This seems to be the new PC distraction from real issues to irritate voters.

lol. ;)

Here's another news flash:

Apparently people say mean things on the internet. According to many feminists, misogyny exists not only in the real world, but on the internet as well. It's known as "VM" Virtual Misogyny, and it's devastating the nation.

Never mind health-care, the environment and global warming, your pocketbook, war and peace, rampant obesity and diabetes truly devastating American quality of life, nuclear proliferation, the housing bubble, rampant foreclosures, predatory economics and institutionalized poverty, the FED helping big lenders fleece the public, the national debt, US industrial bankruptcy, outsourcing, China, the education gap, the energy crisis, aging infrastructure and falling behind other developed nations, terrorism, corruption, political corruption, private sector corruption, the judiciary, corruption of the judiciary and the DoJ, and certainly forget about misandry, etc, etc, etc. and on and on.

Forget all that shit and drop everything. There is misogyny on the internet. Now go get all lathered up and chase your tails people. Now!

I hadn't realized credible death threats don't qualify as a "real issue".

Thanks for the enlightenment, kozmik!

Hmmm...I think I'll look to see if I can find any real problems....

*google*

Let's see...

In 2005, there were 191,670 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assaults according to the 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

That's approximately 1 per every 1600 people.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm

In contrast, there is about 1 homicide per 20,000 people.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

But violence done to women is just a distraction from "real issues".

lol. That was hilarious. Apparently "death threats" are rampant on the internet and a serious risk to women. (how do you even feel safe to post here? You must be soooo courageous.)

I was wondering what started all those problems I mentioned, and that's where I totally failed to connect the dots. They all started with misogyny, so they're all the same problem. Of course. It all makes such perfect sense!

Why nitpick at derivative issues like "war and peace" or "health-care" or "the environment" anyways? Pfft. Just go to the source of all evil: misogyny and meanness.

Why, if we could just solve that, all the other problems would fix themselves. What a brilliant revelation!

So how could we accomplish this... hmmm. maybe we could write some songs about "needing only Love" or something like that, and maybe we could experiment with chemicals that make people more happy and tranquil... possibly wear more earth tone clothing, let our hair down, avoid competitive and violent sports, and try to be less materialistic.

Most importantly, we have to really drill this into people!

Yes! I think that's it. Surely such a sweeping cultural change would usher in a new era. Many decades of prosperity, peace, and liberalism, with nary a hate monger or conservative to be found anywhere!

Death threats are rampant on the internet!! Serious Death Threats! Be very afraid!

(no really. I know you don't see any, but who you gonna believe, EJ Graf or your lying eyes?)

All of these issues are important including misogyny. Are you rational? Stop getting your shorts in a bunch.

Tom

Considering that

1) I don't have a well-trafficed, highly-visible blog
2) I don't go through comments on blog/forum sites where I expect the responses to be inane
3) I don't have the time, means, or desire to read every single comment posted on the web every day

I think I'll believe someone who can reasonably be expected to have first-hand experience of such. Because assuming everything is a conspiracy is, to be blunt, idiotic.

btw, I should add, your post is the most unsubstantiated and alarmist doodoo ever.

I don't like to use the term, because it's often applied to people on the left who are perfectly cogent and concerned about legitimate issue, but the fact remains there is a small minority of fringe people on the left who are just paranoid and alarmist "tinfoil" hats types. They wind up hurting the left far more than they help.

For example, tree campers and monkey wrenches have done far more harm to environmentalism than help. Chronically angst ridden lesbian feminists have done far more harm to feminism than help. Hippies did far more harm to liberalism than help. Etc.

I don't know why TPM has such PC but substance free authors like EJ Graf. While Josh is usually right on, he does hop on the PC bandwagon now and then. Take his stance on WMD and Iraq war for example, which was very much a PC thing on the left at the time. He usually winds up regretting it. I know it must be hard to resist, and I have to give Josh credit for being on the bleeding edge but...

One thing I like about Sy Hersh for example of a journalist who has stayed pretty relevant and maintained integrity better than most over the years, is he resisted selling out and trying to be all things to all people. I think that's the biggest lure to PC-dom and becoming a phony: trying to be all things to all people.

I think that's where a lot of expanding BLOGS go wrong. Instead of staying somewhat specialized, they try to create a salon for all things, and they invariably start publishing token authors and checking of PC boxes.

Did you miss the fact that EJ Graff was noting the LINK between online mysogyny and violent threats and things that actually happen in women's day-to-day lives??!! I find your posts offensive--no one even suggested we ignore other social problems, and to suggest that dealing with this serious social ill (violence against women) is a waste of time and that it precludes us from dealing with other issues is just dumb. But maybe you just don't think it's important that women and people of color feel safe walking down the streets or going to work.

Ah... Do you have any hard, substantiated, data you can cite? Read critically much? I could read Ann Coulter's book too if I just want to read unsubstantiated claims. Judith Miller wrote oin the NYT front page, repeatedly, that Iraq was full of WMD, and she didn't substantiate anything.

Anybody with an agenda can write a column or book, most are complete BS, and just reinforce what people want to believe without any hard data.

Regardless, what does the internet or EJ Grafs's article have to do with it? It's a complete non sequitur to lump together. May as well drag violent video games into the mix if we're going to be so totally vague.

I think we'd all admit that a certain percentage of men are violent psychopaths, and that this is a high enough percentage that it shouldn't surprise us to find them, in the thousands, on the Net. But what truly shocks me is how many para-psychopaths there are. Every time you see one of these threads there's at least one cold-hearted creep who chides us for being overly PC and attacks the victims for being too sensitive and for not being tough enough to take the heat ... "like a man."

In some ways, these para-psychopaths are scarier because at least with the real thing you can call the police, have their Internet address tracked down, and, one hopes, get them off the streets (and the Net) for a few years. The para-psychopaths, on the other hand, are beyond any solution. Some, I suppose, are educable. Most, unfortunately, will die just as cruel, ignorant and loathsome as they are today.

It's a small pleasure, but it was fun giving this thread's victim-abuser a bunch of big fat zeros.

Y'know, without agreeing with Kozmik at all, I'm just going to say that some things are simply never acceptable... ever.

There's a lot of violent mouthy trolls on the internet, and a lot of them seem all that more willing to get vile and vulgar and make threats if they have a feeling that the person on the other side isn't prepared to kick their teeth in.

The fact that they're trolling a woman brings out the worst in them. Talking about women brings out the worst in them.

A few charges and jail terms, or maybe a lot, would do a lot to civilize the bunch of them up.

The fact is that fear can be a fact of life for some people. I've seen it happen. Kids terrified of school because of gangs, old people afraid to go down the street. America is a country where the well to do live in gated communities and hire security guards for office buildings. Don't tell me that America isn't about the fear. You fuckers live and breath fear, you marinate in it.

No one makes a death threat, directly or indirectly, so they can watch themselves type. They're out there putting out that fear. They put fear in people they think are vulnerable, and that fear is there cause just once in a while, some of them follow through.

I don't think its respectful of anyone to mock women's fear, particularly when other folks are working so hard to inflict it. I particularly don't think its respectful not to take that fear seriously or say get over it, particularly when all the rest of your society seems so thoroughly fear based.

When you leave your house, Kozmik, do you lock it? Do you go for walks in urban downtowns at night? Do you get a little nervous walking past some streetwise ghetto youth hanging out? Does the building where you work have security guards? Does the apartment building where you live have security cameras? Do you live in a gated community? Are there security guards at the mall? Sounds like you're living in the lap of fear to me.

Look at it this way Kosmik. You're a guy, that entitles you to some privileges. Among these privileges is a lot more upper body strength, a lot more confidence and security. You've never had to worry about someone shoving their cock into your body against your will. You've never had to worry about being in a situation where everyone is stronger and more aggressive and less vulnerable than you. It gives a degree of security, you know what I mean? It gives you a baseline of security, a sort of permanent level of comfort.

But let me ask you something. Supposing you wound up pissing off some Hells Angels, or some big black rough looking guys. Supposing that you knew these guys had a reputation for violence, that any one of them could kick your ass, and worse, from prison, they really enjoyed shoving their cocks up their victims... sort of to make a point.

Suppose one of these guys wrote to you and said that they were going to do you. Suppose you got an anonymous email that you were dead certain was from one of these guys.

That's fear, bud.

Show a little respect.

I would recommend ignoring kozmik and carrying on the conversation as if kozmik isn't here. That will stop the wasting of a lot of time and energy and will keep the focus on this important issue.

Tom

I think that's a great piece. A lot of the coverage of Imus did fail to acknowledge his words as sexist too. And I think he brings up an important issue about using an event like this as a catalyst for public dialogue on the tough issues.

Of course, I thought we were destined to have a public discussion about race after Katrina, and that didn't happen.

It's all self referential. It's one exaggeration used to "substantiate" another. It's her bread and butter.

Really, what's the difference between an Al Sharpton and someone like EJ Graf? Not much.

When you talk to accomplished women and accomplished blacks, people who made it in fields like the sciences, business, etc, they all seem to agree: yes there is still misogyny and racism, but it has gotten better, and more than anything people need to develop a healthy attitude, keep moving forward, and try and transcend the BS.

The only people you hear constantly making the worst of things, constantly stoking angst, are people who make a living feeding off the angst. Stoking it and stoking it because it makes them viable as media figures. And what they spread isn't positive change, or smart actions, it's angst and symbolic political action that is often so self defeating it should be called political in-action by in-activists.

Take Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of HP for example. When she was successful at the top of her game, she spoke about the opportunities for women. But as soon as she was fired she wrote a book claiming it was sexism to a large degree. A lot of feminists who never cared much about her suddenly couldn't get enough of her, because she verified what they're always saying.

Was it sexism, or was it the fact she tried to completely reverse HP culture and created a backlash? She didn't make HP a kinder gentler company, she made it more ruthless and instituted massive "cost cutting" and layoffs. Previously, under the presumably "misogynistic" executives, HP was one of the most progressive companies in America. If profits were down, they didn't lay off people, everybody took a pay cut. The stock was unstable under her leadership, which will put any CEO in hot water. Now I'm not saying one strategy is economically better than the other, that's not the point.

The point is Carly Fiorina was more Margret Thatcher than Indira Gandhi, she totally went against the HP culture, and created stock instability, which would create a backlash against any CEO. Instead of dealing with that, she takes advantage of the culture war to holler "misogyny" which was just shameful, and sent the wrong message to a lot of aspiring women.

It was all for the glorification and profit of Carly Fiorina. She's not helping women, she betrayed women.

She was positive one day inspiring women to opportunities, crying misogyny and encouraging angst the next. Succeed on her merits one minute, stoke angst and sell books the next.

People like EJ Graf do the same thing. They stoke this angst and feed off it for a living.

They wind up hurting the left far more than they help...

One thing I like about Sy Hersh for example of a journalist...

I think that's where a lot of expanding BLOGS go wrong...

Dissent Protects Democracy.

His body of work here has also included zeroing out others' comments.

Only three weeks, and he's already been such a positive contributor to our blog. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Why, is that what you were attempting to accomplish in that post? I think you nailed it, with hypocrisy for the bonus!

I completely agree with you that these are serious problems in our society that need to be dealt with in a serious manner. At the beginning of your post you point out the sneering negative reaction females often get when attempting to bring these problems to light. I agree that happens and much too often. It is also true though that while true and sincere, many times the tone and approach one brings to the table can be predicted to draw that sort of reaction from many. Far too often their seems to be a weird mix of feminism with an almost victorian superiority that is quite off-putting and distracts readers/listeners from the important points that are, in fact, being made. It's just one of those realities that anyone or any group has to face up to if it wants to communicate effectively outside it's own circle of like minds. Whenever that self-righteous victorian-like tone gets rolled out many people recoil and write off the content. The same message, presented in a different way would get a very different reaction in many, if not all, cases. It's not just a problem for feminists, but liberals and lefties in general I'm afraid, often face this difficulty. You want the masses with you? Then speak to them and not down to them.

Glad you enjoy ratings abuse!

Now go vote for Nader, throw some rocks through Starbucks windows, or get the next most left-leaning radio host off the air, and really change the world... to the Conservative Right.

Heckuva job!

"a catalyst for public dialogue on the tough issues."

You mean like a "dialogue" with the broader public?

Hmm, there's the right... probably really going to take up the issue. Right.

Then there's the left, who are already PC on these kinds of things.

Then there is the middle, you know the kind of people who listened to, and like, Imus. Yea, they're probably really thanking the left and blacks now for getting him yanked. Not in any way switching over to Limbaugh and such, or becoming more hostile to race poltics. No way!

Yes, we need to ban death threats and fear itself! (especially the most fearsome "big black rough looking guys" or people who would "shove their cock into your body against your will")

Oh wait, it's already illegal to make death threats...

"Big black rough looking guys" already have it bad enough....

Rape is already illegal...

And there are standards to delineate between free speech and seriously threatening actions already. Oh right....

But none the less... BE AFRAID!!!!

Here's the line, smart guy:

There's free speech, and then there's death threats. One's acceptable, one's not.

Death threats are unacceptable because they are meant to be taken seriously on some level, and in at a small but significant portion of cases, they get acted upon.

So my view of it, is that when a death threat gets issued, even over the internet, even by a guy who is just fooling around or venting... well, it should be a matter for the cops, the guy should be charged, and he should deal with the law.

If someone complains about a death threat, I'm inclined to treat that respectfully.

And as for mocking America's culture of fear, well and fine. But I suggest that you are a recipient, a beneficiary and a participant in that culture.

I don't see too much of a difference.

EJ Graff is jumping on a bandwagon that has been overblowing this issue to stoke angst and make it into another bread and butter angst-emist issue. It's not just her, I've seen several articles on the subject and it's definitely an agenda for the "Feministing" crowd. It's just another PC "fear" distraction though. She's also one of the people who sees misogyny everywhere, and everywhere, in huge proportions.

Someone like Sharpton does the same thing to tap into the worst in people and exploit pain. Shaprpton is himself incredibly racist, and thrives in racism. He's not helping blacks.

I could go into detail, and have, but to keep this post short(er) I'll use this analogy: Call it the "OJ Simpson" test of integrity.

The OJ Simpson test: To a rational person bothering to follow the facts dispassionately, OJ was guilty as hell. Oprah for example kept quiet because the didn't want to offend her audience (and kinda sold out) but at least she didn't jump around and celebrate the verdict, and later said she was disappointed in it. "Leaders" like Sharpton were overjoyed publicly, and really made the black community appear bad once everyone came to their senses. Of course the MSM loved the "controversy" and the public ate that shit up.

A rough analogy to the "OJ Test" would be the "Carly Fiorina" test. It wasn't nearly as big a media sensation, but was similar in essence. It wasn;t sexism, she wasn't right for the company becasue she tried to change the culture too fast, laid off tons of people, made an unpopular merger, and the stock was volatile. Any CEO would be in trouble. Reasonable people saw this.

But the feministing.com crowd and those on the same wavelength as Graf, wrote things such as "Carly Fiorina finally acknowledges there's a glass ceiling." Previously they didn't like her because she spoke out about the opportunities for women, and was positive. But as soon as she was fired, and a grudge and a book to sell alleging misogyny, she was everybody's darling.

It's just sick. It's self reinforcing sickness.

We do need to end misogyny, and we need to end racism, but these hysterical fear and angst monsters aren't helping. They just get people lathered up and chasing their tails.

Did kozmo's answer satisfy you?

He obviously knows more about this topic than anyone here. And he seems so credible.

Shorter kozmo: "If I say it's stoking angst, it's stoking angst."

He IS concerned about misogyny, though.  

Dissent Protects Democracy.

hey, I just want to say I really appreciate your authoritarian commands of who should say what, your use of rating to enforce that, and your little tics like your tendency to use nicknames for people you disagree with.

Remind people of anyone? A certain beady eyed, big eared, mental midget known for bullying?

The Red Brigade has spoken!

Let me offer an idea that was put into practice on BlueOregon during the last election season: Tired of right-wing trolls who kept trying to hijack threads on the site, one commenter (followed by several others) pledged to make a contribution to Democratic candidates every time a troll sounded off.

So how about this - whenever someone like this thread's resident troll goes off again, folks who have the means could pledge to contribute $ to an organization that fights sexual and domestic violence.

Just a thought....

Listen, I have had my run-ins with koznik so have no interest in defending him, but he is making a defensible argument and does not deserve being labeled a “para-psychopath” with the clear indication that police power should be used to silence him. Attitudes like those lead to police states.

Sorry, I am going to take a stand against blatant racism no matter how unpopulat that is.

I think responding to kozmik's ad hominem attacks is a serious mistake. Do not feed the Gremlins. Your IQ will suffer.

Crablaw Weekly

Yeah, real misogyny is an important issue. Real death threats, against anyone is an important issue. Real injustice needs to be addressed.

BUT, one female blogger getting her "shorts in a bunch" because she has some rude posters and hate mail, is ridiculous. She didn't get any serious "death threats" and nobody actually stalked her, nor was she ever in any danger except in her over active imagination.

Even more ridiculous are people like Graf, who is frankly the hammer to which everything is a nail, who hangs with other hammers with an identical nail-like world view, seeing this as a major issue and evidence of misogyny we all need to be aware of.

I hate it when the left does this kind of nonsense for the same reason sane people on the right (presuming existence of course) must hate it when conservatives go bat-shit over Orange Alerts and buy duct tape and "support the troops" bumper stickers with a passion to save their lives.

You have a talent for saying nothing.

This diary is pretty feverish, and sounds very much like a woman imagining some nightmare world where men run around dangling penises or splooging all over a desk. Or, perhaps, taking one example in all of America where such a thing did happen and deeming it "astonishingly common".

Exactly. That's exactly why I dislike the EJ Graf and Al Sharpton type.

Pastries shaped like penises? People dropping their pants in the workplace and requesting sex, ejaculating on desks? That's the norm? That's anything but extremely rare? It's just crazy talk.

They're paranoids.

Both tend to bubble themselves in echo chambers where they work themselves into a frenzy.

Sharpton is a paranoid racist who feeds off racism and only makes it worse. EJ Graf is a paranoid sexist who feeds off it and only makes it worse. Their goal is to make other people as paranoid as they are.

This stuff happens all the time according to Graf, so common it's not the exception but the norm. ... But aside from paranoids, anyone who goes to an office (unlike Graf) knows that shit is just NOT allowed, nor do people, men or women, want to work in such an environment.

Listen, I have had my run-ins with koznik so have no interest in defending him

No interest at all, except as you point out you don't want to live in a police state or echo chamber. Evolution of morality for common good and all that.

I love how everybody misspells my handle who doesn't like me. Especially cscs likes to punctuate his thought provoking comments with a little nicknaming.

Shows the high character of the the Bush administration for example who constantly mispronounce the names of anyone they dislike. Real schoolyard stuff.

Golf clap. Well done kozmik took control of the thread early and never let go. He set the bait and almost everyone bit. Well played sir, well played indeed.

Really? I thought it was the other way around, and I was responding to the ridiculous claims some people made, beginning with EJ Graf.

So I guess I should ask you:

How about them penis shaped pastries? Seen many lately? Big problem for ya?

Many people ejaculated on your desk lately? Your women friends?

How about serious death threats? Got a whole lot lately?

Cause I hear it's a real big problem, quite common in fact.

Kosmic, I see no reason for the hate, these people, who through an extension of their apparent loathing of any thing you have to say resort to ratings abuse.

In fact, I just read CSCS typical quote "Dissent protects Democracy".

Evidently, he doesn't believe in dissent or opposing viewpoints.

 Others writing about ignoring or not responding to your comments.

What? Dissenting views really not welcome in your mutual admiration society?

Don't get discouraged Kosmic. I too have been a victim of ratings abuse, by those who feel I am different, and would rather, I not wake them from their dream world where everybody thinks like they do. Slapping each other on the back, "God we love you, your so much like us."

 But ostracise those who might disagree and unless they recognize them as the authority, burn them at the stake for heresy.

 For those challenged, heresy noun: any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position.

ostracise: verb: avoid speaking to or dealing with verb: expel from a community or group Dissent to them attacks the staus quo.

Status quo, you know, that is Latin for "the mess we're in." Ronald Reagan

 If no one is pissed-off with you then you are dead but just haven't figured it out yet. Tom Peters

Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

Keep writing, till they take your right to speech or dissent, realizing that great men have suffered the same fate. 

 Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said

Galileo . Kosmic. . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this (Self appointed, self rightous, members of the TPM community, with the ability to give 0's)   Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the select group of Self appointed controllers, of what is right and wrong)

Holy and Divine Scriptures, that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; 

(we don't like you disagreeing with us) also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to (to our right opinion)  the Holy Scripture, and, consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to ( a select  few of the TPM community, who know we're always right)  the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome.

There is a weakness in "personal experience" articles in blogs where posters tell you things, some of which are certainly true, but give you no way to be factually comfortable with the overall message. This weakness becomes pernicious if the things you are told are actually nth hand, so that neither you nor the blogger has any way of knowing whether they are facts, urban legends, or fabrications.

Because there is no external verification, people of differing credulity and differing prejudices start out at sixes and sevens, and as we see here, things quickly degenerate.

If what is described here is "shockingly" common, there should be available to bloggers (especially those with access to paid databases) enough documented cases to place a firm foundation on what is being discussed.

But this lack of factual common ground is probably not perceived as a weakness by Graff, and may even be irrelevant to her. My guess is that she sees herself as something akin to a performance artist, with us as the moving pieces on the stage.

That would certainly explain her general reluctance to appear in the give-and-take.

I agree, Kozmic, I like independence too, no clubs.
Either you agree wih my thoughts or not. I'm always open to change my mind on issues.

I'd rather have dialogue and not driveby ratings abuse. In that way, if I am wrong or I a missing a point, at least I can correct an idea refine the thought.

I find enjoyment and chuckle at your responses and how worked up people get.

For barrier harassment to have real force, it must be collective. There must be those doing it, those egging them on, and those aware of it and tolerating it ... if only by remaining silent. If the response among most male peers to efforts to launch barrier harassment is open scorn, that can take the wind out of the sails of all but the sickest puppies out there.

As I said, you work hard to take offense.

"Something should be done about that"?

Was that some sort of threat? Kind of makes my point doesn't it.

Why would I? Bogus arguments are your forte, not mine. You were the one arguing that misogyny and violence to women aren't important political issues.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Real misogyny and violence to women is important. Crazy people ranting isn't. But nice try.

For example the real nutcase upthread claiming that our society is "sexualizing" girls and causing them to get puberty early.

Ah, no, that's caused by a medical condition or estrogen from soy based foods. But don't tell the crazies it's not caused by misogyny because they don't wan to hear it. Lol.

Crazy people!

For documentation on the lawsuits I was referring to, please see the sexual harassment chapter in the book I mentioned writing, Getting Even. Or read Susan Antilla's book on sexual harassment in the financial services industry, Tales from the Boom-Boom Room, or the book that the movie North Country was based on, Class Action. (You can get all these from the library.) We all had to go through our publishers' libel lawyers, and they do ask for a lot of documentation before they let you publish an allegation ... so everything we wrote was quite careful and precise.

I'm not at all saying that the truly ugly stuff happens every day to every woman everywhere. Thank god, no! Most men are decent people, and most situations rule this kind of behavior out. I'm saying I was shocked by how common it is and how often I came across the same pattern. After awhile, once you start reading a lawsuit, you can predict what will come next. Those pastries & statues, for instance. Who knew??! I would never have imagined such a thing, and yet you come across them again and again.

In fact, I just read CSCS typical quote "Dissent protects Democracy".

Evidently, he doesn't believe in dissent or opposing viewpoints.

This may have passed you by, but it's not kozmo's point of view.

It's his disrespectful, condescending tone. He's rude, and he's purposefully doing it, to derail any substantiative conversation that might take place. 

That makes him a troll, or at least coming very, very close to trollness. 

And it's not just me, but many, many others here who have pointed out the same. There is no "mutual admiration" going on here when it comes to kozmo.

But I supposed somehow you haven't noticed all that? 

And as far as "believing in dissenting viewpoints," I hope you have noticed that I have not given kozmo any down-ratings for anything he said. 

So don't conflate "ratings abuse" with anything that has to do with me.

In fact, I may have, in the past, even rated-up some of kozmo's comments. But now after this thread, I am pretty convinced he's a troll.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I'm not at all saying that the truly ugly stuff happens every day to every woman everywhere....I'm saying I was shocked by how common it is and how often I came across the same pattern.

Thanks, EJ, for responding here. But it's unfortunate that you had to. The overwhelming majority of us, of course, knew you were not saying this happens every day, and appreciate your take on this situation.

But there are a few individuals who, no matter what you say, will twist your words around to simply take the conversation off track, with their condescending tone and rude comments about you and others here.

Interestingly, it happens a lot in your contributions here. Somewhat proving the point of this and many of your other posts...(not at all comparing blog trolls to the kind of real-life incidents you described in this post, but there's, I think, some kind of relation).

Dissent Protects Democracy.

The site you linked to appears to be an advocacy site so I think one needs to carefully analyze their methodology. For example they are reporting a self reporting survey, not adjudicated cases and the definition of rape includes “psychological coercion” and attempted rape includes “threats of rape”.

I just did a quick perusal and their data may not be intentionally skewed, but I think it would be wise to be skeptical and investigate further.

Weird, creepy, and sometimes physical shit happens to everybody. But not everybody develops a victim complex out of it and gets paranoid and claims it's a conspiracy of the other gender, and then starts embellishing the stories to make them even worse the way Graff does.

I've been mugged in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've had people hit on me physically in an unappreciated way, grabbing and groping, men and women. I've seen plenty of crazies on the streets and gotten dirty looks and rude comments form people, even seemingly normal business people downtown.

There are always a few assholes, and you have the same options as men: legal, self defense, and avoidance.

Get over yourself.

ROTFL!!! I didn't assume that they were criminals. I simply assumed that a guy like Kozmik, or like you, would be frightened of them. Your racism is showing, dude!

then starts embellishing the stories to make them even worse the way Graff does.

Get over yourself.

Let me try, again, to make this clear.

EJ Graff is an invited guest of Josh Marshall's, and a valued contributor to this site. Your accusations of "embellishing," which is merely a fancy word for lying, is rude and unacceptable. It is rude to EJ, and it is rude to Josh (you know, the guy who pays money to allow you to blog here).

Telling other members of this site to "get over" themselves is also rude, and yet it is just one of the many rude, disrespectful, dismissive comments you have made here.

Here's the thing -- you have been a member of this blog for about 3 weeks now. Some of us, on the other hand, have been members of this blog for coming up on 2 years, since the very early days of Josh's starting the Cafe.

It is not WE that have to bend, or, in this case, sink to your levels of dialog and discourse. It is, in fact, YOU that need to conform to ours.

This has nothing to do with WHAT you have to say. It is HOW you say it. It has nothing to do with "dissent" or "Red Brigades" or echo chambers of liberalness.

And this has nothing to do with ratings abuse, either. You cries about ratings abuse is simply a red herring, and distraction to the real problem -- your tone and your disrespect.

So if you want to play nice with others, we welcome you, and your contrarian views.

If you want to continue to be an asshole, there's simply no room for that here at the Cafe.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Ah, no, that's caused by a medical condition or estrogen from soy based foods.

And if women were the least bit important to us, the fact that food constituents were changing the age of puberty would be a cause of outrage; they are literally stealing the childhood from women.

Shorter Daniel Greenberg -
It's always the victim's fault.

If some women's organization inflates the stats, this justifies misogynistic speech and threats of rape and death.

"But it's unfortunate that you had to. The overwhelming majority of us, of course, knew you were not saying this happens every day, and appreciate your take on this situation."

That's precisely what she did say. She said that dangling penises, semen on keyboards, and signs that say "Whites Only" on fountains are "common".

I also cited the DOJ website which had essentially the same number.

This thread is sad. Kozmik has achieved his goal of basically blocking any serious discussion of the points raised by E. J. Graff, whatever their worth may be. Simply because he has nothing better to do than respond endlessly to every post here with the same rancid rants, he takes over the discussion and ruins it.

It's unfortunately an effective technique. I post frequently in the I-P threads, and there are a couple of people who use the same technique quite effectively over there. In one such thread, I actually took the time to count the posts, and it turned out that of the 100 or so posts on the first page, more than half had been authored by just one person!

Perhaps Josh should set some sort of maximum ratio (based on an individual's number of posts vs the overall number in the thread). Could Drupal be programmed to prevent any more posts to the thread from an offending person once the limit was reached? It's annoying to have to wade through somebody else's endless disruptiveness when it's an interesting topic, one that seems worth discussing if you could ever get a word in edgewise.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Take a look at EEOC lawsuits and, if you're white, you'll be stunned by how many times African Americans find nooses hung above their desks or lockers or forklifts, or come in to work to find water coolers marked "whites only," or--twofer bonus!--turn on the radio to hear themselves being called "nappy-headed hos."

Poor Imus- he's not even the first over the air with his stupid multivalent slur.

But when you talk about "reading lawsuits," what legal documents are you referring to? The word "lawsuit" is unclear unless you are literally referring to the (unadjudicated) petition or complaint.

One task of a blog, at least from the readers' perspective, is to provide some basis for proceeding with the knowledge that everyone is on the same factual ground, especially when the subject is one as highly charged as this. This blog does not, and your suggestion to go to the library is ridiculous.

I think you would be more effective, and stir up less unneeded(?) controversy, if you would briefly document, in the article, what you are resting your argument on. In the case of your own book(s), some reference to the source material you used should be almost effortless. When referring to EEOC "lawsuits," basic minimal info would be the actionable bad act(s), the style of the case (EEOC v. Smith Industries), and the document type (hopefully "settlement" or "final judgment"). You already have this info, I assume.

That was a zero? You people are crazy. Go ahead and rate this zero too.

You would anyways! lol.

All it does it reflect what kooky fascists some fringe on the left are, and they tend to trip over themselves to by more PC than the next, good little soldiers in the Great Cultural Revolution.

If progressives want real health care reform, environment reform, government reform, etc. we'd be doing ourselves a huge favor to lose the fringe PC crowd and their kooky exaggerated culture wars.

Just like blacks didn't march with hippies for civil rights, nor should we bungle our message on the economy, the environment, health care or other important issues by associating with culture war kooks.

For every one Naderite and kook we lose, we'll pick up many moderates to progressive agendas. There is a lot of room between the DLC Republican lite message, which is actually more to the right of center now, and the kooks on the far-left. There is a national majority of rational populists in between.

Where is there any evidence of willful negligence there? Where? Do you know any details of the case? No.

That's what happens when people become paranoids. They don't even need to know the details before making up their mind.

Orange alert. Muslims terrorists. Duct tape. Misogyny and death threats everywhere. Scary negros everywhere. White supremists everywhere. Evil immigrants everywhere. OJ was the victim of racism. Kobe and every other big black man are rapists. Satan everywhere. Beware of Emanuel Goldstein!

Moral values. Family values. PC values.

Only Big Brother, Big Sister, or Yo'Brotha can save you!

A nation of paranoids.

Why don't you also cite the number of other violent crimes for some perspective?

Obviously one rape is too many. Just as one murder, or one mugging, or one assault, or one infanticide is too many.

But perspective is still needed. Alarmists like Graff never seem to have any.

Secondarily, she seems to often have discussed male-female interactions in the software development world.

Actually, she started throwing bombs and indiscriminately saying software was misogynistic, yadda, yadda yadda. Which, attracted to her many comments she was full of BS. Which then she responded by saying "ah, ha if you disagree with me... misogyny!" which then further escalated things.

Ultimately, she freaked out and thought she was being stalked and getting death threats and such, even though none of this was really happening. One of her posters was pretty mean in that he deliberately played on her paranoia, as she was egging it on and fully engaged, but he never actually did anything a normal, non-paranoid person, would have gotten so upset about. Other posters sent her mean email, but nothing out of the ordinary.

People like Graff are pretty paranoid too, and see misogyny everywhere. She only reluctantly admits most men are probably basically ok and not rapists. Graff is very pro-authoritarian, and imo borderline fascist/crazy, against this perceived misogynist menace. So of course she's going to say "ah ha! Misogyny! We must crack down on the internet!" Which is the same as she says about anything else, just swap out "internet."

Apparently, in some circles, writing code carefully, ... is considered "effeminate".

I've worked in software since almost the beginning. Never heard of this. Apparently yu hadn't either. But somone claims it rampant evidence of misogyny, and suddenly you believe it? Where's the evidence?

Maybe you should be more skeptical of PC people. They're not all honest or level headed.

I see...and you're the infallible judge of what "qualifies"? And in your opinion you feel that sending death threats via electronic mail isn't a crime and until some psycho actually has his hands wrapped around a woman's throat there is no crime? You think that disagreeing with your twisted logic is a "niche" position to take? You are in logic's version of never-never land. Based on your rationale I think I will crown myself "Tarzan...King of Mars".

And I'm PC? LMFAO...according to comments from Amanda Marcotte and others who identify themselves as feminists at this site they think I am a some kind of Neanderthal a-hole because of my positions. I don't put much stock in what they think of me nor do I put much stock in it in your case either.

All I know is that sending a death threat via e-mail is a text book example of what a crime is. And no amount of baiting and trolling by you will change that fact...

Her book title of course being "Getting Even" a nice little double entendre, and quite telling imo.

That's what it's about for some faux-feminist paranoids. It's not equality, it's getting revenge, indiscriminately, for real and imagined wrongs.

sending death threats via electronic mail

That never even happened!

Just more paranoid BS from PC lickspittles who are rushing, rushing, to believe the worst so long as it conforms their PC preconceptions. No critical thought.

Where is the crime? Show me, where is the crime?

There are already laws on the books against death threats, or any threats, even inferred threats, but this did NOT QUALIFY and the context was just a nasty internet spat, which Siera was certainly involved in and egging on.

Sierra is either a paranoid or deliberately using her gender and the agenda of people like Graff for revenge. Graff is just following her usual MO. But people like you and cscs and just being played for fools. Willing fools.

Speaking of Amanda Marcotte, she's certainly having a great laugh on you now.

I'm troll-rating this because you are posting comment after comment saying exactly the same thing, and none of it is productive. Indeed, you've reached a place where all you are doing is insulting people.

That's precisely what she did say. She said that dangling penises, semen on keyboards, and signs that say "Whites Only" on fountains are "common".

Um, no Vidor. That's not what she said. She said: 

"Once you start reading the details of serious sexual harassment cases, you get very familiar with the pattern..." And then went on to describe what she found to be common in those cases.

You're aligning yourself with our friend kozmo here. I suggest that's not the side of the argument you want to find yourself. You end up looking kind of silly.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

It must be nice to embrace the simplistic world of victim and victimizer. The good and the bad. I bet you even people you are either for us or against us.

Lets see if your limited resources won't be taxed too much. Nothing was justified. Certainly not actual threats towards actual people. That is potentially a crime and in any event unacceptable. It is good to see you know which speech is to be protected and which is to be attacked.

I was trying to think, I know a hard thing for some to do, about the state of things. I was not trying to feel morally superior. It seems to me obvious that the feminist movement has in part made an attack on male sexuality a regular part of their critiques. That it provokes a backlash is not too surprising.

I am sorry that like Bush you find certain topics off limits.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'll answer you here because you're not just saying the same thing over and over. Just read the "Code Like a Girl" article.

Apparently the circles where careful code writing is considered "effeminate" are quite small.  This was actually a pleasant little thread, whimsical as hell, including by Sierra, who admitted she was "stereotyping like hell", and almost all posters agreed that careful code was good code.  There was nothing there PC or non-PC about the thread.  Maybe if you didn't have your radar set to the most sensitive setting, looking for "PC" to get offended by, you wouldn't spend so much time being offended. 

I have posted a rather lengthy blog entry in response.

May I encourage you to read it?

EJ, your words seem to indicate that you see these horrible behaviors as "astonishingly common."

Common within the sexual harassment cases she looked at.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

The reason that some men behave this way is an unfortunate "feature" from our deep evolutionary past.  From the time when a male got a female by killing other males and getting the female whether the female "liked" him or not.  The first thing the male would do is kill the old alpha male, the second thing would be to kill all the children sired by that alpha male, the third thing he would do is rape the female. 

The female then had a "choice".  Either "attach" to the new alpha male and perhaps have children by him that survive, or be killed by him.  Some "choice".  The evolutionary mechanism behind Stockholm Syndrome and Capture Bonding.  The reason we have these behaviors is because they "worked" in the past, and were "successful" reproductive strategies for both males and females.  All humans are descended from individuals who reproduced this way.   Your genes don't care about "nice". 

What to do about it?  Zero tolerance, and the recognition that some of what makes a guy "exciting", and "interesting", and produces "chemistry" might be that he is capable of stuff like this.  Want your children to not be like that?  Pick the right father. 

If writing good code is "coding like a girl", what is treating people well, with decency and respect and without threats of violence and sexual harassment?  Is that relating like a girl?  Is it an insult to someone's masculinity to be told that they "code like a girl", or "relate like a girl"?  It isn't to mine.  If your masculinity (or self-worth) is tied up in putting women down (or putting anyone down), you are a sorry excuse for a man (or a person).  Sorry if that is a put-down, it wasn't meant to be, it was meant to motivate you to lift yourself out of the slime-pit you have dug for yourself. 

Many people confuse the ability to bully with the ability to lead.  They are very different things. 

Oh give it a break.

A) I doubt that Josh Marshall invites people here and tells them they can expect no dissent

B) I have been a member since the beginning. Amanda Marcotte came by and immediately dismissed me as a right wing troll. And you piled on, even though my only crime was to dissent and to ask her some probing questions, like, had she really been fired as the Huffington Post and Steve Gilliard had said. Somehow my asking that question and a few others was beyond the pale and trollish.

You have a pretty weak understanding of what this site is for (two way discussion not one way), and a pretty nice double-standard in effect.

And I your sig? Dissent Protects Democracy? just doesn't fit with your actual behavior in any manner.

---- Just say no to 0 ratings. Especially from petey, the ratings abuser.

It would be easier if cscs were the dictator.

---- Just say no to 0 ratings. Especially from petey, the ratings abuser.

Thanks Jan, just having fun. Always good to hear from you, whatever side your on.
Friends.

And I your sig? Dissent Protects Democracy? just doesn't fit with your actual behavior in any manner.

No kidding. Cscs is one of the worst ratings abusers and a zombie-like PC lickspittle, trying to stifle any opposing POV, always with the ad hominem, never with persuasive argument.

PC version of little baby Goebbels, or more appropriately a wanna-be Red Guards youth leader.

I "changed tack" by asking what evidence you had for any of the wrongdoing you're asserting? Well, that's a novel argument.

But that's exactly my point!

You just gave an example of how Sierra is basically a kook, and goes around making indiscriminate and vastly exaggerated claims of misogyny. You just listed one of her claims which was totally proven to be paranoid. She eventually admitted she was "stereotyping like hell" but it was still her MO to make such claims in the first place. And that was one of many.

And yet, somehow she still has credibility and people like Joan Walsh and Graff are citing Sierra as some kind of Joan of Arc of the internet. I think they completly lose credibility for taking the side of a paranoid who incited her situation, which never amounted to more thannasty comment and nasty emails, but no "death threats" as she claims.

It's like when Al Sharpton took up the "Tawana Brawley" case and showed what a paranoid opportunist he is. It's no suprise Graff and Walsh are even trying to catch the Al Sharpton's PC momentum. (it's worth noting Sharpton is also trying to take down Obama, and people like him always do far more harm than good.)

Sierra is a paranoid bomb thrower who made a lot of false claims insulting to men, and thusly provoked trolls to her site, which she then egged on with more overly broad and bigoted anti-male comments. Then she made further exaggerated claims she was receiving death threats, which is also false. No crime has been found to have occurred. No criminal charges are pending. No civil suit is pending.

Graff, Walsh, and others have seized on because it fit's their agenda.

Readers here are tripping over themselves to be PC and validate this whole series of false claims, paranoia, and misandry bomb throwing.

The whole thing is nuts.

Actually there isn't really any doubt about what causes the vast majority of early puberty. 2 things, a brain abnormality which causes excessive estrogen too early, and estrogen containing foods like soy.

Soy has for a log time been a staple of Asian diets, and they don't have serious problems with it. Soy products can;t be banned from the market, and have other health benefits to women such as providing estrogen to help alleviate menopause symptoms, which it does better than some recently develpped drugs. There's even a crazy fight between fringe misandrists who want to see soy diets increased to "feminize" men, and the kooky fringe men who are actually worried this might happen. lol.

Docotrs and parents just need to be more careful and educated about soy, and that's been known since ancient China. If a child has early puberty, the doctor will recomend cutting estrogen containing products ranging from soy to cosmetics, and give hormone therapy. (presuming the parent doen't think it's caused my misogyny of course)

Oops. triple post deleted.

I don't know. "Women may have a genetic advantage here"? Them's fighting words, especially with zero evidence to back up that statement...

Neat code is good code, but what the heck does that have to do with "girly"? I write neat code and when I can, I force others to write neat code too (for which they sometimes hate me). Does that mean I'm a girl?

I seem to have woken up in some strange google failing world. Or maybe I was mistaken? I would have sworn I read an article a few months back that debunked the current thoughts regarding food and estrogen-like chemicals. But I sure can't find it today.

But there is this article which seems to say you're right about Soy. Something I had never heard of before.

http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/food/soy_story.html

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

I just think what she was saying is that, in sexual harassment cases, here is the behavior that is quite common.

Since several people read into her statement something different, I can see how what she said may be ambiguous. I think she clarified what she meant in her response, that, no, she's not saying this is common to all women.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Let's see...I have been programming for about 41 years, and have never heard anyone refer to code as having a particular gender. Nevertheless, I shall never forget the wisdom, humor, insight, generosity and inspiration of Grace Murray Hopper, and I cherish my few short chats with her. May my code be like hers.

Of course, without Jean Sammet as well as Amazing Grace, there might be nothing besides assembler in which to code.

I wonder...is all Ada code necessarily "girly"?

In Internet engineering, I think of Sally Floyd, kc claffy, and Susan Hares, among many other colleagues.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Well Mr. Dissent Protects Democracy, all I see kozmik doing is engaging in a little speech. Who are you to judge whether one person's speech is worthy or not? Who are you to call other people troll or apologist?

The Washington pundits dismiss the blogs all of the time because bloggers use too many curse words.

Liberals correct about Iraq are dismissed as the dirty fucking hippy contingent.

Lots of us have been dismissed on one forum or another as troll or concern troll.

The ladies of feministe (or feministing forget which one) including tapped blogger J. Goodrich are so appalled with this very thread that they are now dismissing TPM Cafe and some are even calling for Josh Marshall to do a little weeding. In the meantime, feministe, feministing, and pandagon all have a very heavy moderation policy, and delete comments and ban users for having the wrong content or saying the wrong thing or saying it in the wrong way.

feminist bloggers complain they have been marginalized and put in a ghetto, and then they enforce speech content restrictions on people and maintain their ghetto with a vengeance.

Bush during his reelection campaign tossed out people from public events for the sole crime of being Democrats.

It is ridiculous to have to have this conversation about form of dissent with someone whose sig is "Dissent Protects Democracy."

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

kozmik said:

"There are already laws on the books against
death threats, or any threats, even inferred
threats, but this did NOT QUALIFY and the
context was just a nasty internet spat, which
Siera was certainly involved in and egging on."

Death threats or not, see for yourself:

http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/03/as_i_type_this_.html

Including:

"fuck off you boring slut... i hope someone
slits your throat and cums down your gob"

Note, under the law saying
"Someone should kill you"
is the same as saying
"I am going to kill you".

Note, a good summary of the Sierra situation
at Wire magazine:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/04/kathysierra

That's really a bogus excuse cscs makes to defend his rampant ratings abuse. Not just with me, but widespread with anyone cscs disagrees with.

It's not my tone he objects to, as he regularly rates up glib, rude, factually false, and meaningless posts. Cscs himself often makes rude mean spirited, and glib posts so not only is he a ratings abuser, but a rampant hypocrite as well. I also notice he's drawn to arguments which he then tries to exacerbate, but stays away from substantive discussions where there is no hot argument.

It's just his excuse for what he'd like to censor because it doesn't fit with his PC bandwagon. He also thinks he's entitled becasue he's so right, he can be a ratings abuser and still be ok. Which shows he has a lot in common with various militant fringe groups who always think it's ok, when they do it.

Like I said, he can keep with the rating abuse and glib comments, and I'll keep making persuasive points and occupying the moral high ground.

As of april 17th the above comment by me has not been rated even once.

Never mind it intentionally has blatant racist and classiest overtones, and it pretty shallow. But, it was intended to be PC, to test people's biases. Apparently that's good enough.

Even people like cscs and several others who have been rating stalking me supposedly because of my tone, and not for censorship or bully reasons, haven't down rated it. Though they may now, to show "integrity." lol.

By comparison, others who are also active in the thread but have advocated free speech and the dislike of rating abuse, have neither uprated it or down rated it, actually in keeping with their espoused principles.

Pretty instructive really.

Actually I'm responding to a mob of insulters, who have been rating abusing from the beginning, and who attempt to snuff opposing views. Which I think is a very substantial difference.

You being one of the rating abusers from the beginning I would add, so your rationale now for why you're rating abusing is rather late.

And when women threaten or seek to hurt men they tend to get sexual. Just remember that for some perspective. Also gay men and women in fights will use sexual insults. Point being, in arguments any source of tension will be exploited, so it's not really this misogynistic conspiracy some imagine.

If some would attempt a little perspective and context they'd settle down, but I suspect that's against their goal.

Sex is part of life, and pretty prevalent in everyone's psychology, men and women. We'd all do well to freak-out less about it.

Of course we all know name calling is bad, but sticks and stone and all that. We all know this stuff already no need to make a capitol offense out of it, and certainly we don't need alarmists using it to push an agenda.

Feministing's logo is a naked woman giving the middle finger, so "fuck you" says a lot about their perspective and mission.

In response to kozmik's comment of April 17, 2007 - 5:01am,

Citing Arendt adds new information. There is a variety of literature on how seemingly good people transform into evil. Much of this literature relates to the Nazi period, in part because Stalin's ongoing actions suppressed analysis. We are now seeing more information from the Soviet period, such as Sudoplatov's Special Tasks.

Some other books of relevance are Lifton's The Nazi Doctors and Sereny's Into that Darkness. The former explores, from the T4 "euthanasia program" to mass killing, how healers turned into enablers of killing programs -- and how a minority managed to stay healers yet were respected by both the Nazis and the camp inmates. Sereny's book is a biography, from many interviews, of the main commandant of the Treblinka death camp, and how an apparently good man did not have the moral strength to avoid such duty. It can also be instructive, if more difficult, to read some of the transcripts of war crimes trials, especially Ohlendorf's testimony and sentence at the Einsatzgruppen Nuremberg Military Tribunal, one of the lesser-known trials that followed the International Military Tribunal.

As you point out, the threats discussed here cannot be equated to the Holocaust, yet some of the insights into how the Holocaust was permitted and abetted may be relevant.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard I replaced this posting and have asked this question over at Trusted Users. I hope you'll respond.

huh? Stockholm syndrome exists. There are numerous cases reported where women bond to men who have abused them.
Violence against women by their sexual partners is extremely common.
Moses instructed the Isralites to kill all the male children and non-virgin females they captured.
Bible, Numbers 31:14-15, 17-18
31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
If behavior like that was considered "good enough" and "important enough" to be included in the Bible, I presume it was something that the people at the time thought was "ok".
I agree that it is gross and tragic that our ancestors were that brutal. It is also gross and tragic to be in denial of the sordid history of humans, what they did, and what some are still capable of.
As they say, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

What ever the "Midianites" did to "deserve" genocidal treatment it was not done by male babies.

I didn't use that example to single out one group. Jews, Christians and Muslims all consider Moses to be an icon, one of the founders of the notion of "rule of law". The "treatment" that Moses commanded, the of killing non-combatants and taking women as concubines would get him convicted of crimes against humanity today. Some icon.

You are absolutely correct, rape and violence against women continues to be part of what happens in war. In Iraq, in Africa, in Europe, in South America, everywhere there is war, there is the rape and killing of women and children.

People "there" and people "here" are fundamentally the same. What is different is the environment. Put US citizens in a war zone, and some of them become brutal rapists too. Why is that a "surprise"? Only because people are willfully ignorant of how their behavior affects others, and what desperate people do in desperate situations.

By the way, the shooter in the Virgina Tech Massacre considered himself a "Christian". What did he say?
"You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."

He didn't just threaten people, he carried it out.

Huh? Chuckie, you are acting exactly how Cho acted. Lumping people together because of your perception that they belong to some "group", and so each member of that group is "guilty" of what ever a single member of that group has done.

I presumed that because some people have as a major tenent of their Faith, that the Bible is the inerrent Word of God, that any order that God gives is by their own "definition" "moral". You say "You presume to much. Read the whole account, not just an excerpt. Who were the Midianites? What did they do to the Nation of Israel, that brought this condemnation? What evil did the Midianite Nation do."
So, exactly how am I "presuming too much"? Are you prepared to condemn Moses for ordering the slaughter of infants? If not, why not? That "logic" (killing vulnerable innocents in a group because of what others in the group have done) is what justified 9/11 in the minds of the perpetrators.

Because there were "wicked kings of Midian", slaughter of infant male Midianites is justified? Huh? Because other nations slaughtered babies that makes it ok? Huh?

Because virtually every "faith" has "wacos" in it, you feel you can say "I could probably find a few who claim or as you put it "considered themselves adherants of, your faith." Huh?

So because Cho was Asian, Korean, Christian, male, 24 years old, an English major, foreign born, kind of wierd, it is justifiable to treat everyone else who is Asian, Korean, Christian, male, 24 years old, an English major, foreign born, kind of wierd, as if they are a mass murderer too? Huh?