Two assumptions that I don’t think are supported yet:

One, that this tweet appeared on Rep. Weiner’s twitter at all. The creep who ‘broke’ the story is the only person who retweeted it, and he did it the old-style “RT” way which doesn’t ensure the original one existed. Has anyone actually turned up a credible screenshot of this tweet on Rep. Weiner’s feed?

Two, that if he did send that picture, that it “means he’s cheating on his wife and is generally an asshole.” I imagine the readers and commenters of Pandagon can envision at least a few other possibilities, some which make Weiner an asshole and others which don’t.

Yeah, when the RT is done manually, it can be easily faked. I see people do fate RTs of celebs -all- the time.

It looks like it was some asshole mocking a girl and her crush on Weiner by pretending that Weiner sent her a penis picture. And now the story is being circulated by people who don’t understand how the internet/Twitter work as “Weiner tweets penis picture.” So frustrating.

Amanda, you forgot the other refuge for women:  become a Rethuglican.  After all, IOKIYAR.

I suspect that Dan Wolfe (he of the subtle Twitter monicker patriotusa76) is about to be treated to the same scrutiny and invasion of privacy he’s delivered to this young woman. Since actual adults don’t have time for this nonsense unless (like Breitbart) they’re getting paid for it by a Libertarian sugar daddy, my money is on the usual frustrated mope living in his mom’s basement looking for his moment of fame.

I can imagine how this went down. Wolfe is a typical conservative loser (“No elitists need apply,” indeed) who bitterly obsesses over a popular Dem politician. Being an 1337 haxor, he investigates Weiner’s background using the sophisticated penetration attack known as “checking out someone’s Twitter followers.”

There Danny finds paydirt: hawt young chix who should be following his Reagan-worshipping Tweets are instead following his nemesis. This is an opportunity to strike back at both Weiner and the many young women who’ve rejected his creepy and awkward approaches over the years.

Using other 1337 hacks such as the mysterious “using a proxy server,” the outre “manual retweet,” and the esoteric “Photoshop manipulation,” he takes his revenge, delivering it via a known liar to a lazy and sensation-hungry MSM on a slow holiday weekend.

Sound about right?

One of two things happened here: either Representative Weiner mistakenly sent what was supposed to be a private message as a regular tweet, which means he’s cheating on his wife and is generally an asshole, or someone else posted the tweet and the picture, and everyone involved is suffering from the act of some anonymous asshole who thinks weiner jokes are de rigueur.

As Djur said, more than one option.

Three, Representative Weiner mistakenly sent what was supposed to be a private message as a regular tweet, but he intended on sending it to his wife, so he’s not a cheating asshole.

Four, Representative Weiner mistakenly sent what was supposed to be a private message as a regular tweet, he intended on sending it to a friend as a joke, so he’s maybe not an asshole.

Five, Representative Weiner mistakenly sent what was supposed to be a private message as a regular tweet, but he and his wife have an open relationship and he sent it to someone and it’s okay with her so he’s not an asshole.

Oh and I just fucking hate the word “coed.”  There’s no special word for male students, is there?  The assumption is that a woman in education is special somehow, extraordinary!  Bleh.

Has anybody asked where Favre was this weekend?

As context for the following question: I am not on the twitterz, so I only have a vague understanding of these things.

What is the significance—if any—of the fact that Weiner has tens of thousands of followers, but he only follows a couple hundred twitterers, and among those twitterers he follows are some young women? I ask, because one of those right-wing freakshows linked to in Jesse’s post is asserting that it is a fair inference from Weiner’s following young women that he is a perv.

@7

I noticed that as well. If someone, in the year 2011, still uses the term “coed” to describe female college students it’s not a good sign.

What is the significance—if any—of the fact that Weiner has tens of thousands of followers, but he only follows a couple hundred twitterers, and among those twitterers he follows are some young women?

From what I’ve read, he seems to have followed her soon after he set up the account. The wingnuts are claiming this as evidence of a long-term affair, but it’s more likely that (as with many newbies) Weiner thought that the way the social aspect of Twitter worked was that when some random person follows you, you’re supposed to follow them. It wouldn’t take long for a high-profile person to discover or be clued into the fact that this is not the way it works, and stop following every single person who happens to follow him.

My tween niece just went through something similar. She told me the other day that her Tumblr has over 1000 followers/fans/likers (which is a bit disturbing), and that at first she thought she had to follow/fan/like them, too.

I can’t wait for Ann Althouse to weigh in!

Possibly Gracchus.  Another possibility is that she specifically asked him to follow her.  If you follow any one on twitter with any sort of “celebrity” whatsover, you will find that some of their fans do ask them, please give me a follow.  They often will tweet this until they get what they asked for.  It’s not something I do, but I definitely see people doing it.

So it’s very possible that Weiner just follows people who specifically ask him to, to be polite. 

I find this all very interesting because of course, many on the right insist that Weiner is a closeted gay who married Hillary’s former assistant, whom they long insisted was Hillary’s secret gay lover, as a beard for both of them.

So, either he is a closeted gay, or he is a perverted stalker of hot young girls.  When they get their stories, I hope they don’t bother letting me know. 

This stalking of the girl is very disturbing, and the NY Time’s article about Weiner was victim-blaming at its finest.  Personally I believe that once Breibert is involved, that’s all I need to know.  This was a hack job and a right wing attack.  If it ends up it’s not, then it’ll be the first time I’ve been wrong about that sack of shit, the lowest life form on this planet, Breibert.

LOL @ Kitten parade!

Oh man, just when I thought things couldn’t get more fucked up!

Yeah, Breitbart isn’t capable of telling the truth.  It’s too deep in his psyche.

Other than one small quibble - I feel the term should be “erection laden underwear” - I agree wholeheartedly with Jesse’s post.

@#5 Yes, I’d say that was about right.

Thanks for the explanations!

I can’t wait for Ann Althouse to weigh in!

Heh. I’m also sure that MoDo will use this as another opportunity to play out her on-going psychodrama on the NYT op-ed pages. “I ‘m a single woman with a Twitter account, so why don’t manly-men Dem politicians send their penis pics to meeeee?”

So it’s very possible that Weiner just follows people who specifically ask him to, to be polite.

Definitely another option. It’s a variation on autograph hounds.

There was also the possibility that a ghost-Tweeter on his staff was logged into the wrong account, but it’s been demonstrated that the screenshot had Weiner’s account name ‘Shopped in. So in the end it’s just another in a series of Breitbart hoaxes.

@15 The truth causes Breitbart pain.  He has to make all truth go away.

Gracchus, if your niece’s tumblr is about shows and celebrities she likes (I’m not sure what else a 13 year-old would tumble about?), 1000 followers is pretty typical and not (imo) a cause for concern.  The vast majority of them are probably within a couple years of her in age.

Gracchus, if your niece’s tumblr is about shows and celebrities she likes (I’m not sure what else a 13 year-old would tumble about?), 1000 followers is pretty typical and not (imo) a cause for concern.  The vast majority of them are probably within a couple years of her in age.

Yeah, that’s pretty much it. Photos of celebrities, music, fashion, cute animals and not much else with comments like “I love this song!.” I found it odd that anyone outside her circle of real-life friends would follow her, but you’re right. More importantly, she’s very responsible re: Internet safety.

I am not sure a twenty-one year old who wants this whole thing to go away is the most reliable judge of what might have been appropriate.

It goes without saying that young women shouldn’t be allowed to use the computer without waiting periods and counseling sessions.

Of course, weeks of harassment followed by her name and sexual proclivities being blasted all over the internet this weekend led her to try to shut off her online profiles and information (I’m sure it had nothing to do with the New York Post using this picture of her, either).  She shouldn’t have done that, though. Only guilty, sexy coeds do that.

Oh my god, this cycle pisses me off:
1) Attractive young woman is involved in scandal
2) Said woman is subjected to massive Internet harassment
3) Woman attempts to remove herself from Internet-public view
4) “Well if you’re not guilty, attractive young woman, what are you hiding from?”

She’s hiding from the massive swarm of entitled, sexist harassers, asshole. I just love the assumption that women are supposed to just accept the harassment - maybe even appreciate it! Because why else are they going around being attractive if not to be rubbed up against (literally or virtually) by creepy entitled dudes?

What the fuck do I care even if 500 random Intertubes people actually want to have sex with Weiner? What the fuck do I care if he actually has (consensual) sex with all 500 of them? Not only do I not understand this fucked-up country any more, I’m tired of even trying. Is everything going so great for everyone that we can all afford to mind everybody else’s business? Christ.

Oh and I just fucking hate the word “coed.”  There’s no special word for male students, is there?  The assumption is that a woman in education is special somehow, extraordinary!  Bleh

I was highly amused to note, as an example of problems with using an American controlled vocabulary, the subject heading “coed prisons”...

The one good thing about my computer having a virus this weekend is that I missed this dog and pony show.

Don’t have the heart to read more about it.

@Daisy #13:

Personally I believe that once Breibert is involved, that’s all I need to know.

Bingo. We’ve been over this again and again with ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, and whatever the hell else I can’t remember now. It’s never the straight story when Breitbart is involved. Never.

Hate, hate, HATE the word “coed”. It might have served a purpose at one point, but considering it usually implies a ditzy womanchild going to college for an MRS degree (I don’t know about all y’all but I didn’t know *any* of that type of woman when I was in college), the only place it’s even remotely inoffensive is in amateur sports, and even then there should probably be a better word for it.

Co-gender(ed).  Mixed gender(ed).  I’ve seen mix gender/gendered mostly when someone think to use something other than coed.  Coed doesn’t even make sense applied to sports though, as sports is not generally considered education, but recreation. 
Coed as a noun usually makes me think of pron (soft or the girl gone wild variety or unimaginative hard) or someone my grandmother’s age + talking about when she was a girl.

helen:

I think “coed” in sports is sort of an artifact title. It doesn’t literally mean what it’s being used to mean, but it’s sort of like saying you’re “taping” a show when you’re recording it on a DVR or DVD burner, or calling someone who plays music off of a laptop a DJ. Semantically, it’s inaccurate, but everyone understands the reference so there’s no real point in being picky about it. (Of course, the gender loading and belittling connotations of the word “coed” put it in a slightly different category, but you get what I mean.)

What the fuck do I care even if 500 random Intertubes people actually want to have sex with Weiner? What the fuck do I care if he actually has (consensual) sex with all 500 of them? Not only do I not understand this fucked-up country any more, I’m tired of even trying. Is everything going so great for everyone that we can all afford to mind everybody else’s business? Christ.
Comment #24: Steve LaBonne on 05/31 at 02:20 PM

That’s the whole point of this ‘scandal’ though. It strikes to the essence of America - the one that Hawthorne wrote about. We pin scarlet letters on people.

What really gets me about this is not the right wing blogosphere’s embrace, but the NY Times trying to milk it for thrills.

Breitbart is allegedly this ‘new media’ winger, but he’s nothing but the same kind of ‘operative’ who used to spread rumors - anonymously of course - or steal signs or other dirty tricks. He’s just an old fashioned rethug scumbag, but he’s being taken semi-seriously and it has to stop.

This is the first I’ve heard of this.  Is it as ridiculous as I think it is?

Adding, there’s also the next to useless “who to follow feature”. It gives me the most ridiculous random crap.

But more than that, I routinely get completely random strangers who, apparently without viewing any of my other Tweets or even reading my bio (or looking at my userpic), follow me…for a few days before deciding that my J-Pop/J-Rock and Pokemon Tweets are not to their liking and dropping me.

And I’m just like, WTF, why did you even follow me in the first place??

but it’s more likely that (as with many newbies) Weiner thought that the way the social aspect of Twitter worked was that when some random person follows you, you’re supposed to follow them. It wouldn’t take long for a high-profile person to discover or be clued into the fact that this is not the way it works, and stop following every single person who happens to follow him.

At one point, I re-Tweeted something from Stephen Colbert and ended up getting followed for a few days by Mandy Stadtmiller. O.o

So, there is that too…

What is the significance—if any—of the fact that Weiner has tens of thousands of followers, but he only follows a couple hundred twitterers, and among those twitterers he follows are some young women? I ask, because one of those right-wing freakshows linked to in Jesse’s post is asserting that it is a fair inference from Weiner’s following young women that he is a perv.

Following people that happen to be young women is not the least bit controversial! (I vaguely remember reading a post somewhere else recently about women being the “sex class”, or something. I think that would apply here. Interaction between people of opposite sexes is NOT de facto sexual.)

Now, if the implication is that young women are a disproportionately represented in his feed, well, with him, I would think too much about it.

I mean, all things considered, Rep. Weiner (who’s well know for being a strong defender of women’s rights) having women probably of various ages (but disproportionately young due to Twitter demographics), and possibly of various locations and socio-economic classes as well, be well represented on his feed (more so than men, who are well represented everywhere else)...

That’s really not something I would find the least bit surprising or suspicious.

Additionally, even if it was a real, private message, mistakenly posted public, I could kinda see “wiener” pictures being a running-joke between him and close friends.

This is the first I’ve heard of this.  Is it as ridiculous as I think it is?

Worse.  Weiner’s a big boy and able to take care of himself, which is why the wingnut attack poodles are swarming at the 22 year old in question.

This poor woman talked about her “boyfriend” Anthony Weiner.  I have friends who comment or Facebook about how stars or politicians they like are their husbands or boyfriends.  They aren’t *serious*!  It’s slang.  Or a meme.

Asshole sees innocent tweet and then stalks the poor woman, who apparently shouldn’t be allowed to determine the reality of her life.

  Patriot76 is a Clarence Thomas fan.  Thomas released a lot of financial info on Fri before a holiday.  Wiener publicized it and continued to push for him to recuse himself from the ACA cases (by rights he should be impeached).  Wiener therefore had to be put n his place.

No matter that the photo had been debunked within hours, wing nuts are still going apeshit over it.  Perhaps just to keep the news focus off Thomas.

...I just realized I put thay first blockquote in the wrong place. I meant it to C/P it at the top…

It’s what I get for watching TV while I try to post.

I can’t believe that anyone outside of the right-wing echo chambers thinks that Wiener actually sent that tweet.  They’re targeting him because he is acting like a responsible adult and therefore must be brought down, preferably in the most humiliating way possible.  Add me to the growing chorus of “if Breitbart’s involved, it’s an obvious lie.”

I don’t mind “coed” as an adjective most of the time—-it usually means mixed gender—-but as a noun, it’s inexcusable.  It’s just a way to subtly insinuate that women who live away from home while single are slatterns.

I use “coed” to describe a situation.  I have relatives, friends, and children of friends who attended all-woman colleges, my daughter attended an all-girls high school for several years, and my son attended an all-boys high school.  My (ex) wife attended an Ivy League university shortly after it started accepting women and much later had a dispute with the alumni magazine about when the school started women’s varsity sports.  (They wrote a story saying, women’s sports began, like, in 1978.  She wrote a letter to the editor saying, hey, in 1976, I was on the cover of your magazine in my varsity letter sweater.  You know, the one with the big ‘Y’.”  They responded, and I paraphrase, “Some people remember differently.”)  So the term “coed” has some meaning in my family.

:::This poor woman talked about her “boyfriend” Anthony Weiner.  I have friends who comment or Facebook about how stars or politicians they like are their husbands or boyfriends.  They aren’t *serious*!  It’s slang.  Or a meme.:::

^This.

Can I just say how much I hate all the faux umbrage by people who like to pretend that things like this are not commonplace jests between friends.

There’s a whole host of stuff that the right wing nutjobs pretend not to understand - another one that comes to mind is the continual pretending that scientific theory is no different from the common dictionary definition of the word. But that’s a subject for another thread.

@helen: I was confused about the use of coed in this context exactly because, not being from USA, the only other place I’ve ever seen the word was in porn, and I’ve always translated it vaguely as avoid, it’s more awful than average, the plot will probably be ‘woman gets humiliated, yay’.

Can I just say how much I hate all the faux umbrage by people who like to pretend that things like this are not commonplace jests between friends.

This is what I try to tell people when they pull the “well if you have nothing to hide then what’s the problem with gov’t surveillance?” line. You can take any sort of joke or goofy behavior, shine it under an intense light, strip all the humor out of it, and make it look suspicious. You can do it deliberately or just out of ignorance. But the point is, for those of us who don’t want to live like the cast of Leave It to Beaver 24/7, gov’t surveillance IS a concern, and not because we’re criminals.

@41:
I was confused about the use of coed in this context exactly because, not being from USA, the only other place I’ve ever seen the word was in porn

Unfortunately, you were probably disturbingly close to the intent of the word. When people refer to young, attractive women as “coeds” they’re probably picturing them having pillow fights in their underwear and acting out all sorts of other cheesy porn scenarios.

@Triplanetary: I did think it was a red flag about the person who used the word to describe the woman.

This poor woman talked about her “boyfriend” Anthony Weiner.  I have friends who comment or Facebook about how stars or politicians they like are their husbands or boyfriends.  They aren’t *serious*!  It’s slang.  Or a meme.

The right lost great opportunities for scandals before, because Meg Cabot has been calling Al Gore her boyfriend in her blog for years now. And also Warren Buffet and Brian Williams, that I remember. OMG GROUP SEX!

Carswell:

You think they’re pretending? I mean, some of them are, but those people count on their audience being unable to separate a) concrete from abstract, b) serious from facetious, and c) meanings in isolation vs in context. I personally find it hard to believe 99.999% of these people are incapable of making those distinctions, but most of them can’t be bothered, so, same effect.

On one of the many, many blogs I’ve seen talking about this, there was a screencap of a tweet from Rep. Weiner that basically said, “If you want me to follow you, send a message here (link)”. So, yeah—there was a time when he was following anyone that asked him to do so.

(I only sort of skimmed the comments, apologies if someone’s said this already. Also apologies for being too lazy to go back and search out which blog had the screencap in question.)

Say what you want about the term “boyfriend” being a meme.  Troy Aikman isn’t just my football boyfriend.  He is my real-life boyfriend.  He just pretends not.

BrianX,
I am well aware of the uses of coed, I just think they are stupid and inaccurate as an adjective and that there are perfectly fine substitutes (more, I gave 4) that are both easily understood and accurate.  As a noun, it is inexcuseable for anyone who would have been in college after the mid-1970s (really before IMO). 
Coed colleges - coed is an adjective.  She is a coed - WTF? No, she is woman and a college student.  Would a man be called a coed? No?  Then all it is is people using a term to say that a woman in college isn’t a student, she’s a “special” student.

I once wrote somewhere, though not on Twitter, that I would drink Rep. Weiner’s bathwater, if the opportunity presented. Some RW could make a bizarre cult of that.
I have experienced a tiny version of what the woman on Twitter experienced, writing for an Olbermann fansite. An Olbermann hatesite went through my virtual journal, took a quip out of context, then put up a post about what a wacko I was.
It was all legal, and not really anything that really bugged me, but I still felt invaded and like they have the ethics of leftovers rotted in your fridge.
Breitbart’s not even that worthwhile.

Coed colleges - coed is an adjective.  She is a coed - WTF? No, she is woman and a college student.  Would a man be called a coed? No?  Then all it is is people using a term to say that a woman in college isn’t a student, she’s a “special” student.
Comment #48: helen w. h.  on 06/01 at 09:32 AM

Thank you helen, that’s exactly it.  Referring to particular schools as coeducational institutions makes sense if you’re talking about them in contrast to single-sex institutions.  Aside from that, “coed” only means “student plus tits.”

I am reminded of a Mr Show episode where their fake newscast followed the story of a group of lost people described as “hikers and their companions,” as if the companions weren’t hikers, too.  Can’t help thinking it was prompted by real-life descriptions of groups as “[people doing something] and their wives” presumably along for the ride but with no interest or even volition of their own.  Or maybe “explorers and sherpas.”

Would a man be called a coed? No?  Then all it is is people using a term to say that a woman in college isn’t a student, she’s a “special” student.

In the US, women now outnumber men in colleges, on average. So naturally the old (sexist) guard has a vested interest in attempting to continue pushing the narrative that women in college is SOME WEIRD NEW THING, rather than the norm.

“hikers and their companions,”

My most recent pet peeve is “nerds something, women something else”. I lost account of how many times this last week I’ve seen that. The worst of all was a book “Nerd Jokes” I opened in a random page in a bookstore. The first joke on the page: “Nerd fathers don’t have sons, they have padawans.” The second joke: “Pretty women need to learn that today’s nerd is tomorrow’s billionaire.” There’s a magazine on the stands with Nerd Power on the cover (and only talking about white male nerds.) But I’ve seen this implication that women are not nerds from other sources where I expected better, like PZ and Jonathan Coulton...

There’s a magazine on the stands with Nerd Power on the cover (and only talking about white male nerds.) But I’ve seen this implication that women are not nerds from other sources where I expected better, like PZ and Jonathan Coulton…
Comment #52: colorlessblue on 06/02 at 02:54 PM

I didn’t necessarily read PZ’s post as saying that nerds and women are disjoint sets, but it could be taken that way, since “Nerds will find hilarity in the computer interfaces, women will rage at the gender stereotypes.” could be read as “nerds will find it funny, women will not” rather than “nerds will find the computer interface portions funny, women will find the gender stereotype parts infuriating.”

Though thinking it through, men *should* be just as ragey about the gender stereotypes.

I agree that, if I had seen only that PZ sentence and nothing else, I’d give it a pass, but I just can’t deny that it falls into the general pattern. Plus, as you say, men should be bothered by gender stereotypes too, and there’s lots of tech savvy women who’d rather focus on the nerdy parts. There’s also how it’s taken by the audience, even without intent: there’s a guy in the comments going “women won’t get angry cos women have sense of humor. Feminists will get angry cos they love to get offended by no reason.” And so on…

completely ignoring that many feminists (if not most) are a subset of women, total logic fail before even getting into the rest of the arguement.

Even women who aren’t feminists can be annoyed by negative stereotypes. 

If the person believes that men and women are different but in glorious wonderful ways that don’t include women wanting to spend all the money their hard working menz earn, they’d dislike that specific stereotype.