Stephen Colbert Makes Wayne Brady Look Like Bryant Gumbel

Posted in Dumb Ideas Girls Have on March 8th, 2010 by bl1y

First thing’s first, zoom on over to Huffington Post and check out the video of Stephen Colbert turning Sean Hannity into his bitch.

The clip is pretty standard fare for Colbert.  With some green screen technology and old clips from Hannity’s show on Fox, Colbert creates a fake interview in which he pimps out an all-to-eager Hannity.  And, as if Colbert wasn’t funny enough, here’s Ann Bartow’s take on the whole thing:

More evidence that Supposedly Liberal Dudes view women as second class citizens. The way that Colbert frames prostitution as the most degrading thing possible is creepy and sad. And anyone who thinks legalization would make any difference in the level of contempt thrown at people who sell sex should investigate similar cultural references to women in pornography.

Whaaaat?

First of all, Colbert isn’t necessarily liberal, he just has a liberal fan base.  There is little evidence of what Colbert’s political views are.  Sure, his show ridicules the right, but he always goes after the extremists and fanatics.  Plenty of people on both sides are fed up with the crazy fringe elements.  The only thing we really know is that Colbert is a devout Catholic.

Moving on, the clip does nothing to suggest women are second class citizens.  In fact, it doesn’t even mention women.  It mentions prostitutes, but in the context of gay prostitution.  Apparently to Ann Bartow prostitution is an issue which only concerns women and gay prostitutes (who face far more dangerous working conditions than women) simply don’t matter.  I guess they’re third-class citizens.

Colbert also never suggests that prostitution is the most degrading thing ever.  In fact, the idea of pimping out Sean Hannity seems to suggest that the sex industry may be a respectable way to earn your keep.

Once again, some brilliant analysis from the fine minds educating American law students.  (Ann Bartow is a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, where she teaches intellectual property, and is an administrator for the Feminist Law Professors Blog.)

Tags: , , , , ,

Where are the Data, Cripes!

Posted in Uncategorized on February 18th, 2010 by bl1y

Ann Bartow over at the Feminist Law Professors blog posted the list of lateral law faculty moves this year (via TheFacultyLounge.org).  It’s hard to get Professor Bartow’s take (because she didn’t provide commentary) on the fact that the list showed only male professors, but she did put “Cripes!” in the title of the post, and tag it as “The Overrepresesentation of Men” and “The Underrepresentation of Women,” so I think it’s safe to say she thinks that there’s some sort of gender discrimination going on in lateral hiring.

But, before we can legitimately start throwing out accusations of discrimination, we should answer two important questions.  (We can, of course, have illegitimate accusations without any sort of analysis or rational thought.)  First, is there a non-discriminatory explanation; and second, do these moves tend to benefit men?

Without conducting a rather intensive study, we can’t tell why only men were moving.  Maybe it is discrimination, but maybe it’s just that men are generally less satisfied with their jobs.  Maybe very few women even attempted a lateral transfer.

However, based on the list alone, we can look at whether these moves benefit men.  I’ve assumed that professors prefer to teach at better schools, and have used the US News and World Report rankings as a way of judging whether they moved to a better or worse school.  There are plenty of problems with the US News ranks, but I think they’re still useful here.  Only four moves involved schools within 10 ranks of each other So. Cal. to Texas (+3), and UVA to Michigan (-1), Arizona to Florida State (-9), and Marquette to St. John’s (both ranked 87).  Even if US News does not reflect law school quality, it is safe to assume that professors care somewhat about perception of quality and prestige, which the US News rankings are a perfect judge of.

I wanted to do a straight numerical analysis, but many of the moves involved schools without a number rank because they are T3, T4 or have never been scored.  I’ve also decided not to consider two of the moves at all: Professor R. A. Duff moved to Minnesota from the Stirling Philosophy department, and Professor Jeremy Waldron is moving from NYU to Oxford.  I’m just not really sure what to do with either move.

So, looking at just the moves between T1 and T2 schools what do we find?  7 professors made downward moves, with an average loss of 20 ranks, while 6 made upward moves with an average gain of 25 ranks.  More moved down, but the upward moves were better.  I think we can call this a wash.

Now let’s look at moves involving T3, T4 and unranked schools.  Professors from LSU (75), Alabama (30), Capital (T4), and Bloomington (23) moved to unranked schools.  I don’t know whether to call the move from Capital a gain or a loss, but for the other three this looks like a pretty significant drop.  There was also one professor going down from a T3 (Texas Tech) to a T4 (Texas Wesleyan).  If we treat unranked schools as T4, we saw two professors drop 3 tiers, one drop 2 tiers, and one drop 1 tier.

And here are the upward moves: Texas Wesleyan (T4) to Gonzaga (40), Florida International (T4) to Indianapolis (87), Michigan State (T3) to Kansas (65), South Texas (T4) to Loyola (T3), and West Virginia (T3) to Villanova (61).  One professor jumped 3 tiers, one jumped 2, and the rest moved up by 1.

It’s also worth noting that three professors moved to tenure track, which is generally considered a pretty important advancement, but each of those moves involved a significant drop, LSU (75) to Charleston (Not Ranked), American (45) to Depaul (87), and Bloomington (23) to Elon (Not Ranked).

I think the moves down look a bit worse than the moves up, but not by a big enough margin, and the sample size is too small to draw any reliable conclusions, except one: Ann Bartow gets stirred up too easily.  It is interesting that out of 25 lateral moves no women were listed.  But, there’s not enough data to support any claim of discrimination, and not even really enough to back up a blog headline of “Where are the Women, Lateral Hires Edition, Cripes!”

My guess is she just got an early start in the race to be offended.

Tags: , , , , ,

Ann Bartow Doesn’t Get Enough Attention

Posted in Uncategorized on February 16th, 2010 by bl1y

The women’s rights page of Change.org posted a parody video in response to the Dodge Charger Man’s Last Stand Super Bowl ad.  I wouldn’t have seen it, except that over on the Feminist Law Professors’ blog Ann Bartow, femtard extraordinaire, posted a link to it.

So that you don’t need to go wandering away from the safe haven that is BL1Y.com and into the wild west of the the feminist internets, I’ll just embed the videos here.  Let’s start with the original dodge commercial

And here’s the parody response:

Now, I admit it’s unfair that for every dollar a man makes, a woman gets 75 cents, because that means that man only has 25 cents left.  (In reality, when controlling for job title, education, seniority, and the like, there is about a 3-4 cent pay disparity, not 25 as this video claims.  But hey, accuracy doesn’t matter do long as you’re a women-firster.)

The whole tone of the Change.org post is that the Dodge commercial is that men can’t be oppressed because women are oppressed.  But anyone with half a brain can tell you that the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of both genders get screwed over.  Men are less likely to graduate from high school or go to college.  They’re more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, and get punished harsher when they’re the perpetrator.  They work the most dangerous jobs and live shorter lives.

But I think what the Dodge Charger commercial was playing in to is that men aren’t allowed to discuss men’s issues.  Any time a man mentions a way in which Western society mistreats men, he is immediately shouted down by women who want to argue that women have it worse, and because they have it worse men aren’t allowed to complain about anything ever.

If an ad discussing female oppression had mass appeal, feminists would claim it as a sign that women are clearly still oppressed.  But an ad that discusses male oppression must just be sexist, right?  Because nothing bad is ever done to men.  No country has ever scooped its poor and middle class male citizens, sent them half way around the world and had them kill the poor and middle class male citizens of another country.  Nahhh…all men are kings.

Tags: , , , , , ,

w0m3nz = n00bz

Posted in Dumb Ideas Girls Have on February 12th, 2010 by bl1y

Anyone who is at all amused by the locker room environment of blogs and forums will probably find this amusing.  The Summer 2009 issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender published an article by Ann Bartow on internet harassment and sexism.

The article points out that women are the internet are more likely to get attacked more, and have more gender-specific insults hurled at them.  The article’s purported reason?  Gotta be sexism.

This is a conclusion that reveals a lack of thoughtfulness and creativity.  It’s also a conclusion that requires ignoring people you quote to back up your position.  To back up her position, Ms. Bartow quotes Ann Althouse speaking in an an interview on “Blogging While Female.”

In the blogosphere, it’s sort of like the Wild West, and you actually can try to push people out. You can push women out. There’s a way of trying to get women to leave and because it’s a rough world where people are trying to climb to the top, they will use whatever techniques they can, you know? And so I think that makes you vulnerable as a woman, but you don’t have to be. There’s a positive side to it, too, that you can use. You get attention just for being a woman because it’s less common.

In this one little paragraph, Professor Althouse has implied two non-sexist reasons for the attacks women get online, but Ms. Bartow is apparently too lazy to do any sort of basic critical thinking.

“they will use whatever techniques they can” If you’re fat, they make fat jokes.  If you make typos, you’re called retarded.  If your a Jew you hide gold coins up your nose.  If you’re black you’re an affirmative action baby.  And if you’re a straight, white male, well… you’re the one posting the comments.

The point is that people often make facially sexist remarks not because they hate women, but because they know those remarks will sting, and something that stings is more likely to cause an emotional reaction, and emotional reactions often come in the form of dramatic responses, and those tend to be hilarious.  We don’t drop bombs on other countries because we love the rapid expansion of gasses.  We drop bombs because they’re effective, we’re indifferent to the physics.

“You get attention just for being a woman because it’s less common.” Women get more attacks online not because people really want to attack women, but because everyone gets attacked online, and women get more attention.  Making fun of the same stuff over and over get boring.  Boys have been making fun of other boys since they first learned to talk.  It’s not very interesting any more.

This is the same reason why I don’t make fun of conservatives very much.  Conservatives rarely say anything new.  Positions against gay marriage haven’t really evolved at all.  But liberals, or “progressives,” if you will, are always doing something new, which provides new material to laugh at.  Also, I don’t like making fun of conservatives because it feels like I’m picking on a retarded kid.

Anyways, since women rarely expose themselves openly to criticism on the internet, it follows that they’re going to get pounced on.  But, it’s not because people want to attack women.  They just want to attack something new and different.

In the end though, what really makes the internet a different place for women is that it is a locker room.  Boys have a home field advantage.  We grew up with this sort of behavior.  We don’t let it get to us and we know how to respond, or how to not respond.

Here’s what happens on the internet when someone makes fun of a girl:

Troll: “You’re a fat slut.”

Girl: “I’m not fat you asshole!  OMG!  Why would you say that!  You’re so mean!  You don’t even know me!  Why would you say something like that about me?!?!?!”

Everyone Else: “LOL.  What a dumb bitch.”

Here’s how the same thing goes down with a guy making fun of another guy on the internet:

Troll: “You’re a faggy douchebag.”

Guy: “Fail.”

Everyone Else: “Epic fail.  What a dumb bitch.”

Maybe if Ms. Bartow and the ladies at Harvard Journal of Law and Dugg Down watched this video, they’d have a better understanding of the contextual dynamics of playing the dozens on the internet: link [disabling embedding makes BL1Y a saaaad panda].

Tags: , , , , , , ,