Criticizing on the basis of sex, etc


… and I don’t mean whether or not you’re having it!

David Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy takes on a lefty blogger who posted a ‘critique’ of ten top right wing bloggers and notes a particularly vicious attack in that blogger’s ‘critique’ about Michelle Malkin (which you can read there in Bernstein’s post).   He writes:

It doesn’t trouble me (much) that Mithras, whoever that is, would crudely and stupidly insult Malkin. There’s one in every crowd, as they say. But when so many other folks on the left, including Brian Leiter, jump in to endorse his post, one wonders what is going on. Indeed, not a single one of the 465 Atrios readers who commented on his link to Mithras post complained about the Malkin crack; in fact, several of them praised it, and added their own prejudiced elaborations […]

Is it suddenly (or maybe not so suddenly, if I recall the attacks on figures ranging from Thomas Sowell to Condi Rice) okay to denigrate someone based on their race and sex if they happen to be conservative? And to use especially offensive language while doing so? Attacking Malkin in this way comes with especially poor grace from the left blogger community, which–dare I note–includes, as far as I’m aware, no female, nonwhite blogger nearly as prominent as Malkin.

Anyway, a whole bunch of people, including Atrios, owe Malkin an apology

Absolutely.   In fact, if you read that ‘critique’ (I won’t post the link to it here, but you can get to it via Bernstein’s post), I’d say that blogger owes apologies to everyone on that list.   If you’re going to do a serious (not intended to be humorous) critique of a fellow blogger, fine, but to do so via the ad hominem route is a credibility killer and as a result no one is going to take that kind of critique seriously – except, perhaps, the choir you’re already preaching to.

Update: Also slamming this vicious attack: Jeff Goldstein, David Schraub at The Moderate Voice (read more of David’s comments here at his own blog), Sue Bob’s Diary.

Linking up with Mudville Gazette’s open post.

Making condoms ‘fun’


Rebecca at Doxology points out that Planned Parenthood Toronto’s list of links for teens to visit in order to get more information on ‘sex education’ includes this link.    For those of you who don’t have Flash installed on your computer, scroll to the bottom of the flash page to click ahead to home page.  Here’s a screencap:


Doesn’t that look ‘fun’?! Make sure to read the entire piece at Rebecca’s for more nonsense from other groups besides Planned Parenthood who claim to have our/their young people’s ‘best interests’ at heart.

(Hat tip: Anchoress)

Related: The Dawn Patrol (who I just added to the ST blogroll) discusses a cartoon (yes, another cartoon) done by Planned Parenthood Goldengate in which the characters in this ‘cartoon’ blow up pro-lifers by encasing them with a condom …. via a condom gun.   It’s incredibly telling that these ‘pro-choice groups’ use cartoonish characters in an attempt to ‘educate’ young people about safe sex.   Just who do cartoons appeal to the most?

Wink: J. Rob

Update 8/8/05: Bryan Preston at Junkyard Blog:

Now ask yourself, why would Planned Parenthood make a cartoon glorifying abortion and pushing violence against pro-lifers? What’s the market they hope this cartoon about an aborting, condom-slinging superheroine reaches?

Children. Of course.


NOW: losing its potency?


Charmaine Yoest points to an article from Friday’s WSJ that indicates a serious decline in support over the last ten years for NOW, and other ‘women’s rights’ groups.  From the article:

The divisive 1991 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, involving charges of sexual harassment, launched 1992’s Year of the Woman. That election’s windfall brought four new women to the U.S. Senate and 20 to the House — and turned women’s rights groups into a force to be reckoned with.

Now another Supreme Court appointment battle looms, with abortion rights a likely central issue. But internal squabbles, declining membership and complacency during the Clinton years have left most women’s rights groups in weakened shape for the clash over Judge John G. Roberts Jr.

The National Organization for Women’s political donations shriveled to $44,000 in 2004 from $327,000 in 1992. Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., facing a revolt among affiliates in part because of the politicization of the group, ousted its president in January and hasn’t taken a position on the Roberts nomination. NARAL Pro-Choice America’s new president was still on an introductory tour to affiliates and donors around the country when the Supreme Court fight started.

And while liberal feminist groups have been losing influence over the last decade not just with the American public, but in Washington, DC as well, conservative groups are flourishing:

Meanwhile, an array of conservative organizations is stronger than ever. They spent the Clinton years recruiting members and electing lawmakers, particularly to the Senate. High School Bible clubs flourished and anti-abortion organizations established footholds in colleges and universities across the country. The groups helped create a generation of women more receptive to restricting access to abortions and, because of broader access to birth control, less sympathetic to women with unwanted pregnancies, recent polls and focus groups have found.

This article gives me hope.  It sounds like America is indeed turning more conservative on social issues, even if our politicians in DC choose to take a more ‘moderate’ approach.   That said, a majority of Americans still oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, and that’s something that ‘women’s rights’ groups like NOW and NARAL are using in an attempt to galvanize their supporters and bring in new ones:

"Bush has been our number-one membership recruiter," says Kim Gandy, president of NOW, which held dozens of protests the day after Judge Roberts was nominated. NARAL sent emails to 800,000 activists urging them to begin petition drives and contact their senators to express opposition to the nomination. Both groups, and others, added their lawyers to a coalition that is mining Judge Roberts’s record for clues on how he might rule on the high court. They also are coordinating with Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to ensure the nominee is questioned on abortion rights during his hearings next month.

And no doubt coordinating with the media to make sure we know Roberts’ wife’s views on abortion, too, since they haven’t yet gotten an answer that satisfies them from Roberts himself.  Hard to believe NARAL managed to have the time to tackle the Roberts nomination what with the planning involved for the ‘Screw Abstinence" party,’ the ‘outreach event’ aimed at educating adults about sexual freedom – in a bar. 

Do I feel these groups will fade into irrelevancy? No.  But the fact that their influence with the American people and DC politicians is lessening should be an encouraging sign that our cultural compass, which has slowly been turning southward, may just be ticking up a bit north.

(Wink: Dean Esmay)

Linking up with Mudville Gazette’s open post.