OMG! It’s recently been brought to my attention that I’ve only written one post for CT this whole month! That’s, like, totally weak! Under our new posting rules, I’m going to be bringing my A game, every single day. “No Scrubs” is going to be playing in my cubicle 24-7. And if I slack off, dsquared is going to subject me to ferocious Welsh discipline, of the sort handed out at the gloomy Welsh “public” school he attended starting at age 3. (I can’t go into it here, but it involves leeks. And that white jack thingy from bowls.) Let’s see…um…there must be something out there on the interweb. Here we go, something funny a straight white guy said!:
I’m glad the press is having a dance party with this, because God knows the Democrats are frozen at the steering wheel. I just saw a segment on MSNBC (which has been all over the Kerik story today, bless Rick Kaplan’s cyborg heart) pitting a Republican strategist against a Democratic one, and the Democratic spokesman–who goes by the name of Michael Brown–seemed to have washed down his weeny pills with warm Ovaltine. Instead of kicking Kerik and Giuliana between the uprights for three points, Brown fretted that vetting process for cabinet candidates was “going to far,” and that we were in danger of discouraging people from public service. Oh no, we wouldn’t want to discourage philandering, pocket-lining, deadbeat no-show bully-boys like Bernard Kerik from having the opportunity to muck around with our civil liberties in the name of “national security” and hold bigshot press conferences. I mean, if that sort of thing were to continue happening, people might start mistaking the Democrats for an opposition party and thinking that the press has an adversarial role to play, and we don’t want that to happen, it might actually lead to signs of life in that mausoleum we call the nation’s capital.
This Michael Brown wouldn’t even criticize Alberto Gonzalez for botching the background check and vetting of Kerik. I don’t understand the self-emasculation of so many Democratic strategists, what they’re afraid of, why they concede so much in advance. Give them an opening, and they close it like a silk kimono, ever so demure. What are they in politics for, the professional grooming tips?
You know, James Wolcott could be totally gay. I’m agnostic on this front. I know, I’ll ask one of my male co-bloggers! They know so much stuff, it’s awesome. Guys? Oh, and, does anyone want a coffee?
{ 39 comments }
dsquared 12.17.04 at 2:54 pm
I’d been wondering for a while if this blog really existed, or whether it was an “Ally McBeal”-like projection into the external world of my internal fantasy life, and the evidence does appear to be piling up.
Rob 12.17.04 at 2:57 pm
See? That’s what you were missing! A KLo type to fill in the dead periods!
Ken Houghton 12.17.04 at 3:21 pm
Wollcott occasionally refers to his wife. But she works, so she probably isn’t straight, at least in a Promise Keepers sort of way.
Ray 12.17.04 at 3:52 pm
You could increase your posting stats by doing joint posts with the other CT laydeez. Oh yes. Do that, please.
Deb Frisch 12.17.04 at 3:57 pm
Is there a point here?
Uncle Kvetch 12.17.04 at 4:03 pm
You know, James Wolcott could be totally gay.
If he were, I would have asked him to marry me by now.
Mrs Tilton 12.17.04 at 4:06 pm
Yes, indeed, Belle; what is the point here?
What is needed is not the pitiably false-conscious snark of a token female Timberite. What is needed is (if not affirmative action per se) an end to the silence, the silly attempts to suggest the gender asymmetry of CT doesn’t exist, and perhaps an analysis of the mechanisms that produce it.
Mrs Tilton 12.17.04 at 4:07 pm
Yes, indeed, Belle; what is the point here?
What is needed is not the pitiably false-conscious snark of a token female Timberite. What is needed is (if not affirmative action per se) an end to the silence, the silly attempts to suggest the gender asymmetry of CT doesn’t exist, and perhaps an analysis of the mechanisms that produce it.
Katherine 12.17.04 at 4:22 pm
I also would like to protest the shameful underrepresentation of Americans.
(not really. But, what happened to Ted?)
Captain Haddock 12.17.04 at 4:26 pm
I blame capitalism myself. What about the workers! Why are approximately 100 per cent of the posts at CT by namby-pamby intellectuals and running -dog lackeys of imperialism?
son volt 12.17.04 at 4:32 pm
Either Belle’s point is to call out the progressive Wolcott for employing sexist imagery, or her point sailed right by me.
Ray 12.17.04 at 4:36 pm
“What is needed is …an end to the silence, the silly attempts to suggest the gender asymmetry of CT doesn’t exist, and perhaps an analysis of the mechanisms that produce it.”
Surely before we analyse the mechanisms that produce the gender imbalance, we should decide whether the gender asymmetry is important? There’s a potentially interesting discussion to be had about women blogging, but why single out CT for analysis? Why suggest that Belle is a token female?
Matt McGrattan 12.17.04 at 4:42 pm
“What is needed is (if not affirmative action per se) an end to the silence, the silly attempts to suggest the gender asymmetry of CT doesn’t exist, and perhaps an analysis of the mechanisms that produce it.”
I have to assume you aren’t taking the piss, dsquared style?
To reiterate comments already made by others:
Is there any reason why Crooked Timber ought to display gender symmetry?
Is there some reason why gender symmetry ought to be privileged over other forms of symmetry?
I note the absence, among Crooked Timber authors, of the illiterate and uneducated, Scots, Icelanders, teenagers, old age pensioners, non-English speakers, etc. etc.
Is there some kind of screaming sense-of-humour bypass here?
nic 12.17.04 at 4:46 pm
While we feverishly await meaningful analysis, here’s a quick quiz for the Timberites to shed some insight on the sexual dynamics of their internet presence. Apart from Ally McBeal, which tv series would your blog resemble most?
a) Sex and the city (where women are too busy shopping, that’s why they post less)
b) CSI (where only the women have a private life, which would also explain why the men post more)
c) the L word (which would require the men to be all like Shane, girl with a guy name. After all we haven’t seen the pictures… Or, ex boyfriends dumped for hot French lesbians. Their higher posting rate thus explained as coping mechanism.)
Jeremy Osner 12.17.04 at 4:51 pm
I always pictured Crooked Timber as more of an Aaron Spelling production.
Chris Bertram 12.17.04 at 5:36 pm
I rather fancy us as The West Wing, but I know I’ll get into trouble if I try to match Timberites to WW characters…..
M.Gordon 12.17.04 at 5:36 pm
I always pictured Crooked Timber as more of an Aaron Spelling production.
Really? I think CT has more than enough unseemly self-righteousness to have been produced by David E. Kelley.
bob mcmanus 12.17.04 at 5:36 pm
“Is there any reason why Crooked Timber ought to display gender symmetry?”
Why are commenters at CT using patriarchal dichotomous reactionary language like “gender symmetry.” Isn’t this illegal in England yet?
Walt Pohl 12.17.04 at 5:46 pm
Son Volt: I’m pretty sure she posted the Wolcott excerpt just ’cause it’s funny.
The Navigator 12.17.04 at 5:59 pm
Yeah, really: who are you and what have you done with Ted Barlow? Sometimes it seems like the only American posts we get around here are by a Hungarian.
Robin Green 12.17.04 at 6:26 pm
Son Volt: it’s a kind of followup to the “CT gender balance” discussion in the comments started by Deb Frisch here
Deb Frisch 12.17.04 at 6:28 pm
I wonder who has the lowest meme/word ratio of the CT regulars?
There is a LOT of competition for this honor (and if we included the commenters, we’d need several dozen gold medals!)
Deb Frisch 12.17.04 at 6:29 pm
I wonder who has the lowest meme/word ratio of the CT regulars?
There is a LOT of competition for this honor (and if we included the commenters, we’d need several dozen gold medals!)
George 12.17.04 at 7:08 pm
Wollcott occasionally refers to his wife. But she works, so she probably isn’t straight, at least in a Promise Keepers sort of way.
Heh. SLF seeks SGM for light topping and domestic partner benefits. No moderates.
It’s hard to figure out who’s working at a deeper level of abstract irony here — Belle, Mrs. Tilton or Deb Frisch. What is needed is not the pitiably false-conscious snark of a token female Timberite. What is needed is (if not affirmative action per se) an end to the silence, the silly attempts to suggest the gender asymmetry of CT doesn’t exist, and perhaps an analysis of the mechanisms that produce it. Is that for real? What’s next — a take back the blog march?
junius ponds 12.17.04 at 7:59 pm
So, how about that coffee?
Pollie Anon 12.17.04 at 8:01 pm
Well, it is kind of a giggle that so many regulars are in denial about this “gender imbalance” that obviously clearly exists. Does make you wonder where they stand on affirmative action.
But OTH what the hell does Deb Frisch want. It’s pretty hard to argue about systemic discrimination at blogspot.
Let’s hear it deb, what do you want? To join CT? To nominate someone to join CT? To start your own blog?
Donald Johnson 12.17.04 at 9:46 pm
It wasn’t clear to me if dsquare thinks the evidence is piling up in favor of his solipsism or against it. As one of the anxious figments of his imagination, I’d kinda like to know.
On the gender thing, maybe affirmative action would be a good idea. Three of my favorite lefty political bloggers are female, but I don’t think they’re academics. I don’t know for sure.
Mrs Tilton 12.18.04 at 1:10 am
George,
I can’t claim that my comment above had much depth, but it may be that it was not altogether free of the taint of irony.
Incidentally, an increased female presence in the group blog in which I (sporadically) participate is one of the things we’d like to see. I think, though, that this is less from a concern to redress asymmetries than from a general desire to see less use of the f-word and insider acronyms.
belle waring 12.18.04 at 1:10 am
OK, that was snarky, and the gender imbalance in the blogosphere is worthy of serious investigation. deb was just getting on my nerves. I have considered posting seriously about this issue for some time, but I just can’t figure out what to say. hence the descent into K-Lo manquee.
Nabakov 12.18.04 at 3:07 am
There’s a quick and easy solution to this whole issue of “gender symmetry ” on CT.
Just carry out a little online ‘gender reassignment’. Enter a new name in a box and voila. No surgery involved.
Then everyone could amuse themselves trying to guess which CTite sported what genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics – based on content not branding.
cloquet 12.18.04 at 5:16 am
Mrs. Tilton:
Perhaps in the process of carrying out your suggestions, asymmetries will end up being redressed.
cloquet 12.18.04 at 5:26 am
To redress asymmetries, isn’t this another definition for the word “armageddon?”
Nicholas Packwood 12.18.04 at 11:19 am
The mostly likely cause of gender imbalance in the blogosphere can be summed up in one word: sublimation.
Keith M Ellis 12.18.04 at 10:10 pm
That someone can earnestly use the expression “meme/word ratio” is an embarassment in itself.
Mrs Tilton 12.19.04 at 12:37 am
Perhaps in the process of carrying out your suggestions, asymmetries will end up being redressed
Oh, I should certainly hope so, Cloquet; but surely that would be a secondary effect? (And what if we found a great female blogger on European affairs who swears like a sailor and is addicted to esoteric acronymities?)
cloquet 12.19.04 at 1:00 am
To Mrs. T.:
“And what if we found a great female blogger on European affairs who swears like a sailor and is addicted to esoteric acronymities?)”
Why, you should add her to the list pronto!! haha! She can have wonderful exchange of conversation with Dsquared!! haha! I would certainly love to see that!!
I agree with Junius Ponds, Kieran you buy coffee and muffies for all, for all the trouble you’ve caused around here. haha!
cloquet 12.19.04 at 1:18 am
Just an added note, I observe that Volokh Conspiracy bloggers have pictures, and the male participants are all definitely cute.
What have you CT bloggers got to say for yourselves?
David Tiley 12.19.04 at 4:55 pm
If the sexiest thing about a person is their voice*, then the way to work out the cuteness of the CT bloggers is to listen to the sexiness of their voices in our own heads.
For me, that’s a fantastic argument for more women.
*it’s because ideas can be erotic. Don’t deny it – you know it’s true.
W. Kiernan 12.19.04 at 5:03 pm
I’ve decided that this glass ceiling for female bloggers business has gone too far, and I must do my part.
I was about to launch – any day now, really – my own blog, discussing general topics from a high-level perspective, which was to be called “Frown Blog.” It was going to be a great, great blog, perhaps not quite so illimitably great as Fafblog of course, but coming up close in second place, and it would soon be the hot spot for everyone who is anyone throughout the entire blogosphere.
Early indications showed that “Frown Blog” was going to be blogtastic, blogmatic, fabu blogodelic and that the commenters would be the creme de la creme of the blog1337. Y’all were invited, of course.
But now, alerted to this outrage of numerical discrimination – three percent, seven percent, whatever, it’s not enough – I’m going to have to disappoint the eager crowds. No “Frown Blog” for you sexists. I shall not blog until all the sisters are freely blogging too.
For how can I, as a man, enjoy my blogerty, when these women are so cruelly tramped down in blogmission?
(I know, you all hate me now.)
Comments on this entry are closed.