I realize that this may seem a little disingenuous, since I’m not the most tolerant blawger when it comes to people who refuse to put much thought into criminal justice issues, but I’m a piker compared to this.
When I posted about Lawprof Deanna Sacks’ article proposing to create a cause of action for sexual fraudulent inducement, I wondered whether my position was really some male misogynistic perspective or whether women, somewhat less radical than Sacks, thought the same thing. Mind you, I don’t see anything anti-feminist about objecting to insanely stupid ideas, but then, agreeing with myself is a form of mental masturbation. Meaning, I could be wrong.
Of course, I wasn’t the only one who thought this was just plain nuts. Marc Randazza, lawprof and 1st Amendment maven, thought so too. For his efforts, he was bobbitized in effigy, having broken the sacred oath of orthodoxy to which all non-Libertarian lawprofs are sworn. Marc’s problem is that he has a sense of humor, which is treason to radicals. He is thus dismissed as having a bad attitude. This may be true, but he’s still a funny guy.
In contrast, consider the Presiding Justice of the Court of Radical Feminism, Ann Bartow. A lawprof by day, angry blawger otherwise. Worse yet, we share the same undergrad alma mater, Cornell ILR (I graduated before she arrived, so don’t blame me). Most of the angry people there wanted to grow up to be wobblies.
In the comments to Deanna Sacks’ post at Feminist Law Profs, there were some thoughtful reactions that disagreed with the proposition. Not thoughtful like mine or Randazza’s, but thoughtful in the way that they actually felt compelled to explain why, from a feminist perspective, they disagreed.
This is how Bartow responded :
“OneSidedDialogue” posted the identical words in the comments section of Above The Law. Moreover, OSD shares an e-mail address with someone who has left fairly abusive MRA type comments here in the past that did not make it through moderation. With those caveats, I decided to let this comment post, but note that given that the author has not even read the described article, it seems very calculated to derail discussion of Sacks’ actual analysis.
Shades of Priya Venkatesan. This prompted another commenter, “first time caller.” to take issue:
The comment [to which Bartow responded], while unusually lengthy for such a short post, seems to address the issues/arguments alluded to, if not fleshed out, in the post (sex as contract, lies as fraudulent inducement, STD as tortious harm, etc.) and some potential problems that pop to mind when the post is considered. Is this not allowed? If we must read the underlying article before commenting on the post promoting the article, why isn’t the article linked to in some fashion? And if no comment is worthy if based only on the partial understanding provided by the post, why no similar lambasting of AshleyJax’s uninformed agreement?
The comment seems to raise some obvious potential shortcomings to an intentional sexual tort regime. I certainly hope that reading Prof. Sacks’ full article lays to rest these potential bogeymen, but I – like the commenter – apparently can’t read it until the Fall. Thus, we are left commenting on a short post. Or not. Are we holding off on all discussion until Fordham puts it out? If so, why the post?
BTW – what is an “MRA type comment”? I’m not up on the lingo.
She was doing so well until that last line. The admission that she’s “not up on the lingo” was proof of heresy. Clearly, this “abusive” commenter didn’t know the secret handshake. And so, the judgment of Presiding Justice Bartow:
“first time caller” – this is a blog by and for feminist law professors. Prof. Sacks put up a post that enabled her colleagues to see what she was working on. She doesn’t owe you anything, nor do I. Marc Randazza decided to use her short post as a way to leverage himself as much visibility as possible, in a superficial and distortive way. That he couldn’t wait until the article was actually available to start trashing it is an issue you can take up with him.
If you don’t know what an MRA is, try here: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/purpose/ That blog is probably a better place for you than this one.
What is unbelievably cool about Bartow’s response is how she managed to denigrate Randazza in the process even though he had absolutely nothing to do with anything. That’s a real gift.
There is no doubt in my mind that I don’t get it. Perhaps that makes me anti-feminist, at least in the mind of a certain individual whose name shall go unmentioned. If so, mea culpa. You see, I just not prepared to let myself be bobbitized, and if that’s what it takes to please a radical, then it makes me the bad guy.
Some years ago, I did a TV show about a federal court decision that implicated feminism. Patricia Ireland, then President of the National Organization of Women, was also a guest on the show, as was some guy, whose name I can’t recall, who was President of the National Association of Men. I was the “legal analyst.” The NAM guy kept winking at me, as in, “hey bud, we’re in this together, right?” He was a doofus, a bull in the china shop of reason.
Patricia Ireland, on the other hand, was gracious, funny and reasonable. She was cautious in what she said because she understood that acceptance of women as equals could not come at the expense of acceptance of men as equals. There was no doubt about where she stood and what she thought, and if her reasoning wasn’t apparent, she was happy to clear it up. I really enjoyed being on the show with Patricia, and we found ourselves in agreement on just about everything. She was a very impressive person.
Even if guys like me and Randazza are seen as the enemy of radical feminism today, I think that Patricia Ireland would have viewed us as being pretty darned understanding of feminism and, frankly, acceptable examples of the male of the species. If they can’t even accept a modest and thoughtful challenge from other women without ripping their lungs out and banishing them to some remedial feminism website, then I’m feeling pretty comfortable with where I am.
A while back, I criticized an author for complaining that most men would “rather be pigs” than accept the world that modern feminism has served up for us.
The short version of my advice was that if the option were a little more fun and light-hearted, we might not choose to be pigs. See How About a Fun Option?
I didn’t expect to be proven right so resoundingly by, of all people, Bartow. Here is a rant against, of all things, Pepe Le Pew .
Is it any wonder that we would rather read Maxim than become geldings to this kind of scowl? It’s a goddamn cartoon skunk, not a milestone in the struggle for universal suffrage.
In all fairness, this statement is correct: Rape isn’t funny, and it certainly isn’t “love.” Of course rape isn’t funny, nor is it to be trivialized. Rape is serious business (for lack of a better word). Cartoon skunks trying to kiss painted cats are not. Flipping out about a cartoon skunk is not only trivializing the real issue, but certain to make sure that your otherwise valuable message gets lost in well-placed ridicule.
So, maybe I am just a boor… but I find anyone who calls Pepe Le Pew a “symbol of rape culture” to be just a little bit in need of a Valium.
A funny story about Ms. Ireland. Well, not about HER…
When I was in law school, there was an auction to raise money for the Equal Justice Foundation. They plied us with LOTS of free beer, because that caused the bidding to quicken.
They announced that the next item was dinner for you and seven friends with Patricia Ireland.
I started bidding furiously. The Womens Legal Alliance contingent was bidding against me furiously. They were yelling at me. Scowling at me. I wouldn’t relent.
Finally, the bidding got too rich for my blood, so I bailed.
The WLA members cheered as if they had won the superbowl.
Afterward, a friend of mine who was a WLA officer asked me “you pig! Were you just trying to get dinner with Patricia Ireland so that you could mess with her?”
I answered “what the hell is wrong with you, Patricia Ireland is HOT! What guy wouldn’t bid on that?”
She says “you moron, you think she’s the swimsuit model, don’t you?”
I said “yes… isn’t she?”
“NO, asshole… that’s KATHY Ireland!”
You are a pig. But Kathy Ireland was very hot.
You know, I was thinking of the swimsuit model too. I knew that wasn’t the right person, but couldn’t shake the image…
I’m not saying that Patricia isn’t hot too… but honestly if there is one feminist for whom I have the total hots, it is Naomi Wolf.
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/wow-an-intelligent-argument-against-porn/
Scott,
You’ll love this example of Bartow-ism.
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/10/ann_bartow_thre.html
That incredible. Bartow drove a feminist blogger underground by threatening to “out” her because the blogger disagreed with Bartow. That’s malicious. I thought lawprofs were supposed to appreciate intellectual diversity?
“Is it any wonder that we would rather read Maxim than become geldings to this kind of scowl?”
Now that’s writing!
I thought FLP was interesting until I got the “That blog is probably a better place for you than this one” response a few months back, not because I didn’t understand a term but because I admitted that I had to figure out what it meant from its roots.
If you blog, and if you want to limit your readership to the small group of people who learned the inside academic language in the academy (and therefore presumptively agree with you), I’m perfectly happy to accommodate you.
Now that’s writing?
Sigh. So it’s true what Norm said, the comments are better than the posts.
I’ve got little to say about this present dispute, other than to say that I personally don’t regard Ann Bartow as a “radical” feminist. In fact, I find myself agreeing with much of what she says at FLP.
But, perhaps, gentlemen, you might consider me a radical feminist even though my own perception on that issue may differ from your own.
That being said, I almost posted a reply to your original post re: the law prof suing on my Women Lawyers blog, but ultimately decided it wasn’t worth getting into a pissing match with you, Scott.
But, I did disagree with some of what you said and found your tone a bit…trying. Much of what she’s complaining about could very well be valid even if you think she’s a bit out there. Her classroom point re: technology benefiting men more than women is quite evident in the medical field–especially when it comes to cardiac issues.
Heart attacks have been around forever, but the fact that women exhibit different symptoms than men and respond to treatments differently than men has just come to light over the past few years.
Women also typically receive far fewer stents and angioplasties than men, thus resulting in less than impressive prognoses for them. Technological advancements in that arena have largely benefitted men (and ignored women) even though heart disease is the #1 killer of women.
Oh, and another thing! 😉 Your description of the press looking up Pirros’ skirts in another recent post was not my favorite analogy either, given that “examined her under a microscope” or the like would have worked just as well, but would not have been an expression dependent upon her gender.
Oh-and one more thing-and I have no idea how Fiore’s pose in that article was “suggestive”, as you stated on my blog. Please explain. I think I’m missing something.
Either way, Scott, you know that aside from so-called “feminist” issues, you and I see eye to eye on just about everything else. Somehow the generational gap and gender difference has affected our world views when it comes to issues that affect women.
But, I can accept that and agree to disagree. I still respect your wisdom when it comes to criminal law;)
But I do wish you’d at least tone down your language on these issues or consider that perhaps there is some merit to this viewpoint. I would hope that you’d agree that I generally think quite clearly when it comes to any other sort of issue. Why would I suddenly become blind when it comes to feminist issues, but for my life experiences as an outspoken, opinionated attorney who happens to be a woman?
But enough about me;) Let’s hear from you. After all, this is your blog, although I’ve allowed you to ramble a bit on occasion over at Sui Generis…
Oh wait, I remember this blogger.
http://nylawblog.typepad.com/women_lawyers/2008/03/what-everyone-e.html
Funny… she likes to misquote, mischaracterize, and then retreat to the corner holding children in front of her, yet she still agrees with Ann Bartow. Go figure.
Fist of all, Niki, you come ramble here any time you want. It’s my honor to have you ramble.
As for DiFiore, this “casual” post, with the slight lilt, befits a celebrity, rather than a District Attorney. I note that it accompanies an announcement stating as of the an arraignment of a woman who, it states as fact, committed very detailed criminal acts, even though such an announcement is fragrantly unethical.
Now if you don’t think that DiFiore’s picture is studiously designed to make her appear to be an attractive woman (a la her predecessor, Jeanine Pirro), as opposed to a serious District Attorney, then I can’t explain it further. It’s about as cheescake as any DA photo I’ve ever seen.
When I write, I’m descriptive. I’m descriptive about women. I’m descriptive about men. I could use trite, boring desrciptions about both, but then it would make my writing trite and boring. Since I’ve been going to “trite and boring anonymous” for years, it would make all those meeting worthless.
But it’s okay that you disagree with me, or find my language troubling. There are men and there are women, and the notion that we should pretend that there is no such thing as gender is hardly a paean to equality, but just silly. Why should a true feminist deny their gender, unless it’s something to be ashamed of? Since there’s nothing “wrong” with being female, why deny it or find it offensive when noted?
And why would you be more “sensitive” to feminist issues than others? Well, because you lose your detachment and it becomes personal, maybe, since you are an “outspoken, opinionated attorney who happens to be a woman?” And be careful about loving Bartow too much. Look what she did to Zuzu at this post, Ann Bartow threatens to sue Zuzu of Feministe. She’s only your friend as long as your towing her line of feminist orthodoxy. The second you waiver (and you aren’t anywhere near as radical, no matter what you say), you’re feminist history.
Now, now Marc. The whole hiding behind kids thing was completely uncalled for. Seriously.
Scott–C’mon–just because I have a different perspective doesn’t mean that I’m “sensitive.” It means I see things differently. And, I don’t think life should be gender-neutral. Far from it. But when you’re discussing a women in a disparaging manner (by that I mean you’re legitimately unhappy with what the woman has done job-wise or politically, etc.), it seems a bit suspect (to me at least) when you intentionally highlight her gender while discussing her in a negative fashion.
I don;t think that you ever post that a prosecutor has no balls–at least not using that term–when discussing his lack of backbone.
Anyway, Scott, you know you’re still my favorite NY criminal law blawger;)
Was it uncalled for? Lets quote from your post:
Let’s start with the title of this post over at the Legal Satyricon: Who doesn’t love Yale sluts? Then let’s move onto this comment: Then again, I wouldn’t really call any woman a slut (unless it was a term of endearment – some women giggle when you call them that). A “term of endearment”? Oh, I see. Well, if that’s the case, I’ll be sure to try that one out on my kindergartner tomorrow when she gets home from school.
Women = kindergartener….
It is an all too familiar argumentation style. Complain about something that has zero to do with children, and then interject a child into the argument. Hence porn becomes “child porn” women become “kindergarteners”… you know the drill… they teach this stuff in womens’ studies departments nationwide.
And there are days like this when I’m glad I have real clients to think about.
Why do you suppose every “discussion” with the self-proclaimed “feminist law professors” gets so ugly? It makes me most reluctant to get into this fray. So, I’m going to add a few notions and then stay away (who needs the agita?).
First, of course, I must once again point to my favorite Callahan cartoon :
Then, I will also again suggest a paraphrase to FemLawProf’s tagline, which is “No person is your friend who demands your silence.” Perhaps Prof. Bartow et al. should at least consider that, for both genders, “No person is your equal who demands your silence.”
And, finally, I’ll bring back this notion from an f/k/a posting: “Being seen as thin-skinned, humorless proponents of iffy legal analysis and bad attitudes is scarcely the way to win over the hearts or the minds of those who might still want to perpetuate the unwarranted old stereotypes. Indeed, it might just lose you a few allies or make them wary to come to your assistance every time you ‘cry wolf.’ Even the most open-minded and fair people can find it rather difficult to think of whiners as equals.”
And how about these quotes:
The current tagline over at the Bartow love fest:
“When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak. – Audre Lorde“
Of course, she made sure to clarify that the “we” in that quote only refers to her and her select group of co-bloggers.
I think that Feminist Law Profs. should change its tagline to a quote by Noah The Elder (a character in the movie, Happy Feet).
Dissent leads to division and division leads us to doom! You, Mumble Happyfeet, must go!
This is the 180 point response. Well done paisan.
Around the web, May 19
Another Scruggs ripple: Judge Senter disqualifies two Missouri lawyers (widely nicknamed the “Trailer Lawyers” from representing Rigsby sisters against State Farm in Katrina qui tam action [Sun-Herald via YallPolitics, more] “To recap the trial lawyer logic: Polls are great for…