More on the AutoAdmit controversy.
Here’s a link to an update on the AutoAdmit case from the blog “Feministe”.
Most of the points I would make here Jill makes succinctly on her own site including a very important point on Jarret Cohen’s “freedom of speech” defense. “If Jarret Cohen wishes to offer bigots, racists, anti-Semites and misogynists such an unrestrained platform, then that’s his decision, but he needs to own it and not offer up pat justifications for behavior which has caused substantial harm to many other people.”
Great writer, Jill. What bothers me the most about what I’ve read while researching this case is the obscene amount of anti-feminist, anti-woman hate rants from men. Where does this shit come from? Here are a couple of fine examples, once again from men hiding behind pseudonyms.
This on the WSJ Law Blog…
Proof once again that “feminism” is a sham, since it holds fervently to two contradictory principles:
1. That women are every bit as tough and able to “handle it” (whatever “it” happens to be) as men emotionally and physically.
2. Any female who gets called a nasty name has the right to swoon, faint, and sob like Scarlett O’Hara with the vapors, and start flinging lawsuits at her (verbal) antagonists. Every time I hear someone taking modern “feminism” seriously, it makes me want to laugh. Because it is a laughable ideology.
Whoa! Mommy not nice to Suetonius?
Or this on another blog debating the merits of the case..
Too_Funny writes “The poor little girls Paris Hilton themselves around a prestigious law school instead of, you know, studying, flaunt whatever physical attributes they were lucky enough to be born with or acquire through surgery, insult the half of their class with condescension and snobbery, insult the other half with bitchiness and attitude, then go screaming and crying to daddy Warbucks when some of the people they spent years denigrading call them on their inadequacies and laugh at their failures.”
Wow. Not so much funny but damned insensitive. Does he know these women personally? And is denigrading a word?
In Margolick’s research for the Portfolio.com piece he found “it was women, particularly beautiful women, particularly beautiful women at the top law schools, particularly beautiful minority women at the top law schools, who were most often skewered, dissected, and fantasized about.”
What is that all about? And why, after years of trying to overcome these stereotypes, do discussions on harassment where women are concerned devolve into the old “wasn’t she really asking for it?” debate. Check out the postings on Ann Althouse’s blog for a long and interesting exchange Althouse.
There’s also a side exchange on Jill’s page, Feministe, where women discuss the popularity among young males of Patrick Bateman, the demented serial killer in American Psycho. One of the prolific posters on AutoAdmit uses Patrick Bateman as a pseudonym.
“I think the Patrick Bateman idolizing is really weird, too. I’m an undergrad and noticed the Facebook groups last year right around the time that the Duke lacrosse email was made public and have been squicked out ever since by the movie’s cult status among some guys my age.”
Yikes. And I thought guys were tools when I was in college.
So, I ask you. Why do some men hate women this way?