The 'heightened sensitivity' blues

One woman's angertorial regarding progressive politics in SF



"No one can deny that there is presently a particular sensitivity around domestic violence issues, and this may have been a contributing factor in their decision in this instance. I want to emphasize that I respect this heightened sensitivity and I will not criticize those allies of mine that have chosen to withdraw support."

- Oct. 17 press statement from District 5 candidate Julian Davis

This is not a Julian Davis hit piece. Just as much as any young progressive in this town, I know the guy. He's not a bad guy.

He can be a boor. But to be fair, he's only doing what he's been taught to do in this era of the San Francisco City Hall progressive scene.

Lemme take it back to my first assignment covering politics for the Bay Guardian (indulge me.) I was a culture intern.

I was assigned to the Democratic County Central Committee election-night party at the Great American Music Hall. I had the early shift, because those hours of the evening are boring enough to entrust to an intern with little background knowledge of the San Francisco political scene. While I was there, gamely interviewing the only person I recognized from the newspapers (a man who I've been told ad nauseum is a leader of the San Francisco progressive movement), a shrill -– to appropriate a term usually coded for women and gays –- elderly, straight male blogger approached us and inquired loudly if I was the politician's escort.

Now, I am pro-sex worker. But as a young woman who was performing an important task for the first time, when a dinosaur implies that you are at a stone-dull political happening to solicit sexual favors for money -– well I'm sorry, brothers and sisters, but I was there to interview people for a newspaper. I don't think this man's query, shouted as it was over the crowd, implied a high degree of sex-positivity.

The progressive leader seemed unfazed. Who knows, maybe it happens all the time. He briefly made introductions and ninja-moved into the social melée, leaving me with old blogger, who commenced interrogating me rudely, on camera, from a distance close enough that I could smell him. It wasn't a superlative scent.

Perhaps Kay Vasilyeva felt similarly six years ago when she went to Bill Barnes, who was serving as campaign manager for Chris Daly, the San Francisco progressive deity at whose campaign event she says the most egregious incident with Davis took place.

Davis groped her, she told Barnes. He told her she could report the incident to the police, and when questioned about the incident by Fog City Journal last week, he said "my memories that are most clear about that campaign were the political side of what was going on, not about the interpersonal issues."

I've told my election night story a couple times over the last week since it stands out clearly as the moment I knew, for sure, I would never get involved in San Francisco politics.

More than one of my friends told me I was asking for this humiliation, what with having identified myself as a Guardian reporter. I'll admit, that perhaps I could have expected such diminutive behavior. The paper's, like, "controversial." All the same, I told those friends, as respectfully as possible, to fuck off.

In the wake of the Ross Mirkarimi and Julian Davis debacles, and in the wake of reaction to said debacles (decidedly the more catastrophic happenings, even compared with the acts themselves), many are realizing that the dominant face of SF progressivism is that of a self-absorbed, hierarchy-enforcing man.

Perhaps some are making the cognitive leap to wonder about why we're not exactly overwhelmed with progressive females in elected office.


"Progessive Leader" is Peskin and Old Letchy Blogger is h. brown, right?

Posted by Token Lefty on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 10:34 pm

and without a doubt 100% accurate. h. does stink - in many ways. That key descriptive helped seal the deal and just who this foul blogger was.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

Every customer is an owner of the business. Unlike other electric utilities, your co-op exists to make sure your needs are met, not to make a profit.

Posted by jumptags 2013 on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 3:21 am

At this point it feels like expressing support for rent control amounts to admitting you beat women.

Posted by Jordan Rzepczynski on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 11:46 pm

This is getting pretty ridiculous! I don't understand how the guardian the "progressive" newspaper continuously bashes the progressive movement. In fact, its quite comical. We understand that there needs to be a greater understanding of domestic violence issues and as a city and society we need to be more aware of these issues! However, you don't need to continue the hit on Davis in order to get your point across. The guardian needs to do some soul searching because y'all are seriously beginning to become apart of the machine.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 1:01 am

When movements and organizations go too long without some self-reflective evaluation and criticism it may appear there's "bashing" going on, but it's all part of a normal growing and maturation process. Any healthy interpersonal relationship and any healthy organization requires regular feedback, and even sometimes uncomfortable criticism.

A public chatbaord is not be the best place for serious discussions, and obviously isn't the place to bash individual members or leaders of groups and organizations, but broad observations seem healthy enough. For organizations and movements that hope to be long-term players, criticism can be extremely helpful when it comes from people who seem to actually care about the organizations. Of course many people who post here - Troll II, lilli, guests, marcos, and others - obviously could care less about any movement or strengthening progressive organizations since the majority of their posts either bash individuals or other posters on this blog, but this article seems fair enough about highlighting some issues progressives may want to address if its members care about long-term viability in the city.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 6:18 am

How much longer do we need to wait for these "progressive organizations" to build the movement when it seems that more often than not, the stronger these organizations get, the weaker the movement gets?

In the absence of structures to enforce accountability on these paid staffers and in the presence of political actors that take on the very public burden of being seen to address each and every outrage--poorly and ineffectively--then this is all that we have.

This, and an ongoing record of voters rejecting the approach of the so-called movement building groups. In a winner take all politics, it is not out of the question to conclude that the reasons why these groups receive funding from the city, the 1% and their foundations is precisely because they intercept and neutralize demands for change and play the role of movement without having to do the pesky organizing and, well, moving of an agenda.

The rise of the nonprofit class correlates with the demise of progressive and liberal power at all levels of government.

But what is purely shocking right here is the fact that the race-centrists are up front and center in responding to the racist Lynch Code, should put the kibosh on any claims that race is important to them.

Here's how the Lynch Code functions:

"I heard that a not so white man laid his hands on a woman the next neighborhood over and left a bruise on her arm."

"Heard that too. Also heard that a black man in this neighborhood actually touched a white woman inappropriately."

"get a rope, ain't no nigger going to have his way with white women in this town."

Not only did the paid staffers of the progressive nonprofits and unions respond "favorably" to the Lynch Code, they fetched the rope and fixed the damned noose.

Never again should anyone ever take assertions of the race centrists seriously after this, as if we ever should have given their lack of traction from within the ethnicities they claim to speak for.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 6:59 am
Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 1:38 am

Is "sexual abuse" supposed to sound like a reasonable characterization of something that is a notch or two down from "sexual assault" now? Because I think it used to pertain to child rape and such.

Or was the term not applied to Arnold Scchwarzenegger because he was "from Austria?"

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 2:00 am

Politics involves having to operate outside of your comfort zone all of the time because the population at large is not leftist, progressive or liberal, nor is it feminist, reliably pro-queer, class conscious (at least not in the leftist sense) or anti-racist. Most people have one political cootie or another and they have as much of a right to participate as you or I.

Insisting that everyone agree to your set of ground rules means that you're negating anyone's right to participate based on your standards and that crimps down the breadth of a coalition to the point of irrelevance.

I tried to roll my own politics and it was not any of the isms that out maneuvered me, it was the dollops of cash that get thrown by corporate power at the professionals which undercut participatory democracy where residents, voters and citizens pay taxes to fund an honest government whose prime goal is to deliver public services equitably.

The vehemence of the professional progressive political class in asserting their PC ideology and demands for total adherence is only matched by the deterioration of their agenda and their communities' circumstance under their watch.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 6:16 am

People have issues. And if they're like "I'm not down with the (serious people in short skirts, same-sex marriage, Chinese immigrants building our railroads)" and they keep getting elected to public office WEIRD BUT AT LEAST THEY'RE HONEST

Hypocrisy is another matter. And allowing it to pass without comment is how you build bullshit political movements.

Posted by caitlin on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 9:55 am

coalition is bullshit.

Bullshit is using a term which signifies "child rape" to describe the behavior Julian has been accused of.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 11:03 am

Caitlin, am I missing an authoritative bill of particulars against Julian that lays the ground for a reasoned basis for asserting hypocrisy? Has one been published that I am not finding or is this all based on promises that the hearsay is convincing?

I agree that the SWM progressive electeds did a terrible job of incubating the next generation of progressives, female and male. There is no progressive equivalent of "Emerge," for example.

When the SWM were in office, the economic gains made were impressive. In the 4-6 years since they've been termed out and replaced by people of color, accommodation has been the order of the day and progressive and the unrich San Franciscans have moved backwards by every measure. It is those who are pushing this "anyone but the white folks and queers" agenda and who would remake feminism on that foundation of failure who have run progressives off of a cliff.

In the case of both Ross and Julian, it is clear that their conduct is well within the bounds of normal human conduct, especially when compared to conduct tolerated by the City Family such as Newsom, Hayes-White and Turman.

Pathologizing normal conduct out of a reactionary reading of feminism that apparently skipped the chapter where sex positivity beat sex negativity 25 years ago is what is hypocritical in that most women who are not in the political mix don't cleave to the radical feminist and conservative prudish interpretations that lead to such conclusions.

They also very opportunistically betray their misunderstanding of feminist theory of rape and sex by asserting that "she asked for it" applies to the allegations here. "She asked for it" applies to a man seeing a random woman walking down the street wearing clothes that he claims invite rape.

It might be a shock to some radical feminists, but hetero women do indeed ask for sex on occasion. Yes, they ask for sexual attention from men because they enjoy sexual attention from men, the anti sex feminists were dead wrong on that score. Most fiction literature is devoted to the ins and outs of heterosexual romance, its pitfalls and travails, its miscommunications and misunderstandings and their consequences.

I don't think that Ross ran for office under the platform that if he ever got married that he'd never get into a fight with his future wife. There is no hypocrisy here. Legally, what went down on NYE in their driveway was in fact at the end of the day a personal and private matter. It did not, as a matter of legal fact and law, rise to the level of domestic violence.

If the worst of the conduct that Ross was accused of doing is now a criminal matter for the state, then we'd best be constructing a raft of new prisons to house those evil men. If you're going to restrict progressive males seeking political office to hetero-asexual altar boys, then we're going to get an even weirder set of electeds that look even less like the male population.

Again, the whisper campaign by political insiders assuring us that what they know but won't tell is sufficient to damn Davis is not cutting it given the ethical conflicts that so many of them have being dependent on remaining in the good graces of the Mayor for their meal tickets.

The only hypocrisy here is that radical theory does not explain human conduct, so the response is to not adapt radical theory, rather to try to go to greater lengths to shoehorn nonconforming reality into these threadbare theories.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 11:33 am

"Pathologizing normal conduct out of a reactionary reading of feminism that apparently skipped the chapter where sex positivity beat sex negativity 25 years ago is what is hypocritical in that most women who are not in the political mix don't cleave to the radical feminist and conservative prudish interpretations that lead to such conclusions."

So most women like it assumed that they're sex workers while they're working their white collar jobs, enjoy being groped without consent at bars by colleagues and enjoy fights with their spouses???

Please shut up and never say anything again.

Posted by Trollllll on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 11:59 am

Men make passes at women in singles bars every Friday and Saturday night.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

That may be true. But at this Election Night party she recounted, Caitlin was trying to do her job as a reporter, and she got publicly disrespected. So your sexist rationalization doesn't apply, marcos.

Posted by Peter on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 3:05 pm

Also, you have no idea as to what conversations might or might not have been had prior to the alleged incident of which scant few details have been released.

Pope Benedict from the Vatican, called, and he's wanting their "virgin or whore" dichotomy back.

But nice going, voting anyone off of your island who does not toe your PC line totally and completely.

Perhaps you need to get laid for you to chill a bit?

Posted by marcos on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

You're bumming every one out on what is meant to be an empowering piece.

I don't even know what to say to your allegations that I'm sex-negative and hard up, besides possibly direct you to our SEX SF blog, of which I'm the editor. It's hard to believe that you wouldn't know about that, given your


activity on our site.

Posted by caitlin on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 3:26 pm

but if there was a choice to be made at this point whether you -- or marcos -- would write less, I'd pick you.

I don't agree with everything he writes, but marcos answers when I querry him to expound or defend a statement.

When I asked you how you can defend calling Julian's action "sexual abuse" -- a term ineluctibly associated with child rape -- you've been mum. I would hesitate to make personal comments about you such as those to which you object, but I am kinda ticked off at the Bay Guardian staff right now, and so maybe I can see where he's coming from.

Where *do* you get off?

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 8:03 pm

Why do you think the author needs to respond to you? Do you think she sits at her computer waiting for a criticism from you to arrive so she can frame a response?

And your belief that the term "sexual abuse" can only be used in a context associated with "child rape" is bizarre. (You might also want to try a new word than "ineluctibly," since that's what your comment conveys.)

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 8:22 pm

Ever since your rather pompously-delivered anti-prediction regarding the Mirkarimi reinstatement vote which turned out to be so completely lacking -- especially with regard to the Board's legal beagle Sean Elsbernd -- I guess I don't put much stock in what you have to say; but if you *would* care to cite what *must* be frequent and numerous examples of the term "sexual abuse" referring to fresh-handedness, I'm sure you'll be happy to make amends by citing a couple of them.


Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 9:04 pm

You cite evidence that sexual abuse, which means abuse of a sexual nature of ANY kind, refers to children, since your original comment explicitly stated that sexual abuse is: "ineluctibly [sic] associated with child rape."

Fresh-handedness? Seriously? You really don't get it.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 9:15 pm

This isn't a matter of what "is" is.

If you don't like the term "fresh-handedness," then lets say "cop a feel"; that may make it seem less "nice" but still doesn't mendaciously suggest sex with children.

That you would defend the use of the term to describe what Julian is accused of is eerily reminiscent of disgusting comparisons of Ross Mirkarimi to Jerry Sandusky.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 2:36 am

Citations: California Penal Code 243.4(e)(1); California Penal Code 243.4(e)(2).

I don't care if you put much stock in what I have to say. And I fail to see how my prediction that RM might be reinstated because certain members of the board might not vote the way you expected makes me pompous.

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 9:37 am

Penal Code 243.4

"To specifically cause sexual abuse" means that you intend to injure, hurt, humiliate, intimidate or cause pain to another.

So its a lie to claim that the conduct which has been alleged is sex abuse.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 7:48 pm

That's right lilli. Except for the humiliation and intimidation part.

So I guess it is a lie to say that lilli was almost correct once. Sorry. His record of consistency in making a complete fool out of himself remains in tact.

Now, let me guess...lilli will declare that women having their butt grabbed by a guy is not humiliating or intimidating because Marissa Mayer's brother does it all the time. Let the bloviating begin.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 10:00 pm

at what I think you are? So be it.

I actually don't know the specifics of the *actual* allegations, but I do understand that a "whispering" campaign -- which is in itself a disreputable tactic -- has included all manner of accusations against Julian. Based on the bullshit that you and your cohort spread against the sheriff while you were busy trying to run him into an early grave, I'd say its a given that most of these allegations are completely without merit.

I do know that Julian has admitted to crossing boundaries with his hands and that he has apologized for those wrongful actions. Did he intend to hurt or humiliate? Frankly, if you say so, then I can rest confindently in the knowledge that he did no such thing.

Why? Because you, Troll, are a serial liar. No, I'm not going to use tact jackass.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 10:36 pm

That's not what the statutes say. Read 234.4(e)(1) and (e)(2). I encourage you to read the statutes. Nowhere in the statutes does it say "intend to injure, hurt, humiliate, intimidate or cause pain to another." You are making stuff up.

Yes, I provided citations - "plural." I gave you two statutes to read, which you apparently didn't do.

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 6:23 am

There is no section 234 of the CA penal code.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 6:40 am

it's 243.4(e)(1). and 243.4(e)(2).

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 8:01 am

familiar to see bogus legal theory being used; just like the attacks made on Ross Mirkarimi.

Commish, how specifically -- put this in words which contain the code you cite -- can you claim it applies. You cannot.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 8:56 am

Lillipublicans, you asserted that "sexual abuse" is a term "ineluctibly associated with child rape." See your post above. I said you were wrong.

You asked for citations. I provided you with two statutes. You apparently haven't read them. You just claim it's bogus. You are floundering.

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 2:39 pm

used the term ineluctably since sexual abuse means many other sexual acts of which Julian's behavior only qualifies under the most overreaching sense of the term. Just like what happened with Ross Mirkarimi. There's a pattern here.

The pattern is that people that want more McDonalds restaurants, more "business freindly" legislation, less protection for common working folks and renters, more privatization of public services and assets, more police spying and abrogation of civil rights, etc. etc. will use any possible interpretation of existing law to attack their political opponents.

Just like a momentary arm grab got prosecuted under the letter of the law but completely outside the spirit of it, this fresh behavior by Julian Davis is characterized as the depredations of a sexual predator. Obviously Julian Davis is not a bad man, just as Ross Mirkarimi is not a bad man, but bad men -- and women, for *whatever* reason -- misinterpret and misuse law to achieve their political goals.

The victim in this case was not raped, was not threatened, was not intimidated by a coworker who had power over her employment. From the accounts I've heard, this behavior by Julian -- this *PAST* behavior -- is much more akin to playful flirtation than a crime. I don't mean to belittle it -- I don't like to be grabbed or touched without my consent -- but I would *NEVER* think to try and accumulate political capital for myself over such a transgression.

I'd *Never* falsely paint someone who engaged in such a transgression as a "sexual abuser." I think it is dishonest. That's just my opinion, but you Commish, due to your earlier statements and what I consider to be evidence of your own biase, are not likely going to be the one to change it.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 5:14 pm

Just want
to make even
so it
looks like

Posted by Guest on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 6:41 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 9:11 pm

When I first found this website I tried to get through some of the posts of marcos, brooks, and lilli. After trying many times to understand some of their comments, I realized most of the posts use verbiage favored by insecure 10th graders - big words and facile ideas put together to mask anger and insecurity. But underneath the hostile, opaque verbiage are lots of mostly puny, incoherent thoughts. They could care less how repulsive some of their more angry posts come across, or if anyone understands what they are trying to say, as long as people think they sound clever or brilliant. In high school we called these types "the wankers" - they love hearing the sound of their own voice almost as much as they love stroking themselves.

For social animals like humans these incessent posters exhibit the exact opposite behavior needed for successful tribal interactions, where leaders and nurturers are helping others do better rather than lecturing people or tearing down group members. Since they obviously aren't leaders, and since they aren't witty or unangry enough to be successful court jesters, they are left with the bitterness and hostility exuded in their posts, usually couched in flowery or angry verbiage so they sound cool, hip and intellectual.

There's likely a reason they post here so often. Maybe few real friends, few family members, limited career involvement (other than being lazy wrist jockeys who can't even start their own blogs). We're left with some posters on this site and other media websites whose provocative and often hateful posts are apparently their main motivation in life. It's a little sad and ironic, really, since they really seem to think they represent a vanguard of truth and insight.

Every few years it's good to evaluate who helps take the group to better places - physically and psychologically - and who makes the group feel miserable and discouraged. Politicians Mirkarimi and Olague are key representatives of a progressive faction (among many others) that included Green Party members Brooks and Marcos, two of the more obsessive posters on this website.

Everywhere we look there are lots of difficult challenges - environmental, leadership, economic, international. Based on the recent results over the past 6-10 years from the Green Party, these incessent posters and their favorite politicians, it's safe to assume they won't be part of the new coalitions that are actually trying to tackle some of these major challenges to make the world, region and city a better place. No doubt they will fill the airwaves and blogasphere with lots of rhetoric over the coming years - Ross and Christina seem especially good at this - but they are unlikely to be part of any lasting solutions or even make the group members feel better about themselves.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 10:43 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 2:43 am

The anti-Prop B and 8 Washington referendum coalitions are a hopeful sign that San Franciscans will reclaim the table of public policy from those who see government as a means of extracting resources from taxpayers and diverting them to the pockets of the politically connected.

The local Democrat Party destroyed the Greens because we threatened their sweet deal, and the Democrat Party nationally destroyed Occupy for the same reasons. Now labor and the nonprofits are facing extinction on their own for having eradicated alternative contenders. Whee!

San Franciscans might not have yet succeeded in wresting away government from the corrupt, but we've clearly identified the point of vulnerability as the response would not have been so swift and decisive had we not.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 7:30 am

It only started with Nader handing bush the 2000 florida election. Since then any politician who actually wanted to get something done has left the Greens. Carping from the fringe gallery just doiesn't cut it any more.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 8:57 am

I find the facile criticism of Nader's candidacy in 2000 to be quite as despicable as Nader appears to be to them who spout off so simple-mindedly.

Florida shouldn't even have been in play in 2000. Why not blame the *stupid* mainstream media for pimping dumb ass lies for a buck such as the "Gore invented the internet" story? Why not fault Gore for not being more aggressive with Bush? His distancing himself from Clinton -- a popular president, though not one I personnally am a great fan of -- was *stupid.* Why not fault the Palm-Beach county Demoblican fools who okayed the butterfly ballot that resulted in 30,000 Jewish votes for Pat Buchannan? Why not accuse the Supreme Court of the U.S?

Why? Because all such criticism would point to the real truth and away from your Democrat-loving mendacity.

Nader's voters were largely outside the mainstream of voting Americans. He brought *new* voters to the polls at least as much as he siphoned voters away from *both* major parties.

And, by the way, his candidacy in Washington state resulted in the election of a Democratic Senator which kept the Senate out of Repug hands for another two years.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

Working within the system only brings on Republican and conservative policies more rapidly, but with a benefit that you get to watch the carnage from a seat closer to the table. Hopefully such proximity to the bloodletting will ensure that you get splattered with blood so that we know where you were during the class war when it comes time for accountability.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 1:24 pm

If you actually go back and look at it, Nader handed Bush the New Hampshire election. Without New Hampshire, Bush would have lost, even with Florida.

The upside of being in a state that isn't being contested by either candidate and is destined to be a landslide is that you can vote for anyone you want without guilt.

I'm voting for the only candidate that meets the following four criteria: a) balanced a budget, b) ran a successful business, c) wants to end the stupid war on drugs, and d) is perfectly willing to veto bs.

If you know who that person is, then its because you are inquisitive or have cool friends. The media definitely isn't doing him any favors.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

She's relating what happened to her, a personal experience. It's hers, she owns it and she's using it as an example of what may be a systemic problem within progressive San Francisco. That's an entirely valid approach when, as demonstrated with Kay, trying to do it privately accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Many of the same comments here aimed at Caitlin are akin to those accusing Anita Hill of being a vicious turncoat against black men because she dared to speak out against Clarence Thomas - the difference here being political philosophy vs. race. Now everyone knows Caitlin and I have had a multitude of disagreements but this is an honest, open piece which I think serves as a real conversation starter on these issues. And I thank Caitlin for writing it.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 12:10 pm

One of the problems that we're facing in San Francisco is that the political economy has devolved into one of personal outrage where an injury to one is a tragedy but an injury to all, perhaps tens of thousands of others, is a statistic.

Part of politics involves having to deal with, as in tolerate, people with whom one disagrees, rather than demanding they be exiled off of the progressive island.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

Local politics would actually be quite a bit more functional if everyone would develop a moderate heroin habit instead.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 12:51 pm

I see Caitlin relating her experience and not calling for vengeance against or exile for anyone. However a number of the comments are calling for both against her - as if her progressive credentials have suddenly been revoked because she's been open about a clear instance of gender-based harassment she received at the hands of one of San Francisco's self-declared "progressive intelligentsia."

Caitlin's ideas around feminism and sexuality are somewhat different than my own but where they intersect is the belief that many institutions are till dominated by sexism, subtle in some cases or overt as in the one she relates. It's no different amongst progressive Democrats. It's wrong and there should be no apologizing or excusing it. How many more female progressives need to come forward with these kinds of stories before people stop dismissing them? It's real, it's profound and it's endemic.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 2:38 pm

"Go get dragged over a fence again Erika."?
If so, then you are the one guilty of "dismissing" women.
Why the double standard, oh dearest troll the second?
Please explain why I am an unworthy victim in your view.

Posted by Erika McDonald on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 12:28 pm

about your alleged victim status, and solely for personal, political gain.

Having made that bed, lie on it.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 12:40 pm

...and a crazy fucking bitch. Yeah, I guess you really are concerned about women.
If you need a refresher of the vile sexist remarks you made against me, here is the link.

Posted by Erika McDonald on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 12:39 pm