...would like to rub himself against you. Here's his explanation of the problem of women in the news workplace
I love women. They are very pleasant to cuddle and rub against, and they have an astonishing ability to spot things that need cleaning and dusting long before the XY eye notices them. I like women in newsrooms as well. Alas, too much of the feminine sensibility screws news judgement. Women, you see, get excited about “issues”, rather than story-specific facts, and if you have enough women at the morning news conference, it is a sure bet they will validate the particular interest and inclination of the moment. Thus have we seen interminable stories about the battered wives of stock brokers and lawyers — there must be days when Rose Bay resembles a scene from the Rape of the Sabine Women — and very little exposure of the fact that, if you overlay a map of DV incidence atop one displaying Aboriginal population densities, they will be a near-perfect match.
Same with “gossip and trivia”. Newsroom women don’t like Trump, so any hint of a squib of a fact to advance that view will be highlighted.
Ah, you say, but what of newsroom men? Well here is where it should be noted that the news business trailblazed the practical application of gender fluidity. Stroll through a Fairfax or ABC newsroom and you’ll certainly see humans who stand up to pee, but mentally they are girls.
I hope this helps to explain Ben Cubby, Peter Hannam, Jonathan Green, Jon Faine…..One strongly suspects he is a cranky old bachelor who sensible women won't touch with a barge pole. He certainly deserves to be treated that way, at least. Sensible women being in short (or no) supply at Catallaxy, they'll go "oh, ah, you're so naughty Roger" and give him a pass.
So, this is the quality of editors working in a conservative publications in Australia today. It's a joke publication.
Well Catallaxy is a blog for loonies.
ReplyDeleteHe cannot still be editor at quadrant surely
I am pretty sure he was never editor. there is 'online editor' and then there is the real editor of the print edition.
ReplyDeletethe online editor is basically a webmaster
It's a shame they have so many bad articles because there is the occasional rather good one
in general I also think James Allan is consistently good
ReplyDeletein general I find James Allan consistently irritating
ReplyDeleteOne other thing, about Catallaxy and JC in particular: those males who spout stuff like Franklin about women having too much power being the ruination of a workplace (or entire society) are either sad lonely cranky bachelors, or if they are married (like JC), you can bet your last dollar that they do no say these things to their wives.
ReplyDeleteFor all his "I used to beat up Faine in the school yard and still would like to" testosterone blather of JC, what I would really like to see is him read out in detail to his wife his long standing recommendation that no man should marry because they risk being taken to the cleaners if divorced, or his recent Saudi style opinion that a woman on a bicycle at 7.30 pm is just asking for trouble and shouldn't be out.
Or perhaps he should be discussing these views with his daughter.
well they did have a goodun in the Menzies article and the lack of competition when he was in power.
ReplyDeleteIt can happen.
Hey Jason: I see that James Allan wrote:
ReplyDelete"By my reckoning, in any head-to-head contest, Mr. Abbott is still vastly preferable to Mr. Turnbull."
He's also a perpetual whinger about the University system in Australia, where he works. At least Sinclair Davidson doesn't bite the hand that feeds him.
He is close pals, it would seem, with the Quadrant/Catallaxy set of climate change denying economists, having edited a book of essays at Connor Court Publishing, the favoured published for climate change denialists and books by Steve Kates.
Nope - he has bad judgement and is part of all that is wrong with current Conservatism in Australia.
Steve Kates mostly publishes with Edgar Elgar.
ReplyDeleteStepford
ReplyDeleteIt's true that I went to school with Faine, we were in the same class together and he copped at least one decent hiding from me because his attitude. After that I would rough him up if he annoyed me. There are no lies about this. He was an awful little douchebag.
Have I said to my wife that men shouldn't marry because of the family court laws? Sure I have.
One other thing Step.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the intellectual discourse has dropped materially in the comments section at the Cat. There used to be really good conversations and debates. The threads continue to be very high quality though - even Kate, although I may disagree with him at times.
The problem, as I see it that after the 350,257th comment attacking Muslims you begin to lose interest.
Raise issues dealing with economics and there's no response. Eyes glaze over.
"The threads continue to be very high quality though - even Kate.."
ReplyDeleteI assume you mean "posts" - even though you are completely wrong about that, too.
I find it hard to believe you are defending Kates' appallingly inane and cult like willingness to think Trump is brilliant and can be forgiven anything, and to call all who can't stand him complete idiots.
The entire site has become a complete right wing culture war hangout in both posts and threads which are full of misogyny, borderline and real racism, islamophobia, insults to gays, the conspiracy belief that climate change is a hoax maintained by thousands of scientists, and never ending handwringing about abortion.
I don't think anyone under the age of 40 comments there, as most of the views expressed are a complete joke to most people below cranky middle and old age.
Keep your skirt grandma. The beauty about free speech is that you're not forced to go there and read it. You appear to be outrageously outraged about the Cat. If it bothers you that much , stop reading it you idiot.
ReplyDeleteI know I don't have to read it, but while it is routinely appalling, it's instructive in other ways: for example, it shows the irony of how a free speech forum where not even a modicum of civility is enforced is abandoned by 99% of those who might want to try to argue with reason and contrary opinion - and in doing so the site devolves into something that can't be taken seriously by those it might like to influence because of its routine offensiveness.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the bet that Sinclair Davidson's reputation amongst politicians and other economists has become increasingly eroded over the years by his association it: not helped by his own eccentric hyperbole and intemperate outbursts on 18C and free speech matters. Same with Judith Sloan, whose incredible bitchiness towards other economists when she was posting there indicated she deserved no respect from others, either. As for Kates - well, he's just a cult member now; there is no other explanation.
The other thing I noted recently was the false comfort it gives to wingnuts - on the losing side of economics, environment, and social movements like same sex marriage, they don't realise they are as isolated as they are.
It's a bit sad, in a way, but as at least half the people commenting there have such naturally poisonous personalities, it's hard to have sympathy.
I know I don't have to read it, but while it is routinely appalling, it's instructive in other ways: for example, it shows the irony of how a free speech forum where not even a modicum of civility is enforced is abandoned by 99% of those who might want to try to argue with reason and contrary opinion - and in doing so the site devolves into something that can't be taken seriously by those it might like to influence because of its routine offensiveness.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of a sentence that is far too long. Stop doing it!
As I said, don’t read the site if it bothers you so much and it clearly does. Free speech appears to be a concept that you’ve always had difficulties understanding for as long as I recall. It wouldn’t lower the bar for free speech if Sinclair chose to cull some of the dipsticks there. Similarly, it wouldn’t raise the bar as it is now.
What's the bet that Sinclair Davidson's reputation amongst politicians and other economists has become increasingly eroded over the years by his association it: not helped by his own eccentric hyperbole and intemperate outbursts on 18C and free speech matters. Same with Judith Sloan, whose incredible bitchiness towards other economists when she was posting there indicated she deserved no respect from others, either.
It’s not the end of the world reading people making racist comments. That’s where you differ with most people on the right. You want to see it banned whereas I don’t. It’s funny to see cuckolded dickheads like Zulu babbling on incoherently about aborigines 845 times a day or reading the plagiarist’s overuse of adjectives. That shit doesn’t really bother me. On balance though, I would rather see the end of them because they’re a waste of space. They’re just useless human beings, but not to be offended over.
As for Kates - well, he's just a cult member now; there is no other explanation.
He’s fine. He’s just getting a little carried away with Trump love. Eventually, he’ll snap out of it like nay teenage boy.
The other thing I noted recently was the false comfort it gives to wingnuts - on the losing side of economics, environment, and social movements like same sex marriage, they don't realise they are as isolated as they are.
It’s a bit presumptuous to be calling free market economics the losing side. That also applies to SSM. SSM will likely get through but it will be unlikely that those who disagree with it now will change their hearts and minds. I don’t really see it as losing or winning.
It's a bit sad, in a way, but as at least half the people commenting there have such naturally poisonous personalities, it's hard to have sympathy.
Fatso is a good example of a poisonous freaking grub of a human being. She detracts from the site. Can’t stand her and rarely have given her an easy time.
I love getting stuck into some of them and ripping off flesh. It’s fun.