Richard Storrow is a Feminist Hack

Posted in Uncategorized on August 6th, 2010 by bl1y

In principle I have no problem with feminism.  But, I do have a problem with partisan hacks, and Professor Richard Storrow (CUNY School of Law) is a feminist hack.

Over at the Feminist Law Prof’s Blog, Storrow posted a piece talking about Eggsploitation, a documentary about the human egg industry.  Here are some of the “highlights” from that article:

“Eggsploitation” exposes what happens to young women who are objectified as sources of eggs by an industry os ay satisfying the ever expanding demand for in vitro fertilization. Although “Eggsploitation” should be a feminist documentary, it is not.

Why should it be a feminist documentary? Why can’t it just be a documentary with no social or political agenda? Why can’t it just present facts and let the viewers draw their own conclusions?  Not that it would be bad to make a feminist documentary about the human egg industry, but there’s no reason why every documentary on the subject should have a feminist point of view.

Despite its upsides in bringing eggsploitation to light, “Eggsploitation” makes a fatal misstep by including in its parade of experts those whose agendas are far from feminist.

What?  Oh, right, I forgot that it’s always a mistake to hear from people with different beliefs than you.  Diversity is important, every type of diversity except for view point diversity (which is of course the whole point of diversity in the first place).

Although CORE denounces sex selection and research using cloned embryos, the basis for the positions it takes is “absolute respect for the human embryo,” not women’s rights.

I’m against murdering women, and not because of the women’s rights issues involved, but because I’m against murder.  So respect for human embryos is not a good reason to take a particular point of view? You must also hold views for feminist reasons?  Also, it’s entirely consist for a person who believes in gender equity to believe that a human embryo is a human being with certain rights and those rights may trump some of the rights of its mother instead of the other way around.  Not everyone subscribes to your particular brand of feminism, and not all feminists are required to believe Women’s Rights > Every Other Consideration.

That a professor can outright condemn view point diversity in a documentary and not be shouted down by his peers reflects very poorly on the state of academia in this country.

Tags: , , , ,

Feminist is a Contranym

Posted in Dumb Ideas Girls Have on April 20th, 2010 by bl1y

Thanks to those of you who voted me in the Feministe’s Next Top Troll competition, but unfortunately I didn’t come anywhere remotely close to winning.  Freaking 6% of the vote.

I should probably chalk this loss up to the pitiful power of my internet celebrity (come on people! if Stephen Colbert can win competitions to have a part of the International Space Station named after him, I should be able to win a lousy internet poll!), but I’m going to blame this on the fact that I wasn’t actually trolling with my comment.

As I explained earlier, I wasn’t trolling, but rather just pointing out that feeling like you aren’t lusted after sexually is basically the daily norm for all but a few men.  Surprisingly, several of the readers came to my defense, arguing that not only was I not trolling, I had a legitimate point to make.  While women complain about being looked at too sexually, most men would love to get just a little bit of that type of attention.  Just look at the way nudity is used in movies:

Naked female butt = Sexy.

Naked male butt = Funny.

Here’s my favorite comment from one of the readers:

I do believe this guy’s insecurities are sincere, and men as well as women are victims of body-shaming. But, yeah…”men are body-shamed, too!” is not really helpful, denies the existence of sexism, and is also an awesome silencing technique.

Wow!  I never knew my comment was so loaded with meaning.  I should be a freaking poet!

Alright lady, here’s a basic course in English and logical reasoning skills.  If I’m arguing that a similar or corresponding problem exists for men as it does for women, I can’t possibly be denying the problem facing women.  To say “we have it bad, too” acknowledges that you have it bad, and simply says that we’re all in the same boat together.  When a Mexican says to a black man, “Hey soul-hombre, we got it bad, too,” and the black guy replies “Yeah, but at least we ain’t Arabs,” they’re not denying that any of their groups is discriminated against, they’re accepting that each of them has the same problem.

This just goes to show the sort of Us v. Them mentality that infects a lot of mainstream feminism.  They’re not interested in working out solutions or exploring what is actually going on.  They just want to fight and they want to win, and they can’t win unless there’s a loser, and that loser has to be men.

There are, of course, a lot of feminists who are actually interested in fighting sexism in whatever form it takes, and hoorah for them.  It sucks they get lumped in with the people who disguise their bigotry with equality.

And, just to really drive home how closed minded, intolerant, and hypocritical some of these women are, let me tell you how the troll contest ended.  I got ban-hammered.  Now, of course it’s the right of anyone who operates a blog to allow or disallow whatever comments they want.  But, the right to do something is not the same as the right to avoid criticism.  Here’s the comment that got me banned:

[Mod note: warning for trans readers re: misgendering]

Imagine an M->F transgendered person made the complaint that as a man he feels he can’t experience the kind of sexiness that might be available to him as a female.

Still trolling?

Before getting into the substance of the comment, be sure to take a good look at the warning the moderators posted.  Warning for transgendered readers!  This douchenozzle  refers to a (hypothetical) man who desires to be a woman as “he!”  If you don’t avert your eyes, your fragile trans-sensibilities may be permanently upset!

Look, you dumb cow, if you’ve survived one day being transgendered, you have a thick enough skin to not have your life shattered over a pretty benign post on the blogosphere.  You don’t need some random wannabe-do-gooder protecting you like you’re a little child.  Trannies are capable of getting ticked-off for themselves, and when they do, they do it with knives, not faux-progressivism.

But, on to the substance.  It’s a legitimate freaking question!  Do you really think the readers of Feministe would have been so quick to suggest that my complaint stemmed from a dysfunctional penis (sexist and ablist! sweet!) if they believed I was transgendered?  Frack no!  The comments would have instantly been about how awful the world has been to me by imposing hetero-normativity and traditional masculinity, and how unfair it is that just because I was born male I wouldn’t get to experience what it’s like to be feminine.

Call a self-righteous hypocritical bigot out, and down comes the ban-hammer.

Now, the moderators claimed that I was banned for improper pronoun usage in referring to a trans woman as “he,” because the proper thing to do is refer to a trans woman as “she.”

Says who?  Katherine McKinnon?  Carol Gilligan?  Some other High Holy Priestess of All Things Gender?

Sorry, but no, this isn’t France, this is America, and in America we don’t have to take orders from some grammar pontiff.

Some trans gender people live as their sex assigned at birth, not as the gender they want to be, and they are well within their rights to do so.  Take, for example, Eddie Izzard.  Yes, he dresses up in women’s clothing for a lot of his shows and pretty clearly wants to be a woman, but he refers to himself as a man, wears men’s clothes more than women’s, has grown facial hair, and makes a hideous woman (but a decent looking man, which is why he probably dresses as a man so much).  He’s even kept an unambiguously masculine name.  I refer to Eddie Izzard as “he,” because that’s how he generally presents himself, and how I think he would prefer I talk about him.

Trans gender comes in a thousand different flavors, …sweet, delicious flavors…  …And there’s no one set of rules, grammar or otherwise, that is going to fit everyone.  Sanctimonious women’s studies professors can’t create any rule that is going to trump mine: if you live as a man, I call you “he,” and if you live as a woman, I call you “she.”  That’s it, and I’ll be shocked if anyone finds a system that’s more fair or tolerant.

I grew up in the South and so I, like most people of my generation from here, have very little patience for bigotry of any kind.  When you come from an area with the sort of stigma we have, you are more conscious of the issues and work doubly hard to avoid repeating the mistakes of prior generations.

So, if you find Feministe to be as idiotic and self-righteous as I do, feel free to contact the person responsible for putting me on “permanent moderation,” Chally: chally.zeroatthebone@gmail.com

And PS , you dumb fracking bovine, despite your hand-wringing over accidentally referring to a “trans woman” as a “transwoman,” the polite way to refer to a man who lives his life as a woman is not “trans woman,” it’s just “woman.”  But hey, I guess it’s cool to marginalize the very people you think you’re sticking up for, so long as you treat them like children in a very public way and refer to yourself as “one of those scary feminists.”

Tags: , , , , ,

They See Me Trollin’

Posted in Uncategorized on April 16th, 2010 by bl1y

They hatin’

They try to catch me postin’ dirty.

Over at our favorite hack feminist site, Feministe, there is now a Feministe’s Next Top Troll competition, and yours truly has been nominated.  Here’s the comment they chose for me:

People don’t compliment you on your body, and when people look at your they think “Oh my god, what a weirdo. Doesn’t she know what her body looks like”…

You just discovered what it feels like to be a typical man.

It’s not really clear on the Feministe page, but the first paragraph there is a quote from the article I was responding to.  The article was complaining about how if you’re fat woman or a disabled woman or whatever you don’t get compliments on your body, you aren’t looked at sexually, yada yada yada.  My comment is just the last line, that (with rare exception) this is how men live every single day.

So folks, please go over to Feministe and vote for BL1Y.  I don’t know why, but I want to win this thing.  Go vote now!

Tags: , ,

Chally Ho!

Posted in Uncategorized on April 8th, 2010 by bl1y

Chally is one of those scary, scary feminists you’ve heard about.

You know, the ones that make ridiculous, over the top claims that sound great to other feminists but don’t stand up to basic reasoning and logic.  She wrote on Feministe today about a survey in Australia covering people’s attitudes towards domestic violence.

I find the notion that anyone other than the person subject to a crime can do any excusing – or forgiving or anything along those lines – to be deeply wrong. It is of course not specified in the survey question who is doing the excusing, which tends to suggest that there’s some kind of objective decision-making power to be accessed: here, let we the public determine whether the violence committed against you was the okay sort or not, and what response is in order!

Yeah! Outlaw juries! Burn down the legislature!

Look, scary feminist lady, the whole idea of a criminal justice system is that the public (through its elected representatives in the legislature and peer-juries) determines what violence against you was okay, what was criminal, and what response is in order.  If we left it all up to the victim, pretty much every crime would carry the death penalty.  Okay, Chally does acknowledge this:

Legal punishments and such are up to the state, but forgiveness? The emotions around the events? All that stuff? Not up to not the state, not members of the public, but just those who have been harmed.

Actually, forgiveness and excusing your actions is, and should be, the domain of the state (as well as the individual).  The whole idea behind defenses and the intent element in criminal codes is that the state will forgive or excuse certain actions.  But not if Chally had her way.  Bye bye self defense.  Bye bye youthful offender.  Bye bye battered women’s syndrome.

Okay…maybe we should get rid of that last one.

Tags: ,

Student Blasted For Noting That Sex is Complicated

Posted in Uncategorized on April 3rd, 2010 by bl1y

Alex Knepper, a student at American University, is getting a lot of panties bundled up over an article he published in the school’s paper.  Here’s the part that’s getting him into trouble:

Let’s get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK? To cry “date rape” after you sober up the next morning and regret the incident is the equivalent of pulling a gun to someone’s head and then later claiming that you didn’t ever actually intend to pull the trigger.

“Date rape” is an incoherent concept. There’s rape and there’s not-rape, and we need a line of demarcation. It’s not clear enough to merely speak of consent, because the lines of consent in sex — especially anonymous sex — can become very blurry.

Most of his critics read the one sentence about date rape being an incoherent concept and then stopped and accused him of saying date rape isn’t rape.  What he’s actually arguing is that the concept of date rape covers too broad a spectrum, and he’s correct.  “Date rape” (or “acquaintance rape”) is rape by a person you voluntarily associated with, as opposed to stranger rape, which is the masked man who jumps you in an alley (or the prison laundry).  I have to disagree with Knepper’s use of the word “incoherent,” but I think he would have been correct in saying the category of “date rape” is over-broad to the point of being unhelpful, confusing, and hurting dialogue.  Date rape can range from forced rape (ie: the use of violence, the threat of violence, or involuntary intoxication) all the way down to the ambiguities that arise from mutual voluntary intoxication, which many people wouldn’t consider to be rape at all.

Knepper is also correct that consent is not a bright-line issue.  If you have sex with someone who’s drunk, did you commit rape?  Many people would say yes.  A drunk person cannot consent, and sex without consent is rape.  Anyone who gives that answer is a fracking retard and has obviously never been drunk and never had sex after drinking.

A reasonable person, not reciting the feminist party agenda would have a laundry list of questions that need to be considered before deciding whether to use the rape label.  How drunk was the person?  A mere 0.08, which for many people simply feels like a bit of a buzz, or are we talking about black-out drunk, or something in between?  Did the person voluntarily engage in activities that are generally considered to indicate a desire to have sex, such as going back to the person’s dorm room and taking off their clothes?  Did the other person say “I’m not going to sleep with you tonight?”  (By the way, if a girl says this to you, and your reaction is “I didn’t even mention sex,” you’re totally getting laid.)  Have you had sex with this person before, and did you have sex with them after? (In the famous study by Mary Koss which found 1 in 4 college women were the victim of a rape or attempted rape, a whopping 42% of the women had sex again with their supposed attacker.  If you get drunk, have sex with someone, sober up, and then have sex with them again, I’m going to have a real hard time calling that person a rapist.)

None of these things is a sure fire, 100% test for consent.  But, nothing is, not even saying “yes.”  After all, give me a gun and I can get you to say just about anything.  Take away the gun and give me a night at a crowded bar and a gift certificate to a fancy restaurant, and I can find a woman who will say “yes,” but who has no intention of following through.  The only fair way to construct rape laws is to look at the totality of the facts and ask if the accused had good reason to believe there was consent.

If you get in a boxing ring, put on the gloves, and at the sound of the bell you come out to the center of the ring, you can’t then complain that you got punched, and you sure as hell can’t have the person that punched you prosecuted for it.  The law will infer consent from your actions, even if you had been drinking earlier.  And, I think this is what’s really got Knepper’s goat.  In every other area of life, we are okay with saying what’s important isn’t that you had consent, but that the other person was reasonable in thinking you consented.  As far as the law is concerned, the appearance of consent is what counts.  But, with sex we don’t let the reasonable person with honest intentions off the hook.  Instead we prosecute based on the subjective experience within the head of someone who may be acting as though they consent and putting forth little or no effort in dispelling that belief.

Mr. Knepper, if you’re ever in the area and want to raid booty and women from the neighboring town, I’m game.  (You’re driving.)

Let’s get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK? To cry “date rape” after you sober up the next morning and regret the incident is the equivalent of pulling a gun to someone’s head and then later claiming that you didn’t ever actually intend to pull the trigger.

“Date rape” is an incoherent concept. There’s rape and there’s not-rape, and we need a line of demarcation. It’s not clear enough to merely speak of consent, because the lines of consent in sex — especially anonymous sex — can become very blurry.

Tags: , , , , ,

Professor Rose Hates Its Students

Posted in Uncategorized on April 2nd, 2010 by bl1y

Professor Leslie Rose, Director of Advanced Legal Writing Programs at Golden Gate University School of Law (yeah, I haven’t heard of it either) thinks her students are complete fracking morons.

Professor Rose is publishing an article titled The Supreme Court and Gender Neutral Language: Setting the Standard or Lagging Behind?, which will come out some time in the near future in the Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy.

The article mostly discusses the importance of gender neutral language in curtailing “subtle” bias.  Fair enough.  I don’t think the masculine generic is particularly problematic, and it can be argued that it’s actually biased against men, but gender neutral language is even less problematic.  I’m not talking about the use of “he or she” or “s/he,” or switching to a generic feminine, all of which can be distracting and slaughter any sense of style, but rather replacing “Congressman” with “Member of Congress,” and other changes that are benign and don’t smack of radical left wing ideology.  Other than habit, there’s generally not a good reason to not make these changes.

And that’s where Professor Rose’s argument should have stopped.  There’s some good reason to switch and no good reason not to.  End of discussion.  You’ve won.  But, simple, elegant, well constructed arguments don’t generally meet the 40 page minimum length law journals like to see.

Professor Rose goes on to argue that judges should switch to gender neutral language, not just because they influence the style of law students who read their opinions, but because the masculine generic is confusing and creates ambiguity:

The ambiguity created by the use of gendered generics can be particularly troublesome in judicial opinions. The reader may not always be able to determine if a particular passage refers generally to men and women, generally to all men, or specifically to a party in the case. A case in point is Kennedy v. Louisiana, in which the Court held that a Louisiana statute authorizing the death penalty for the rape of a child younger than twelve violated the Eighth Amendment. In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy alternated gendered pronouns, using a female generic for a rape victim and a male generic for a perpetrator:

[C]hild rape cases present heightened concerns because the central narrative and account of the crime often comes from the child herself. She and the accused are, in most instances, the only ones present when the crime was committed.

In most cases justice is not better served by terminating the life of the perpetrator rather than confining him and preserving the possibility that he and the system will find ways to allow him to understand the enormity of his offense.

Both statements are phrased in a way that implies they are meant to apply generally, rather than just specifically to this case. However, the language used gives the misleading impression that only female children are raped and only men can be perpetrators, or that the Louisiana statute at issue was drafted to limit its applicability in this way.

While most people acknowledge that the vast majority of rapists are men and the vast majority of victims are women, no rational person really thinks that only men can be rapists or only women can be victims.  Well…under some laws only men can be convicted of rape, because of how the crime is defined…  But, definitely no person of at least a 151 LSAT (25th percentile at Golden Gate) thinks that only women can be rape victims.  And if they did, it’s not because of imprecise language in a court opinion they read while in law school.  It’s because they lived sheltered lives, never watched Shawshank Redemption, haven’t been in a fraternity, and are probably so brain damaged that they think going to a tier 4 law school is a brilliant career move.

Rose might as well be arguing that court opinions should not refer to the parties by name, because her students are so fracking retarded that they’ll think when the Supreme Court writes about a dispute between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore that the opinion must only apply to those two people, and other cases can be distinguished because the parties have different names.  …Wait…sorry, okay.  Bush v. Gore actually only does apply to that one specific dispute and does not create precedent for similar disputes between other parties…  But you get my point.

Maybe in cases involving sex crimes, discrimination, or reproductive rights it makes sense to be extra careful in avoiding imprecise gendered language, because there really could be an ambiguity.  But, for the rest of the legal universe, if your students are confused and think that masculine pronouns mean a holding applies only to men, perhaps your writing program should be demoted from “Advanced” to “Remedial.”

Special Bonus!

So, here’s how the masculine generic might be construed as biased against men.

…It’s the freaking GENERIC.  The feminist camp says being generic means being “normal,” which may be true, but it does not imply that the other is lesser.  Generic can also mean abnormal, such as generic soda.  You even refer to generic soda by which brand it imitates.  Generic Pepsi, generic 7-Up.  You do this because the name brand is the norm, not the generic.  So, there needs to be an argument that generic masculine implies masculine normativity.

But, even if we accept that our language implies masculine is normal, it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that our language reflects an admiration of women.  Women are special and meant to be cherished; men are the fodder of war and industry.  The masculine generic says “If it’s something we don’t care about, get a man to do it.”

When most of us get sick, we take generic drugs, and they’re definitely the norm.  If a generic is available, it’s almost certainly what will be dolled out by your pharmacy unless you specifically request the name brand version (which your insurance isn’t going to pay for).  But the use of normative, generic drugs does not imply an inferiority of name brand drugs.

Of course, this doesn’t give an argument for getting rid of gendered language, since all I’ve done is argue the bias runs in a different direction.  But, the way main stream feminism works, if this argument was accepted, academia would quickly stop caring about creating gender neutral language.

We can’t just say that the existence of a norm means that the “other” is necessarily considered lesser.  Sometimes there is a norm and an inferior other (like soda), but other times there is a norm and a superior other (pass and honors pass grading), and sometimes there is a norm, an inferior other, and a superior other (white people, minorities, and robots).

Tags: , , , , ,

Reason Not to Go to Law School #39

Posted in Reasons Not to Go to Law School on March 29th, 2010 by bl1y

Women want you incompetent.

Specifically, the Association of American Law Schools Section on Women in Legal Education thinks you should be learning less law and lawyering skills while in law school.

The AALS Section on Women in Legal Education will hold a program during the AALS 2011 Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California, with panelists who will share methods of teaching gender in “core courses” such as legal writing, torts, contracts, corporations, federal income tax, civil procedure, contracts, or criminal law, among others not traditionally understood to include gender.  The panel will also include a paper presentation by the winner of “Teaching Gender as a Core Value” competition.

The 2011 AALS conference theme is “Core Values.”  The Section on Women in Legal Education will be focusing on teaching gender issues as a “core value.”  This includes both teaching gender across the curriculum and best practices for incorporating gender issues in the classroom.  While many in the academy are in agreement that gender issues impact a range of legal issues, what is less clear is how law faculty can successfully implement the pervasive teaching of gender in their classrooms and schools.  This program will include a variety of perspectives and will explore ways gender issues can be successfully incorporated into law school teaching.

Class time in law school is limited, so the addition of a new part of the curriculum will necessarily come at the cost of something else.  Law schools are already notoriously bad at teaching the law, and don’t do a particularly good job of teaching lawyering skills either.  The last thing they need is another completely impractical topic wedged into classes that already fail to accomplish their basic functions.

If students are interested in studying gender, they could have majored in gender studies, or can take one of the classes on gender or feminism now offered at virtually every American law school.  Note however, that while you can easily find a class covering gender, only a handful of law schools have classes that teach advanced writing skills, or how to draft a contract or a will (even if you take a wills class, you might not even see a complete will the entire semester.)

People seeking to submit papers for the program (only fully time professors are allowed) are invited to contact Professor Danne Johnson at Oklahoma City University School of law (djohnson@okcu.edu) about this opportunity.  However, I suggest sending her a (politely worded) letter explaining that before we establish the “pervasive” teaching of gender in law school, we should first figure out how to have a pervasive teaching of law in law school.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

You Dumb Cow

Posted in Uncategorized on March 5th, 2010 by bl1y

Bridget Crawford recently posted some information on the Feminist Law Professors blog about the “intersections between feminist theory and animal law.”

What. The. Frack.

Intersectionality in feminism usually refers to the interplay of feminist theory and some other theory, such as race theory or queer theory.  Usually these make some sense.  Black women have, in general, faced different challenges than white women.  Lesbian women are treated differently than straight women.

But feminism and animals?

Sorry.  No.  “Feminism” is not a catchall phrase for every pet project the radical left has adopted.

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: , , , , , ,