Guestblogger: Kathy G.

by Henry Farrell on May 5, 2008

This post is to welcome the sort-of-pseudonymous ‘Kathy G,’ who will be joining us as a guestblogger for a week. I’ve known Kathy for a while – she’s doing a Ph.D. in public policy in the Chicago area, and has been blogging at “the G Spot”: for the last couple of months; “Ezra Klein”: describes the G Spot as ‘the best new blog on the internets.’ I’d go even further and say that Kathy is the columnist whom the _New York Times_ needs to hire when it fires Bill Kristol’s ass, publicly apologizes for inflicting his vaporings on the American people, and promises to mend the error of its ways by starting to publish an honest-to-God leftie. Her blogging is a mixture of in-your-face feminism, economics empirical and theoretical, blistering takedowns of Maureen Dowd et al., and much else. Great to have her with us.



Ingrid Robeyns 05.05.08 at 12:33 pm

Welcome! Great to have a(nother) feminist economist with us.


banned commenter 05.05.08 at 1:11 pm

Willingness we havana an activates G-spotters disassembling hero, or is it justification oneself of thomistic cleaned tito? I featherbedding it’s theaters latinized.


MR. Bill 05.05.08 at 2:22 pm

Good morning Kathy, and Howdy from Trendy Blue Ridge GA.
You’re in Chicagoland, can you give us any data on Bill Ayres and his current career? Listening to the wingnuts (and their enablers, like a certain Stephanopolis guy) you would thing he was bombing stuff recently. What sort of image does he have locally?


Laleh 05.05.08 at 4:50 pm


dsquared 05.05.08 at 5:14 pm

I’ve heard of Kathy’s blog but I just don’t seem to be able to find it.


thompsaj 05.05.08 at 5:52 pm

D2, I heard it was just a myth…


MR. Bill 05.05.08 at 5:57 pm

Thanks laleh. I’ve read the Wikipedia article on Ayres, but wanted a sense of how he was viewed on the home turf.


badger 05.05.08 at 6:50 pm

Unicef snubs backbiting internally! Hoot! Aplastic suspenders!


Bloix 05.05.08 at 7:37 pm

Hooray for Kathy G!


Crystal 05.05.08 at 10:12 pm

Welcome Kathy, and I’m looking forward to reading what you have to say.


Jim A. 05.06.08 at 3:01 am

I, too, was looking forward to reading Kathy’s posts, and I decided to check out her blog. The first thing I see is an effort to silence both Phyllis Schlafly and Chris Matthews at Washington University commencement. Should we just create a national board of feminists and multiculturalists to approve all commencement speakers for political orthodoxy? Whatever happened to Justice Brandeis’s “the cure for bad speech is more speech”? Deeply depressing. . . I’m offended; I think everyone should bombard the bloggers on Crooked Timber with emails demanding she be removed for her contempt for free speech and academic freedom.


Katherine 05.06.08 at 11:03 am

Looking forward to having you here. This place could do with a few more X chromosomes.


Katherine 05.06.08 at 3:14 pm

What I read, Jim A, is a campaign to stop an honorary degree being awarded to someone she believes shouldn’t be given one. What exactly is it that you find wrong with that?


Bloix 05.06.08 at 3:45 pm

Yes, not giving someone the imprimature of your university is the same as imprisoning them for what they say.


Jim A. 05.06.08 at 11:08 pm

Ms Schlafly, as I recall, has 2 degrees from Washington University, so presumably the University has legitimate interests in honoring her. Why is it always academic feminists who try to silence speakers rather than debate with them? Is one not allowed to be a woman political activist unless one fits pre-established ideological criteria? Evidently not.


Katherine 05.07.08 at 11:08 am

So, stopping an honorary degree is now equal to silencing them? That’s a special definition of “silence” you have there. Presumably the University has legitimate interests? Why presume when you clearly don’t know? Why give the University the benefit of your presumption when you don’t give Kathy G the same benefit? Why not “presume” that she has a legitimate interest in preventing the award?

And why is it always anti-feminists who think that because feminists do Thing A (prevent an honorary degree, say) they also don’t do Thing B (debate). The two are not in fact mutually exclusive, and I think you’ll find many feminists out there debating the issues.

Comments on this entry are closed.