Time On My Mind
Time Magazine is a huge player amongst news periodicals. So what does it want with me, or other blawgers for that matter? Well, the best I can figure is that the blawgosphere is where the buzz begins, and no matter how huge and credible a magazine may be, anything requiring dead trees in the virtual age requires internet buzz to survive.
For a while now, I've been receiving weekly emails from Jen Nedeau, a publicist at Time, trying to get me to write about its column by Adam Cohen, described as "a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board." He's also a "Research Scholar in Law, Kauffman Fellow, Information Society Project, and Lecturer in Law" at Yale Law School. Not too shabby.
Nonetheless, the publicist is pumping out emails, with advance copies of his column, to wet a mere blawger's whistle. No doubt the publicist has been trying to catch the interest of plenty of other blawgers as well, since buzz isn't built in a single blawg. I've read his columns, and they're fine. Dumbed down a bit for the benefit of the public, but well-written, well analyzed and on target.
The major problem with the columns, from my blawger's perspective, is that they cover territory that has already been thoroughly covered within the blawgosphere, well after that fact and in far less depth. What would I write about them, that they are similar to something I wrote a week earlier but more superficial and less pointed?
More striking to me was that Cohen's columns had never, but never, quoted or cited to a blawg. We're good enough to be used to promote him, but not good enough to be worthy of a mention? Where's the love, Adam? You want something from the blawgosphere but give nothing in return?
So when I received the email from the publicist with his latest column, I replied:
Had I written this post yesterday, it would likely be close to completion here, with a closing discussion of how the blawgosphere is about give and take, and that Time Magazine's (and Adam Cohen's) effort to use blawgers for its own purposes reflects its selfishness and lack of understanding of the blawgosphere. But not today.
In the interim, Marco Randazza posted about an extraordinary and inflammatory issue that arose via one of my favorite fodder blawgs, Feminist Law Profs. That's right, Ann Bartow's ugly baby that not only finds a misogynist under every rock, but is in the forefront of diminishing free speech by decrying online anonymity, which it defines as a sexist conspiracy to attack women.
It seems that one of Cohen's columns, criticizing Judge Judith Eiler for behaving poorly (yes, just like this post of mine, except 12 days later), failed to appease someone's feminist mystique. Whose mystique, you ask? Well, that's hard to say, since the lawprof attacking Cohen chose to remain anonymous. Anonymous? An anonymous attack by the very same people who demand that no one be allowed to say anything negative on the internet ever again? Yup. Them would be the folks.
And not just an ordinary attack. Oh no, not just an ordinary attack at all, but a particularly vicious, even outrageous attack, under the title "Memo to Yale Law School Professor Adam Cohen: “What Price Waterhouse did is like saying ‘nigger.’”
Ken at Popehat calls it an "ideology-addled polemic," which only "academicians and theoreticians can see," thus using up his weekly quota of polysyllabic words in one shot.
Had you asked me yesterday morning whether I would end a post about Adam Cohen with a defense, I would have laughed. Ha! And yet, there's absolutely no question but that this screed by an anonymous lawprof is absurd15 (meaning, absurd to the 15th power, not a footnote. I'm trying to incorporate scientific notation into my writing with greater frequency these days.). It's further proof of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, as well as evidence that lawprofs are not immune from the lure of ridiculous anonymous attacks. It is, without question, nuts.
But none of this alters the fact that Time Magazine, home of Person of the Year, major news source, and Adam Cohen, lawyer, Yale law-something and not a misogynist (at least from what I can see), need to learn a bit about giving as well as receiving.
For a while now, I've been receiving weekly emails from Jen Nedeau, a publicist at Time, trying to get me to write about its column by Adam Cohen, described as "a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board." He's also a "Research Scholar in Law, Kauffman Fellow, Information Society Project, and Lecturer in Law" at Yale Law School. Not too shabby.
Nonetheless, the publicist is pumping out emails, with advance copies of his column, to wet a mere blawger's whistle. No doubt the publicist has been trying to catch the interest of plenty of other blawgers as well, since buzz isn't built in a single blawg. I've read his columns, and they're fine. Dumbed down a bit for the benefit of the public, but well-written, well analyzed and on target.
The major problem with the columns, from my blawger's perspective, is that they cover territory that has already been thoroughly covered within the blawgosphere, well after that fact and in far less depth. What would I write about them, that they are similar to something I wrote a week earlier but more superficial and less pointed?
More striking to me was that Cohen's columns had never, but never, quoted or cited to a blawg. We're good enough to be used to promote him, but not good enough to be worthy of a mention? Where's the love, Adam? You want something from the blawgosphere but give nothing in return?
So when I received the email from the publicist with his latest column, I replied:
What's interesting, Jen, is that you send out these releases in the hope that we'll promote Cohen's article, which are invariably way behind what we've written on the subject, yet Cohen never cites to or quotes from our work. So we should help promote your client, who has never written a word to show any recognition of the work of those who he would have provide him with free publicity.Just as it's not my job to help other lawyers promote their carefully crafted internet marketing schemes, I'm not here to create buzz for Time Magazine. Jen responded by saying that she totally understood where I'm coming from, and that she would pull me from her list of email recipients. Obviously, the alternative response, that she would let Adam Cohen know that if he wants a little attention from the blawgosphere, he should consider giving a little in return, was not an option.
You live on a very interesting one-way street.
Had I written this post yesterday, it would likely be close to completion here, with a closing discussion of how the blawgosphere is about give and take, and that Time Magazine's (and Adam Cohen's) effort to use blawgers for its own purposes reflects its selfishness and lack of understanding of the blawgosphere. But not today.
In the interim, Marco Randazza posted about an extraordinary and inflammatory issue that arose via one of my favorite fodder blawgs, Feminist Law Profs. That's right, Ann Bartow's ugly baby that not only finds a misogynist under every rock, but is in the forefront of diminishing free speech by decrying online anonymity, which it defines as a sexist conspiracy to attack women.
It seems that one of Cohen's columns, criticizing Judge Judith Eiler for behaving poorly (yes, just like this post of mine, except 12 days later), failed to appease someone's feminist mystique. Whose mystique, you ask? Well, that's hard to say, since the lawprof attacking Cohen chose to remain anonymous. Anonymous? An anonymous attack by the very same people who demand that no one be allowed to say anything negative on the internet ever again? Yup. Them would be the folks.
And not just an ordinary attack. Oh no, not just an ordinary attack at all, but a particularly vicious, even outrageous attack, under the title "Memo to Yale Law School Professor Adam Cohen: “What Price Waterhouse did is like saying ‘nigger.’”
It is time for Professor Cohen to be educated, and I am happy to do it: In the subtle sexism case of Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, Ann Hopkins was denied partnership at Price Waterhouse because she was not “feminine” enough. She was direct, she was unapologetic, and she had a personality that was more masculine than feminine.
When D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Harry Edwards was trying to explain to the Price Waterhouse lawyers why their client’s sexist discrimination against a woman simply because she was not “feminine” was unlawful, Judge Edwards finally said in frustration:
If someone said “I hate Blacks,” it might be clearer to you, but you seem to suggest that sexual stereotyping is different from race stereotyping. [It is not.] What Price Waterhouse did is like saying “nigger.”
Randazza couldn't help but note the irony.Yes, Professor Useless Twat [the name ascribed by Randazza to the anonymous attacker] played the “nigger card.” Mind you, its not that she used the word, as I said last week, but what a card to play in this round of poker! Professor Useless Twat’s point was to accuse Cohen of criticizing Judge Eiler for not being “feminine” enough — as if civility in the courtroom is a “feminine” characteristic. (And somehow the “nigger card” made sense to play there).Having been a former adjunct and long-time (and outspoken) critic of lawprof orthodoxy, doublespeak, euphemistic attack culture and political correctness, not to mention First Amendment freedom fighter, Marc explains his defense.
And in academia, if he dared to defend himself, Cohen would run the risk of just pushing the barb in deeper. I don’t know Cohen. I might actually hate him if I met him (or I might think he’s the greatest guy ever). I don’t care. I feel compelled to defend him, because it is obvious what Professor Useless Twat is trying to do. I don’t know what her real issue is with Cohen, but there isn’t a shred of honesty in her accusations that his work is gender biased.
Ken at Popehat calls it an "ideology-addled polemic," which only "academicians and theoreticians can see," thus using up his weekly quota of polysyllabic words in one shot.
Had you asked me yesterday morning whether I would end a post about Adam Cohen with a defense, I would have laughed. Ha! And yet, there's absolutely no question but that this screed by an anonymous lawprof is absurd15 (meaning, absurd to the 15th power, not a footnote. I'm trying to incorporate scientific notation into my writing with greater frequency these days.). It's further proof of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, as well as evidence that lawprofs are not immune from the lure of ridiculous anonymous attacks. It is, without question, nuts.
But none of this alters the fact that Time Magazine, home of Person of the Year, major news source, and Adam Cohen, lawyer, Yale law-something and not a misogynist (at least from what I can see), need to learn a bit about giving as well as receiving.
Applause. Loud applause.
Reply to this
Aw, shucks. [sound of foot shuffling]
Reply to this
A missed opportunity to shoe horn a Cinderella, feel good Time story of the year about the blawgosphere.
Reply to this
This past two months of blogging have been worth it just to see the propagation of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Vindication courses through my veins.
I was unaware of Feminist Law Profs. It's...interesting. From their comment policy:
"There are a lot of different views expressed at this blog. That’s what academic freedom is all about."
Guess Cohen's views don't fall under that tentpole?
Reply to this
You know, I should have linked to you because it was your post that reminded me of it. As for my pals at Feminist Law Profs, they're very broad minded. (I could just kick myself for that pun.)
Reply to this
Too true. You aren't following proper social media linking etiquette! I'm off to complain about it on Twitter.
Reply to this
Whiner.
Reply to this
There aren't misogynists under every rock?
Reply to this
Sometimes, misogynists like to sun themselves on top of rocks. You know, get a nice tan.
Reply to this
The misogynists' right to choose
Reply to this
But none of this alters the fact that Time Magazine. . . and Adam Cohen. . . need to learn a bit about giving as well as receiving.
So you're saying they're too feminine. Or maybe you're saying they're not feminine enough.
Either way, buddy, you're in deep trouble now.
Reply to this
Stop trying to put everything into your misogynistic paradigm, you chauvinist pig. Oink, oink.
(You think anybody will buy this?)
Reply to this
No. no, no. By saying Adam Cohen needs to learn about giving instead of getting, Scott is clearly using code words to say that Cohen is a "greedy Jew." He should be ashamed of legitimizing such a stereotype. I know Scott Greenfield is Jewish too, but that must just mean he's a self-hating Jew.
Reply to this
After what I did to poor Niki and Mirriam the other day, I deserve this.
Reply to this
Brother man, you deserve much worse.
Reply to this
At least I'm not whining about it, or posting how it kept me up all night crying into my pillow.
Reply to this
At least.
Reply to this
It's significantly worse than a common application of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. There's a distinction to be made between feeling uninhibited because you're in an anonymous environment and actively seeking out anonymity to attack someone in academia which is generally not an anonymous forum.
GIFT seeks to explain why normal people become fuckwads when anonymous. In this case however, it's obvious that some people are just fuckwads to begin with.
Reply to this
But at least she knows it, which is why she took refuge in anonymity. I suspect that most people are as well, and merely put on a happy face when people will recognize them to avoid the repercussions of people realizing theyre a fuckwad.
Reply to this
I'm kind of disappointed we haven't had a whiny post yet about how this is all part of the patriarchal phallocentric effort to keep women down.
Reply to this
I'm always open to being educated.
Reply to this
Do those people read this blog and comment? I read Audre Lorde and Marilyn Frye. The failed to mention this blog in any of their writings.
Reply to this
You can bet your ass they read it. When you post a link to FLP, it automatically generates a comment "Trackback".
You have to manually go in and delete that. so, if you look at FLP posts, you'll find that blog references that they consider to be "positive" remain up -- but those that are not approved are "disappeared."
I think they made sure to permanently ban mine when I did a post that just had a just a picture of a rubber cock on it, and laughed at all the trackback traffic that came through from it.
Reply to this
I had never heard of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. It is divine in its simplicity.
Also, between this and Randazza's punching the aspiring paparazzo on the nude beach, I'm going to have to subscribe to his blog.
Reply to this
Randazza's blawg is terrific, but be warned. He is not polite. He is irreverent. He does not write teary-eyed, empathetic posts about angst, personal misery and his deepest feelings. And he does not suffer fools happily.
Reply to this
Dude, seriously? Not everyone only likes hamburger. This whole thing is getting old. Randazza is brilliant. So he's not angsty. If I feel like angsty I know where to go. Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.
Reply to this
Crassus: Do you eat oysters?
Antoninus: When I have them, master.
Crassus: Do you eat snails?
Antoninus: No, master.
Crassus: Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral, and the eating of snails to be immoral?
Antoninus: No, master.
Crassus: Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?
Antoninus: Yes, master.
Crassus: And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals, hmm?
Antoninus: It could be argued so, master.
Crassus: My robe, Antoninus. My taste includes both snails and oysters.
Reply to this
I don't believe angsty is a word. Do you, Antoninus?
Reply to this
Hamburger isn't quite the foodstuff I would use. Not too many people have the urge to switch between Sirloin and baby food. Did you happen to notice that Randazza's critique of FLP wasn't exactly civil and respectful. You can't have it both ways, dudette. At least not while maintaining any semblence of credibility.
Reply to this
Are you saying you have to choose between being civil and respectful and not at all times. Pick one and be done with it? That sounds like a load of crap. Just saying.
Reply to this
I'm saying what I'm saying, which is kinda the opposite of what you're hearing. If being civil and respectful were the primary motivator of blawgers, then Randazza's post would be an outrage. And yet, you say Randazza is brilliant. So is it brilliant or is he horrible because he's uncivil and disrespectful? Or is it all about who's ox is gored, and it's fine so long as it isn't some delicate teacup who demands that the blawgosphere be the Happysphere?
Blawgers can't credibly demand that other blawgers be civil and respectful toward them and their pals while applauding uncivil and disrespectful toward others. And that's what I'm saying.
Reply to this
It's brilliant. Randazza picked on people who think they are untouchable and he 'gored' them. Good for him.
Reply to this
Randazza didn't "pick on" anyone. He merely expressed his opinion in reaction to an opinion published elsewhere. Use of the phrase "picked on" suggests a serious misunderstanding of both Randazza's effort as well as the relative obligations between Randazza and anyone he chooses to write about.
Randazza would never pick on anyone. He will, however, express a contrary opinion when he believes it appropriate. Only bullies "pick on" others. Randazza would never be a bully, even if those he "gored" seek to characterize him that way to cover their own inadequancy and blunt the force of his response.
Reply to this
I gathered as much. There's room for both.
Reply to this
That's very hermaphroditic of you.
Reply to this