Would anyone in the world have any expectation that Broadsheet could provide any sort of reasonable review of Parker's book? Or would anyone in the world examine Broadsheet's history and decide there is now way that Broadsheet could provide any sort of objective, or any sort of positive review?

If you conclude Joan that Broadsheet cannot provide any sort of positive or objective review of this book ever, Joan, what does this tell you about:

A) Broadsheet?

B) What YOU have allowed Broadsheet to become

C) Broadsheet's value to the public discourse of women's issues?

D) Broadsheet's role in the public discourse of men and women's issues.

Joan, Broadsheet is a cancre sort on Salon.

Karen M who is upset with the men in Broadsheet says here:

Because I was used to seeing Digby referred to as a man, I assumed she was. And, her tone, which is very objective, made that perception more believable. Still, there was that understanding of issues that was more woman-oriented than one would expect of any man...

So we have:

Karen, upset with men in Broadsheet, believes "objective tone" is male. What does Karen think women's tone is? And does Karen think there some problem with "objective tone"? And should women be striving for an objective tone?

And we have:

Karen doesn't believe that males can actually have an deep understanding of women's issues. So though humanity, males and females, poets, authors, artists have shown throughout the years how we excel at understanding the issues of others, Karen thinks that men can't understand women. Sigh. But what does that mean about men's issues? Is Karen saying that women cannot understand men's issues? What does that say about the expectations of men to have feminists understand men's complaints about feminisms, specifically how blaming it is to use terms like "Patriarchy" and specifically blame so many of our problems on men and not on a culture comprised of men AND women. Clearly Karen is not a person that men can expect to have a conversation with about these sorts of issues.

Sigh.

How many times do people have to tell you that speech should not be banned? The solution to ugly speech is more speech.

Banning words in a courtroom because they might be prejudicial assumes the jury is a bunch of idiots.

And so does banning speech in general. I want idiots and assholes to be able to make their idiocy and assholism well known. And I don't want speech or thought police coming around and telling me what I can or cannot say, can or cannot read, and can or cannot think. But that's exactly what feminists do all the time, including at Broadsheet today.

There are no dangerous words. There are only dangerous people.

And yeah, men look at faces more than women do. Heaven forfend because the women are objectifying my cock.

At what point does Broadsheet's continual errors rise to the level of correction?

Apparently never, which is a real shame.

Real journalists correct.

And even real bloggers correct. (Ask Atrios who has on many occasions given himself the coveted wanker of the day award.)

Who doesn't correct?

George W. Bush

Broadsheet

I don't even know how to respond. Stop putting up strawmen.

It's not the women's responsibility to initiate all conversations. But when an issue comes up that concerns you, who do you think is going to bring the issue up?

We ain't mind readers. If you have something to say, say it.

If you are fulfilling something you have committed to, are you going to bring it up? Or do you expect your partner to?

So if you have a need to have the sink fixed, and he has a need to clean the fishtank first, bring it up.

Or you can take your dysfunctional approach and just call a plumber.

I can see how Roiphe feminism would be attractive to some women. It is much more difficult to make systemic change in society than it is just to smile while you pick up the Legos.

What a condescending, dismissive, ignorant statement. Snarky, but not an argument.

Is your thesis filled with such bon mots?