Does the blogosphere “ghettoize” female writers?

posted at 11:36 am on April 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Some people apparently believe that the blogosphere doesn’t allow women the same kind of access and consideration as men do. Once a year or so this topic arises, and this time Glamour‘s political columnist/blogger Megan Carpenter asks the question. Why do boys get all the attention?

For political bloggers who happen to be women, such as myself, my colleagues here at Glamocracy and elsewhere, the blogosphere can seem like a very testosterone-filled place. Sure, you’ve got Arianna Huffington and Patricia Murphy of Citizen Jane Politics. But the list of other must-read blogs is dominated by dudes: Andrew Sullivan, Markos Moulitsas (of the Daily Kos), Mike Krempasky (of Redstate.com) and of course Matt Drudge. (Also, why do so many of their names start with “M”? I’ve got that part down!) A museum exhibit dedicated to blogging here in D.C. (I know) has a small display referring to former Wonkette Ana Marie Cox, but the room is dominated by several TV screens featuring male blogger-pundits like Matthew Yglesias and Ezra Klein. So, why do the boys of the political blogosphere command so much attention?

I asked around and heard a lot of different answers. Some say it’s because the men got a head start. Jen Moseley, the politics editor at Feministing says, “I think there are a lot of female political bloggers out there. But since most of the ‘old guard’ big political blogs (funny that something 4-5 years old can be considered old now), were started by men, so they’re still looked at as the only ones that matter.”

Carpenter missed an important name, and one that fits in with her “M” theme: Michelle Malkin. The boss owns Hot Air as well as her own eponymous blog. Her sites command a great deal of attention. If neither blog makes Megan Carpenter’s list of must-read sites, does that mean that Megan is as sexist as the rest of the blogosphere — or is she making a free-market decision to read the blogs she likes?

Cassy Fiano, a successful political blogger, makes the same point:

Whenever I read these kinds of articles, I just want to smack the author in the face. Here’s what they seem to be completely incapable of understanding: if you think you’re a victim, that’s all you’ll ever be.

First of all, is Arianna Huffington really the best example of a female blogger she could come up with? I can think of several right off the top of my head: Michelle Malkin (duh!), Pamela Geller, Em Zanotti, LaShawn Barber, Mary Katharine Ham, Rachel Lucas, Melissa Clouthier… the list goes on and on, and these are just conservative female bloggers. …

Why, then, are there more male bloggers than female? The answer is simple, and it’s feminism’s favorite catch phrase: choice. Men, in general, are more interested in politics than women are. Sure, women are interested, but I don’t think that there are as many women who are diehard political junkies like there are men. Go ahead, feminists, rip my skin off for stating That Which Must Never Be Said: that women do not have the same interests as men do.

This gets to the heart of the matter. The angst and handwringing over what Cassy derides as “bean-counting” misses the point entirely. The issue isn’t the number of women in the blogosphere, it’s that there aren’t any barriers to entry to this market — not for gender or ethnicity. Given the ubiquitous nature of Internet access, there are few economic barriers, either. Women can freely enter this market if they choose to do so.

So why are there more men than women in political blogging? More men choose to enter the market. Cassy says that more men than women have enough of an interest in politics to read or write blogs, which the market seems to indicate. The equalization that the Internet brings is that editors at media outlets no longer choose who gets published, so bean-counting is no longer necessary.

It’s a bit odd that Glamour would make this argument. Many more magazines exist for women on gender-specific writing than they do for men. Men’s magazines tended to be almost non-existent outside of pornography like Playboy and Penthouse twenty years ago. We see more with entries like Men’s Health, but magazines specifically aimed at women far outnumber those aimed at men, including Glamour. Is that a reflection of sexism in the magazine industry, or simply a reflection of the market?

Any woman who wants to blog can easily do so. If she writes well and markets the product well, building networks of readers and linkers, she can succeed. That’s equality. Anything more would be a demand for top-down imposition of rationing that treats writers like commodities rather than individuals, and political speech as yet another area of tiresome equality-of-results schemes.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The percentage of guys I know who willingly would spend enough time in front of the computer to blog efficiently is usually a multiple of 5 or more than the percentage of woman I know who would do the same.

Now, with that said, who’s the hottie in the pic?

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM

I read four blogs penned by women daily.

And yes, that woman is quite attractive.

Mortis on April 16, 2008 at 11:41 AM

There is Megan McArdle, Virginia Postrel, Ann Althouse.

ninjapirate on April 16, 2008 at 11:46 AM

Clearly, the government needs to regulate you bloggers more, and enforce equality of the sexes – you bunch of sexists, bitter, gun toting…oh wait, wrong thread.

SARCASM

Rick on April 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Now, with that said, who’s the hottie in the pic?

That’s Cassy Fiano. John Hawkins at Right Wing News is pretty tight with her, and gives a lot of time there. But do check out her blog, too.

Badger in KC on April 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM

the hottie is Cassy Fiano!

Ghettoized writer of the female persuasion…

heldmyw on April 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM

I also think its because of the thrust of their blogs…

There ARE a lot of women out there who write about Politics… but then there are also a lot of women out there who write about WOMEN’s Politics (ie, women’s issues only… or things very slanted from a woman’s viewpoint).

Does not matter what their slant is, I won’t read biased blogs… I want at least a modicum of fairness, and a debate, not a diatribe.

And I especialy don’t appreciate the perpetuation of the “victim” meme… especialy when as a Heterosexual White Middle Aged American Male… I always seem to be the “bad guy”.

Romeo13 on April 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Maybe she should call Michelle Obama (another M) – I hear she is a lawyer.

HawaiiLwyr on April 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM

How out of touch is this woman, even though I completely disagree with their politics and keystrokes I read Jane”blackface” Hamsher and Digby daily to keep an eye on the nutroots.

Hamsher has built one of the more influential leftie blogs and to be overlooked is very telling regarding Carpenters familiarity regarding the “blogosphere”

Leaving off Michelle Malkin….there are no words!

186k on April 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM

“Ghettoization?” That sure sounds like some more of that xenophobic, minority-fearing, sexist, gun-cuddling Midwestern crap to me. Surely, the only solution is a National Conversation on the Glass Ceiling of the Blogosphere. Only then can we properly demonize those awful testosterone-laden cretins who secretly pull the levers of power on the interwebs.

Flyover Country on April 16, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Why do people classify Drudge as a blogger?

186k on April 16, 2008 at 11:54 AM

The first site I open every morning is Michelle’s site. I have to look at her pic for a few seconds before I can face the news of the day. Works for me.

Syd B. on April 16, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Coming soon! MANDATORY equality levels in blog readership, admiration and money for men and women.

Forget the fact that the internet is the last place where you can go and make a name for yourself, or an idiot OF yourself, without quotas, licenses, EOE rubbish, or (mostly)political correctness.

You should was your hands afterwards, though.

heldmyw on April 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM

Just contrast the above quotes from two female bloggers. Cassy Fiano presents a forceful argument and uses logic and reason to eviscerate her opponent. Megan Carpenter writes like a whiny, giggly, teenage valley girl and blogs at “Glamocracy”. When you use the name “Glamocracy” I think you’re ghettoizing yourself.

D0WNT0WN on April 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM

The male-dominated hosting companies cause anyone trying to reach female bloggers to get “Error 404″ messages. Then the women quit blogging because no one’s coming to their sites.

eeyore on April 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM

KJ Lopez?

funky chicken on April 16, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Cassie blogs at http://wizbangblog.com

2klbofun on April 16, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Emily Zanotti does not deserve to be on that list, Ed. She defended a Muslim Holocaust-denial death, rape, and torture threat against me, my parents, and grandparents on her site. She was just forced to resign from her job at the Thomas More Law Center over it, after just six months on the job. She also wrote deliberately false, defamatory information about me, which she admitted she made up and had to apologize for because she’d have lost a defamation suit.

I wouldn’t say she’s “ghetto-ized.” Just completely unstable. Sorry you guys are linking to her site, on which the defense of the Muslim death threat remains.

Debbie Schlussel on April 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM

Carpenter missed an important name, and one that fits in with her “M” theme: Michelle Malkin. The boss owns Hot Air as well as her own eponymous blog. Her sites command a great deal of attention. If neither blog makes Megan Carpenter’s list of must-read sites, does that mean that Megan is as sexist as the rest of the blogosphere — or is she making a free-market decision to read the blogs she likes?

I vote for racist.

Excuse me, I need to go cling to my gun now.

rbj on April 16, 2008 at 12:33 PM

Mike Krempasky is still in charge of RedState? Matt Drudge is even a blogger? People go to Daily Kos because of Markos?

The Glamocracy post achieves total fail before the first paragraph is done.

Plus, although just published this week, Malkin, Ann Althouse and Megan McArdle were all singled out as among the most evil/stupid bloggers in the Village Voice. That’s gotta count for something.

The post is such obvious linkbait — and from an author who claimed sexism was NOT a role in her firing from Wonkette — you picked it up a week later, and I registered an account just to leave a similar comment.

WWB on April 16, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Wait, AP isn’t female? :S

Ortzinator on April 16, 2008 at 12:35 PM

My blog got more attention when I had my pic at the top–that is when there was no disputing that I am female. I briefly considered changing the name of the blog to my given name for that reason.

Some women have to find something complain about all the time.

baldilocks on April 16, 2008 at 12:38 PM

If the internet cannot attain absolute numeric equality in 5 years Algore should disinvent it. Maybe people interested in reading a blog could queueup and exactly half of them could be sent to female bloggers and the other half could choose for themselves. Reparations should be paid to all women but we could reassess this in 14 or 15 generations. If it were only blogging I would say let it go but add truck driving, taxi driving, contract killing, male prostitution, construction, prom king, newsreading, proctology (there are only 23 female proctologist in North America), longshoremen, cowboys, company goons, Fed Ex drivers, and, sad to say, I could go on and on.

snaggletoothie on April 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Men’s magazines tended to be almost non-existent outside of pornography like Playboy and Penthouse twenty years ago.

Car and Driver
Road & Track
Sports Illustrated
The Sporting News
Popular Mechanics
Popular Science
and for the younger males: Boys Life

What I think is interesting is that porn that men enjoy, Penthouse, Playboy, Hustler (well, some men in the case of Hustler) is completely verboten on the job or in mixed company but women can read their own porn (Cosmopolitan, Redbook, bodice ripping romance novels) at their desk or in the lunch room without a second thought.

rokemronnie on April 16, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Go ahead, feminists, rip my skin off for stating That Which Must Never Be Said: that women do not have the same interests as men do.

Heather Armstrong (Dooce) had an almost-full-page article in the Wall Street Journal last week.

Help me get to that ghetto, please.

Tanya on April 16, 2008 at 12:48 PM

women can read their own porn (Cosmopolitan, Redbook, bodice ripping romance novels) at their desk or in the lunch room without a second thought.

Hee. Redbook? You’re really comparing “tips for organizing your sock drawer” to exposed genitalia?

Tanya on April 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM

Eh….goes back to the hard wiring. I have two sister-in-laws who could run circles around AllahP. Then I have six others who would think a hanging chad was…well you know.

All kidding aside, they just aren’t as focused (in general) on all the fluff.

Let’s face it, fellas, politics is our General Hospital.

Limerick on April 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Glamour’s political columnist/blogger Megan Carpenter is obviously not very well informed. Another lazy “journalist”.

Zorro on April 16, 2008 at 1:01 PM

Does not matter what their slant is, I won’t read biased blogs… I want at least a modicum of fairness, and a debate, not a diatribe.

Oh, come on. By definition, a blog is biased. It’s a person’s opinions. If you think Hot Air is unbiased, well, you’re living at a 45-degree angle.

As for the “Where are all the female bloggers, part 753″–well, yeah, here we go again.

My blog turns 7 next week. Last time I checked, I was still female. This female blogger predates Instapundit–who happens to be one of the people that brought my blog to the attention of the blogosphere.

How many female bloggers have Kos or Yglesias brought to the fore?

Meryl Yourish on April 16, 2008 at 1:04 PM

I read something the other day that ranked tv news personalities in a Top Ten type list. They had Keith Olberman as number 6. How could anyone give credence to any a list (other than list of idiots) that would include Olberman. I figured that the author was one of the two people that watch Olberman. To exlude the likes of Malken from a list of top women bloggers is just as weak.

Syd B. on April 16, 2008 at 1:06 PM

Rachel Lucas, neo-neocon, Dr. Sanity, and on and on and on.

I call B.S.

N. O'Brain on April 16, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Duh. Because the Left is sexist. My favorites are all women. Of course Michelle is the BOSS!

Agrippa2k on April 16, 2008 at 1:33 PM

rokemronnie on April 16, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Car and Driver is about CARS…
Road & Track… about Cars
Sports Illustrated… sports (except for the bikini issue)
The Sporting News… uh… sports
Popular Mechanics… mainly science and mechanisms…
Popular Science… uh… science?

and for the younger males: Boys Life… OK, got me on that one…

Key here is that a lot of womens magazines are about WOMEN… while most men’s magazines have at least a passing reference to some other thing…

Oh, come on. By definition, a blog is biased. It’s a person’s opinions. If you think Hot Air is unbiased, well, you’re living at a 45-degree angle.

Meryl Yourish on April 16, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Bias? sure… conservative agenda driven? sometimes… but if you call them on the FACTS they at least acknowledge it. The blogs I’m talking about are the type that even when faced by overwhelming evidence, they still let their biases overide their intellect.

Romeo13 on April 16, 2008 at 1:37 PM

1)Matt Drudge is not a blogger.

2) Tammy Bruce is.

3)I (an XX myself) used to do one: Prowess, an incitement of lust for conservatives, male and female. Not updated lately, but still funny.

ashleymatt on April 16, 2008 at 1:48 PM

“On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”

As noted by Ortzinator on April 16, 2008 at 12:35 PM above, Allahpundit could even be female for all his readers know for certain. I’m pretty sure there are pseudonymous bloggers from Anchoress to Zombie that aren’t being considered by Ms. Carpenter.

cthulhu on April 16, 2008 at 1:56 PM

Emily Zanotti does not deserve to be on that list, Ed. She defended a Muslim Holocaust-denial death, rape, and torture threat against me, my parents, and grandparents on her site. She was just forced to resign from her job at the Thomas More Law Center over it, after just six months on the job. She also wrote deliberately false, defamatory information about me, which she admitted she made up and had to apologize for because she’d have lost a defamation suit.

Debbie Schlussel on April 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM

I get it.

Sorry you guys are linking to her site, on which the defense of the Muslim death threat remains aren’t linking to my site.

What I think is interesting is that porn that men enjoy, Penthouse, Playboy, Hustler (well, some men in the case of Hustler) is completely verboten on the job or in mixed company but women can read their own porn (Cosmopolitan, Redbook, bodice ripping romance novels) at their desk or in the lunch room without a second thought.

rokemronnie on April 16, 2008 at 12:45 PM

That’s what you find interesting. Really? You need to stop stalking women at their desks.

The Race Card on April 16, 2008 at 2:05 PM

I think LaShawn Barber is consistently excellent. Tammy Bruce is good. Hamsher is a bomb-thrower from way back. She has clout and a following. She should be on the list. The feministing chick…what’s her name…kinda cute but a real potty mouth.

If MM blogged more over here at HA, she would be #1 and 2 on the list. I like Michelle Malkin mostly because she delivers hard facts in what feels to me like a news report. But she spits such fire at her targets with such aplomb, that I just like to smile and watch her kick ass.

Arianna’s site deserves to be on the list, but Arianna Huffington is not much of a blogger. Her site is a great success. The only thing missing is a conservative viewpoint.

The Race Card on April 16, 2008 at 2:12 PM

The Race Card on April 16, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Um, they link to me, plenty, here, and I like the others who are named above. You know it’s nothing about that.

But, Thanks for telling us that you think it’s no big deal that someone defends Muslim death, rape and torture threats and engages in wanton defamation she made up. Yep, that’s the kind of conservative female bloggers we should promote. Should I have lied and said the death threats were made to someone else?

Sure you don’t want to change your name to “the idiocy card”?

Debbie Schlussel on April 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Uh, Debbie, that part is a quote from Cassy. I saw no need to edit it. It’s not an endorsement of Muslim rape in any sense. Didn’t the quote bars clue you in?

Ed Morrissey on April 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Ed Morrissey on April 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM

rofl

Vinnie on April 16, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Should I have lied and said the death threats were made to someone else?

Sure you don’t want to change your name to “the idiocy card”?

Debbie Schlussel on April 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Never lie. I think your biggest asset is your truth telling. You are one of the high beams that drew me deeper into the political blogosphere. That doesn’t mean, I’m gonna kiss your virtual ass.

I’ve seen you linked to here, deservedly so. That was me doing my best button pushing. I’m sure there’s a reason in my childhood why I get such a kick out of it.

I think The Idiocy Card lacks umph…too many syllables. Thanks for your input though.

The Race Card on April 16, 2008 at 2:31 PM

You know it’s nothing about that.

Yes, it is. You are clearly obsessed when Zanotti is mentioned on any blog/site discussing female bloggers (and coincidentally you are NOT mentioned). Do you just waste your days scouring the internet looking for mention of her name and chastising anyone who references (or quotes someone else who references) her? It is bordering on obsessive. Seriously. Get over it already. You look juvenile and catty.

ConservativeBelle on April 16, 2008 at 2:48 PM

We should ask Billionaire’s Row Obama. He’ll tell us the truth.

gabriel sutherland on April 16, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Glamour’s political columnist/blogger Megan Carpenter is obviously not very well informed. Another lazy “journalist”.

*DING*

Drinks or deadlines? Who cares, this is Manhattan baby!

gabriel sutherland on April 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM

The Race Card on April 16, 2008 at 2:31 PM

:-)

baldilocks on April 16, 2008 at 3:15 PM

Debbie, some friendly advice: up your meds. You’re starting to look like a stalker–or rather, an even creepier stalker than usual. Don’t you ever wonder why you’re so well-liked (not!) by so many other conservatives? Think it might just be you?

bamapachyderm on April 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Amy Alkon has a great blog at:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/goddessblog.html

She is smart, snarky and covers a wide variety of topics. There are a lot of good female bloggers out there. Actually, they are probably an even half of my top ten list.

Bikerken on April 16, 2008 at 3:33 PM

baldilocks! baldilocks! baldilocks!

The Race Card on April 16, 2008 at 3:47 PM

This is for Debbie S: If you don’t like Em, the best thing to do is to ignore her. From what I understand after reading both sides of the situation, she admitted she was wrong, and she sincerely apologized to you and acted to make amends. This incident happened long ago. Do you intend to continue attacking her forever? Have you never made a mistake you sincerely regret? The only person you’re hurting is yourself. Your words here are catty and vindictive, and they make you come across as the unstable and immature one. It’s time to drop it and move on.

themediansib on April 16, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Amy’s also a very nice person.

baldilocks on April 16, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Pshaw. Many of my favorite bloggers are women:

Ann Althouse
Clarice Feldman at American Thinker
Michelle Malkin
The Anchoress
Mary Katherine Ham
Zombietime

rockmom on April 16, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Hee. Redbook? You’re really comparing “tips for organizing your sock drawer” to exposed genitalia?

Tanya

For years, every issue of Redbook has had a sex story featured on the front cover, usually on the left just below Redbook. Articles like ‘The Forbidden Things He Wants You To Do’. Just because men and women prefer different forms of sexually explicit materials doesn’t mean that they aren’t both titillating to their respective readers/viewers.

I note, also, that you said nothing about Cosmopolitan. It would be interesting to compare the amount of sexual content in Cosmo with Playboy, which never has been exclusively about sex, has a serious interview ever issue, covers clothing, cars and tech toys, and regularly has published some quality fiction and non-fiction. I’m not saying it’s the Saturday Evening Post, but “I subscribe to Playboy for the articles” cliche has some basis in reality.

rokemronnie on April 16, 2008 at 4:43 PM

I just thought it was funny that you picked Redbook, which I consider a granny magazine.

I couldn’t possibly care less what people read, as long as they’re reading.

Tanya on April 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM

Apparently she cannot see beyond the border either. The number on Canadian blog four years running is Kate at SmallDeadAnimals and I would be risking my skin if I forgot to mention Kathy at FiveFeetofFury.

Do yourselves a favour folks and wander over to those sites. Not a day goes by that Kate does not have me laughing or screaming about something.

Jim708 on April 16, 2008 at 6:04 PM

Glamour opines on politics? Who knew? Sandwiched between l’Oreal and Maybelline, because let’s face it, sometimes you might actually have to talk to your man…. Could the author have picked a more bizarre venue for complaining about the ghettoization of women? I know I’m worth it, so where’s my traffic? Maybe it has something to do with clicking on Glamocracy (now there’s a concept!) and being greeted by a pop-up ad for “Bodies by Glamour.”

Sisterwise, I’ll go with bodies by luck of the draw and brains by Malkin & Fiano, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

JM Hanes on April 16, 2008 at 6:20 PM

It’s simple: Cooties.

Jim Treacher on April 16, 2008 at 7:02 PM

MK Ham, the sweetheart of the blogosphere.

Or is that sexist, too?

WasatchMan on April 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM

Arianna Huffington is an insane old liberal moonbat, and anyone who mentions her name in the context of female bloggers is doing female bloggers a massive disservice.

Also Ed, you forgot an important one: The Anchoress.

She does a great job on all things Catholic, moral, and otherwise.

BKennedy on April 16, 2008 at 10:01 PM

themediansib on April 16, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Um, all of that is a complete lie. But glad to know that the defense of Muslim death, rape and torture threats against me and my family–which is recent and remains–is okay by you. So sad to see the death of outrage.

Debbie Schlussel on April 16, 2008 at 10:13 PM

ConservativeBelle on April 16, 2008 at 2:48 PM

bamapachyderm on April 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Hmmm . . . so let’s see: 1) A Muslim supporter of terrorism whom I’ve never contacted and don’t know sends me six death, rape, and torture threats and admits to FBI agents to sending them. And she has relatives in Hezbollah. I’ve never had any contact with her.

2) A pathological liar (Zanotti) with severe mental problems whom I’ve never contacted (other than to demand a retraction, per Michigan defamation law) and don’t know (and never heard of) starts making up completely false and defamatory info about me, is forced to retract it and admits she made it up, then starts defending the Muslim Hezbollah woman’s death, rape and torture threats against my family. I’ve never had any contact with her, but she continues to read my site several times a day.

But these women are “not stalkers,” I am? Hilarious. Someone needs to get back on meds, and it ain’t me. And they sorely need a dictionary.

Oh, and let’s see a woman who is obsessed with me (that’s you, Beth) writes about me on her site umpteen times, trolls on my site, and has a crazy unrequited obsession with me. Again, dictionary sorely needed. And the meds, too.

Debbie Schlussel on April 16, 2008 at 10:37 PM

Ms. Schlussel,

The comment I made, in error, was in June of 2006. It was very wrong of me to make the comment, and I did not at all intend in any way to imply that I condoned or defended that woman’s remarks or her threats. I did not know the extent of her behavior and am disgusted at it now that I have researched the matter. I am very sorry that I ever said that smart remark. I have made every effort to remove it from my site, and have gone so far as to remove it from the server. It only remains the cache, which I have requested to be removed. Again, I am very sorry. I have not written, nor had contact with you at all for at least a year and a half, if not nearly two years.

Thank you.

Also, as I understand are aware, I left my position with my former employer voluntarily (I was certainly not forced to resign) and for very personal reasons unrelated to these allegations.

E. M. on April 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM

D.S.,

Again, if you had just left matters alone, no one would consider your behavior to be obsessive. But this is at least the third time in approximately 30 days that other bloggers spoke highly of Miss Zanotti and you felt it was necessary to chastise all of them for it (Malkin, Hawkins and now Morrissey). All of this effort on YOUR part was for a matter that happened nearly 2 years ago and for which Miss Zanotti has apologized and explained repeatedly. This is why your behavior is juvenile, catty and yes, obsessive.

Is there some part of forgiveness and letting it go that you aren’t able to comprehend?

Oh, and where is your apology to Mr. Morrissey for reprimanding him erroneously for quoting someone else? At the very least, you could stand correct. Tsk. Tsk. Rise above, my dear.

ConservativeBelle on April 16, 2008 at 11:24 PM

E.M., there was no need for you to comment, you are above reproach. You have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to warrant the baseless attack being brought against you on this thread.

Vinnie on April 17, 2008 at 12:44 AM

I feel for this woman. She considers Andrew Sullivan a ‘must read’?

Poor thing.

Kevin M on April 17, 2008 at 4:24 AM

If you consider Playboy pornography, then you need to do some research. Playboy is tame compared to real porn.

mjtyson on April 17, 2008 at 11:14 AM

E. M. on April 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Your defense of Muslim rape, torture and death threats as “making very valid points” remained on your site until last week, after it lost you your job. Your former employer, Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, informed me, in writing, that he would investigate you (and the fact that you blogged all day long at work–instead of actually working) and asked me to give him a week. At the end of the week, you suddenly “resigned” six months into your first post-law school job in a bad Michigan economy where such jobs are scarce. Coincidence? Right. It’s quite obvious you were given a respectable out and asked to resign.

Mr. Thompson also told me that after he showed you my letter about your obessive, defamatory behavior toward me and your support of violence against me and my family, that you immediately removed the time stamps from your website so that he could not see that you spent your time at Thomas More, not working, but blogging in support of anti-Semitic death threats. He also told me that you claimed not to have read the death threats to me that you linked to, which you called “very valid points,” and wrote about. Another lie. Maybe you can suggest it to Kwame Kilpatrick in his upcoming trial, as in “I never read those text messages to which I was responding.” Don’t think it will work for him, though, as it didn’t for you.

You have never apologized to me for defending violence against my family, and you admitted you deliberately made up defamatory information about me because you were upset that I attacked incompetent ICE chief Julie Myers and Hezbollah supporter Stephen Murphy. In your “apology”–which you only sent to avoid a victorious lawsuit against you for defamation–you told me that you have “multiple graduate and post-graduate degrees.” Another lie–at the time, you were a college graduate. Period.

Clearly, you have at least two problems: pathological lying and anti-Semitism. Get help soon.

Again, I am sure that your resignation was “unrelated” to any of this, right?

As for your other claims, your unrequited obsession with me remains. Not only have you continually written about me, but you’ve attacked Michelle Malkin for citing me. And you frequent my site regularly. I don’t care that you do these things. But when you deliberately defame me, admitting–as you did–to making up negative information about me–and when you defend Muslim threats of violence against me and my family, you will pay the price, as is now happening.

Debbie Schlussel on April 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Ms. Schlussel,

If it is not clear from the earlier posts, I am sorry and I apologize. I did not intend to defend violence against anyone in June of 2006, and am truly sorry that it appeared that way. Again, I am very sorry.

And yes, I did resign, of my own accord.

Thank you.

E. M. on April 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Does the blogosphere this thread “ghettoize” female writers?

The Race Card on April 18, 2008 at 3:59 AM

Oh, I think that this thread was pretty much “ghettoized” as soon as Debbie showed up puking all over the thread. I guess the comment section here is Debbie’s equivalent of a back alley and a cardboard box.

Janette on April 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM

E. M. on April 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM

You are only “sorry” you got caught. That is the extent of your sorrow. The last time you were “sorry” that you made up false and defamatory info about me, you then expressed your “sorrow” by defending Muslim death/rape/torture threats against me and my family as “making very valid points.” You knew what you were doing. You read the threats and praised them. You did intend to defend violence against me, which is why you praised it after you read the threats on my site.

Now, again, after you’ve lost your job over it–you “resigned of [your] own accord” because you were forced to, at the end of the week-long investigation following my letter to your boss–you, again, claim on this site that you are “sorry,” while on your own site (and with your friend John Hawkins on his site), you continue to mock me and claim that your defense of death threats against me was “snarky.” Riiight.

You’re sorry? Uh-huh.

Janette on April 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Another phony coming to the defense of a serial fabricator, pathological liar, and Muslim jihadist death threat defender. Talk about puke.

Debbie Schlussel on April 22, 2008 at 10:41 AM