which is just all sorts of ass-backwards

Are you saying Althouse has a backwards ass? Now you’re commenting on her ASS? Sexist objectifier.

Look at me!  Look at me!  Look at me!

Althouse is the poster child for attention whore bloggers everywhere.

And here I thought the only appropriate reaction to this would be not unlike Homer’s after being introduced to Ned Flanders’ lecture on cider vs. juice.

If you don’t want to be laughed at, don’t do silly things.  If you want to do silly things, either keep them a secret, or develop a sense of humor.

The person who posted that at Jezebel recently posted a completely ridiculous piece about the iraq and afghanistan wars.  In fact, I can’t even really comment on Megan, because anything I said would take me to a place I don’t want to go.  I agree that Althouse’s engagement is ridiculous simply because she is ridiculous.  I personally met my so online on a political message board, when neither of us was looking.  We’ve been very happy.  There is nothing wrong with meeting someone online, it definitely beats meeting at work in my opinion.

Now I know what I’ve been doing wrong to increase my readership!  ;O

To be fair, Jezebel is not the only blog that responded in this manner to the NY Times piece concerning this issue.  Shakesville had a post up about it as well: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/love-is-in-blogosphere.html

That…Jezebel…“piece”...is just blatant assertion. “If a male blogger had foudn a consort in his comments, no one would care.” Says who? Based on what? Most of the “criticism” around here, apart from the OMG SILLY, has been not that they met online, but that they are getting married in a huge rush after only seeing each other in person for less than a month.

THAT is what I find ridiculous about the whole thing, that and the fact that Althouse felt the need to mock a gay man for pointing out that a “we’ve seen each other once” relationship is worth more than a 5-year-living-together relationship, due to the gender of the participants.

Essie, that quote is from the New York Times article, and Althouse said it.

I’m totally on board the “Althouse is nutty” train.  Her random attack on Jessica for daring to have breasts in front of Bill Clinton was insane.

But I still see the point they’re trying to make at Jezebel and Shakesville.  I know that Amanda has written a lot about how the voices of female bloggers are perceived, even in progressive circles.

Let’s not even get into her use of the word “consort” WTF?

I can’t get through most of Althouse’s posts because of the “ME ME ME” factor but I have read the links asscociated with this paricular issue.

What strikes me is that she repeatedly states that people who have blog sites or who otherwise put themselves in the spotlight are up for grabs, they have not just left themselves open for mockery but they deserve it and should not be shocked when they receive it.

Except for her.

The other thing that strikes me is that I am now thinking waaayyy too much about Ann Althouse. Thanks, Jesse.

I think I’m starting to catch on to the basic drift of all of this from Jesse’s accusers.

Essentially, the reason that his criticism of Althouse is inescapably sexist is that it’s marriage we’re talking about. Making fun of a woman’s engagement is misogyny in all cases, because marriage is the apex of the female experience, as distinct from the male experience. Mocking engagement is mocking womanhood, full stop.

I have noticed a tendency at Jezebel to be a bit overprotective of female media figures, even conservative ones that have no problems with attacking progressive women.  I didn’t read the post because I figured it was another “making fun of Sarah Palin, Meghan McCain, insert conservative woman here, means liberals are sexist post.” 

Not that some liberals aren’t sexist or that conservative women can’t be victims of sexism, but seriously, can you really bitch about people focusing on your personal life when you post cutesy shit begging them to?

Ann Althouse is the Paris Hilton of blogging and no one needs to defend her from the attention she so obviously craves.

Essie, that quote is from the New York Times article, and Althouse said it.

I realize that, but the blogger agrees with it based on…no evidence whatsoever.

“Ann said so” isn’t evidence. It’s assertion.

I think the best way to slight an attention consultant is to ignore him or her.

If the blogs swore off althouse mocking for even a week, can you imagine the fireworks?  Stop feeding the beast!  We are playing into her game.

Thank you Ms. Kate! My thoughts exactly.

This whole thing is just weeeeeeird, and kind of makes me feel embarrassed for Ms. Althouse.

ps agree with Auguste

I would find it hilariously ludicrous if a fan of Mike S. Adams or that Confederate Yankee guy or that Ace Of Spades guy managed to develop a relationship with him that led to an engagement.  _Because they’re horrible_.  That’s also how I feel about Althouse.  I mean, yes, gender is a factor of all things, but it’s quite peculiar to think that a straight relationship between a male blogger and a female commenter would be considered hunky-dory by all, and thus that Althouse is getting a special kind of sexist condescension.

Odds are even they’ll be divorced within a year.

Damn, why did I follow the links to Althouse?

I just can’t understand why she can’t admit that the comments in her Valenti piece were sexist and crude.

I can see how, if Bill Clinton’s oral fixation is your fixation, you might make a joke out of a pretty brunette standing next to the President.

But when said pretty brunette comes to your site and asks for you to stop commenting about her boobs, the proper response is not to attack her for having them.  She was dressed appropriately.  She wasn’t posing provocatively.  Her request to be treated with respect and not as a sex object is one that any real feminist would grant, and the decent ones would offer an apology.

Althouse is quick to delete posts that are critical of her.  She was happy to leave up nastiness and sexism in regard to Jessica Valenti, and to this day still refuses to acknowledge that the comments about boobs originated in her site/comments, and her failure to acknowledge that it was perhaps inappropriate to continue when politely asked to stop and her failure corral her commenters is what irritated others and called her own feminist credentials, such as they are, into question.

I would find it hilariously ludicrous if a fan of Mike S. Adams or that Confederate Yankee guy or that Ace Of Spades guy managed to develop a relationship with him that led to an engagement.  _Because they’re horrible_.  That’s also how I feel about Althouse.  I mean, yes, gender is a factor of all things, but it’s quite peculiar to think that a straight relationship between a male blogger and a female commenter would be considered hunky-dory by all, and thus that Althouse is getting a special kind of sexist condescension.

Bingo.  My comment was that I thought the marriage would be a disaster because of Althouse’s narcissism and lack of self-knowledge.  I would make exactly the same comment if, God help us, Adam Yoshida announced he was getting hitched.

Although that last one would be even funnier than Althouse.

I would make exactly the same comment if, God help us, Adam Yoshida announced he was getting hitched.

Although that last one would be even funnier than Althouse.

Especially if it were to one of his regular commenters…

Since I’m more of a Jezebel commenter than a Pandagon commenter (indeed, Megan proposes marriage to me in her post) let’s just say this, Jesse.  I don’t see where she says that your argument is sexist.  I think she says the level and tone of the reaction is kinda sexist, since if Ezra got engaged to a woman commenter off his blog tomorrow you’d all be clapping your hands off.

I’m a pretty unrepentant liberal/feminist, and I hate Althouse with the fire of a thousand suns, but I’ve been reading your posts on this little episode and thinking to myself “yeesh, this is kind of an overreaction and furthermore kind of mean.”  Blogging is an exercise in self-regard; every blogger I’ve ever read enjoys his fanbase and gets indignant when criticized.  So if that’s your issue with Althouse, I’d say you’re missing the mark by about twenty miles.

What Pilgrim Soul said. Would any of Althouse’s critics consider taking the high road, which would mean just saying “best wishes” and moving on to the next subject?

I wanted to comment on that Jezebel thread but then thought the better of it.
I was rather astounded that they don’t personally KNOW Althouse but are willing to back her up simply for having ovaries - not realizing how repugnant she really is.

Caren ye pancake girl said:
“I just can’t understand why she can’t admit that the comments in her Valenti piece were sexist and crude. “

I think I can answer your question, if you will permit us both the momentary discomfort of me channelling Ms. A for a moment:

Because I wasn’t wrong, I’m never wrong, you ignorant fool.  Why can’t you be open and respectful like me, you petty little no-class creep?

Oh, Dan.  Please.  Try harder.  Whether or not Ezra is a buffoon is up for discussion, one supposes, but point being, it doesn’t really matter.  The point I made is that there is nothing inherently objectionable in this small compartment of Ms. Althouse’s life.  I can imagine a number of grounds on which I could compose multiple blog posts criticizing her, but none of these would center on her dating habits.  Who gives a rat’s ass?  Why is Jesse particularly incensed about this strange fact?  There’s a lot of buffoon behaviour going on by men in the public eye, but I don’t see him getting up in arms about that.

But let me teach you a little something about what not to do when a member of a marginalised group - by gender, sexual preference, race, etc - observes something about larger systemic forces at play.  Read this, in particular the section headed “But That Happens to Me Too!”

I try not to entangle too many of my remaining brain cells with Althouse (oh, but I do miss Altmouse!) but it seems to me that hereabouts, anyway, the criticism boils down to

A) “Althouse—YUK!” and

B) the woman is doing something stupid. If she were our friend, we’d be saying the same stuff only more urgently. One reason she is not our friend is that she is stupid, in the way that’s all entangled with evil so you can’t tell which causes which, whereas our friends would probably avoid doing something quite so stupid themselves and listen to sensible, well-intentioned advice at least enough to give themselves some pause.

But anyway, she’s jumping off a bridge, metaphorically speaking, and to say that we’d be A-OK with a male blogger that we liked doing the exact same thing is to say that we’d all jump off bridges if one of these cool guys did it first.

Except that that’s not our idea of cool.

And I personally do find it kind of easier to imagine some fairly respectable, seemingly sane male blogger making this mistake, including the bit about getting snitty with naysayers, and then regretting it not long after, than the women bloggers—because in our society a woman does have to try harder, learn harder lessons sooner, and develop some smarts. So they wouldn’t make this mistake in the first place.

Again, why all the attention for the pathological narcissist?  Why don’t we torture her instead, and organize a link-free, comment-free, thread-free Outhouse-out.

Then sit back and watch the explosions as she ups the ante.

There’s a lot of buffoon behaviour going on by men in the public eye, but I don’t see him getting up in arms about that.

This is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard, and that includes any and all statements by Ann Althouse.

Why is Jesse particularly incensed about this strange fact?  There’s a lot of buffoon behaviour going on by men in the public eye, but I don’t see him getting up in arms about that.

You have literally never read this site, have you?

Jesse - I have read this site every day for six months.  You are very upset about nothing except that it has been vaguely implied that your jumping down Althouse’s throat on this one particular subject - her personal life - when most everything else you’ve ever had to say here looks pretty policy/ideas based to me - is kind of ridiculous.  But it is the reaction I have learned to see from men whenever it is implied that they may themselves have (accidentally!) done something male-privileged.

Concern troll’s lack of ever having read Pandagon before doesn’t lessen the concern, nosiree.

Look. There is a daily war of rhetoric going on among blogs, and it’s not just tied to policy. It never has been. Althouse (both the person, and the blog community) is one of the foremost combatants in that war of rhetoric, lobbing personal bombs left and right.

Abhor the battle if you wish, but don’t pretend that Althouse deserves any special (i.e. unafforded to others) immunity.

Why is Jesse particularly incensed about this strange fact?  There’s a lot of buffoon behaviour going on by men in the public eye, but I don’t see him getting up in arms about that.

Actually, I don’t think Jesse was “incensed” or “up in arms” so much as horrified and amused at the same time.

Jesse - I have read this site every day for six months.  You are very upset about nothing except that it has been vaguely implied that your jumping down Althouse’s throat on this one particular subject - her personal life - when most everything else you’ve ever had to say here looks pretty policy/ideas based to me - is kind of ridiculous.  But it is the reaction I have learned to see from men whenever it is implied that they may themselves have (accidentally!) done something male-privileged.

I love it when people absorb a single part of a complex sociological dynamic.

Also, a brief question: suppose I were female.  Would you be saying anything if my expression of high amusement (which is how I approach most thing around here) were being mischaracterized by someone as “very upset” and “jumping down someone’s throat”?

It’s just odd how in your rampant desire to find an expression of my privilege you’re imputing a level of out of control hysteria that’s simply not there.

PilgrimSoul:  Before you keep going down this road, you may want to look up Jesse’s posts in the last month. You’ll notice that Althouse is, especially recently, a favorite subject of ridicule for him.  Which is why I am not inclined to label his current mockery sexist, since it is how he generally treats Althouse and is not exceptional as you imply.

Jesse - I’m doing nothing of the sort.  I’m not making myself clear, obviously, but my point is this: you’re overreacting to Megan’s (and I guess now my) vague implication, which to me, makes your position rather more suspect.

I haven’t yet actually said I think you’re sexist, though I do think you’re kinda mean on this subject.  I asked some rhetorical questions that implied sexism could appear to be at work.  From this, you have decided that I am the one with the hysterical overreaction, when, in fact, your level of agita seems to be way higher than mine.

And trust me, I call women sexist all the time.  The problem with systems of oppression is that they are systems, so they tend to pop up everywhere.  I call Megan out on Jezebel for this kind of thing often too.  This has little to do with your being a dude, it seems to me.  It has more to do with the fact that women in the blogopshere - including some of your fair colleagues - get a ton of shit thrown at them, and it sucks, and when the shit is largely irrelevant to any view they hold on anything - as here - I feel free to tell people they needn’t pile on.

And trust me, I call women sexist all the time.  The problem with systems of oppression is that they are systems, so they tend to pop up everywhere.  I call Megan out on Jezebel for this kind of thing often too.  This has little to do with your being a dude, it seems to me.  It has more to do with the fact that women in the blogopshere - including some of your fair colleagues - get a ton of shit thrown at them, and it sucks, and when the shit is largely irrelevant to any view they hold on anything - as here - I feel free to tell people they needn’t pile on.

Do women get shit thrown at them on the Internet because they’re women?  Yes.
Do men get shit thrown at them on the Internet because they’re men?  Generally, no.

So far, so good.  Here’s your problem…

Do both women and men get shit thrown at them on the Internet?  Oh, God, yes to both.  The Internet is a system for snarking and insulting people you’d be perfectly reasonable to on the bus.

The problem with seeing a “system of oppression” pop up everywhere is that you start seeing it when it doesn’t apply.  I’m willing to believe that Jesse is an occasionally petty snarker; however, I’m of the firm opinion he applies that without a gender bias.  We’re giving Althouse crap because she’s a narcissist who we like beating up on, not because she’s female.

Allow me to ask a question - how exactly would someone go about falsifying your belief that they are being sexist in picking on a blogger who happened to be female?

Look, it’s one thing to say that there was sexist mockery of Sarah Palin mixed in with all the other mockery, and that we don’t have to uphold Palin’s views to stand up against sexist mockery aimed at her.  That’s a comprehensible ethical position to take.  But this is bizarrely tautological instead.  You’re standing up to defend Ann Althouse against Jesse’s sexist—or sexist-toned—mockery, which would be satisfyingly ethical…  if there was, like, a sexist part.  Where is it?  Being mean to Ann Althouse isn’t “being mean to Ann Althouse because she’s a silly girl.”  Don’t fall for her act.

Most of the “criticism” around here, apart from the OMG SILLY, has been not that they met online, but that they are getting married in a huge rush after only seeing each other in person for less than a month.

This.

For all the folks defending Althouse and saying that relationships that begin online are perfectly normal, umm… she didn’t just get into a relationship with the dude.  She met him once and is now engaged to be married to him.  After meeting him in real life once.  As in one time.

No, there is nothing particularly bizzarre anymore about getting into a relationship with a partner who you originally met online.

There is something VERY bizarre about jumping into an engagement to be married with someone who you have only met once face to face.

DTG, some people also think there is something very bizarre about a man marrying another man, or a woman marrying another woman, or people of nominally different races marrying, etc.

I think the key words here are “consenting adults”.  That isn’t to say that I wouldn’t express my reservations if somebody I cared about were doing this sort of thing ... but that I don’t know Ms. Outhouse and I see that both she and her groom are old enough to consent (if not know what they are doing) so I don’t consider any of it to be my business.

Oh, and Pilgrim Soul?  Since when does calling out stupidity coming out of a woman’s mouth constitute sexism?  Sorry if the downside of equality is being treated like everybody else when you get narcissistic and idiotic. 

Having a vagina is not and never should be a “get out of accountability free” card.

What people like Pilgrm Soul are forgetting is context.  The announcement that Althouse was marrying a commentor came a few days after a big to-do about anti-semetic comments on Althouse’s blog, with Prof. Althouse insisting that her commentors weren’t really antisemites, and anyway, she didn’t control them.  Following that discussion almost immediately with an annoucement of impending marriage to a blog commentor was pretty damn bizarre . . .