Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Someone emailed me a link to this spectacularly idiotic screed at the terribly misnamed American Thinker website. It's written by someone who calls herself Robin of Berkeley and it fits a common style among the right, the "I used to be a liberal and then I discovered the truth" pattern. There's a template for it in Microsoft Word, I imagine. Some of this stuff is really funny.
What finally woke me up were the utterances of "bitch," "witch," and "monster" toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters early last year. I was shocked into reality: the trash-talk wasn't coming from conservatives, but from male and female liberals.
Did she somehow manage to miss the two decades of anti-Hillary hatred from the right? Did she somehow not notice that conservatives made her out to be as evil as one can imagine, including a murderer? She's just warming up. Here comes the serious stupid:
I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny. Neither the males nor the females care a whit about women.Women are continually sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. If under radical Islam women are enshrouded and stoned and beheaded, so be it.
My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women's reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.
And the eagerness for women to make good money? If women work hard, leftist men don't have to.
That's so idiotic it doesn't even merit a response, just a little head shaking.
Politics
Comments
Ed:
This:
"The Left's behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser-focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.
They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House."
and, this:
"In these dark times, with spiritually bankrupt people at the helm, thank God we have bright lights like Sarah Palin to illuminate the darkness."
are far too precious to not be broadcast from the rooftops.
I particularly like the image of Uncle Sam taking a dump.
It's always good to hear from another "cured" liebral. I bet she was teh GAY afore she got relition, too!
Posted by: democommie | November 29, 2009 9:51 AM
I think what we're dealing with is some women aging but denying the changes they've gone through in life. They want to say that their morals have never changed but for whatever reason, years of pressure to conform at work, gradually attending church in larger and larger numbers, or for whatever reason their morals did change.
So we end up with middle class working housewives who swear up and down they're feminists yet they don't want their daughters to get on the pill or get the HPV vaccine. I would argue that we also have ended up with aggressive overweight "hippy" men that want young men to toe the Democratic line or else they're fascists. Just like we ended up with ridiculous female conservatives claiming that Palin is a feminist too.
I sometimes join you in head shaking but some days when my patience is high and an acquaintance seems semi open I will discuss with them how their self-identification doesn't match the definitions of feminists or liberals or deists, etc.
Posted by: KC Lowlife | November 29, 2009 10:02 AM
Wow. Just wow. Publishing Palin's photo on the cover of Newsweek was an exploitative symbolic rape? Ferchrissake, it was a staged portrait, not a poparazzi peephole shot.
Palin's not complicated. She's just an ambitious human using every tool at her disposal - including her appearance - to pursue money and power.
Posted by: Moon Jaguar | November 29, 2009 10:06 AM
Berkeley is known as the "Open Ward" for a reason and people like 'Berkeley Robin' are that reason. She is typical of those around here that tote bundles of legal papers and news clippings, enduring abuses and ever fearful of rape, rape, rape. Her primary complaint about liberal men? They are not protecting her! She blames liberals today. Who will it be tomorrow? My guess is the CIA. It never fails.
Rapists are apolitical. They couldn't care less what form of government we live under.
Posted by: Rodney | November 29, 2009 10:32 AM
She's no doubt recovering from something but it isn't liberalism, more likely alcoholism.
I love the part where the white house is 'in on' the demonization of Palin without any mention of how that is happening. Palin is a demon so that's fair...
Posted by: MikeMa | November 29, 2009 10:32 AM
Nah, I think Ed has it right; this is a common right-wing screed. This person is not some aging hippie who swung right to fit in at the office cooler; this is someone trying (and failing on an epic scale) to imagine how to morph an aging hippie into a story that suits his or her agenda.
It's kinda like those Atheist Professor stories - by people who have clearly never sat in a University classroom.
As far as any aggressive older hippies trying to get anyone to 'toe the party line'...WTF? As if hippies have any two neurons still speaking to each other after years of sex, drugs and rock and roll (they'll happily repeat the same Woodstock story three times an hour, but I'm not sure they know who the name of the current President) and WTF? Democrats have a party line? As Will Rogers used to say "I don't belong to an organized party; I'm a Democrat".
Posted by: Tree | November 29, 2009 10:50 AM
The right relies on the "I know you are, but what am I" defense because they have no substantive defense. In their alternate reality, those who fought tooth and nail against racial and gender equality are egalitarian heroes, while those who stood up for racial and gender equality are racists and misogynists. Up is down, down is up and middle-aged Southern white males have always been the true champions of equality for all.
Posted by: Dr. X | November 29, 2009 10:59 AM
Classic doublespeak, only even more incoherent than that parlayed by the Oceanians. And I like the gratuitous mention of Berkeley, as if to say, You can tell what I'm saying is true because I'm brave enough to go against the grain of my (alleged) local culture.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 29, 2009 11:50 AM
Incredible. The moronic right seems to top itself daily with hateful, loud and angry bumper-sticker slogans and "thought" patterns.
Is it time for the rest of us to get as angry as they are?
Link: American Outrage
(satire)
Posted by: bondwooley | November 29, 2009 11:51 AM
"A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist . . ."
I thought to become a psychotherapist you had to undergo psychotherapy first. Maybe hers wore off.
Seriously, this woman has many, many unresolved issues.
Posted by: equisetum | November 29, 2009 11:52 AM
As if hippies have any two neurons still speaking to each other after years of sex, drugs and rock and roll (they'll happily repeat the same Woodstock story three times an hour, but I'm not sure they know who the name of the current President)
Tree, on behalf of myself and the other old hippies, may I say: Bite me.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | November 29, 2009 12:04 PM
Tree = "I'm not sure they {sic} who the name of the current President"
Hell, the same could be said of the last President (of the US, obviously, although there are other Presidents of other countries). - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 29, 2009 12:12 PM
Sarah is a typical right winger, everything is always someone else's fault, that's the crux of her book as well, blame others. And that's what this lady follows, the mantra of "everything is always someone else's fault". Very common among right wingers.
Posted by: richCares | November 29, 2009 12:24 PM
#10
The short response: Major Hassan
Except for psychoanalysts (who represent only a tiny percentage of clinicians) the scandalous truth is that no screening for psychological fitness and no therapy are required.
Posted by: Dr X | November 29, 2009 12:28 PM
So I'm oppressed if I'm NOT barefoot and pregnant?
Posted by: khan | November 29, 2009 12:34 PM
People like Robin are doing exactly what Palin wants them to do-- turning any criticism of her politics or behavior into a personal attack on her "sacred" motherhood. Palin uses her children, especially baby Trig, as human shields; this is right-wing family values in action.
Also, this comment from AnalogMan:
--
As a recovering liberal, you still don't get the point. Conservatives see rape in a completely different way from liberals. To a conservative, rape is particularly heinous because it is an assault on a woman's modesty. Liberals see no value in modesty, and do their best to destroy it by promoting promiscuity and abortion. For them, rape is merely a matter of a woman's preference - that is, it's "against her will".
...
Liberals have no respect for women, because as far as they are concerned, all women are sluts, or if they aren't, they should be. My father taught me, "Until they prove otherwise, treat every woman like a lady, and every unmarried woman like a virgin".
--
So to conservatives, women are not beings who have(or deserve) free will, but something like pretty decorative objects which mustn't be broken or dirtied? Sounds about right. Note also the slut/madonna dichotomy, which defines women only by their sexuality and relationships to men. Most liberal women have the self-respect not to pigeonhole themselves into these categories, and most liberal men(I hope) understand that.
Sorry for the barely-on-topic ranting; these kinds of attitudes just get me so angry, and I honestly fear meeting these kinds of people on the street.
Posted by: Emily | November 29, 2009 12:50 PM
I don't know Emily, I thought it was right on topic.
I like how the first comment belittles the fact that rape is not consensual. Who would have thought that little detail would make any difference?
Posted by: Leni | November 29, 2009 1:19 PM
Conservatism, by dint of its desire to preserve 'tradition' (which often never existed), is inherently sexist.
Posted by: Katharine | November 29, 2009 1:21 PM
Actually, from that comment, Emily, I interpreted that dude's words as saying "hurf durf women can't play with the big boys and be independent, powerful individuals so we've got to protect her 'modesty' and she can't have as free a sexual life as men".
Fuck, but I hate these kinds of sexists.
Posted by: Katharine | November 29, 2009 1:24 PM
Emily @ 16:
Wow. Just wow. I think that the difference in perception that AnalogMan points out is often true (at least for religious/social conservatives), but it's amazing when they say it openly.
Posted by: Escuerd | November 29, 2009 1:28 PM
People are suckers for a story of redemption, the 'I was blind but now I can see' line is straight out of Bible study class. Robin is a liar and a fraud. She, if it is a she, most of these agitprop pieces are produced my males under a pseudonym intended to gin up sympathy and an air of verisimilitude, is just stirring the pot to keep things in motion and on the off chance some suckers will buy this as news. You have to fill those right-wing e-mail newsletters with something. People who sign up for those newsletters have self-selected themselves as gullible and this will feed their preexisting delusion and sense of self-righteous indignation. Given the high level of credulousness I suspect this piece will get a fair bit of reposting in e-mails to friends, and tighty-righty, patriot and survivalist forums.
Posted by: Art | November 29, 2009 1:32 PM
@Escuerd: For that reason, I wondered if AnalogMan was a Poe(perhaps trying to expose, through satire, the hidden assumptions behind the arguments of Robin and previous commenters), because conservatives are usually a bit more subtle about their anti-woman views.
Also, for an antidote to this "ex-liberal" article, click my name; if nothing else, it reveals that people don't always(or even often) form their political views for rational reasons.
Posted by: Emily | November 29, 2009 2:05 PM
Sounds like Robin is nothing more than a typical PUMA dead-ender to me.
Posted by: tacitus | November 29, 2009 2:15 PM
It seems Robin never had to write a word to prove her point, as some of the above comments do the job for her. "Typical PUMA dead-ender" drips with woman hate. 'Dead-ender' means 'post-menopausal, therefore not fuckable, therefore doesn't exist and should die.'
I learned that my so-called liberal allies are backstabbing hypocrites, more concerned with looking cool, preserving privilege and scoring with chixxxx than the actual political and social well-being of women. It's pure politics of male resentment--"you bitches and your icky abortions keep losing us elections, plus who cares about your trivial little girly issues anyway, so sit down and shut up."
Not a chance, laddie boys. Take your mommy issues to therapy, not the voting booth.
Posted by: Alive and Well | November 29, 2009 3:46 PM
Er, Alive and Well, you're generalizing a bit.
Want an example of a good feminist dude? Look for the DrugMonkey blog, which contains two awesome feminist dudes, DrugMonkey and PhysioProf.
The misogyny is more rampant among the conservatives, who really, believe it or not, have said all that AND MORE. (And I don't recall most liberal guys saying much about abortions other than 'we're all for our women buddies having as much freedom as we do'.)
I think the problem here is that most, on both sides, are a bunch of fucking idiots. It's just that among the idiots, there are more conservatives than liberals. (I'd mention the fact that I wish there was a minimum IQ requirement to vote, but I tried that in the past and folks have slapped me down for even mentioning the notion that people aren't somehow all equal in practicality, legal equality notwithstanding.)
Posted by: Katharine | November 29, 2009 3:55 PM
Well, the writer of the piece does have one good point: There is a lot of sexism among fauxgressives in the Democratic party, and we did see a lot of that come out against Ms. Clinton and her supporters. There are just even more, and worse, of it in the Republican party.
Posted by: MadGastronomer | November 29, 2009 4:18 PM
Shame on you people for picking on Sarah Palin by focusing entirely on her body while completely ignoring her legislative history and her many open interviews and her insightful speeches and her book. Your viciously unfounded attacks on her will look even more foolish and petty and childish and misogynist when you see just how nice and kind and open and accepting and honestly she's treating during the primaries in 2012!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 29, 2009 4:30 PM
A further comment on the original article(because it's like a trainwreck I can't look away from):
The spiritually barren [Palin-hating liberals] must annihilate the vital and the fertile.
Liberals hate everything that's life-giving and fertile? I guess that's why they have no problem with the Earth becoming a barren, polluted wasteland.
@Modusoperandi:
...when you see just how nice and kind and open and accepting and honestly she's treating during the primaries in 2012!
I think you're missing an object for your verb there, but assuming that object is "her political opponents": yeah, I'm sure she'll be very nice and kind and open and accepting and honest, just like she was last year.
Posted by: Emily | November 29, 2009 4:39 PM
Emily: Don't go all "language police" on me. Just be glad that it wasn't in all-caps!
Wiki writing has ruined me on non-wiki writing. I'm so used to the "edit" button. That should be "treated", etc! Where's the edit button?! Where?! Woe!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 29, 2009 4:56 PM
The word you're looking for is 'projection', as in "her projection of her own flaws onto her enemies blinds her to those very flaws in herself and protects her from ever accidentally recognizing them".
Posted by: Nattering Nabob of Negativism | November 29, 2009 5:16 PM
@Modusoperandi: My mistake, sorry-- I wasn't sure how to parse that sentence.
Posted by: Emily | November 29, 2009 5:24 PM
Hmmm... maybe tacitus will explain what he meant. My understanding:
Puma: A Democrat who believes that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly and thus cheated out of the nomination.
Dead-ender: a fanatic to a cause who cannot accept the reality of defeat.
Unconscious Projection: attributing one's own unacceptable impulses to others.
Posted by: Dr X | November 29, 2009 5:40 PM
The article, I agree, is over the top. However, what I find truly scary are the comments ......the way they paint Palin and her book are truly chilling.
Posted by: Rahn | November 29, 2009 6:01 PM
Yeah. Ed, if you don't stop calling women nasty names, I'm totes gonna start voting republican.
Oh wait. No I'm not.
I'll just call you nasty names back, dickface.
:-)
That said, lately comments have made it extremely clear to me that most people around here have identities MUCH more strongly aligned with their political party than with any philosophy of equality. And then usually their religious system or distinct lack thereof. And then their favorite football teams. Feminism is WAY the heck down the list for most people I know.
Posted by: becca | November 29, 2009 6:04 PM
"That said, lately comments have made it extremely clear to me that most people around here have identities MUCH more strongly aligned with their political party than with any philosophy of equality."
Speaking for myself, I certainly am committed to a philosophy of equality and I'm certainly not committed to any political party. I don't know if I meet whatever standard you have in mind, however.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 29, 2009 6:45 PM
Robin of Berkeley said:
This fits in exactly with what Dr. Robert Altemeyer is talking about in his chapter 2:The Roots of Authoritarian Aggression (especially starting at pg 55). Right-wing Authoritarians seem to be more fearful and what allows them to then act aggressively on those feelings is the "releaser" of self-righteousness. Scary combination!
Posted by: marnk | November 29, 2009 9:41 PM
"Hippies. They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad." -- Eric Cartman
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 29, 2009 11:15 PM
Don't confuse "Alive and Well" with someone arguing in good faith, and don't confuse PhysioProf with someone concerned about women's interests except as an avenue for throwing his weight around and feeling smugly self-righteous about it (I'm not familiar enough with DrugMonkey to comment).
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 29, 2009 11:26 PM
@"Robin of Berkely"
Damn. I am so busted.
Posted by: bcoppola | November 29, 2009 11:30 PM
Reflecting on my post (without refreshing the thread) I may have overstated my case; it's pretty clear that bullying others is PhysioProf's modus operandi and most visible motivation, but I don't think I can say with confidence it's his only motive.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 30, 2009 12:13 AM
For every discussion like this there is one where ultra conservative dudes talking about how they don't make their wives wear burqas and how superior they are for it (and americans/western people in general).
(PROTIP:The common theme here is an unwillingness to look at your own behavior and generally looking like knobs because of it.)
Posted by: skeptifem | November 30, 2009 3:09 AM
Liberals hating women? Hell no! We loves us some bitches!
Posted by: valhar2000 | November 30, 2009 8:34 AM
Robin of Berkely:
No, Robin, no: you are talking about PIMPS, not leftist men. Similar, true, bu the differences, while subtle, are extremely important.
Posted by: valhar2000 | November 30, 2009 9:19 AM
Haven't read the comments, but she has half a point in this sentence:
This is currently a problem for the left, and others (people not actually full of shit like this Robin from Berkley) have also written about it, though I'm too lazy to dig up the link(s) at the moment. Multiculturalism and tolerance, taken to an extreme, become enablers of oppression. We shouldn't be too complacent about this.
Of course, to go from this to the idea that the Religious Right somehow has a better record on women's rights is absurd. This is a legitimate criticism of some elements of the progressive left, not a vindication of conservative bigotry.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 30, 2009 11:25 AM
@James Sweet:
This is one reason why I object to the "left/right" political dichotomy. It's a useful simplification, but on some issues, it's simply not very useful. Consider Ed's recent post on Bob Barr et al taking the "liberal" position on terror trials. Or let's ask whether Thomas Friedman is a liberal -- he's pro-market and pro-globalism, which seems to conflict with the values of a great many on the "left." And then, of course, is the issue of multiculturalism vs. feminism.
There are other examples of where the one-dimensional political spectrum simply fails to be useful (firearm and drug policies leap to mind). The point being that I think people need to be more careful: the "political left" is not unanimously trumping feminism or multiculturalism over the other.
The "right" isn't exactly united on this issue either. Neoconservatives are obviously against multiculturalism in any form while I suspect there's quite a few conservatives tending towards a more isolationist stance that would prefer our government not to interfere with another nation's sovereignty.
Posted by: Dan L. | November 30, 2009 3:20 PM
A fair point indeed. I often find some of the alliances baffling, particularly on the -- excuse me -- "right". Libertarians allied with theocrats?!? WTF???
Still, political alliances are a necessity, and since if forced to choose I would have to put myself firmly on the "liberal" side of the aisle, I have an interest in those on the -- sorry -- "left" coming to recognize the dangers of multiculturalism run rampant.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 30, 2009 3:27 PM
What behavior?
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 30, 2009 7:17 PM
Okay, what Robin says is crap.
but not all liberal men or democratic men want what's best for women, and it would be putting our heads in the sand as women to believe otherwise. evidence: stupak amendment, for one.
Posted by: FeministMom | December 4, 2009 12:27 PM