 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:21 am Post subject: Eating their own: Estrich vs. Kinsley |
 |
|
Don't know if you've been following this donnybrook that evolved over the last week or so, but feminista Susan Estrich has thrown a summa cum LOUDe hissy-fit over a feigned journalistic dis by LA Time's op-ed editor Michael Kinsley. It makes for DELIGHTFUL reading and has introduced some new bookmarks to my ever-growing collection...the The D.C. Examiner, City Journal and the Independent Women's Forum.
At any rate, here's a terrific fisking of Ms. Estrich's meltdown by Heather Mac Donald of City Journal that has links enough (omitted here) to bring you up to snuff on l'affaire Estrich-Kinsley...
| Quote: | Heather Mac Donald
Feminists Get Hysterical
First it was Harvard vs. Summers—and now Estrich vs. Kinsley. | 24 February 2005
City Journal
Gee thanks, Susan. Political pundit Susan Estrich has launched a venomous campaign (links here and here and here) against the Los Angeles Times’s op-ed editor, Michael Kinsley, for alleged discrimination against female writers. As it happens, I have published in the Los Angeles Times op-ed pages over the years, without worrying too much about whether I was merely filling a gender quota. Now, however, if I appear in the Times again, I will assume that my sex characteristics, rather than my ideas, got me accepted.
Estrich’s insane ravings against the Times cap a month that left one wondering whether the entry of women into the intellectual and political arena has been an unqualified boon. In January, nearly the entire female professoriate at Harvard (and many of their feminized male colleagues) rose up in outrage at the mere suggestion of an open discussion about a scientific hypothesis. That hypothesis, of course, concerned the possibly unequal distribution of cognitive skills across the male and female populations. Harvard President Larry Summers had had the temerity to suggest that the continuing preponderance of men in scientific fields, despite decades of vigorous gender equity initiatives in schools and universities, may reflect something other than sexism. It might reflect the fact, Summers hypothesized, that the male population has a higher percentage of mathematical geniuses (and mathematical dolts) than the female population, in which mathematical reasoning skills may be more evenly distributed.
A feminist gadfly in the audience, MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, infamously reported that she avoided fainting or vomiting at Summers’s remarks only by running from the room. And with that remarkable expression of science-phobia, a great feminist vendetta was launched. It has reduced Summers to a toadying appeaser who has promised to atone for his sins with ever more unforgiving diversity initiatives (read: gender quotas) in the sciences. But the damage will not be limited to Harvard. Summers’s scourging means that, from now on, no one in power will stray from official propaganda to explain why women are not proportionally represented in every profession.
The Harvard rationality rout was a mere warm-up, however, to the spectacle unfolding in Los Angeles, brought to light by the upstart newspaper, the D.C. Examiner. USC law professor, Fox News commentator, and former Dukakis presidential campaign chairman Susan Estrich has come out as a snarling ***** in response to L.A. Times’s editor Michael Kinsley’s unwillingness to be blackmailed. Estrich had demanded that Kinsley run a manifesto signed by several dozen women preposterously accusing him of refusing to publish females. When Kinsley declined, while offering Estrich the opportunity to write a critique of the Times in a few weeks, Estrich sunk to the lowest rung imaginable: playing Kinsley’s struggle with Parkinson’s disease against him. Said Estrich: Your refusal to bend to my demands “underscores the question I've been asked repeatedly in recent days, and that does worry me, and should worry you: people are beginning to think that your illness may have affected your brain, your judgment, and your ability to do this job.”
It is curious how feminists, when crossed, turn into shrill, hysterical harpies—or, in the case of MIT’s Nancy Hopkins, delicate flowers who collapse at the slightest provocation—precisely the images of women that they claim patriarchal sexists have fabricated to keep them down. Actually, Estrich’s hissy fit is more histrionic than anything the most bitter misogynist could come up with on his own. Witness her faux remorse at engaging in blackmail: “I really do hate to be doing this. I counted e-mail after e-mail that I sent and was totally ignored. I can’t tell you how much I wanted to help quietly. If this is what it takes, so be it.” Witness too her self-pitying amour propre: “You owe me an apology. NO one tried harder to educate you about Los Angeles, introduce you to key players in the city, bring to your attention, quietly, the issues of gender inequality than I did—and you have the arrogance and audacity to say that you couldn’t be bothered reading my emails.” Add to that her petty insults: “if you prefer me to conduct this discussion outside your pages . . . that makes you look even more afraid and more foolish.” And finally, mix in shameless self-promotion: “I hope [this current crusade is] a lesson in how you can make change happen if you’re willing to stand up to people who call you names, and reach out to other women, and not get scared and back down. If you recall, I wrote a book about that, called Sex and Power. It’s what I have spent my whole life doing.”
Selective quotation cannot do justice to Estrich’s rants. But their underlying substance is as irrational as their tone. Estrich lodges the standard charge in all fake discrimination charges: the absence of proportional representation in any field is conclusive proof of bias. Determining the supply of qualified candidates is wholly unnecessary.
For the last three years, Estrich’s female law students at USC have been counting the number of female writers on the Los Angeles Times op-ed pages (and she complains that there aren’t more female policy writers? Suggestion to Estrich: how about having your students master a subject rather than count beans.). She provides only selective tallies of the results: “TWENTY FOUR MEN AND ONE WOMAN IN A THREE DAY PERIOD [caps in original]” (she does not explain how she chose that three-day period or whether it was representative); “THIRTEEN MEN AND NO WOMEN” as authors of pieces on Iraq.
Several questions present themselves: how many pieces by women that met the Times’s standards were offered during these periods? What is the ratio of men to women among experts on Iraq? Estrich never bothers to ask these questions, because for the radical feminist, being a woman is qualification enough for any topic. Any female is qualified to write on Iraq, for example, because in so doing, she is providing THE FEMALE PERSPECTIVE. (This belief in the essential difference between male and female “voices,” of course, utterly contradicts the premise of the anti-Larry Summers crusade.) Thus, to buttress her claim that Kinsley “refuses” to publish women, Estrich merely provides a few examples of women whose offerings have been rejected: “Carla Sanger . . . tells me she can't get a piece in; I have women writing to me who have submitted four piece [sic] and not gotten the courtesy of a call—and they teach gender studies at UCLA. . . .” It goes without saying, without further examination, that each of those writers deserved to be published—especially, for heaven’s sakes, the gender studies professors!
Self-centered? Thin-skinned? Takes things personally? Misogynist tropes that sum up Estrich to a T. It is the fate of probably 98 percent of all op-ed hopefuls to have their work silently rejected, without the “courtesy of a call.” But when a woman experiences the silent treatment, it’s because of sexism. Similarly, it is the fate of most e-mail correspondence to editors to be ignored. But when Estrich’s e-mails are ignored (“I sent e-mails to my old friends at the Times. Neither time did they even bother to respond.”), it’s because the editor is a chauvinist pig.
The assumption that being female obviates the need for any further examination into one’s qualifications allows Estrich to sidestep the most fundamental question raised by her crusade: Why should anyone care what the proportion of female writers is on an op-ed page? If an analysis is strong, it should make no difference what its author’s sex is. But for Estrich, it is an article of faith that female representation matters: “What could be more important—or easier for that matter—than ensuring that women's voices are heard in public discourse in our community?” Her embedded question—“or easier for that matter?”— is quickly answered. She is right: Nothing is easier than ensuring that “women’s voices” are heard; simply set up a quota and publish whatever comes across your desk. But as for why it is of paramount importance to get the “women’s” perspective on farm subsidies or OPEC price manipulations, Estrich does not say.
She provides a clue to her thinking, however. For Estrich, apparently, having a “woman’s voice” means being left-wing. She blasts the Times for publishing an article by Charlotte Allen on the decline of female public intellectuals such as Susan Sontag. Allen had argued that too many women writers today specialize in being female, rather than addressing the broader range of issues covered by their male counterparts. For Estrich, this argument performs a magical sex change on Allen, turning her into a male. After sneering at Allen’s article and her affiliation with the “Independent Women's Forum which is a group of right-wing women who exist to get on TV,” Estrich concludes: “the voices of women . . . are [not] found within a thousand miles” of the Los Angeles Times.
In other words, Allen’s is not a “voice of a woman” because she criticizes radical feminism. Estrich does not disclose if she conducted this sex change operation on all conservative women when compiling her phony statistics on the proportion of female writers on the op-ed page.
“Women’s liberation,” for the radical feminists, means liberation to think like a robot, mindlessly following the dictates of the victimologists. But if all bona fide women think alike, then publishing one female writer every year or so should suffice, since we know in advance what she will say.
Depressingly, Estrich’s crusade, no matter how bogus, will undoubtedly bear fruit. Anyone in a position of power today, facing accusations of bias and the knowledge that people are using crude numerical measures to prove his bias, will inevitably start counting beans himself, whether consciously or not. Michael Kinsley could reassure every female writer out there that Estrich has not cowed him by publishing only men for the next six months. It would be an impressive rebuff to Estrich’s blackmail. I’ll happily forgo the opportunity to appear in the Times for a while in order to get my pride back.
City Journal
Hattip: Independent Women's Forum
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
srmorton
PO2
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 383
Location: Jacksonville, NC
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ever since Summers famous statement, I have been waiting for someone
to say what I think is obvious - not only are there undeniable genetic
differences between men and women, but there are also differences
in personal preferences. I am a woman who chose to persue a major
in Biology because I liked the subject matter and it came easy to me.
I went on to get my MA degree in Biology and later obtained a degree
in Medical Laboratory Technology. I am not particularly good in math,
but Biology and Chemistry are a different story. I think this also
explains what happens in other fields of study in which there appear to
be more of one sex or the other. It is not some conspiracy to discriminate
against members of one sex or the other.
BTW, Susan Estrich should think back over the political choices she has
made in the past. She has come out on the losing side for the most part,
except for the eight years she had defending WJBC who has spent most
of his life, including his presidency, abusing and taking advantage of women.
Rather ironic, wouldn't you say?
_________________
Susan R. Morton
Last edited by srmorton on Sun Feb 27, 2005 12:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Estrich could aptly be characterized as a Harpy.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kman
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 132
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I love it! IMO, paraphrasing Susan's email screeches doesn't do them justice. Be sure to follow the links and read each one, along with Kinsley's responses. What a hoot.
They have nothing to offer but hate.
Kurt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know folks; every now and then a great story arises about the bottom feeders of our society.
SUSAN WAKE UP! EDITORS MAKE EDITORIAL DECISIONS! I instinctively change the channel when I hear SE is a guest on FOX (Did you get that FOX? Your losing viewers when this Shrill Pundit appears!).
I’m can surely say if I were deserted on a Desert Island, squatting over a slit-trench and my last piece of wiping paper contained an article by Susan, I wouldn’t read it, yet I would savior using it for it’s intended purpose.
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Poole
Vice Admiral
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 914
Location: America
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PhantomSgt wrote: | | ...I instinctively change the channel... |
I just look away and imagine it's someone else, a man perhaps. It's easy. 
_________________
'58 Airedale HMR(L)-261 VMO-2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Harpy is a confidant of the Red Queen. She has the charm of a jackel and the voice of the Sea Hag. As one of her advisors, the shrew would be one of many in a Clinton II cabinet. God forbid it happened and it was AG. Estrich's last big political foray was as Micheal Dukakis' Mgr. That was a real hit. The Harpy and the Hildebeast are both ultra-liberal feminist socialists.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Poole
Vice Admiral
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 914
Location: America
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GM Strong wrote: | | ...Harpy is a confidant of the Red Queen... |
I gotta get out more. Hey GM, because I didn't know what it meant and just for fun I Googled on "red queen" and got 74,000 hits. Did you know it also refers to the Mexican Poeciliid fish, some of which look eerily like Hildebeest and reproduce asexually. Come to think of it, that explains a number of things.
Troll -------------------- troll -------------------- troll -------------------- troll -------------------- 
-1.jpg)
_________________
'58 Airedale HMR(L)-261 VMO-2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tom Poole wrote: | | GM Strong wrote: | | ...Harpy is a confidant of the Red Queen... |
I gotta get out more. Hey GM, because I didn't know what it meant and just for fun I Googled on "red queen" and got 74,000 hits. Did you know it also refers to the Mexican Poeciliid fish, some of which look eerily like Hildebeest and reproduce asexually. Come to think of it, that explains a number of things.
|
Red Queen refers to the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. In her co-president days, the staff scurried like the card characters as in "The Queen is coming" when HRH walked the corridors.  She wanted no one in her way. If she was displeased or annoyed by anyone, it was "Off with their heads!!",  Except Bill, in his case she went into fits of profane rage and threw lamps at him. Estrich is one of her buddies from Yale, I believe, and she only reminds me of nothing less than the mythological harpies of Greek lore.
I think the fish info is great. A guppy certainly would not do. 
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Poole
Vice Admiral
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 914
Location: America
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GM Strong wrote: | | ...refers to the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland... |
I hope the moderator doesn't mind that this thread has taken a turn. But, since you mentioned it, I studied a bit and now know more than I wanted to. The "Red Queen" indeed comes from fantasy literature but was used in science to refer to the disadvantages of asexual reproduction. The fish above is interesting scientifically because some of its population are able to reproduce sexually and some asexually.
| Principia Cybernetica Web wrote: | The Red Queen Principle
for an evolutionary system, continuing development is needed just in order to maintain its fitness relative to the systems it is co-evolving with
This principle was proposed by the evolutionary biologist L. van Valen (1973), and is based on the observation to Alice by the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass" that "in this place it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."
Since every improvement in one species will lead to a selective advantage for that species, variation will normally continuously lead to increases in fitness in one species or another. However, since in general different species are coevolving, improvement in one species implies that it will get a competitive advantage on the other species, and thus be able to capture a larger share of the resources available to all. This means that fitness increase in one evolutionary system will tend to lead to fitness decrease in another system. The only way that a species involved in a competition can maintain its fitness relative to the others is by in turn improving its design.
The most obvious example of this effect are the "arms races" between predators and prey, where the only way predators can compensate for a better defense by the prey (e.g. rabbits running faster) is by developing a better offense (e.g. foxes running faster). In this case we might consider the relative improvements (running faster) to be also absolute improvements in fitness.
However, the example of trees shows that in some cases the net effect of an "arms race" may also be an absolute decrease in fitness. Trees in a forest are normally competing for access to sunlight. If one tree grows a little bit taller than its neighbours it can capture part of their sunlight. This forces the other trees in turn to grow taller, in order not to be overshadowed. The net effect is that all trees tend to become taller and taller, yet still gather on average just the same amount of sunlight, while spending much more resources in order to sustain their increased height. This is an example of the problem of suboptimization: optimizing access to sunlight for each individual tree does not lead to optimal performance for the forest as a whole.
In sum, in a competitive world, relative progress ("running") is necessary just for maintenance ("staying put").
In its emphasis on the stress that necessarily accompanies evolutionary development, the Red Queen Principle is related to the generalized "Peter Principle". Red Queen |
As I understand this stuff, relative to biology, the "Red Queen Principle" means asexual reproduction, clones in other words, won't evolve and cannot keep up. Those that reproduce sexually introduce variations, some of which are improvements, and simply maintain the pace. I just found it humorous when used in the same thread with Hildebeest.
_________________
'58 Airedale HMR(L)-261 VMO-2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GM Strong wrote: | | Estrich could aptly be characterized as a Harpy. |
Harpy. Well put.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Tom Poole"] | GM Strong wrote: | ...refers to the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland
I hope the moderator doesn't mind
In its emphasis on the stress that necessarily accompanies evolutionary development, the Red Queen Principle is related to the generalized "Peter Principle".
As I understand this stuff, relative to biology, the "Red Queen Principle" means asexual reproduction, clones in other words, won't evolve and cannot keep up. Those that reproduce sexually introduce variations, some of which are improvements, and simply maintain the pace. I just found it humorous when used in the same thread with Hildebeest. |
Thanks for the astute research. This is very interesting and I will add this to my bank of knowledge. Most of us I am sure were not aware of these things. Amazing what is out there when you do a little searching.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noyesj
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 77
Location: n w washington (that is the state)
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think RED Queen in this time and day may also refure to
the queen of the far left (commie).
_________________
noyesj USAF 1953-1959 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| noyesj wrote: | I think RED Queen in this time and day may also refure to
the queen of the far left (commie). |
Obviously the other side of it. She is a dedicated socialist if not a Marxist.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Courtesy of The American Spectator.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
