Early this June, “The Washington Post” reporter David Weigel retweeted this joke: “Every girl is bi. You just have to figure out if it’s polar or sexual.” For this action, Weigel was suspended for a month without pay. I know what you’re thinking. Just a month? True, he did remove the tweet and apologize, but still. On the positive side, there was Sarah Jeong of the New York Times. The paper announced back on Aug 1, 2018, the Times: “…editorial board will soon be turning to Sarah Jeong, who will join us in September as our lead writer on technology.”
Upon this announcement, a number of Jeong’s anti-white tweets were displayed. In his book “The Madness of Crowds”, Douglass Murray noted: “Jeong was also a keen user of the phrase ‘Kill all men.” But under the circumstances, this took the second order of priority for her critics (The Madness of Crowds 2019, p, 177).” Jeong has also observed: “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men” and “white men are bullshit (americanbuddhist.net/2018/08/02/sarah–jeong-journalist-and-lawyer).” Obviously, such enlightened views are the attributes needed to make editorial decisions. Unfortunately, while she still is employed by the Times, she no longer serves on the board.
To my naïve ears, it sounded like Jeong expressed not just anti-white bias, but anti-male. After all, one could contend that, for instance, a phrase such as “kill all men” has some anti-male connotation, although not up to the David Weigel level about women. I stand corrected. For instance, the Wikipedia biography of Jeong mentioned her anti-white statements, but nothing about things she said about men.
Jeong explained her tweets were meant to “satirize online harassment toward her as a woman of color (ibid, Jeong’s Wikipedia biography).” She is an Asian woman born in South Korea. As professor Jelani Cobb pointed out in “The New Yorker”, she is a journalist with thousands of followers (“The New Yorker”, Sarah Jeong And The Question Of Context, Jelani Cobb Aug 9, 2018). So it is not surprising she would experience criticism. Certainly, receiving tweets with death threats, among other harsh words, are not uncommon these days. What then were the horrific tweets she endured? Jeong shared two of them. Those being: “If I saw you. I would “sock” you in your lesbian face”’ and, “shut the fuck up you dog eating gook (Fox News, New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong ).”
I had naively surmised that for instance, the phrase “kill all men” could perhaps be a legitimate violation of the 1st amendment. However, Jeong is a Harvard law school graduate and the author of the book “The Internet of Garbage,” a non-fiction book on the threat of online harassment Clearly, she is the one to distinguish what constitutes a death threat and what is satire and realize that words such as “Kill All Men” are as innocuous as they sound.
Mr. Manners should point out that he is a college graduate himself, being a proud alumnus of “Larry’s University and Sub Shop.” A fine institution of which no doubt you are aware, has an excellent football program, although not academically at the Ivy League level. Obviously, it is she, not me, who understands the nuance of such words.
An online definition of satire reads: “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vice.” Obviously, the subtle, deft satirical phrase, “kill all men” fits that definition. For instance, the part about exaggeration. I would guess she wants just a lot of men, not all, to be killed.
However, regarding the phrase: “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men”, I do have some questions. I am not contesting that, someone with the verbal acuity to come up with such a witty phrase would be an addition to any publication. However, If she was indeed responding to one of the tweets she received, how did she know the person who tweeted her was old, white, or for that matter, a man? After all, people can, for example, give others access to their Twitter accounts.
One could also surmise that if an old white man did make such a tweet, she would target that one man rather than the billion or so old white men worldwide. But doesn’t the fact that she is a public figure means she can be less responsible than the average person? Obviously, Jeong is likely to have many more followers and significantly greater influence than the average social media user. Shouldn’t she, therefore, make more negative comments about her followers, than those that are sent to her? In addition, as a journalist, she should be allowed to adhere to lower standards than the people she writes about. Regarding Jeong’s tweets, the New York Times clarified that: “For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers (Times Stands By Editorial Board Member After Outcry Over Old Tweets).”
Douglas Murray noted that: “In fact, the period of time during which Jeong had engaged in her more controversial tweeting activities was from 2014 until just a year before The New York Times hired her (ibid Murray. P177).” The tweet she received from the person wanting to punch her was from October 30th, 2014. The one insulting her Korean heritage was on September 17th, 2014 (ibid Fox News). Curiously, the old white men tweet Jeong sent was on July 24th, 2014 (ibid American Buddhist). Meaning if Jeong was responding to that tweet, she was doing it before the time she received it. But isn’t that nitpicking?
Unlike Weigel’s tweet, Jeong’s old white man tweet was actually describing a behavior. That is, her joy in being cruel to such people. Haven’t feminists told us that white men dominate institutions such as the Times? What a joy it must be for these men to work with Jeong. However, Jeong has apologized for her many tweets, so all is fine. Then again, Weigel apologized for his one tweet which he didn’t even write himself. Clearly, though, all my reservations were unjustified. “The New York Times” is littered with Ivy Leaguers, so they know best. I expect the same deference to be given to us Larry’s Sub graduates on the matter of what condiments should be part of a roast beef sandwich.
SARAH JEONG AND THE QUESTION OF SUBSET
Dear. Mr. Manners:
One can cite that in the past century, a peer-reviewed study found that 41% of women who charged black men with rape admitted they were lying. Yes, not found to be lying, but admitted it. This study was in keeping with other data of the day about rape and black men.
Certainly, one would think something so heinous would make major news if it happened in more enlightened times. Yet the past in which this data was gathered was from 1978 to 1987, by Professor Eugene Kanin. Previous to this study Kanin had been noted by feminists to be a pioneer regarding the crime of rape. Yet in her book “Cease Fire”, Cathy Young observed that Kanin’s “study received no press coverage” (“Ceasefire” 1999, p152).” Similar findings such as those by Dr. Charles McDowell are also consistently ignored by the mainstream press (see, Why Radar Finds McDowell’s Research and Kanin’s Research Credible).
Actually, these studies were not specifically about false allegations against black men, but rather about men in general. It is reasonable to believe that the false charges would be higher if the statistics were specifically about black men. Black men are a subset of men in general, so they are ignoring an extremely serious issue regarding black men. Where is the outrage? On the other hand, even repeating a joke about women as Weigel did, has serious consequences.
Which brings me to the seemingly innocuous phrase “kill all men?” The phrase killing all men includes all Black men, Jewish men, Hispanic men, Gay men, Mexican men, Paraplegic men, Blind men, and Trans men. What about Irish men, Italian men, etc? It includes killing all Southern men, Short Men, Tall men, Doormen, Salesmen (well maybe that would be okay), Harvard men, Superman, Batmen, and even “The Flash.”
What about all-male groups? Is it alright to kill all members of The National Basketball Association and National Football League and so on? What about killing all feminist men? Thus including that great man Michael What an Asshole (the nickname he likes to be called) Kimmel.
Why is it okay, maybe laudable to say “kill all men,” when saying such things about subsets of the male category, would be a career-ender? Mr. M, as the world’s greatest expert on male etiquette, I am desperate for your input. Please share your gift and answer my questions. I mean, this is not rocket science, is it?
Sincerely,
DON’T like hearing people want to exterminate me.
Dear Don:
Great questions all. Unfortunately, in fairness, Mr. Manners can only answer one question per reader. Fortunately, in my nearly infinite wisdom, I can discern which question that is. That being whether your above questions are actually rocket science. Let me put it this way. No they are not.
An example of actual rocket science. If a rocket stays ten feet above the earth, it would be equally accurate to say, that it is equaling the force of gravity, or that the earth is traveling at the same speed as the rocket. That is rocket science. Glad I could help with the question you were so desperate to know. It should also comfort you that I always liked the name Don.
NCFM Mr. Manners: COULD THE PHRASE “KILL All MEN” ACTUALLY BE OFFENSIVE, OR AT LEAST RUDE – SATIRE
