Join 3,574 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Jessamyn in the NY Times
July 6, 2007 11:29 PM   Subscribe

Woo woo! Jessamyn is in the NYTimes.
Jessamyn West, 38, an editor of “Revolting Librarians Redux: Radical Librarians Speak Out” a book that promotes social responsibility in librarianship, and the librarian behind the Web site librarian.net (its tagline is “putting the rarin’ back in librarian since 1999”) agreed that many new librarians are attracted to what they call the “Library 2.0” phenomenon. “It’s become a techie profession,” she said.
In a typical day, Ms. West might send instant and e-mail messages to patrons, many of who do their research online rather than in the library. She might also check Twitter, MySpace and other social networking sites, post to her various blogs and keep current through MetaFilter and RSS feeds. Some librarians also create Wikis or podcasts.
A Hipper Crowd of Shushers
posted by gen to MetaFilter-Related at 11:29 PM (102 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

Every time I see Jessamyn I read "just a minute". I'm probably alone on this one.
posted by null terminated at 11:40 PM on July 6, 2007


Every time I see Jessamyn another facet of her cv is highlighted. I doubt that I am alone in this one.
posted by Cranberry at 11:45 PM on July 6, 2007


When you take the 'rarin' out of librarian, you get 'liba'.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:45 PM on July 6, 2007


She might keep current through Metafilter, or, you know, be a fucking admin. Man, the person writing for librarian.net doesn't do his or her research, do they? Sorry, personal annoyance. Thanks for the info, though, gen. And... Hooray for jessamyn!
posted by sleepy pete at 11:45 PM on July 6, 2007


Also, gen's link has just been posted to the front page by four panels, so I don't know what.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:47 PM on July 6, 2007


I heart Jessamyn
posted by special-k at 11:59 PM on July 6, 2007


Wow, most xlnt article. Thx, gen!
posted by Lynsey at 12:12 AM on July 7, 2007


Is it unfair that Jessamyn didn't get to pose for a picture; sitting daintily in a summer frock on some bookcases?
posted by jouke at 12:34 AM on July 7, 2007


Woo woo? Woo woo.
posted by Rhomboid at 12:44 AM on July 7, 2007


many of who

Many of whom, maybe? I was never much for grammar but that sticks out like a sore thumb.
posted by doctor_negative at 1:11 AM on July 7, 2007


Because I've been pining for a relationship lately1, those photos of the female librarians surely made my heart flutter wildly. Man, oh man. I think I must really have it bad for geeky-though-oddly-hip librarian women in glasses.

*goes to dunk head in cold water*

1. It's bad that these sorts of threads always prompt stupid "I'd hit it" responses. For my part, it's not at all that I see every woman as a sex object, but that I can't see a woman that is especially attractive to me and not think, "I want to be her boyfriend!"—especially when, you know, I'm not in a relationship and have been a bit lonely. Which I think is a bit different than "Ugh, me caveman. Me think curvy cavewoman good for some ooga-ooga."
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:25 AM on July 7, 2007


What an exquisitely creepy comment, Ethereal Bligh.

Next time, "I'd hit it" will suffice.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:40 AM on July 7, 2007 [8 favorites]


When you take the 'rarin' out of librarian, you get 'liba'.

I propose a libation to the rarin' variety.

those photos of the female librarians surely made my heart flutter wildly. Man, oh man. I think I must really have it bad for geeky-though-oddly-hip librarian women in glasses.

No offence to Jessamyn, who is lovely, but if you want to find somebody at least partially sane, female librarians are not the crowd you want to be poking around.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:26 AM on July 7, 2007


For my part, it's not at all that I see every woman as a sex object, but that I can't see a woman that is especially attractive to me and not think, "I want to be her boyfriend!"—especially when, you know, I'm not in a relationship and have been a bit lonely.

d'aw! *gives EB a big wussy hug* lots of hearty patting on the shoulders, obscuring the subtle brush of manly groin on groin.

posted by UbuRoivas at 2:30 AM on July 7, 2007


Woot! Jessamyn's a sexay layday!

knows exactly what EB is talking about
posted by hadjiboy at 3:00 AM on July 7, 2007


The excerpted part of the article makes me wonder what journalism school you have to flunk out of to think that a sentence beginning with "Some librarians also..."

It's one of those cliché sentence formations you make fun of when you're learning how to write.

Some people like Pepsi. Others like Coke.

Exciting!

On the bright side, those are some damned cute librarians.
posted by blacklite at 3:10 AM on July 7, 2007


knows exactly what EB is talking about

Excellent! Can we rely on you for an ongoing real-time precis service?

posted by UbuRoivas at 3:19 AM on July 7, 2007


I propose a libation to the rarin' variety.

*pours out some wild elderflower cordial on his library card. Makes a vajra mudra.*
posted by honest knave at 3:28 AM on July 7, 2007


Rockin! Way to go Jessamyn!!
posted by Wilder at 3:31 AM on July 7, 2007


I'd hit it.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:41 AM on July 7, 2007


This right here is a Category 5 shitstorm of puppylove. Jesus, men, pull yourselves togehter, there's Bush Cabinet officals to creatively insult!
posted by DenOfSizer at 3:55 AM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


All that stuff about Twitter, MySpace, wikis and podcasts put me off.
posted by Joeforking at 4:52 AM on July 7, 2007


Oh cool, thanks for the link to Metafilter, didn't know it existed! :p
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:32 AM on July 7, 2007


Metatalk: Ugh, me caveman.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:57 AM on July 7, 2007


Is it unfair that Jessamyn didn't get to pose for a picture

What are you talking about?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:58 AM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


sleepy pete: "She might keep current through Metafilter, or, you know, be a fucking admin. Man, the person writing for librarian.net doesn't do his or her research, do they? Sorry, personal annoyance."

You didn't do your research reading comprehension. Jessamyn is "the person writing for librarian.net". The person who made the mistake was writing for NYT.
posted by Plutor at 6:49 AM on July 7, 2007


Heh, gnfti, although I don't know Jessamyn, I gather she would not want to be in the Saturday edition of NYT under the heading "Fashion & Style" with that picture.
posted by jouke at 6:55 AM on July 7, 2007


I just spent the last 10 minutes cyber-stalking Jessamyn's old blog entries. What a damnably interesting person you are, Jessamyn!

I'd like to say something between EB's self-apologetic comment and "I'd hit it" but I'm happily married, so I won't say anything at all :)
posted by SteveTheRed at 7:21 AM on July 7, 2007


I'd hit it.

I'd check it out for 2 to 4 weeks, depending on whether it was a book or other media.
posted by The Deej at 7:43 AM on July 7, 2007 [3 favorites]


Plutor, I have a sneaking suspicion that sleepy pete knows that and was making what is known in some circles as an ironical-type joke.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:49 AM on July 7, 2007


How odd is it that I found this here instead of in the newspaper or my email? Pete Welch who is also pictured is a truly awesome dude. I have to admit that any NYT article that starts with "blah blah Williamsburg" gets an immediate "Oh jesus isn't there a new trendy neighborhood YET??" eyeroll from me.

I must have talked to the lady from the NYT for half an hour and I did tell her that 1. I was an admin here and 2. that my day is fairly non-traditional and 3. that I rarely work with library patrons but it seems to fit in okay with the general theme and the article was -- as articles about librarians in traditional media tend to go -- pretty non-noxious.

Some librarians also create Wikis or podcasts.


Hey I made one just yesterday. That said, I'm glad I redesigned my site this week. I had forgotten about this article coming out. I should probably go over there and dust or something.

It's bad that these sorts of threads always prompt stupid "I'd hit it" responses.

Were some comments deleted or were you the first one to say "I'd hit it" in this thread? Also, UbuRoivas speaks the truth, we are all crazy.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:54 AM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


Our own little jessamyn, in Sunday's NYTimes Fashion & Style section! And you didn't even marry an investment banker!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:21 AM on July 7, 2007 [2 favorites]


Congrats to jessamyn, and all, but sorry but this does not bode well.

Hipster-librarians are the Next Big Thing. The hipster-librarian novels will be hitting the shelves, then Leno, Letterman, The View, and all the others will have nothing but hipster-librarians as guests, then the big Hipster-Librarian Tour '08, selling out enormo-domes around the country. Then the movies will hit at the same time; hipster-librarians in messy love triangles, in passionate embraces among the Dewey decimal cards, hiding between the 600 Technology (Applied sciences) and
700 The Arts shelves; fixie-riding librarians with their Mao or Che inspired messenger bags, chasing bad guys and solving crimes.

Then, as it must, the librarian-as-rock-star phenom will fade, leaving broken hearts and broken dreams in the wake. Homeless, drug-addled hipsters, sleeping in the streets, waking up just long enough to cry out to passersby, "I used to be somebody! I used to be... a librarian."

I'm just sick of it, I tell you, and it hasn't even happened yet.
posted by The Deej at 9:39 AM on July 7, 2007 [4 favorites]


When the New York Times covers something, Deej, it's officially STOPPED being the "next big thing." The really bad news is that hipster librarianism is now officially in decline.
posted by Dave Faris at 10:15 AM on July 7, 2007


Dammit, and I missed it?

Crap!!!!
posted by The Deej at 10:28 AM on July 7, 2007


If librarians are the new rock-star chefs, can I be Gordon Ramsey? I swear really well. I never shush people, I scream STFU!!!
posted by Razzle Bathbone at 10:29 AM on July 7, 2007


I just came in here to say that while Jessamyn is the awesome, CitrusFreak holds the high honour of "spechlest MeFi member" in my heart. Aw.
posted by liquorice at 10:41 AM on July 7, 2007


Pfft. Sorry liquorice, but there ain't nobody else for me but Jessamyn.

Now stop drinking.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:43 AM on July 7, 2007


Would you two get a room already?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:27 AM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


Hey don't blame me for her drunken antics.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 11:35 AM on July 7, 2007


*I'm* not the one who confesses their undying love for someone online though, am I?

Stop derailing foo'!
posted by liquorice at 11:37 AM on July 7, 2007


I have flagged every comment in this entire thread.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 11:38 AM on July 7, 2007


Ooooo, you're gonna get in trouble with cortex!!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:39 AM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]



posted by taosbat at 12:33 PM on July 7, 2007


cough EB cough
posted by Rumple at 12:50 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


Haha, Rumple. I seldom laugh out loud at internet stuff. But this? Good one.
posted by jouke at 12:56 PM on July 7, 2007


I wonder if Jessamyn the librarian is a Libra.

Good, now we can stalk her for a while and give Matt a break.
posted by IndigoRain at 1:02 PM on July 7, 2007


I wonder if Jessamyn the librarian is a Libra.

Virgo, like many librarians.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:05 PM on July 7, 2007


I would like to ask an honest question without getting shouted at, please.

From the article:

Michelle Campbell, 26, a librarian in Washington, said that librarianship is a haven for left-wing social engagement, which is particularly appealing to the young librarians she knows. “Especially those of us who graduated around the same time as the Patriot Act,” Ms. Campbell said. “We see what happens when information is restricted.” (emphasis mine)

What part of the Patriot Act restricts access to information in libraries?

And yes, I've read this. I'm just not getting the logical jump from "it's surveillance" to "it's restriction." If they go hand-in-hand, how?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:19 PM on July 7, 2007


We dance round a ring and suppose,
While Jessamyn sits in the middle and knows.
posted by vronsky at 1:33 PM on July 7, 2007


What an exquisitely creepy comment, Ethereal Bligh.

Oh, fuck off. Women here have complained that every time a link is to photos of any attractive women, regardless of the context, there are “I'd hit it” or equivalent comments. There's a difference between comments that objectify women and comments that mention how attractive a person(s) is—as a person who, you know, one would like to actually talk to and be friends with. I wanted to make that distinction clear.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:39 PM on July 7, 2007


So, "I'd befriend it"?
posted by chrismear at 2:11 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


What part of the Patriot Act restricts access to information in libraries?

My guess is that he speaker was conflating "USA PATRIOT Act era" stuff with other information restricting legislation that came out at about the same time, notably CIPA which had devastating effects on libraries' ability to offer unfiltered acces to the internet if they took federal money for their connectivity. I think it was a throwaway line or she was misquoted accidentally through compression of some of her ideas.

Basically the USA PATRIOT Act had an effect on people accessing information in libraries in a few ways

- civil disobedience of a sort where they would only keep that information that they absolutely had to keep so that there would not be informaiton there to give if the feds came looking. This had the effect of making library catalogs less useful because many libraries didn't let the patron choose if they wanted their borrowing records preserved or not. So if I wanted to see if I'd checked out whatever episode book of whatever sci fi series I'd been reading a few years back that information would not be there.
- the erosion of trust that people felt within their libraries to be able to read freely without potentially getting spied on by their government
- lots of misinformation spreading over who was and wasn't getting spied on by libraries with the result that a lot of librarians with [to me] legitimate gripes about the quasi-legaility of the USAPA were lumped in with the hysterical freakout people (on both sides) who saw a fed behind every inquiry.

So, as a short answer, the USA PATRIOT Act does not, in and of itself, restrict access to information in libraries. However, in many cases libraries trying to protect patron privacy despite this legislation might do that of their own accord, finding it necessary to uphold their states' privacy laws which the USAPA runs roughshod over. There is also the chilling effect, of course. Also the Children's Internet Protection Act does pretty seriously impinge on adults being able to access information free of filtering online at their public library and it came out in the USA PATRIOT Act era of fearmongering and oogy-boogy talk about the dangers of the unknown.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:22 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


shorter EB: "I'm a sensitive, New Age male!"

Dude, you're looking at photos of librarians you know otherwise nothing about. Thinking someone is attractive and sexually appealing is nowhere near as creepy as talking about how wanting to have deep personal connections (that other chauvinist pig males can't understand,) with total strangers based on there jobs and how they dress.
posted by Snyder at 2:26 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


FULL DISCLOSURE: My mother was a Librarian. And a Libra. And her name was Marian.

EB would've liked my mother, which is why I'm relieved they never met.
posted by wendell at 2:26 PM on July 7, 2007


Oh come on Snyder. Give EB a break.
posted by jouke at 2:30 PM on July 7, 2007


I'd hit it just doesn't work for jessamyn. How about, I could foist her into a night of star-crossed virgo passion. Nah, that's no good either. Anyway...

Way to go jess!!!
posted by snsranch at 2:36 PM on July 7, 2007


Huh, not one mention of the banhammer.
posted by Sailormom at 2:38 PM on July 7, 2007


Thank you, jessamyn!
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:49 PM on July 7, 2007


Oh come on Snyder. Give EB a break.

Well, he was just being unnecessarily defensive is all. Just say some people looked attractive and nice, without getting simultaneously high-and-mighty and kinda creepy about it.
posted by Snyder at 2:56 PM on July 7, 2007


I'd hit that plate of beans.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 3:11 PM on July 7, 2007 [2 favorites]


There's a difference between comments that objectify women and comments that mention how attractive a person(s) is—as a person who, you know, one would like to actually talk to and be friends with. I wanted to make that distinction clear.

Let's be clear, you only know two things about these women: 1) their appearance and 2) their profession.

Your claim is that it objectifies women to look at an attractive librarian and say, "because that person is an attractive librarian, I want to have sex with them." However, the objectification is cured if, in addition to wanting to have sex with them, one also wishes to form a meaningful relationship? Again, based solely on appearance and profession?

The only real difference between the former and the latter is that the latter is more lonely and pathetic. That can't possibly cure the underlying ill, if indeed there is one.

I would suggest that there's nothing wrong with wanting only to have sex with an attractive person. That's not objectification. Sexual objectification is about denying or disregarding an individual's personhood and reducing them to a sexual instrumentality.

We can't all be soul mates with everyone. Some of our relationships will be just about playing squash, or just about having sex. Some will be a lot deeper. That's OK.

Now, it's probably unnecessary to post "I'd hit it" in every thread featuring an attractive woman. It's probably also unnecessary to post "I would seek an enlightened relationship with that woman" in such threads as well.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:36 PM on July 7, 2007


Good lord, I'm glad I'm happily married.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:42 PM on July 7, 2007


Oh, quit riding the poor guy.
posted by Dave Faris at 3:52 PM on July 7, 2007


I hear there's a Brand New Day tomorrow...
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 3:56 PM on July 7, 2007


Sorry CF12, they canceled it.
posted by The Deej at 4:43 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


Lack of sex makes people that way.
posted by Burhanistan at 4:56 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


Rumple: quite an impressive catalogue: informative abstracts, publication information...unfortunately, it's useless without ISBN numbers.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:15 PM on July 7, 2007


ffs, EB has a crush on some alterna/art school/bookstore chicks. That does not make him creepy. It makes him a)male b)human c)a person with good taste. Lighten up snyder.
posted by vronsky at 6:50 PM on July 7, 2007


I dunno. I find his taste questionable. I mean, it's almost bordering on the fetishistic. Why can't he just appreciate the inner beauty of normal girls?
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:04 PM on July 7, 2007


I'd hit that plate of beans.

Wait for it...
posted by mediareport at 7:26 PM on July 7, 2007 [2 favorites]


Did we break the "normal girls" websites? I can't see it.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:43 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


it's useless without ISBN numbers.

Sweet, juicy ISBN numbers... oh yes.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:53 PM on July 7, 2007


Waiting for the inevitable outpouring of righteous indignation from all the mefi librarians/librarian fetishists over UbuRoivas not realizing that librarians are normal girls...
posted by misha at 8:10 PM on July 7, 2007


this is similar tps.
posted by vronsky at 8:13 PM on July 7, 2007


Ah, OK.... eesh, some of those appear to be about 12 years old. And they know how to play chess- OH NOSE I WILL NEVER FIND A MAN NOW!! :-(
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:21 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


huh?
posted by vronsky at 8:39 PM on July 7, 2007


Hehehee.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:44 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


HOT LIBRARY SMUT!
posted by Burhanistan at 9:06 PM on July 7, 2007


OH NOSE I WILL NEVER FIND A MAN NOW!! :-(

*bites his tongue clean off*
posted by Ryvar at 11:24 PM on July 7, 2007


However, the objectification is cured if, in addition to wanting to have sex with them, one also wishes to form a meaningful relationship? Again, based solely on appearance and profession?

Yes. I think you must misunderstand the concept of “objectification”. Based upon the interviews and the appearance, I find these women attractive as people. Since I'm heterosexual, I also find them attractive as potential romantic partners. In contrast, when someone objectifies another person, that someone is seeing him/her as less than a person, as nothing more than an object that can be used to satisfy some desire. Just the choice of wording in “I'd hit it” is very revealing of that mindset.

There's nothing wrong with being attracted to other people...as long as you are attracted to them as people, not merely as sex objects.

Also, there's a not-so-subtext to your comment that I disagree with. It seems sad to me that admitting loneliness in any way, particularly the desire to be in a romantic relationship, is seen as embarrassing and pathetic. On the other hand, saying you want to get yourself a piece of ass is normal and, to some, admirable. That's fucked-up. Of course my sensitivity to being attracted to women with a relationship in mind is dependent upon my desire to be involved with someone. In contrast, the raw sexual desire that reacts to a pair of tits is not only divorced from any desire for a relationship, it's divorced from any idea of a person there beyond the pair of tits.

I don't like objectification. I do think that being attracted to other people, as people, is normal and healthy. I think that wanting to be with another person in more than a superficial way is normal. I think that missing that when one doesn't have it is normal. And I don't think it's in the least shameful to say so. I made all this explicit because I don't like the “I'd hit it” comments and I didn't want mine to be mistaken for one.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:16 AM on July 8, 2007


There's nothing wrong with being attracted to other people...as long as you are attracted to them as people, not merely as sex objects.

Psst. It's okay to be attracted to people merely as sex objects, too. Not everything in life has to be deep and meaningful with profound implications for your future. Spurious enjoyment, dude. Look into it sometime.
posted by Ryvar at 3:19 AM on July 8, 2007


Waiting for the inevitable outpouring of righteous indignation from all the mefi librarians/librarian fetishists over UbuRoivas not realizing that librarians are normal girls...

Not in my experience. And - considering the total lack of righteous indignation - not in anybody else's experience, either. What was your point again?
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:34 AM on July 8, 2007


Metafilter : spurious enjoyment
posted by Dave Faris at 4:58 AM on July 8, 2007


I made all this explicit because I don't like the “I'd hit it” comments and I didn't want mine to be mistaken for one.

No offense to you EB, but no one had said "I'd hit it" or "I'd like to hold hands with it" until your lengthy footnote. I appreciate what you're saying and agree with your general assertions that it's okay to be lonely and express loneliness and that it would be nice if people looked beyond the T&A to see the whole person in female-themed topics generally. However, I also agree with Ryvar that there's a time and a place for good nasty objectification. Again, in this case your comment STARTED the "I'd hit it" commentary in this thread, not described it. You could argue that it was coming anyhow; I think that's a debatable point.

I also think that the main reason people may have seen your comment as creepy -- the reason *I* saw it as a little off-putting -- is that to me it took something that's "hey look at this neat thing one of our female members did/was involved in" and turns a discussion about an article about (mostly) women as women reframed through the desires of men. Whether that desire is for a good fuck, a good omelette or a good backrub seems less important -- it's just a variant of "I'd hit it" to me.

I think MeFi is, in many ways, a way for people to put their little "this inspires longing in me" commentary out in the world, whether that's longing for an iphone, a treehouse, a partner or a solution to whatever's nagging at them. However, we all have differing degrees of what amount of personal longing we'll put out on display and I think your personal line for that is well out at the edge of the bell curve for this community.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:19 AM on July 8, 2007 [3 favorites]


Aw. I didn't really find it that much different than Matt's exclamation that "girls in glasses are ach ooo tee hot" except that Matt's expression of it was cuter and funnier, and EB was trying to explain too much. To me, both were really different than most of the "I'd hit it" stuff, or various remarks on female physicality that I see here. But, okay - my impression only, obviously.
posted by taz at 6:31 AM on July 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Also, is this the wrong time to bring up my idea of a "Library Boiz of Metafilter" centerfold calendar?
posted by taz at 6:42 AM on July 8, 2007


It's bad enough that the guy is lonely and horny, but now he's got to feel guilty about his feelings, too?
posted by Dave Faris at 6:45 AM on July 8, 2007


hey, congrats jessamyn - that's excellent that the "real world" is getting some inkling of what we already know - you're a remarkable person!
posted by madamjujujive at 7:20 AM on July 8, 2007


and turns a discussion about an article about (mostly) women as women reframed through the desires of men. Whether that desire is for a good fuck, a good omelette or a good backrub seems less important -- it's just a variant of ‘I'd hit it’ to me.

That's a good point and I regret my comment for that reason.

I thought the “I'd hit it comments” were coming, regardless of what I said. At the least, I should have waited for them. Alternatively, I should have written my comment such that it wouldn't have called attention to itself so much that it derailed the thread. But I don't think I should be held wholly responsible for the fact that people responded to my comment—if they hadn't, it would have been a single, little comment that wouldn't have inadvertently reinforced the “I'd hit it” mentality.

However, I also agree with Ryvar that there's a time and a place for good nasty objectification.

I disagree in the case of women. It's such a huge problem and fundamental to sexism that until it's not so disproportionate, any example of it with regard to women is perpetuating the problem.

However, we all have differing degrees of what amount of personal longing we'll put out on display and I think your personal line for that is well out at the edge of the bell curve for this community.

Yeah, it is. But I act contrary to community standards, whether it's an online community or our culture in general, because I think those standards are wrong. Male-dominated and intelligent discussion, especially on the web, is “supposed” to be abstract and impersonal. Anything personal or confessional or “overly” emotive is wrongly seen as performative and self-indulgent. I think the personal and specific must necessarily anchor the abstract and general—and that, as I argued previously, a lot of the things that people find shameful or embarrassing are things that are normal and healthy.

Also, for whatever reasons—and note that this is a generalization only—it's the case that women tend to be more personal, more intimate in their conversation and they are often ridiculed and pushed out of the discourse on the web for it. I'm not inventing the concern about this, nor am I alone in it. I've seen some feminists online talking about it recently. That I think that the non-personal and overly abstract mode of discourse is unhealthy and ethically problematic and that it's used to marginalize women in conversation pisses me off and I deliberately act contrary to it in the same way that I act contrary to other accepted values that I believe are wrong.

It's bad enough that the guy is lonely and horny, but now he's got to feel guilty about his feelings, too?

Thanks for the support, Dave Faris, but from my point of view you're hurting as much as helping. I don't think that it's "bad" that I'm lonely and horny. Lots of people are lonely and horny, it's nothing to be ashamed of.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:24 AM on July 8, 2007


Anyway, now that I've answered jessamyn's comment and made my point clearly, I do quite regret this overshadowing1 of the real point of this post. So, I'm finished discussing my comment and the related issues. The related issues are important, but we can discuss them elsewhere where it's more appropriate. I apologize for the harmful derail.

1. Overshadowing is a very apt word and quite evocative if you think about it. It's too bad we've lost awareness of the metaphor.

posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:28 AM on July 8, 2007


Man, ever since the epic longboat side-discussion about DFW and footnoting, I've been wanting to say something about your footnoting* but I wasn't sure what it was until just now when I figured it out:

You're always using numeric footnote symbols, even though you only ever have one footnote! Madness! I could understand if you were at least in the habit of using multiple footnotes per comment on a frequent if not constant basis, but this long string of single-note comments with "1" as the marker is like some bizarre mockery of the very idea of a plurality of footnotes; to so consistently suggest a possibility, by your "1", of a following "2" and perhaps even "3" and "4" and so forth, is cruelty. It is a dangle of the typographical carrot. It is a tease, sir.

*not that there's anything wrong with footnotes, natch

posted by cortex (staff) at 8:12 AM on July 8, 2007


Well, thank god that's over. Now we can finally get back to the real point of this thread: discussing which one of the hot librarians is the hottest.

I nominate the little number in the yellow sundress and platform sandals -- who's with me?
posted by myeviltwin at 8:16 AM on July 8, 2007


You're always using numeric footnote symbols, even though you only ever have one footnote! Madness!

Yeah, good point. But it's that I don't like the asterisk for footnotes because the symbol is overloaded in web and email use.

posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:41 AM on July 8, 2007



posted by Aloysius Bear at 8:46 AM on July 8, 2007


What Aloysius Bear said. As in get off it, you ninny.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:51 AM on July 8, 2007


No, you misunderstand cortex: Sebastians Bear is apparently buried on metatalk!
posted by jouke at 9:07 AM on July 8, 2007


I nominate the little number in the yellow sundress and platform sandals -- who's with me?

The one in the yellow sundress?

pffft.

Check out the one on the far left of the first photo, with black hair, glasses and a striped dress.

Now that one, I'd hit it, have an omelet with it, a backrub with it and form a deep, meaningful, anti-sexist empowering spiritual connection with it.

For reals.
posted by jason's_planet at 9:08 AM on July 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


The NYT seems to do a "zomg! hipsters actually do ____!!!" article once a month (previous episodes include: hipsters have babies! hipsters ride single-speed bikes! hipsters like cupcakes!).

It seems like there are two reasons, one to create some other that people can mock (writers that grew up mocking the goth crew at high school now have an outlet as a 30-something adult), and the other is some self-serving NYC pride thing where the NYT likes to say that anything from NYC/Brooklyn really drives what is cool and spreads across the world.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:04 AM on July 8, 2007


We can't all be soul mates with everyone.

Obviously you are not taking the right drugs, Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America.
posted by Meatbomb at 10:55 AM on July 8, 2007


Obviously you are not taking the right drugs.

I'll have whatever he's having.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:58 AM on July 8, 2007


It is a dangle of the typographical carrot. It is a tease, sir.

*not that there's anything wrong with footnotes, natch
posted by cortex


Fer cryin' out loud, just edit the damn comment already.

(ha! ha ha! i crack me up!)

posted by The Deej at 11:15 AM on July 8, 2007


« Older Here's show 11 of the podcast ...  |  The first Metafilter Music Cha... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments