In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

That’s one way to discredit feminist bloggers

zuzu

Attribute the words of their commenters to the bloggers themselves.

Fox News lies about Feministing

I just found this and I’m pissed the fuck off.

“iFeminist” Wendy McElroy has written a piece for Fox News, Continuing to Defame the ‘Duke 3’ as Rapists, where we’re misquoted:

Even the popular gender feminist site Feministing had conceded “it probably isn’t appropriate to continue calling this the ‘Duke rape case’.”

That’s funny, because I’m pretty sure it was a commenter that wrote this–not us. Congrats, noname: Fox News loves you!

I’d like to think this was a mistake (despite the fact that it’s pretty damn clear who is blogging and who is commenting) so I’ve emailed McElroy about a retraction. But still–ugh.

I’d sure be thrilled if N.’s comments about race or the latest Robert troll’s comments about the need to keep one’s legs shut to prevent abortion were attributed to any of the bloggers here.

And I don’t think for one hot second that it was any kind of “mistake” on McElroy’s part.

While you’re emailing McElroy, might as well cc Fox News online.

19 thoughts on That’s one way to discredit feminist bloggers

  2. 2 bits-
    1) Maybe I’m mising it, but it looks like McElroy has removed the reference Feministing
    2) Does anyone else despise the made-up term “gender feminism”? Like “partial-birth abortion”?

  3. Gender feminism? As opposed to, I don’t know, eye color feminism? wtf? Maybe I just need more coffee, but I cannot wrap my head around that term.

  5. I think it’s just an attempt to convince everyone that the people who want to dictate how a person must act as a result of their gender are those feminists, not the conservatives … no sir-ee…

  8. I think it’s just an attempt to convince everyone that the people who want to dictate how a person must act as a result of their gender are those feminists, not the conservatives … no sir-ee…

    Amp had a post up about this a while ago. Basically, it’s divide and conquer: “equity feminists,” as the good minority that speaks for all reasonable women and “gender feminists” as the hysterical fringe (who somehow still seem to hold lots of majority views and to make up the majority of feminists) who think that men are evil. The gender thing is a reference to imputed essentialism–man-hating–and, weirdly enough, the belief that men and women must never be treated as though they are different in any way.

  9. Will you continue your “The Thrill of the Chaste” [Dawn’s] series? I liked them very much due to the excellent sense of humor. Hope you continue. I even almost would take this book from the library had it been there. Though not for the reason Dawn would think or be glad of… 🙂

  10. “Gender feminism” is just one of those terms like “reverse racism,” “Islamofascism” or “moral relativism” that tells me that the speaker is operating from such different fundamental assumptions that any discussion will go nowhere.

  11. I even almost would take this book from the library had it been there. Though not for the reason Dawn would think or be glad of… 🙂

    I know you’re joking, but please don’t. Then the library will spend good money on replacing it that they could (potentially) have spent on a good book instead.

  12. I’ll be continuing soon. I’ve had to take a break, both for my own sanity and to concentrate on finding a job.

  13. The comments are in the same font size as the blog entry, and are directly below the entry. The FoxNews writer should have been more careful, but there’s no reason to think it was anything other than an honest mistake.

    It is a more proper journalistic practice to leave a factual error intact in the story and then append a correction, or to amend the article but to put a note on the article acknowledging that the text had been changed. Journalists should admit mistakes rather than deny that they make them. But that’s a minor quibble.

    As for the Duke case, the accuser clearly fabricated or hallucinated the entire incident, and the DA ran with a case he knew was bogus because it was in his political interest. Contrary to the DA’s initial claims, her medical exams in no way corroborated the brutal attack she claimed, and her “diffuse edema” reveals nothing except that she was a sex worker putting somewhat atypical strain on her body.

    As lawyers, I would think you guys would recognize immediately that the lineup procedure used by the DA was unjust and unconstitutional, that the extremely substantial changes to the woman’s story are manifestly designed by investigators to explain the fact that her original account was directly contradicted by the physical evidence and that one of the alleged assailants had an ironclad alibi for the time the rape was originally said to have taken place.

    This is the same story of cynical, careerist law enforcement agents and prosecutors railroading defendants who they know to be innocent. The Innocence Project uncovers these cases regularly. John Grisham wrote a book about it. The only thing unusual is that Nifong tried to do it to someone who was wealthy, white, and able to afford competent and aggressive counsel.

    Ideologically, you may recoil at the idea of calling a woman claiming to be a rape victim a liar, and the pleas of legitimate victims have certainly been unjustly ignored on far too many occasions. But this woman is lying. Her story doesn’t stand up, and now she’s making new lies to explain why the old ones are inconsistent with the facts that have been discovered.

    I’m sure she has problems, and I’m sure that she felt she had a good reason to make the claims she did, but she’s irreparably damaged the lives of these innocent families, and made disgusting and fals accusations toward innocent people, and nothing excuses that.

  14. The comments are in the same font size as the blog entry, and are directly below the entry. The FoxNews writer should have been more careful, but there’s no reason to think it was anything other than an honest mistake.

    You know, looking at Feministing, I do notice that a) only the posts appear on the main page, b) there’s a section for trackbacks before comments, and then c) comments, which are preceded by a big blockquote of text which says COMMENTS. Noname’s is the third one down, under which is says “posted by”.

    If McElroy is that stupid, she shouldn’t be writing the article to begin with.

  15. It is a more proper journalistic practice to leave a factual error intact in the story and then append a correction, or to amend the article but to put a note on the article acknowledging that the text had been changed. Journalists should admit mistakes rather than deny that they make them. But that’s a minor quibble.

    No, it isn’t a minor quibble, its irresponsible journalism at best, lazy journalism in the middle and an intent to smear on the far end. Dropping the quote and the reference to it do not substitute taking responsibility for the error by adding a correction as soon as possible which properly would include citing the difference between what was written and what should or should not have been written.

    The latter chosen route leads me at least, to suspect that they desire the impression such ‘error’ caused remain intact.

  16. As for the Duke case, the accuser clearly fabricated or hallucinated the entire incident, and the DA ran with a case he knew was bogus because it was in his political interest.

    Just out of curiosity, what’s your explanation for the guys going around bragging that they’d assaulted the woman the day after the party and making threats against her? Mass hallucination?

    Something weird happened that night. It doesn’t seem to have been a completed rape, and it may not rise to it having been a crime, but something did happen, or those guys wouldn’t have been telling all their buddies about it.

  17. As lawyers, I would think you guys would recognize immediately that the lineup procedure used by the DA was unjust and unconstitutional, that the extremely substantial changes to the woman’s story are manifestly designed by investigators to explain the fact that her original account was directly contradicted by the physical evidence and that one of the alleged assailants had an ironclad alibi for the time the rape was originally said to have taken place.

    Don’t tell me what I should know as a lawyer. I’m not a criminal lawyer. Jill’s a law student. Neither of us has access to actual court documents. Lawyers don’t have superpowers just because of the legal education.

    Not to mention, I don’t recall ever taking any sort of authoritative position on the case itself based on being a lawyer.

Comments are currently closed.