me & her

I am not a ladybug. I’m you.

A few thoughts on Gawker’s recently published Pubegate, a would-be “Letter to Penthouse” penned by an anonymous douchebag who claims to have spent a night in bed with a naked Christine O’Donnell. I’m not linking to it.

1. The problem isn’t that Gawker published a story about O’Donnell allegedly getting naked and in bed with someone, just three years ago. If that happened, and if that were the basic outline of the story, her very public statements about her character, and her decision to bolster her long-shot Senate campaign by making herself into the sort of person who would appeal to social-conservatives—someone who wouldn’t even get into bed naked while alone—would make such allegations fair game.
2. I don’t want an anti-masturbation, ultra-social conservative to be elected and I think her crazy, antiquated past statements are fair game.
3. Still: The backlash is rooted in Gawker’s decision to publish the account of someone too cowardly to reveal his own identity, probably because he goes on to reveal the fact that he’s a misogynistic, juvenile prick throughout his screed—without ever revealing anything particularly damning. 
4. What “20-something” man does anyone know who spends an evening getting drunk with an attractive female, gets her home, naked, and in bed—and decides it’s not worth it because…she has pubes? Anyone? Anyone know a guy like that?
5. Me either.
6. That alone makes me doubt the veracity of the account. (Especially when coupled with the anonymity.) 
7. On the other hand, the official response refers to the claims as “sexist” and as “slanderous” but never as “not true”. Yes, the slander charge implies that the story is made up with the intent to defame O’Donnell. (Note: This would technically be an example of libel, as it’s a written statement. Slander has to be spoken.) With that said, the O’Donnell campaign recently threatened to sue someone for something they couldn’t actually be sued for. (Refusing to surrender a recording of an agreed-to interview. They eventually apologized for the threat.) If this story is in fact fabricated, O’Donnell has every right to sue Gawker—and the (not so) anonymous author of the piece—for libel and defamation of character. If they can, why haven’t they threatened to do so yet?
8. This guy is a total dickbag and Gawker proves, yet again, to be helmed and staffed by the scum of the Earth.
9. Jezebel, the often boorish feminist website also run by Gawker Media, linked to the article and then later tried to half-heartedly tell us why we should be ashamed for reading it. What a load of hypocritical horseshit. First, they wanted the page views that would come from men and curious onlookers jeering “crazy Christine O’Donnell” for being a slut, then they wanted the page views that would come from women appalled about the implication that O’Donnell is a slut because she made out with some guy. It’s a calculated circle. Jezebel only exists to balance out—while perpetuating—the misogyny regularly posted to Gawker. Put another way, Jezebel is the “I can’t be racist, I have black friends” of the Gawker Media publishing conglomerate. Put yet another way, Jezebel is Michael Steele.
10. The fact that Gawker Media sees this as pornography, more than anything else, is proven by the fact that it was also linked from Gizmodo, their technology blog. There’s nothing in the claims that can in any remote way be tied to technology interests or the sort of content Gizmodo typically peddles. Nick Denton is a pimp, and his whore is sensationalism.