Wondering if anyone’s read Megan McArdle’s piece on Josh Hawley vs Khiara Bridges https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/14/berkeley-law-professors-senate-testimony-didnt-go-how-left-thinks-it-did/
And, now I’m reading this one by Jacob Siegel that’s really interesting https://thedailyscroll.substack.com/p/the-evil-of-banality
My first thought, as so often lately (*sigh*), when I saw the Professor's answers to Hawley's questions, was, "This is another example of why the Democrats are going to lose this fall."
I’m not voting for progressives anymore. Their litmus test on Israel is a step too far. I’m one of those moderate American Jews who think all settlers need to get out of the West Bank but that’s not enough for the DSA. so f**k em
I’ll never figure that turn of events out. The hostility toward Israel in young prog circles is one of the strangest developments of the last 20 years - to me anyway. Utterly flabbergasted.
My working theory is that the grafting of CRT and BLM language onto the conflict -- and the absolute deterioration of the situation (in all fairness) -- has introduced this younger generation to it. It’s a very compelling cause (especially with social media fueling it). and the $3bil in our military budget for Israel gives them a sense that they have a right (and duty) to speak up. Plus, squad is vocal (for better or worse).
Gabrielle is correct. US leftists have spent a good thirty years framing the Iseael-Palestine conflict in binary racial terms.
In this framework, the Israelis are white-adjacent racists oppressing Palestinian "people of color". Add in colonialism, imperialism, etc etc.
As far back the 1980s, Jesse Jackson and his ilk were lumping together American racism, South African apartheid, the treatment of American Indians and Israel/Palestine.
I think you are right. I would also recommend a Thomas so well essay "are Jews generic" in "Black rednecks and white liberals". In many cultures, there are successful groups who are also hated/discriminated against. I think some general envy of Jewish success explains a lot .
Yes, I thought the McArdle piece was 100% correct. A spot-on diagnosis of why many academics are so utterly unable to talk clearly or effectively to people outside their professional bubble.
I remember TAing for a humanities course related to gender as a young grad student and thinking, "How does this lecture material that I'm supposed to teach in my discussion section later this week sound to all the pre-med students in the room?"
This was before trans issues were a main topic of discussion, mind you. But we were covering a lot of material suggesting that "sex is complicated"--going right up to the edge of claiming there aren't two sexes--because intersex conditions (DSDs) exist, and the students were absolutely smacked down if they tried to suggest, clumsily, that perhaps not everything related to gender is cultural construction.
I guess the good news for my embarrassed feelings of yore is that now a lot of med schools are on board with the humanities lectures.
Great pieces, especially the one by Siegel. I like his coinage of The Yawn, nails it with the observation that people who employ it are trying to neutralize opposition by dissuading them from caring without attempting to defend what they must know at some level is indefensible.
I actually saw her give a talk on a book she was writing when she was still a law prof at BU. She discussed the invasion of privacy rights of poor mothers -- how by virtue of their poverty, they were subjected to regular intrusions by government agencies. Impressive and compelling speaker. Here's the book: https://www.amazon.com/Poverty-Privacy-Rights-Khiara-Bridges/dp/1503602265
Now I'm wondering how she would phrase it today! Poor cis women, nonbinary, trans men?! Back in 2015 she didn't have to manipulate her natural way of speaking about women's oppression.
And now a more recent article that has been cleansed of the word "women" (except in the footnotes, to highlight the privilege of "cis women," and to highlight the disadvantages of POC women) in favor of "pregnant people."
Of course Hawley wasn't asking in good faith. I don't think that matters, in terms of the impact that this exchange will have politically. Hawley couldn't have scripted a better exchange to feature in a campaign ad if he'd have tried.
As McArdle says, the point of this sort of Congressional testimony, like it or not, is political gamesmanship. If you aren't prepared to answer any senator's questions, you shouldn't testify, because all you can do is hurt your own side.
Whether the senator questioning you is acting in good or bad faith doesn't matter. You'll still hurt your own side if you're not up to the challenge.
Literally every column Megan McArdle has written on both gender issues and abortion in the past year would have put Hawley in a tighter spot without losing the median TV viewer. The reason McArdle is so good at this is that she reads and understands arguments from many sides.
That's one of the things I like about McArdle. She actually makes an effort to understand what each side is actually saying. As someone from the left, I really wish there was more of an effort to understand the actual reasoning and arguments from the right so that we could actually address people's concerns instead of just saying things that turn people off even more.
Yes, Sen. Hawley's question didn't have anything to do with abortion, which is an issue where the majority of Americans disagree with him. It did have to do with how those on the far left define a woman, which is an issue where the majority of Americans agree with him. The best way to answer is to not give him this opening, and, for just one day, pretend that it's women who get pregnant.
Wondering if anyone’s read Megan McArdle’s piece on Josh Hawley vs Khiara Bridges https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/14/berkeley-law-professors-senate-testimony-didnt-go-how-left-thinks-it-did/
And, now I’m reading this one by Jacob Siegel that’s really interesting https://thedailyscroll.substack.com/p/the-evil-of-banality
My first thought, as so often lately (*sigh*), when I saw the Professor's answers to Hawley's questions, was, "This is another example of why the Democrats are going to lose this fall."
I keep looking for sane people to vote for and it just keeps getting harder to find them every year. It’s depressing.
I’m not voting for progressives anymore. Their litmus test on Israel is a step too far. I’m one of those moderate American Jews who think all settlers need to get out of the West Bank but that’s not enough for the DSA. so f**k em
I’ll never figure that turn of events out. The hostility toward Israel in young prog circles is one of the strangest developments of the last 20 years - to me anyway. Utterly flabbergasted.
My working theory is that the grafting of CRT and BLM language onto the conflict -- and the absolute deterioration of the situation (in all fairness) -- has introduced this younger generation to it. It’s a very compelling cause (especially with social media fueling it). and the $3bil in our military budget for Israel gives them a sense that they have a right (and duty) to speak up. Plus, squad is vocal (for better or worse).
Gabrielle is correct. US leftists have spent a good thirty years framing the Iseael-Palestine conflict in binary racial terms.
In this framework, the Israelis are white-adjacent racists oppressing Palestinian "people of color". Add in colonialism, imperialism, etc etc.
As far back the 1980s, Jesse Jackson and his ilk were lumping together American racism, South African apartheid, the treatment of American Indians and Israel/Palestine.
I think you are right. I would also recommend a Thomas so well essay "are Jews generic" in "Black rednecks and white liberals". In many cultures, there are successful groups who are also hated/discriminated against. I think some general envy of Jewish success explains a lot .
I know that feeling well 😑
Yes, I thought the McArdle piece was 100% correct. A spot-on diagnosis of why many academics are so utterly unable to talk clearly or effectively to people outside their professional bubble.
I remember TAing for a humanities course related to gender as a young grad student and thinking, "How does this lecture material that I'm supposed to teach in my discussion section later this week sound to all the pre-med students in the room?"
This was before trans issues were a main topic of discussion, mind you. But we were covering a lot of material suggesting that "sex is complicated"--going right up to the edge of claiming there aren't two sexes--because intersex conditions (DSDs) exist, and the students were absolutely smacked down if they tried to suggest, clumsily, that perhaps not everything related to gender is cultural construction.
I guess the good news for my embarrassed feelings of yore is that now a lot of med schools are on board with the humanities lectures.
Great pieces, especially the one by Siegel. I like his coinage of The Yawn, nails it with the observation that people who employ it are trying to neutralize opposition by dissuading them from caring without attempting to defend what they must know at some level is indefensible.
Ugh, this is so embarrassing for Bridges.
I actually saw her give a talk on a book she was writing when she was still a law prof at BU. She discussed the invasion of privacy rights of poor mothers -- how by virtue of their poverty, they were subjected to regular intrusions by government agencies. Impressive and compelling speaker. Here's the book: https://www.amazon.com/Poverty-Privacy-Rights-Khiara-Bridges/dp/1503602265
Now I'm wondering how she would phrase it today! Poor cis women, nonbinary, trans men?! Back in 2015 she didn't have to manipulate her natural way of speaking about women's oppression.
That is an important issue. Sucks how institutional dogma changes people.
And now a more recent article that has been cleansed of the word "women" (except in the footnotes, to highlight the privilege of "cis women," and to highlight the disadvantages of POC women) in favor of "pregnant people."
https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1234411?ln=en
Of course Hawley wasn't asking in good faith. I don't think that matters, in terms of the impact that this exchange will have politically. Hawley couldn't have scripted a better exchange to feature in a campaign ad if he'd have tried.
100% agree. He’s a horrible person. I don’t think he looks good, I think the Left’s argument looks ridiculous
Exactly.
As McArdle says, the point of this sort of Congressional testimony, like it or not, is political gamesmanship. If you aren't prepared to answer any senator's questions, you shouldn't testify, because all you can do is hurt your own side.
Whether the senator questioning you is acting in good or bad faith doesn't matter. You'll still hurt your own side if you're not up to the challenge.
Literally every column Megan McArdle has written on both gender issues and abortion in the past year would have put Hawley in a tighter spot without losing the median TV viewer. The reason McArdle is so good at this is that she reads and understands arguments from many sides.
That's one of the things I like about McArdle. She actually makes an effort to understand what each side is actually saying. As someone from the left, I really wish there was more of an effort to understand the actual reasoning and arguments from the right so that we could actually address people's concerns instead of just saying things that turn people off even more.
Yes, Sen. Hawley's question didn't have anything to do with abortion, which is an issue where the majority of Americans disagree with him. It did have to do with how those on the far left define a woman, which is an issue where the majority of Americans agree with him. The best way to answer is to not give him this opening, and, for just one day, pretend that it's women who get pregnant.