I have to go to my son’s school to talk to the Dean about an “incident.” Apparently Danny’s been fighting. My immediate thought on that was: “Great! Has he been WINNING?” But of course that is “inappropriate” in the girlified public-school systems of today. The kiddies are supposed to “work out” their “issues.”
I’d like to “work out” my “issues” with the school Dean the old-fashioned way. Unfortunately, it’s a woman, so I have to sit there like a good, cowed, law-abiding, middle-class American doofus and listen to how unnacceptably boyish my boy is. I hate the modern world.
Back in my day, dinosaurs roamed the earth and boys were allowed to beat each other up in school! Even better was when they would beat up the fags, and then I would go in and beat up the Dean! Heck, back in my day, we didn’t even have school! We had dirt piles for desks, and stone tablets for paper, and we had to sharpen our rock-pencils with our teeth. And back then, when the little ladies got uppity, we could just smack some sense into ‘em. I hate the modern world.
Note to conservatives: This is who is speaking for you. I’ll ask again: Where’s the outrage?
Derbs is just jealous that when his son scores with a thirteen-year-old, it’s not a felony. Stupid liberals and their opposition to physical violence and raping teenaged girls.
Again, I don’t see why it’s necessary to pad your list of complaints by tacking on the line, “And back then, when the little ladies got uppity, we could just smack some sense into ‘em.” Clearly, he means the direct opposite. That, because the dean is a woman, his troglyditic code of conduct specifically does not abide hitting her. This is sexism of a sort, but clearly not the sort you’re crediting him with.
Derbs sez:
because the Dean is a woman, and it’s not acceptable, in our modern society, to hit women — which is what he initially says he’d like to do to the Dean.
I’m sorry, but it seemed pretty clear to me what non-modern men do to uppity, power-hogging women.
Could he also have meant that in the good old days, the dean would have been a man? Sure. Same conclusion, though: We keep our women in line.
If you won’t, I’ll quote the first part of that:
He’d like to beat the dean up, because that’s what his pre-modern code dictates should be done. But he won’t do that because the dean is a woman. He’s suddenly transformed himself in to a modern man? No. It’s his pre-modern code (his, not the one you think of when thinking of a pre-modern code) that makes beating a woman unacceptable. Because he cannot do what his code would have him do, he accepts, with hatred, the prevailing one.
The dean is a man, I will hit him.
The dean is not a man, I will not hit her.
Same conclusion? Listen I’m not arguing that he doesn’t mean women should be kept in line (I don’t think that conclusion can be drawn from what he’s written, in the post you link, but you’re clearly not confining your reaction to him, to that post; having not read much of him, I can’t argue against your conclusion; moreover, it doesn’t seem unlikely that you’re generally right about the in-lineness, if not the woman-beating). But he clearly doesn’t mean they should be hit by men. Pretending that because physical violence and institutional sexism can both, “keep women in line,” one is the same as the other is objectively wrong. Beating women is different from raping them is different from stealing their purses is different from promoting a less qualified man over them; all awful, all potentially potentially based in sexism, but none identical to another. It’s enough to accuse The Derb of the trespasses he commits; not just enough, but all that is permissible, while maintaining intellectual integrity.
I personally thought it was just an ending to the chapter, a fitting ending to long lamentation, not specifically about the hitting part: About being forced to listen, about the unacceptable boyishness, about not having a fair fight with a male dean…
Not saying that I agree with him, but I too think that “beating up fags” or “smacking women to their place”. Those things do not follow.
those things is redundant.
Oh, for Pete’s sake.
Derb is saying that he would like to beat up the Dean, but the modern world prevents it.
There are two possible reasons for this:
A. In the pre-modern world, women would not hold important jobs.
B. I the pre-modern world, it was okay to beat up women
There’s no particular reason to favor the first interpretation over the latter.
“I have to sit there…”
In other words, he is being forced to sit there by elements outside his control; ie, the modern world. Which part of the modern world is forcing him to sit there, the one that lets women work, or the one that says you can’t hit women, or both, is an open question.
Honestly, when the most charitable possible interpretation of a person’s statement is “Women should not be allowed to work” I don’t see why we should give them the benefit of a doubt.
Nobody-
Did you read everything I wrote after the Derbs quote? About dinosaurs and stone tablets and whatnont? Do you think that I meant that Derbs literally went to school when there were dinosaurs around? Probably not. The last sentence, about smacking some sense into women, was just like the rest of the paragraph — hyperbole.
Does it represent what might be a sound representation of what Derbs said? Yeah. But its general point was to represent his greater view: That women must be kept in line. Kind of how the part about dinosaurs was to represent his “back in the good ol’ days” rhetoric.
Hyperbole for me, but not for thee, then? You’ve earned it, though, by virtue of being decent. Derbyshire is indecent, so his hyperbole must be taken not only at face value, but at face value plus what he really meant. Check. The only part that I’m still not quite getting is what conservatives are meant to be outraged by. Even stipulating that I should be tarred with whatever words the man, whom I rarely read, writes, I also have to be outraged by what can be hyperbolically extrapolated from them? Sounds like a lot more work than I’d be willing to dedicate.
Can’t I just ignore him? Why isn’t that an acceptable option? If there were a Not In My Name, Derbyshire! (or any other conservative) online petition, I’d be willing to sign it. Because I speak for me.
The guy hasn’t given the issue that much thought. He’s a dumb, impotent jackass who writes thumb-sucking articles about how much he’d love to be less pathetic. He’d have feel better about himself if he could have hit the Dean, whether it were a man or a woman, so whatever imaginary code of ethics would let him do that is the one he wishes he could live by.
Oh, now, since you haven’t got the whole story, you misunderstand the case. But if you had read Derbyshire’s more detailed follow-up here, you’ll see that young Percival’s pugilistic over-reaction was motivated by purely righteous concerns. See, two of the mean bad guys on Percy’s prep school rugby team, Butch and Rocky, had the nerve to call Percy’s girlfriend Betsy “a slut”! Naturally, Percy couldn’t look away and let that stand, so he thrashed the blackguards mercilessly. Huzzah! I for one strongly believe brave young Percival should get a medal, rather in-school suspension and a half-dozen demerits!
Because calls for denunciations are the lifeblood of political blogging and we’d all be nowhere without them.
I’m not going to mount my bully pulpit over the Derb, partly because I’ve already done it, but mostly because it’s an exercise in futility. The misogynist cranks will never be convinced that Derb is anything less than their bravest, most honorable representative; the right-wing internet community will shrug and say, “Eh, that’s just the Derb, what’re ya gonna do;” and your average mainstream Republican who doesn’t spend all day long on the internet will look puzzled and ask, “Huh? Who is this ‘Derb’ you’re talking about?”
Well, now that it’s been settled for all time that Derbyshire “speaks for” conservatives, can we now point to any asinine thing said by anyone on your side of the aisle, and claim that that person “speaks for” liberals? This is a neat trick.
Sorry, Jon, it’s been done. See Churchill, Ward and Chomsky, Noel.
So I guess your new motto is “two wrongs make a right”, then.
In any event, if you’re going to trawl NRO, the least you could do is pick out something substantive to critique and respond to. I would really be interested (and I say this sincerely) if someone here were to read Ramesh Ponnuru’s “Party of Death” (or at least, his related NRO articles) and post about it. I think that would make for a great thread. The left blogosphere has basically ignored this book; I figured that if the most significant book on the abortion debate in decades were to be dissected anywhere, it would be here on this blog, but the only thing I’ve seen is a comment making fun of Ponnuru’s voice.
Noam. Dammit.
“Most significant book on the abortion debate in decades?” Come now. I think the title and the premise of the book show that it’s not a serious book about “the abortion debate,” rather, it’s a polemic against Democrats (not all of whom are pro-choice) painting them as out to kill all the little “womb babies,” or whatever terminology he’s adopted. If your premise is that Democrats are bloodthirsty, there’s no real “debate,” then, is there?
I tell you what- if you actually read the book, I’d be more inclined to hear out your opinions on whether it’s a worthless polemic and whether its premises are serious or not. I’d even be willing to sift through four of five paragraphs of ranting about the title (which, by the way, isn’t a reference solely to Democrats) before you get to the actual substance. Regardless of what you think about Ponnuru or his choice of title, this book’s arguments will likely be very influential amongst serious pro-lifers, so serious pro-choicers will have to engage them sooner or later.
And I’ll believe you when you say it’s the MOST significant book on the abortion debate in DECADES when you can show me that you’ve read EVERY book on the subject written since 1960 or so.
Also, very interesting that you seem to think that the book’s significance lies in its influence among pro-lifers. I’d consider a book significant if it gave both pro-choice and anti-choice people some new way to look at the issue. Your contention that it’s only relevant to pro-choicers because “sooner or later” we’ll have to engage the arguments in the book is rather revealing.
Not that this criticism has anything to do with anything, but I don’t think you need to have read every book on a subject to assess the relative significance of that book in a particular field. To pick a random example, I’ve not read anything by Lamarck, but I do know that Darwin’s “Origin of Species” (which I have read some of) has historically been regarded as far more significant to the study of evolution than anything Lamarck wrote.
I did not say that the book is “only” relevant to pro-choicers for this reason, although I do think this is one good reason pro-choicers should engage with its arguments. But it seems that you’re not interested in doing anything more than attacking the title and Ponnuru’s voice, so I guess nothing’s going to change your mind on this score. Maybe if Jill gets some free time she’d be up for tackling the book- I can think of few voices on the pro-choice side more articulate than hers.
Gee, can’t imagine why liberals wouldn’t consider this a serious treatment of abortion. From Amazon:
Note that war is left off his list. Funny, that.
Interesting, too, that these are the books bought by people who bought “The Party of Death:”
Let’s see. this book is being read by people who think that liberals are traitors and fascists and godless, and that feminists are ruining civilization. No agenda here.
I’ve heard of judging a book by its cover, but judging a book based on the books that other people who’ve read the book also read is beyond silly. Again, get back to me when you’re finished with your Amazon cut-and-paste jobs and have actually read it.
Gonna send me a copy, Jon? I’m not about to put money in their pockets.
Is it? It shows you that people who are buying the book (not reading, mind you — buying) are also buying other books that appeal to their political sensibilities. Either that, or they’re being bought by the same bulk buyers that buy the Regnery books.
It may not be worth reading Lamarck any more, but if you haven’t, Arthur Koestler’s The Case of the Midwife Toad is lots of fun. The same cannot be said of POD.
I did not say that the book is “only” relevant to pro-choicers for this reason, although I do think this is one good reason pro-choicers should engage with its arguments.
Well, what are you waiting for then? Get off your ass and do it, son. Let’s see 500 – 700 words here before midnight Thursday.
The left blogosphere has basically ignored this book;
We are a compassionate people.
You clearly missed Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood.
I’m not a lefty, Ron. I’m looking for a liberal perspective on the book.
Yeah, maybe that’s it. Or maybe your ability to formulate rational, non-ad hominem critiques of serious opposing views has just completely atrophied. Hey, prove me wrong.
You have a lot of fucking gall, Jon.
My, Jonny boy, we’re feisty today.
When you gonna send me that book so I can review it?
My, Jonny boy, we’re feisty today.
When you gonna send me that book so I can review it?
Well, there’s always the library. But if I get the chance after my law review competition is over, zuzu, maybe I’ll get in touch with one of you Feministe bloggers about lending out my copy at some point- as I suggested, I’d be most interested to see what Jill has to say about it, because I trust her to take the arguments seriously and not immediately devolve into partisan name-calling. But if you’d be open to reviewing the book fairly, if critically, perhaps we could work something out.
Jon, if you don’t trust me to review the book, why have you been demanding that I do so?