There was a debate on this subject a little while back that I didn't link because it centered on me, which seemed a little too much like whining, particularly I'm not sure I have anything to whine about. But one of the women offered an interesting analysis: women who blog about "female" subjects will be punished by being taken less seriously; Ezra can post recipes, but I can't.
I read that comment and thought, "What decade is this?" Are we still under the impression that we have to dress up like men, at least metaphorically, in order to be treated as equals? Seeing women call on other women to eschew feminine pursuits in order to improve our collective position makes me deeply, deeply sad. This is what we were supposed to be fighting--the ingrained notion that domestic pleasures are women's work, and that women's work is fundamentally frivolous.
I am to be sure, something of a girly girl, with thirty pairs of shoes in my closet and a really astonishing collection of hair styling appliances. But I don't think of cooking as some sort of spiritual extension of my womb. Cooking is fun, particularly if you like to eat well and don't have a ton of money with which to satisfy that desire. It doesn't get any less fun if you have an Adam's apple.
I bring this up now because last night someone I'd recently met asked me how much of a role I thought misogyny played in the liberal blogosphere's er . . . energetic . . . reaction to me. I'm not qualified to comment on that; obviously, when someone doesn't like you, the most psychologically comforting explanation is "sexism". Then this morning, someone emailed me Roy Edroso's screed. It was good for a smile--until I reread it and noted that he'd called me a "lipstick libertarian"? What the hell? I'm hard put to think of a way to pack more snide sexism and heteronormative stereotypes into two words. I do wear lipstick (well, usually gloss), and more than occasionally eyeliner and mascara and a little shadow. And what the hell does that have to do with my political ideas?
I do not know whether being a woman has ultimately helped or hurt my career, and I don't waste time worrying about it. But I get a little testy when Kerry Howley and I, among many others, see the comment threads on our media appearances degenerate into extended wardrobe critiques, or debates about whether and under what conditions one might "hit that". I'm irritated when interlocutors both left and right assume that my second X chromosome has conveyed upon me a sacred obligation to agree with their political ideas. I'm annoyed that a typically female narrative style, which touches on personal experience, is derided as fundamentally unserious--particularly when it is so derided by people who admire it in feminist bloggers. And I'm perilously close to despair at finding that so many of my correspondents not only believe that pointing out that I am 35 and unmarried is a devastating insult, but apparently expect me to share that opinion. Was I born in 1973, or am I living in it?
I will say that I'm particularly shocked to find that about 95% of this comes from the left, particularly the fraternity potty talk--my right wing commenters usually limit themselves to saying "you're pretty", which is the sort of thing no one, male or female, minds hearing. Why the hell is the phrase "lipstick libertarian" being written by a left-wing blogger, much less published in the Village Voice? Would my blogging really improve if I traded in my Prada boots for a pair of Doc Martins?
Update Yes, I know the many uses of the phrase "lipstick lesbian"; indeed, I count several as friends and loved ones. But the facts remain:
1) Lipstick lesbian is used to imply that wearing makeup somehow makes you less serious and authentic.
2) Would the phrase "lipstick libertarian" have ever been used about a man?
Am I humorless? Perhaps. But while I used to feel like my gender didn't really matter on my blog, lately it's come to feel like half the commentary I attract contains some mention of the fact that I'm a woman. Given that few people see a need to remark on the fact that male bloggers are male, I find it annoying.
It's Doc Martens, not Martins.
You really could use an editor.
I will say that I'm particularly shocked to find that about 95% of this comes from the left
Umm, maybe because you tend to aim 95% of your fire leftward? That doesn't excuse the sexism, nor is there necessarily anything intrinsically wrong with aiming most of your criticism to the left, but I think you would have to be pretty blinkered to deny that commenters and bloggers from the right are not shy about displaying sexism towards lefty bloggers.
(And yes, I realize that your views are hardly conventional movement conservative views. But your criticism of the right does tend to be pretty muted.)
when someone doesn't like you, the most psychologically comforting explanation is "sexism"
Really? Lacking ovaries, I'm forced to fall back on "he's just a jerk". I've never failed to be vindicated in this belief, but then jerkdom isn't particularly rare. Give it a try.
That said, it shouldn't be to surprising that you get more sexist comments from the left than the right. Apostates are always viewed as worse than mere enemies.
IMHO, a bunch of the sexism is jealousy.
Guy blogger/journalists have the impression that you/Malkin/Wonkette/etc. are getting more than your "fair share" of hits because you are pretty women, which is a novelty in the blogosphere and an attraction to some readers.
That assumption isn't fair, of course, but what is?
Progressives seem to be tied in closely with their emotions. They're at the girl end of the reaction spectrum--when they read you it quickly becomes their time of the month. They can't help but react with their viscera.
It's not just the women who get put through the wardrobe wringer: whenever episodes of the Table are up at Matt's blog, his comment section is full of people telling him how fat and ugly he (and Marc and Ross) are. You at least got harassed for being attractive.
Not that this makes it any less insulting.
An editor?? For a blog?? Ridiculous! It's a blog. Magazine and newspaper articles are edited. Do people feel better about themselves pointing out these inconsequential typos? Are they really so trampled by their bosses or coworkers or significant others that they need to point these things out???
Obviously, there are assholes left and right, but in my personal experience the most offensive personal attacks are often directed by leftist commenters at right or libertarian-leaning public figures who belong to racial/gender/socio-economic groups that the left things "belong" to them. Thus Megan is called a "lipstick libertarian" or one of dozens of other offensive names not just because the idiot name-caller thinks they are being witty but because he or she is deeply offended that ANY woman could "betray" her kind by holding right of center political views.
This is truly sad, especially given the left's hypocritical preoccupation with sensitivity to race and gender, but Megan is in good company. See e.g. Clarence Thomas, who holds perfectly respectable (though debatable) views on consitutional theory, but is regularly called an "Uncle Tom" for daring to depart from African-american political orthodoxy. The left's operating assumptions that race and gender are or should be determinative of an individual's political views are, in my opinion, two of the most insidiously racist and sexist lines of thought in contemporary political debate.
As much as I might dislike the term "lipstick libertarian", we should not shoot the messenger. Most libertarians *are* male, and we should focus our efforts into understanding why, rather than ridiculing those who bring it up. Answering that question alone would solve quite a few mysteries.
In my time as a Ron Paul organizer, I couldn't help but notice another disturbing correlation, was that, well, Ron Paul supporters (which have strong overlap with libertarians) are ... weirdos. Here is the list of people I met in the group, and I'm not making it up:
-Old, modern-day, nativist cowboy.
-Socially inept young person x5.
-Extremely knowledgable janitor.
-Mysterious socially-adept out-of-towner.
-Old person with nothing better to do x4.
-Ultra-stylish rebel girl + normal friend.
-Home-schooled girl with 12 siblings.
-Scary motorcyclist.
You get the idea. Yes, I have pictures from the meetings.
You get the idea. Yes, I have pictures from the meetings.
I call them Ron Paul's mouse army of moody loners
I'm sometimes startled by the number of individuals who espouse ideologies which are totally at odds with their natural inclinations.
I think first of a guy I knew in college. He was one of the most loudly committed pacifists I knew (and this was in Berkeley in the late 1960s). He was also the most violence-prone individual I have ever known. As in, when he started spouting off, it was a good idea to keep an arm up to block the swings.
Or think of the number of morality-spouting politicians who turn out in practice to have pretty loose morals themselves. At least, their behavior runs counter to the particular morality they have been pushing so loudly. Or shall we think about the behavior of certain members of the clergy, both fundamentalist Protestant and Catholic?
So discovering that some far lefties are barely-in-the-closet anti-feminists isn't that much of a surprise.
Chin up. There's still hope you may, under above circumstances, join the ranks of transgendered, post-female punk goths. Then it's anyone's guess as to which part of the political spectrum will choose to hurl scats at you.
I am frequently amazed at the volume of ad hominem bile that those who identify themselves as libertarian attract, because it seems so out of proportion to the amount of influence that libertarin thought really has in our politics. Gosh, who can look at our politicians in D.C. or out state capitols, and conclude that libertarians are worth the time to target with invective? I mean, I am largely anti-statist in orientation, so it pleases me on some level that a lot of people think it is important to mount an assault, insipidly ad hominem or laughably constructed of straw as it frequently is, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why they think it is important.
As to the identity politics, well, that's just boring, and people who engage in it really should know this by now.
I understood the phrase "lipstick libertarian" in a completely different way. I thought Edroso was accusing you of using nominal libertarianism as a cosmetic to cover up what is really wacko right-wing-nuttiness. As in putting lipstick on a pig.
I think he's wrong to say that about you, but I'm not sure he's a sexist.
Wouldn't the term "lipstick libertarian" by analogy with "lipstick lesbian" suggest lack of authenticity, rather than gender identity or general frivolity?
Granted I'm not sure non-libertarians should be deciding the bounds of "who's libertarian and who isn't" but that is how I'd read the term at first glance.
I'm not particularly sympathetic to your libertarian views, but I do enjoy your writing. So a foray into subjects epicurean would be welcome. And I wouldn't mind a look at those Prada boots, either.
Like PJ, I think you misunderstood the use of the phrase "Lipstick Libertarian". Edroso may be sexist or not, I don't read his writing enough to be able to tell, but I don't think this is a good example.
The term "lipstick lesbian" is used to deride wearing makeup and high heels as making you fundamentally unserious, at least as far as I've always understood it. It wasn't, in the circles I ran in, used to denote people who weren't actually attracted to women, but people whose clothes made you question their views.
when in doubt, listen to Yancey..
Why bother reading left-wing sexist comments, when you can just find sexism in your very own comments section, courtesy of albo! Winner of the COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT AWARD!
Megan,
I think times have changed--Tila Tequila proudly announces that the type of girls she is attracted to are "lipstick lesbians", which I always interpreted to mean lesbians that aren't particularly butch.
I am to be sure, something of a girly girl, with thirty pairs of shoes in my closet
Only thirty? Pfeh. Amateur.
More to the point, would he have written that about a man?
Partly it's what dsr said above, that the left gets very angry about people (i.e., basically, minority group members or women) who are supposed to be lefty based on their genetic attributes. That is why the New York Times editorial page, say, is much ruder about Clarence Thomas than about Antonin Scalia.
An aggravating factor is that political correctness prevents most leftists from giving voice to the normal amounts of misogyny and racism that all human beings contain. So when there is a woman or a member of a racial minority who is not protected by leftist political correctness, many years of repressed venom comes out. For instance, many New York City professional women of my acquaintance vented years of frustration about being harassed by black men on the streets and subways on Clarence Thomas. Similarly, any number of commentators on Kevin Drum's website release years of sexual frustration on Michelle Malkin.
Megan, have you read "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot?" Do you think Al Franken hates Rush because he's fat? No. He hates Rush because he's a moron, so Al makes fun of his weight.
The same as with you. People don't like your blogging, so they make fun of you however they can.
It's not misogyny, it's opportunism.
According to both wikipedia and urban dictionary, there is nothing derogatory about the phrase 'lipstick lesbian'. The phrase was popularized in the gay newspaper, The Sentinel. The popularization was furthered by Ellen, who featured the it on her sitcom.
To reinforce PJ's point that the phrase was meant to suggest that you use your libertarianism as a facade for run-of-the-mill conservatism, wikipedia says that "The term has also been reinterpreted as a derogatory reference to feigned lesbianism — implying that it is as easy as lipstick to add or remove."
I dunno...some curbstompers, fishnets, a vinyl skirt, rubber corsetry, and some crazy neon-geisha make-up...much better for blogging than Prada boots.
You're pretty, you're smart, you're well-educated, you stand up for yourself, you feel confident in yourself and your beliefs. By all rights, you should be a leftist.
But you aren't. Which means you _betrayed_ them. You are the absolute lowest form of human being.
Hell hath no fury like a liberal scorned.
I know this would be hard if I had to do it, so I'm not saying this is just "easy", but keep a tally of these insults and petty snark. They are evidence that you are meaningful in the overall debate. Remember, any time your opponents resort to name calling or personal attacks, they've lost the intellectual argument, and they know it.
To some degree, you might even revel in it. Every pathetic attack is another pebble in the mountain of evidence that liberals are not really very tolerant or open-minded - they're just open-minded about who you sleep with and how your spend your government checks. And that mound of pebbles has meaning. Young people who are introduced to the blogosphere will see these attacks, and some of them will realize the hollowness of an ideology that preaches open-mindedness, but practices it only when convenient.
When threatened, liberals are racist, sexist poo-flinging chimpanzees.
Oh, and lipstick libertarian has to be a play on lipstick lesbian - i.e. a lesbian who likes to look pretty. It's a slur because a lesbian who likes to look pretty is shallow and deceptive. Just like you (they think).
Making fun of people for being fat--another thing that I, in my lack of humor, do not really find funny.
I don't think it's fair to tar all liberals that way, jb, and I'm not trying to. Some of my best friends are liberals. It just seems that if you are a liberal, you should avoid making gendered criticisms of people you don't like.
"Remember, any time your opponents resort to name calling or personal attacks, they've lost the intellectual argument, and they know it."
jb-
Uh no. I don't have the time/energy to spar in intellectual arguments on the blogosphere, unless its something that I'm highly educated in (that's what academia is for).
I blog to snark, and snark to blog.
Winner of the COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT AWARD!
As a prize, do you make me a sammich?
And if you use bold and center your post, it's even more important.
Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom. Liberal commentary about Thomas may be more caustic than about Scalia (though I've heard, read, and said some pretty nasty things about him), and I would attribute that to the fact that Thomas being on the Supreme Court is bitterly ironic to liberals -- on the one hand he and his supporters rail against affirmative action, yet he wouldn't be where he is if not for affirmative action and rank hypocrisy.
I'm partial to PJ's explanation for lipstick libertarian, though Chris Lawrence and Person also suggest reasonable roots.
I don't think I've ever run across the expression "lipstick libertarian" before, and I have no idea whether the phrase would have occurred to Edroso if he had been writing about a man. But the charge of pretending to libertarianism as a cover for what is really conservatism is pretty common. I think it was that other PJ (O'Rourke) who defined a "libertarian" as a conservative who wants to date a liberal. And I've certainly heard references to putting "lipstick on that pig" regarding matters that had no gender significance at all.
You may be right about Edroso's intentions (I have no inside knowledge), but when I first read his phrase I believed I understood it, I did not regard it as even ambiguous, and I was surprised to read your very different interpretation.
I don't get why "lipstick libertarian" is sexist. Are "real" libertarians not women? Do women not wear lipstick? Is it a slur to say that libertarians can be women and can wear lipstick? Since you self identify as a libertarian and also as a person with thirty pair of shoes do you self identify with what you, yourself, think is a sexist stereotype? If you do, how is that Roy's fault?
The utter incoherence of your position in this essay alone in which you jump from explaining that you try not to write girly stuff (even though ezra can) so you will be taken more seriously but you hate it when other women oppress you by pointing out that you might need to masculinize yourself or your prose to be taken seriously but you haven't really masculinized yourself because you are a "girly girl" but you object to roy classifying your shtick as, essentially, girly libertarianism or libertarianism with a smiley face and a heart on the i--is really astonishing. You really are the younger ann althouse. Its possible to imagine cracking open the top of your head (metaphorically) and finding nothing in there but a mewling infant and some cotton candy.
aimai
I actually read the "lipstick libertarian" phrase in yet another way.
Not sexist, but classist.
A certain type of leftist rejects out of hand any libertarian impulse coming from an upper middle class or above person as arising from "privilege".
I read "lipstick libertarian" as being similar to "silver spoon libertarian" or "trust fund libertarian". From this point of view you are the coddled white product of privilege, and your lack of knowledge of the "gritty mean streets of life" where statism is necessary is represented by your lipstick, high heels and clean hands. "If you had the lips of a worker, you would not be so heartless!"
P.S. On behalf of my interpretation, I reject the endorsement of anyone who refers to Clarence Thomas as "an Uncle Tom."
If it makes you feel any better Megan, I have a not so secret crush on you, not because you're pretty (even though you are), but because I really, really love your blog and your brand of pragmatic libertarianism.
Full disclosure. I'm a recently re-hickified, fattening, balding white semi-Kraut male. If I get into arguments about politics with others who choose to get in an extra dig at me on the basis of my slovenly appearance: So be it! It frees me to let loose my own epithets as I wish, although I generally refrain because the original insult reflects more on the mindset of the originator.
Besides, if my arguments have driven an opponent to such fits that he's rendered speechless on the topic at hand -- Well, now, ain't that just a glorious free bonus? :^)
The point, aimai, is that "lipstick" is being used as a perjorative. Lipstick is only something that is worn by women. The very term implies that femininity is in some important way lesser. And it would never have been written about a man. How do you not understand that this is sexism?
There are plenty of things to criticize about me without dragging my gender into it.
> I will say that I'm particularly shocked to find that about 95% of this comes from the left, particularly the fraternity potty talk...
I've anecdotally observed that "left wing" blog commenters tend to get away with nastier stuff...I guess it's because it's under the guise of being left-wing, which automatically means you're on the side of all that is good and against all that is bad?
I guess it's because it's under the guise of being left-wing, which automatically means you're on the side of all that is good and against all that is bad?
Exactly. Because progressives care, and care very deeply. There motives are therefore pure, and any bigoted expressions on their part are not sincere but simply rhetorical exercises to illustrate the evilness of their opponents.
I've found the content here remarkable in the words spent on Megan's personal interaction with the rest of the world, regarding her appearance in particular. Dating advice for boys going out with girls like her even. It hard to imagine Ezra posting date advice for short men (if he is indeed short), or digby posting dating advice at all--we know almost nothing about her personally.
The profile, while snarky, does hit the mark pretty well. I've only been reading for a little while, but I am hard-pressed to figure out what kind of "libertarian" she is. The lipstick libertarian line picks up this faux quality that I'm seeing pretty well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the content is often very gender-conscious, reminding the reader that Megan is a woman. It's not at the level of Michelle Malkin's cheerleader video, but it is part of the content, in a way that is not part of Marcy Wheeler's or Digby's content. It's not surprising that a critic would note this, just as an Ace of Spades review could not help but notice the fake testosterone in the virtual air. Nor would it be surprising to see Ace reviewing, say, FDL, remark on the intentionally maternal content like the Pull Up a Chair or recipe sharing content. (And, just btw, Ezra posts monkfish recipes, not muffin recipes.)
Now I suppose you could say that Yglesias' NBA jones or Fallows' gadget and airplane obsessions are also genderfying. But, again, it would not be surprising for a writer reviewing Matt in a humorous way to make some kind of equipment manager joke wrt his NBA content.
It seems to me if you're gonna write about stuff, you shouldn't be surprised if that stuff gets reflected in criticism.
Making fun of people for being fat--another thing that I, in my lack of humor, do not really find funny.
Sigh, do you ever address the point made?
The point is not whether or not the humor suits your tastes. The point is whether or not it is grounded in genuine criticism of your work, or your sex.
It is the former, I assure you.
The others' "orientation" . . .
I think it's pretty hard to deny that Megan's got a point. Megans' "orientation" contains the only gendered reference, though Goldberg gets a slap for a different immutable trait.
There appears to be some content to the sexism here: an annoyance with the "puckish subjects" Megan occasionally blogs about (the challenges of being a tall woman, dietary choices, and presumably other unspecified things). I tend to agree with Megan that it's rude to deride these subjects in gendered terms. That said, I don't think it's the case that the author's use of the term "lipstick libertarian" arises solely from the fact that Megan is a woman; it is--at least in part--a snide comment on the topics Megan chooses to engage.
I've anecdotally observed that "left wing" blog commenters tend to get away with nastier stuff
Huh? You need to go read content at LGF, or AceofSpades HQ.
I've been reading your blog for awhile, and since you brought up the fact that you don't like people using your appearance to judge your merits, it dawned on me that I had never bothered to find out what you look like. So I checked online for some photos. You're obviously a bright woman, and now I know you're pretty too.
Actually, in my experience the reason you hear more cursing from left-wing blog commenters is because many prominent [non libertarian] right wing blogs have their comments sections turned off, or have closed registration to all but a handful of approved commenters of long standing, or don't offer the opportunity to comment at all. This means that a large percentage of the [non libertarian] right-wing blog audience is lurking about in places where they have no opportunity to curse in the first place. Maybe they're cursing at home. We'll never know.
Left-wing, and libertarian, blog sites appear more free-wheeling because they are.
If the Corner had comments, I'm sure lots of cursing would take place. From all sides.
Oh, so it's just baking that is female, and unserious? Monkfish makes better policy?
Ezra has, in fact, written posts on dating; more than I have. You just haven't noticed because . . . well, I leave that question as an exercise for the reader.
And Jackaroyd, the ratio of comments that Kerry and I get to the sporadic comments on the appearance of the men is not even vaguely close.
It's not particularly hard to figure out what kind of libertarian I am, except for liberals who think that the only thing libertarians are allowed to care about is civil liberties. I do care, a great deal, about civil liberties, but I don't blog about them much, because I am not a lawyer or any other kind of expert; this has gotten me labeled as a fake libertarian by left wingers who don't like anything about libertarians except their opposition to the war. This is like me calling Nat Hentoff a fake liberal because he's pro-life.
(Well, not exactly, because I'm pro-choice. But you get the idea.)
Second commentor (LarryM) hits the nail on the head, and rickm at 11:36 am puts on the capstone.
I've been reading Megan / Jane for nearly 5 years now, and my first response to one of her posts - it happened within that first week - had to do with (yet another) instance of her devilishly generalized liberal bashing.
Megan's very good at it, Megan relishes it, and (on the receiving end) it's annoying as hell. So I'm at a loss as to why a little return fire - the term 'lipstick libertarian' - would generate such anguish.
I'm pretty sure that if Megan were a man, had the same audience and applied the same liberal-tweaking approach, Roy would come up with a similarly clever alliterative male jibe.
And I'm just as certain that the conservative hand-wringers would be wailing about the dastardly, ill-mannered, frothing leftists - that is up until the hand-wringers redirected their comments to pillory the poor for deserving it and to regale refugees for cowardice.
Cheers,
I think it's pretty hard to deny that Megan's got a point.:
Ace of Spades; Fratboytarian
And right where it makes sense. Ace's hyper-maleness is a big part of his persona. Disclosure: I used to moderate a site where Ace was active, pre HQ, and he called me many nasty names.
(and no, I hadn't read the other profiles (and still haven't) before posting the note above.)
Jay, the refute should've been like this:
Megans' "orientation" contains the only gendered reference, though Goldberg gets a slap for a different immutable trait.
REALLY?!??!?!
Ace of Spades; Fratboytarian
PJ -- In the older Harriet Beecher sense, I'll concede that Clarence Thomas doesn't exactly fit the bill as an Uncle Tom.
But, in the more modern vernacular, an Uncle Tom is a black person who supports policies or ideas that in general benefit the white, wealthy establishment and hurt blacks in general (as a minority overrepresented in the lower to middle class strata).
You're 35?!?
I would also add that 'fratboytarian' has a hint of gender specificity, no?
Cheers,
Bragan -- my rejection of your remark was not based on ignorance of modern vernacular.
Megan--
My apologies. I don't read Ezra much. Thanks for the dating correction. On monkfish vs muffins, FDL purposely creates an environment on their weekend posts that is intended to be welcoming to women. I've talked to Marcy about this in an interview. Four or five years ago there was a widely read Kevin Drum post about the scarcity of female bloggers. FDL purposely tried to create a comfortable setting for women commenters, with posts designed to encourage community formation. Christy frequently refers to her role as a mother. That's why I said "maternal" and not female. A reviewer would not be sexist to note that.
re: libertarianism
I am not a libertarian fan, and dislike the label because the only thing that seems to be commonly held among people who claim the label is an opposition to income transfers from rich to poor.
I find this very irksome, because the arguments used are dishonest. Like Will's claim of being anti-statist is profoundly dishonest, because he is also a capitalism fan, and capitalism requires a deeply coercive statist system in order to exist.
Now that is not to say that I don't appreciate Will's well-written prose and polite demeanor, which I have found common among thoughtful people who use the label.
I've been online for a very long time, back to the Compuserv 300 baud modem days. The online world, for some reason, is libertarian habitat, and I've met many varieties. As I've said before, my favorite libertarians are the pro-life variety. Walking around with that level of cognitive dissonance is impressive.
You certainly don't seem to be of the Boaz variety--but I haven't placed you yet.
Megan: Edroso's piece *was* good for a smile. And you do wear lipstick. And you self-identify as a libertarian. And his documentation of your blogging career is, while glib, not inaccurate. And you have a nice job, a well-placed soapbox, and not a few adoring fans.
What did this self-pity post set you back? Two hours? Three? Was it worth it?
Now let's talk tofu marinades. Peanut butter and soy sauce vs. orange juice and molasses. Atlantic readers want to know, dammit!
Megan, this is a scream:
The point, aimai, is that "lipstick" is being used as a perjorative. Lipstick is only something that is worn by women. The very term implies that femininity is in some important way lesser. And it would never have been written about a man. How do you not understand that this is sexism?
There are plenty of things to criticize about me without dragging my gender into it.
Posted by Megan McArdle | April 16, 2008 12:02 PM
Of course there would be "plenty of things to criticize about" you if your thoughts on politics weren't so transparently childish and uninteresting. Why bother? You are a self satisfied, incoherent, uninteresting, product of upper class privilige. You mistake the life you lead for something you "do" rather than something you act out. You mistake the "ideas" that you spout for something you've thought about rather than something you've parrotted from poorly digested libertarian tracts. You suck up to your social equals and betters, ignore or kick down those you think your inferiors. The rights you champion qua libertarian you sell out in a second qua crypto conservative. Even your feminist posturing comes on top of your anti feminist lectures to other women on how their feminism isn't the right one. And now you want to bitch about the word lipstick? Puh-lease. You haveve no more idea of the politics and economics that underpins your world than my cat does of the can opener. In two years you will have been booted from the atlantic when they find some younger, prettier, cheaper version of you and all that will be left of you will be the phrase "lipstick libertarian." Its not because the atlantic is sexist that they hired you (though you are offensive to actual women) and it won't be because they are sexist that they terminate you. Its because your musings are, literally, a dime a dozen and even at that you are probably overpaid.
aimai
an Uncle Tom is a black person who supports policies or ideas that in general benefit the white, wealthy establishment and hurt blacks in general
Like a return to slavery? Whippings for looking at a white woman?
I suspect you mean special government carve-outs, favors and rent for those the government considers to be a "minority." People can disagree on these issues and philosophies without the nasty ad hominem of "Uncle Tom."
Bragan -
Reducing Clarence Thomas's views to "good for white people, bad for black people" is so dismissively simplistic that I hesitate to even engage them here. However, your post does raise an interesting question: do leftists hate Clarence Thomas because they cannot accept an african-american who holds conservatives beliefs? Or do they hate Clarence Thomas because they are so blindly sure that their preferred policies are "good for black people" that they conclude that Thomas MUST be a traitor to his race and therefore not worthy of debating?
Either way, you are hurling insults and refusing to engage Thomas's arguments because he is a black man. A white person who holds similar views would get different treatment.
Thank you for so ably illustrating my broad point about latent racism in leftist identity politics.
I think the point on fratboytarian and legacy pledge are not particularly responsive. It's not surprising to find multiple types of prejudice in the same person. On that point, I think Megan's defense that only a woman could be addressed as she was has confused people. That is not the same as claiming that only women are subjected to unpleasant generalization. As an example, if I were insulted in a Jewish-specific way, I might react(internally) as Megan has and point out that the insult is Jewish-specific. That wouldn't be made fair game by Christians being insulted in a Christian specific way, nor would my objection depend on the relative incidence of those two events. So, yes, the "fat" point is well taken - Megan shouldn't find that particularly funny either, and lo and behold, she doesn't.
I didn't like the comment on female narrative styles though (for fairly boring/guessable reasons, so I won't get into it)
Ms. McArdle says Mr. Edroso is criticizing her sex; he says he's criticizing her work. There is obviously nothing objectionable about Ms. McArdle as a woman, therefore the problem is probably with the work.
For a better example of a blog on economics, see the G Spot, which takes a more thorough, educational and understandable approach, also from a female point of view.
Fair point on Ace, guys, my mistake. Fratboy certainly does contain gender specificity, though the term is so ubiquitous that I'm pretty numb to whatever sexism it contains. And I can't even imagine a world in which people are sympathetic to men who are called fratboys because they've been singled out on the basis of their gender.
You're hardly humorless, Megan. Glenn Greenwald, on the other hand... you bet. Never saw him smile in your bloggingheads exchange. Sad.
Hi Megan:
I find that your thoughts on this subject are quite similar to what Ann Althouse has expressed in the past. Perhaps you two could do a bloggingheads sometime? Despite fairly different political philosophies, I think both of you occupy the same 'blogospheric' space as politically independent female bloggers.
If you aren't familiar with Ann Althouse, I think that this post is representative.
I think what you've observed can be broken down and explained in two parts.
First, the old saw that "conservatives are looking for converts, liberals for heretics." In gross generalization, conservatives have little difficulty accepting a person who has mixed views, because they (we) consider political views to be a product of a methodical system of thought. Different levels of agreement come from differing viewpoints. On the other hand, liberals view politics through a moral lens, which is less forgiving - a single dissonant view casts doubt on the entire person. To take a silly example, a person who volunteers, gives to charity, helps old ladies cross the street, but also tortures cats cannot be moral. One deviation stains the entire person.
Secondly, it cannot be denied that conservatism often also entails some amount of social conservatism. As a libertarian, this might be troubling, but a conservative of any stripe is more likely to be socially conservative as well. This includes a courteous restraint when dealing with women.
Thus, the right is more likely to look for agreement than disagreement, and less likely to resort to misogynist comments during disagreement.
I agree with Chris Lawrence's interpretation, I thought he was saying that you were not in fact a "real" libertarian and I think it's somewhat foolish for a non-libertarian to attempt to draw that boundry.
To your contention that "lipstick" as an epithet would mostly be applied to women, who are mostly who wear lipstick, is almost certainly correct. I don't know that that alone makes it sexist, though I'm not a woman so maybe my take shouldn't count. If you were a man whom he felt was an unserious libertarian I could very well see him trying to make a pun on "metrosexual libertarian" or some such adjective that is mostly applied to men and implies frivolity.
Also, I vote against boots, prada or doc. marten. Those argyle socks were too fantastic to hide under boots.
Lastly, it's nice that you are stylish and pretty, I would think it must help in booking public appearances, though probably not as much as the fact that you are well spoken and good at putting together and presenting reasonable arguments. That and the fact that I like your writing is why I come to your blog so often.
As for the recipes, I enjoy reading them, they mostly sound delicious, and if I ever venture beyond mu culinary limits of adding peas to mac 'n' cheese in a box I might even attempt one or two.
At any rate. Keep up the good work, don't get down about invective from critics, sexist or otherwise. After all, if they're attacking you it must be becuase they think you're worth the effort, yes?
Its because your musings are, literally, a dime a dozen and even at that you are probably overpaid.
I suspect your commenting here is taking away valuable time you would normally be spending making huge paper-mache Dick Cheney puppets with dripping fangs for the upcoming ANSWER rally.
By the way, your colleague in the next cubicle, Matthew Yglesias, recently griped that Meghan McCain was insufficiently bull-dyke militarist to be a McCain supporter (she blogs for her dad). If I recall correctly, he's also shown that he finds ageist arguments useful to support his rejection of J-Mac.
Is it a big deal? Probably not -- certainly not to me. I don't have to read it if I don't find it interesting or compelling. He's paid to opine all day, and it's ultimately his choice to address style and appearance from time to time rather than meatier matters. He writes plenty on politics, and I agree with hardly any of what he has to say.
Lipstick Libertarian is a good turn of phrase. Let's take Anne Coulter for an example, most of the sexist stuff about her comes from the left not because the left is more sexist but because the left hates her more. Same with you just to a lesser degree, the left has more of a problem with you than the right. By a pretty large margin that some of this antipathy comes out as sexism is unfortunate but not especially meaningful.
do leftists hate Clarence Thomas because they cannot accept an african-american who holds conservatives beliefs?
We greatly dislike the fact that a beneficiary of affirmative action and quotas, the least qualified of the nine, sits in the black seat on the Court. One may not like Scalia's opinions or Roberts' management of the court, but one cannot question their qualification to be where they are. Thomas does not meet those standards.
The point wrt to Ace, southpaw, is that his content makes a big deal about his gender, as Megan's does and digby's doesn't. The reason that the reviewer made a gender crack in these two instances but not in, say, Glenn Reynolds' is that he sees gender-specific content at Megan's and Ace's, but not at instapundit.
I think he's right in both cases.
I do care, a great deal, about civil liberties, but I don't blog about them much, because I am not a lawyer or any other kind of expert; this has gotten me labeled as a fake libertarian by left wingers who don't like anything about libertarians except their opposition to the war.
Is it just a coincidence that if you chose to blog about civil liberties a lot, you would inevitably have to denounce the war and the mainstream Republican political establishment more than you would like to?
Something tells me that if a Democrat gets into office you'll rediscover your civil liberties expertise. By another odd coincidence, Rush will rediscover his enthusiasm for small government on the same day.
To be leftist is to be identitarian. That means that the leftist sees beauty in himself and that extends to to others who are identical in the chosen view or characteristic. This is why the criticism of Bush centers so strongly on his not being extended personal value; he is a 'war criminal' as is John Yoo etc. It is not 'you have not followed precept X' most prominently. So when you do not confrom to an expected position, you are personally attacked as lacking in narcissitic value to the attacker.
What do we have here? Defenders of Clarence Thomas? Wow, I should have suspected that they exist somewhere outside of the GOP and allied institutions, but to actually encounter them, and more than one, on an Atlantic blog thread? If I wasn't already floored by aimai's slam on Megan, I might have been knocked over in disbelief.
Many of Thomas's SC opinions and positions contribute to effects on the populace as a whole (and blacks in particular as a minority) that are much nastier than any name I might call him.
mgprophy-
Yes. Liberals criticize Bush and Yoo by calling the m 'War Criminals'. Of course, this had nothing to do with the fact that they committed war crimes, its just 'who they are'.
BTW, you're retarded.
As someone who spends a fair amount of time in the feminist blogosphere, I would agree that Megan gets her share of sexist comments, as does virtually any female who says or posts anything in political discourse.
As for "lipstick lesbian", there's a couple of different interpretations. I agree that it's an ambiguous enough phrase that Edroso should not have used it in this context. When I read it, I thought of it as a parallel to the women who while in college experimented with lesbianism because it was cool and popular, but remained steadfastly heterosexual and returned to hetero relationships after college. Ie, spent some time at least superficially espousing a philosophy/lifestyle that was outside the mainstream while staying committed to an underlying more conservative stance. Which, frankly, I think is a pretty apt description of Megan's libertarian/conservative stance.
I can say that the critiques I have of Megan are based entirely on what I see is lazy and sloppy writing and thought. I'm thinking specifically of the discussion of the food stamp component of the economic stimulus bill and about access to health food in low-income areas, but there are plenty of examples. I don't think these critiques have anything to do with her gender and that there are other critiques of her that are similarly distinct from her gender.
So, while I agree that the "lipstick libertarian" remark was sexist and gendered, the rest of Edroso's comments were not gendered and I do not think it's fair to dismiss his entire column as a sexist screed. There are certainly sufficient reasons to disagree with Megan and critique her work that have nothing to do with her gender, and I agree that commentators should stick to those.
I think the first person to be called a "lipstick libertarian" was Roy Childs.
jayackroyd, the fact that someone disagrees with you, regarding your contention that the word "anti-statist" is synonymous with the word "anarchist", does not mean that that they are dishonest. It just means you are in error. In any case, I generally prefer to avoid such labels altogether, employ them.
In any case, the vast majority of those I've encountered who choose to label themselves as "libertarian" inveigh against transfers from poor to rich as much as, if not more so, than transfers from rich to poor. Hence their frequent denunciations of the Social Security system, which, after all, involves transferring wealth from the age demographic which has the poorest median wealth to the age demographic with the highest median wealth. The primary function of our national government is, after all, the transfer of income from poor to rich, based on age. This who label themselves libertarian rail against this more than just about anybody.
Geez, I can't type. I meant to delete "employ them".
Bragan - you either don't understand, or are deliberately avoiding the point of my comments, which were in no way a defense of Clarence Thomas. I would be more than willing to defend him in an argument with you over theories of consitutional interpretation some other time. However, to boil my argument down to a simple form that you can understand:
1) Many (most) writers/commenters holding left-leaning political views assume that a person's race/gender does and should dictate their political beliefs.
2) This assumption is, at a very basic level, racist/sexist.
3) This racism/sexim results in a refusal to engage conservative/libertarian arguments when they are put forward by non-whites/women.
4) Apparently the best that the left can do when confronted by an intelligent minority/woman holding conservative/libertarian views is to call them names. This is not only racist/sexist, it is childish in the extreme.
Respond. But with substance please, not some non-sequitur like "I'm for affirmative action so I cannot be racist."
BTW, if you Google (or in my case, Ask) lipstick libertarian, you'll get a few hits showing past usage. Shame on me for not doing it sooner. The references don't seem to me to be particularly to women, but your view may differ.
"Lipstick Lesbian" does not equal "fake lesbian," you morons, and Edroso's point is so painfully clear as to make this hullaballoo itself example #1 in proving what a dolt McCardle is.
Lipstick lesbian =a lesbian who presents herself in a traditionally feminine manner (i.e. lipstick, makeup, dresses).
Lipstick lesbians are liked or disliked on a basis of taste, not because they are necessarily "fake."
Lipstick lesbianism = a means by which popular culture packages lesbianism to make it palatable to a more mainstream audience that generally associates lesbianism negatively with "mannish" women.
Making the connection....
The mainstream associates libertarianism (if they even know what it is) with arid, selfish, "will to power" macho dudes who got no time for "society."
McCardle is neither ari..self...er.. well, she's not a man. She's the libertarian "hottie." Voila, there's her shtick and suddenly, libertarianism is slightly more palatable (your mileage may vary, of course) to the mainstream.
Without that shtick, she's just another "poor folks drop dead" sociopath, slender pickings to merit such a fine niche on the varsity squad.
Compared to other bloggers I typically read, you write very little about "off-topic" or personal subjects. You do write the occasional cooking post or post about hipsters, but the vast majority of your posts are on politicas or economics. Your "on-topic" posts are generally gender neutral and don't take a feminist or female side (whatever that means).
So attacks on your because you are female are even odder than if you "blogged like a girl." (again, whatever that really means)
And Lefties, for whatever reason, do tend to be race/gender conscious across the board, so I'm not surprised that that applies to their insults and attacks.
the fact that someone disagrees with you, regarding your contention that the word "anti-statist" is synonymous with the word "anarchist",
That is not my claim, as you're well aware. My claim is that capitalism is dependent upon the existence of a cadastre, a record of real property ownership that can only arise within a massively interventionist state.
The way that real property comes to exist is it is taken, by force, from the people who were living there by a government, which becomes the ultimate owner of the land. The government permits conditional ownership of a subset of the parcels that it creates through its mapping function.
This is a massive intervention. It's coercive. It's not inherent to the existence of a state, nor is its absence anarchy. People have lived for thousands of years in societies with no real property.
Once you've made this collectivist intervention, everything else is pocket change by comparison. The difference between a capitalist state with or without income transfer programs is trivial compared to the difference of a state with and without real property. The central claim, that the state only should exist to protect property rights, covers up the fact that the state that is necessary to protect those property rights violates the basic principles of coercion and sanctity of property rights.
And you are quite right. Just as the rich and the poor are equally prohibited from sleeping under bridges, people who call themselves libertarians are opposed to transfers from poor to rich as well.
Has anyone asked Roy what he meant by the term? Or bothered to check out his blog?
So there you go. He was approaching it as saying Megan is a Libertarian who makes her posts particularly girly-girl (and by implication, therefore unserious). I don't agree with that characterization, BTW. But then, I'm a feminized liberal wuss so I probably wouldn't necessarily notice.
The statement is completely sexist as used, intentionally demeaning, and I think Megan is right to be upset about it. "Lipstick Libertarian" would not have been used if Megan was male. Ergo, it is sexist.
Surprise, surprise, sexism is alive and well on both left and right.
liberalrob, kudos for the bright idea to see if Roy had clarified himself but I think you are misinterpreting his clarification.
He seems to be suggesting that he could have swapped out "lipstick libertarian" with "libertarian until graduation" by which I think he is drawing a comparison to those girls who are "lesbian until graduation", in other words who try out lesbianism during college but return to their non-lesbian selves after graduation.
The analagy to libertarianism would thus not be that Megan makes her posts "girly-girly" but that she is merely pretending to be libertarian and will return to her non-libertarian reality at some point.
Good job Megan, at drawing out the condescending left-wing ideologues like Edroso and aimai. They're squealing is too tinged by jealousy to be taken seriously.
Jay, when did I ever claim that the only purpose of the state is to protect property rights? Also, I have no idea of what you meant by the last sentence in your last post, unless you are opeating under the assumption that state enforced poor to rich wealth transfers are as rare as rich people sleeping under bridges. I assure you they are not, and I've never met someone who called himself a libertarian who did not voice oposition to them.
The things that's so funny both about Megan's original post and about many of the comments here is that they seem to assume that Roy Edroso's article (in which the phrase "lipstick libertarian" appeared) was otherwise a perfectly sober intellectual critique--that only poor Megan, because of her gender, was subjected to an unfair ad feminam attack. In reality Edroso's article was nothing more than a collection of personal wise cracks aimed at various right-wing bloggers, with "lipstick libertarian" being probably one of the mildest cracks in the entire piece. (It's here: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0816,a-confederacy-of-dunces,411897,1.html/1)
Megan, here is my my advice: as you were. Once you start looking for offences there will be no end to it. There are many reasons for attracting snarks, and many of them are factors which make you an interesting, successful and attractive blogger.
"Would my blogging really improve if I traded in my Prada boots for a pair of Doc Martins?"
Well, i don't know if it would improve, but it certainly couldnt get worse.
I want you to know that your recipes have always vastly increased your credibility in my eyes, as they are unfailingly delicious and well thought out. It's your social policy writing that gives me, err, heartburn.
Megan, here's a newsflash for you in case you weren't already aware of it...
A lot of your readers first started reading you because you were a fairly exotic bird: a Manhattanite libertarian chick blogging from a rightish perspective from the ruins of the WTC. Like many of the other first-wave bloggers (Instapundit, Lileks, Charles Johnson) you were interesting novelty.
That's why people tuned in.
It wasn't what you wrote, it was who you were. You were a right-of-center chick from New York at a time when a lot of people couldn't conceive that a creature like you existed. That's a big part of the reason that you have a readership today.
And you know what? That's going to open you up to attacks. Even obnoxious ones. Even borderline sexist ones.
However, by your own acknowledgment, you're a girly-girl, and like it or not, that's part of what Edroso was taking aim at. If you're going to continue to be girly-girl libertarian Megan, then people will continue to take aim at that as long as you're more or less in the public eye. Since the "lipstick libertarian" comment reflects at least a kernel of truth, I'm not sure that playing the victim and using it as a teaching moment about sexism will be terribly effective.
If you're a girly-girl and you're cool with that, then embrace the critique. Virginia Postrel embraced her inner girly-girl, examined it, and produced "The Substance of Style", which is a fascinating exploration of glamour and taste.
Meanwhile, Meghan McCain has been chronicling her father's campaign as an unapologetic girly-girl, and has offered an interesting and intimate view into life on the campaign trail that's accessible to the types of people that a lot of writers and bloggers (i.e. the male ones) don't take seriously.
I'm not saying that you're like Postrel or McCain, either politically or personally. That's not the point. The point is that girls, even girly ones, are people too, and their opinions matter. If you're one of them, then be one. Regardless of what people say.
"The term 'lipstick lesbian' is used to deride wearing makeup and high heels as making you fundamentally unserious, at least as far as I've always understood it." -- McArdle
Well then . . . ahem, you've been wrong.
As other have pointed out, the term was used to describe lesbians who both rejected the fashions and stereotypes associated with lesbians and the belief that adhering to more traditional ideas of female attractiveness and its various accruements was a political betrayal.
So the implication is that you're a libertarian who rejects the general geekiness associated with the type.
(Yeah, then there's the possible implication that you're a success because you are attractive, but that's, by no means, not overtly implied by there term "lipstick libertarian.")
Long story short: you're on very dubious grounds.
Also, if it makes you feel any better, many of us on the left view Ezra as a precocious and provincial eight-year-old who really should be in bed by now. Cute as in he may be in small doses with the pajamas with the feet!
("Oh, look! Did Ezra just make a bad joke about cooking and heartburn? Does he want a glass of water? Well, have his Mom fetch him one and then it's beddy time for real, kid.")
That whole lipstick libertarian tag and why women routinely make less than men for the same amount of work are all tied together; and the backlash against femisim has somehow meant it's okay to be derogatory in a snide way to woman.
That remark (lipstick lesbian, lipstick libertarian) goes hand in hand with people who call grown black strong men "boy" as has recently happened to Sen.Obama. It's a reflexive way of saying; this person doesn't matter. This person's ideas don't matter. This person is not worthy of respect solely on the basis of his or her ideas.
But while calling a grown man "boy" is clearly wrong; calling a woman who happens to be a libertarian a "lipstick libertarian" isn't something that on first glance will stick in the craw of anyone. Because gender bias has slowly seeped into every part of our culture.
It's why, through I don't support Sen. Clinton, I know she has a hard row to hoe too. Because when racial aspects are used against Sen. Obama, there is a shared history of what it means to say he only won South Carolina because he's black etc. There is a shared collective sense that in public discourse, it's insulting to suggest his accomplishments have anything to do with the color of his skin. They don't. But similarly, it's not a problem to say HRC is where she is because of Bill. And no one makes the corresponding case: Bill got to where he was BECAUSE he had HRC by his side and working for him, totally in his corner.
All of that is by way of saying: Good luck and God Bless. I've been there.
Megan - this is my first read of your blog, thanks to a link from washingtonmonthly.com
as a white male southerner age 57 who is both sort of liberal and sort of religious and right now both anti-bush/cheney and anti-clinton(s) - i feel your pain - somebody will find a reason to criticize you if you write or do almost anything - so enjoy your shoes and lipstick and your state of non-matrimony and write whatever you believe - it is, as they say, a free country and there are stupid/unreasonable people on both sides of the left-right spectrum
A not particularly brief, very personal, very feminine rant
You did not ask for my advice, but you might, as you are a public figure at this time in your life, benefit from a thicker hide.
And I'm perilously close to despair at finding that so many of my correspondents not only believe that pointing out that I am 35 and unmarried is a devastating insult, but apparently expect me to share that opinion. Was I born in 1973, or am I living in it?
I think you have confounded 1973 with some earlier year. Marriage and children are good things, things we are generally better off with than without. Best wishes.
Megan's statistics that 95% of those who insult her for her gender may be right, but she must balance that with the more public and intense hatred of Hillary and Nancy and Boxer that is on the airways and the other media all the time. I do not think that these politicians' counterparts, say Key Hutchinson, are hated that much by the left.
So her implication that the leftists are more sexist than her own kind is not quite correct.
First, anyone who blogs that gets terribly upset with criticism of the type shown in the Village Voice piece probably is too hypersensitive to be blogging. To blog is to subject one's self to critiques of all kinds, crude or well-mannered, fair or unfair. It's part of the job.
Second, while there may be one segment of the "left" that strives for complete gender neutrality, no matter how politically incorrect it may be to say so, there are differences between men and women, in the way they approach things, on the issues that matter most to them, and how they interact with one another. As a proud husband and father of two wonderful girls, I know this. If acknowledging those differences is sexism, well, then perhaps sexism in that context isn't all that bad. Edroso's article may have been politcally incorrect, however, it is somewhat ironic that his political incorrectness is bashed by the "right" which most often bashes the "left" for trying to enforce political correctness.
I just wonder if those of you complaining of sexism either don't understand Roy's plain-as-day explanation, or refuse to believe it.
The lipstick reference has NOTHING to do with Megan's girlygirlness. Absolutely nothing.
It has to do with the fact that, as Roy very ably demonstrates 1-2 times a week with his posts that handle McArdle, is not a libertarian. She's a conservative.
If you read Alicublog regularly, you know that this is something of a specialty of his: Taking self-described nominal Democrats, liberals, and libertarians (another term he uses for McArdle's ilk is "glibertarians,') and demonstrating how time and again they show us with their writings (regardless of their labels, or how they claim to vote) that they are nothing of the sort.
As the first poster said, 95% of McArdle's fire is aimed at the left. Same with Althouse. Same with "Armed Liberal." Same with Instapundit. All supposed centrists, libertarians, and Democrats.
So the lipstick symbolizes the libertarian paint McArdle covers her conservatism. She is, in short, FOS.
Well, I'm late to the party, living on the far side of the International Date Line. But we should chime in with the observation that in this short pout you deployed "I" 34 times, switching to "me" when appropriate an additional five. Got too cross-eyed to count the "my's". We further note that Roy called Ann Althouse's blogging style "self-referential," and then, as dead-on as he often is, suggests the two of you are ripe for "trading places".
And the next time you feel the urge to write a preeny phrase like "heteronormative stereotypes," do suppress it. Then study Wolcott, and study Edroso, and try to sharpen your prose a bit. First tip: choose a subject other than "I".
You're terribly interested in yourself, aren't you Ms. McArdle?
"I find that your thoughts on this subject are quite similar to what Ann Althouse has expressed in the past. Perhaps you two could do a bloggingheads sometime?"
Imho this would be a mismatch. Althouse is more intelligent, more erudite, more interesting, more well-behaved and also better looking...
:P
I would agree, given the clarifications (see quote, not interpretation, at 3:32, and Bob's comments at 3:33), that "lipstick libertarian" is being used to refer to people who are "dabblers" and not fully committed. Nothing to do with actual lipstick or being a girl.
In any case, Roy Edroso's criticism is hardly something to lose sleep over. I disagree with most everything he said, but can still get a laugh out of it.
I think women and men blog differently and that makes for good reading.
Megan,
I read Edroso's piece, and while I can see grounds for you to take offense, he doesn't particularly merit the attention.
It's all spite without content. Frivolous and deeply unfunny. As for the insults, sexist or otherwise, well, the internet is full of assholes (quite a few unmasking themselves on this thread), and if you take the time to be outraged, you'll never have a moment for anything else.
What a depressing thread. All this attention to a turn of phrase, lipstick libertarian, that clearly referred to Ms. McArdle's faux libertarianism masking her conservatism. No engagement with the rest of Roy's post, which had plenty of content, including lots of quotes from Ms. McArdle and references to her writing. It was a short humor piece, after all, illustrated with cartoons.
35? Really? I'd guessed late 20s from watching BHTV...
I'm a bit late to the party, but it was interesting to observe how many lefties are trying to criticize libertarians as being conservatives in disguise.
That's a fun new twist on the 'conservatives are looking for converts, liberals are looking for heretics' aphorism - conservatives would like to persuade libertarians that they are conservative, and liberals would like to convince libertarians that they are conservative.
I know which of those is the more rational thing to do, and which is based on a mire of identity politics and ideological purity.
This is based only on my personal experience, so maybe its not serious, but I wouldn't hit that chick Megan McCardle with a 2 by 4.
you're pretty
I wouldn't hit her with somebody else's 2x4, either.
Hi, Megan.
I don't agree with you always, or even mostly, but I appreciate the subjects you raise and your comments on them. They're an invitation to serious discussion, if there are any serious people out there able to rise to the challenge (myself, usually I don't have enough time to respond sufficiently, given the high bar you set).
Sorry intelligent commenters are always in the minority. Sorry the blogosphere is filled with horse flies and gnats (less here on the Atlantic than elsewhere).
But, Anne Gregory, you are valued for your words and your words alone by some of us at least, whatever your other charms may or may not be.
There's nothing wrong with Doc Martins, though. That, I feel qualified to take you up on. Prada's nice too, mind you. Doc Matins would put a bigger dent in the tail bone of your critics, that's something to consider. "I'm puttin' on my blogging shoes!"
Hang tough, smart person.
"35 and unmarried is a devastating insult"
That could lead to you being stripped of your status as a Catholic Irishwoman.
Jane
Those of us who are fathers of daughters (white, male, 40-something professionals) have to confront something that we had cheerfully ignored for our adult lives.
When black people (my daughter is from a racial minority) and women say they face barriers that we don't face, my usual remark was 'well I'm not prejudiced, I don't see these barriers you allege'.
Alas, now that I am in that multi-racial situation where gender discrimination is also a most real issue, I can tell you that
'yes, Virginia (or Megan), you will face denigrating and insuiating comments, and career-destructive behaviour in the workplace, that is a way of knocking you down as an 'uppity' female or member of a racial minority (or both)'
For example the constant focus in the media on women like Condi Rice and how they dress. Or the questions about not having children that would never be asked of a man in the same situation.
There is a double standard, and strong gender expectations re dress, manner of speech and communication, and role.
The barriers are very real, and reinforced from year dot in the school system. If you are lucky enough to be able to afford single-sex schooling for your daughter, you can delay that exposure for a number of crucial formative years, but you can't stop her exposure to the denigrating language and tactics of the outside world. And you can't solve the racial minority problem: the girls of the affluent bring it to school just like everyone else.
When you complain about this someone will mention Condi Rice (or Oonah King (black and Jewish), over here). ie they'll focus on the exception to the rule that the professional world is still a white male club.
You will also discover that in the way they treat other professional women, successful women managers and professionals can be the *worst*.
It's kind of down to us guys who have daughters to try to change the world, because when our daughters get there, that world has to be changed.
Having a daughter of another race is probably one of the most profoundly 'liberalising' experiences you'll ever have, if you are a typical white professional male on a 6-figure income.
One might just conclude that all these 'feminists and minority whingers' and the 'politically correct' have a point.
The only thing missing for you is a regular spot on MSNBC. Jack usually hires (and makes wealthy) Irish Catholic males, but hang in there, you can break that next gender barrier. MoDo doesn't need the gig, so...
Gee, it's nice to have so many people explain what "lipstick lesbian" really means. Unfortunately, every single explanation I've read is at least partially wrong (and I don't care what some online dictionary says - I *know* what the phrase means in queer culture, at least in my area of the world).
First off, the actual meaning of "lipstick lesbian" is a feminine appearing woman who is attracted to other feminine appearing women. If she likes butch or andro women, that's not the right phrase to describe her.
Secondly (and more importantly), the term is rarely used (other than derisively) in the dyke community outside LA. Hollywood thinks it's a neat term, and when lesbian chic was the rage they promoted that image a lot.
But it's not a neat term. I'm a queer femme (and proud of it). So is my life partner, and so are a lot of my closest friends. Some of you would probably call me a "lipstick lesbian". And I'd absolutely be insulted if you did. The connotations are purely negative. The traditional implications are that I'm a pretend lesbian, inherently unserious about girls. It's used to accuse women of being women who play at being lesbian, like putting on a shade of lipstick. It's also used to imply that a woman isn't actually a member of queer culture, and that she doesn't "fight the good fight" with other queer people against gender stereotypes. "Lipstick lesbians" are viewed as being assimilationists to heteronormative culture - essentially cultural and gender traitors. Bleh.
All you really need to know about "lipstick lesbian" is that it's used to describe someone third-person a lot more than it's used to describe someone first-person. I have no interest in reclaiming that phrase, and my opinion is lessened about anyone that uses it freely.
(And who cares how to spell "Doc Martens"?)
Oh, and any descriptor that begins with the word "lipstick" is inherently suspect of being sexist in nature.
If all you want to do is communicate that you think someone is a "faux libertarian", there are countless ways to do so. If someone specifically chooses to use the word "lipstick" to convey their condescension, then I think their word choice speaks for itself as to their attitude towards women (or at least, femininity).
Hmmmm, I think she leans left, not right. So she must be doing something right if people from both wings think shes a ringer.
It starts out OK, but by page 7 the VV piece is well into tiresome, ankle-biting territory. Sort of like a less-funny Sadly, No!
I think the main thing I learned from reading that was how obsessively he has catalogued the offenses of those on on his Internet Enemies List. He must have a lot of free time.
I'd hit that.
Sexism is so deeply entrenched in our society that introducing the question of which wing hurls it more obscures the issue. It's sexism, finis.
Megan, the most annoying thing about you is that you make a living at this, while bloggers (including many, many women) who are smarter and more insightful write their blogs as a labor of love. Your writing is so insipid and self-involved that the Atlantic can't have hired you for your worth as a pundit. You're the token woman.
Megan,
Once again the far-leftists demonstrate that they hate their foes more than they love any of their purported causes, and that like racism, ageism and the rest, sexism is to them only a convenient construct with which to batter those in the way of their path to power, not an evil to eschew.
As for this "35 and unmarried" nonsense, whatever your marital status may mean to you, it is clearly a public service to give hope however faint to a multitude of discerning men that so incisive a mind embedded in so enchanting a form continues to be, at least in principle, available.
Megan,
Once again the far-leftists show that they hate their foes more than they love their purported principles. To them, like racism, ageism and the rest, sexism is but a convenient construct with which to batter those in the way of their path to power, not an evil to eschew.
As for this "35 and unmarried" nonsense, it is clearly a public service to give a multitude of discerning men even the faintest hope that so incisive a mind embedded in so enchanting a form remains, at least in principle, available.
civil liberties, but I don't blog about them much, because I am not a lawyer or any other kind of expert
That doesn't stop you from blogging about economics, and you're not an economist or any kind of expert on that.
Megan McArdle: "More to the point, would he have written that about a man?" Maybe, if the man had thirty pairs of shoes in his closet and a really amazing collection of hair-care implements.
Here, try this post of mine:
http://thisislikesogay.blogspot.com/2008/03/but-enough-about-you.html
I'm not sure I count as a liberal blogger, but I think I managed to attack your position without resorting to sexism. (Unless you object to being referred to as "Ms.," in which case I'll be happy to change it to "Mr." Just let me know.)
I think anyone, male or female, who claims not to be sexist is at best unreflective. But I've spent many enjoyable hours online over the past few decades, attacking the sexism of my fellow males, the racism of my fellow whites, the homophobia of reality-based libs, and so on. Not for nothing am I known as the high pontiff of Political Correctness.
Edroso is sexist -- I read him for his phrasemaking ability, not his astute political awareness -- but one possibly helpful hint, though perhaps you know this already: It can be fun, personally satisfying, and politically obfuscatory to focus on a single slur in an extended piece of writing. But those who pay attention will begin to wonder why you chose to address that and not the possibly more substantial context in which it occurs.
For example: if someone writes nothing but "Your a moron" in a comment, that's a slur and nothing but. If someone demolishes your position at great length, showing how detached from reality and ordinary human decency it is, and then concludes with "You're a moron," it's not a slur, but a conclusion based on argument. In order to establish that you are not a moron, you need to take on the argument, not go into high dudgeon over the use of unfair and hurtful language about the mentally challenged; otherwise, you're obviously seeking a diversion, which makes you look like a moron.
Oh, and get rid of that "world's tallest female econoblogger" stuff, why don't you?
Actually, I thought the "lipstick libertarian" was a pretty good line, especially when describing you, Ms. Mcardle. Maybe that's why you don't like it.
If it helps, I think the term is used to describe someone a little less than honest about their political beliefs, or rather, one who believes one thing but says she believes another quite different thing. Sort of a Republican in Libertarian's clothing if you will.
When you cheerlead for warmongers, give high praise to those who would wiretap, imprison without warrant, remake the Department of Justice into a GOP Good Squad, you don't get to call yourself "Libertarian" and not expect to get a few raspberries blown your way.
Hon. Now go answer your phone. Katherine Jean Lopez is calling. She wants her schtick back.
Megan,
I've recently been beaten up on Roy's blog as well. Looking around on the blogosphere it appears that he enjoys distorting the facts and making childish insults.
I recently shared a traumatic event in my life - a rape that occurred years ago, but that I never acknowledged. Apparently, I wrote it too well for his tastes so that means it is a "Penthouse" story, not my own experience.
Then, roy mocked me for going to therapy. Mocked me for being raped. And mocked me for being a Marine. Called me a liar. And mocked me some more. Then, a few of his readers joined in as well in the victim-blaming and mockery.
This is just unreal. A quick search of the blogosphere reveals that such cyber-bulling behaviour is the norm for little Roy.
What a waste of talent.