Genderist" MonicaP. (For identification, scroll up some)

Anyone still in here?

Is "bodysnarking" really a hazard for serious feminists? It sounds like a brand new kind of fear for children, not for adults.

They are children, they just have grown-up bodies. Their mommy is the moderator.

As to the women who write in about abusing their men, I simply cannot wait for the follow-up article: "I beat my husband for three months, and he finally punched me so hard I shit teeth for a week".

That article about hitting boyfriends? Oh my god, is that fucked up. How can hurting someone you love be *funny*? It's so foreign I can't even form a coerehent thought other than to reiterate that it's completely fucked up.

Fastest way to tell you're dealing with a faux-equality type: tell them that if they hit you, you will hit them back. If they recoil in horror and talk about having you jailed, then tell them that they are obviously not equal, because any man who hit you would be EXPECTING to be hit back.

Women will be equal to men when they can take a punch like a man.

I just despatched this post to a bunch of my mates as I agree with most of what you’re saying right here

I had this page saved a while ago but my computer crashed. I have since gotten a new one and it took me a while to find this! I also in fact like the template though.

I concur! completely with what you wrote. Great read... Keep it going..

Look for guarantees for any product - if a service
provider doesn't fully guarantee their product
you probably it does not work. Men almost never think on the girth of the penis
fall down to male penis male swelling. I also
like the actuality that I'm not using some dangerous Proextender, I've heard the problem
reports.