Quote of the day
Glenn Greenwald, on being called “shrill” by David Brooks Tobin Harshaw:
One is guilty of the sin of “shrillness” if one: (a) argues that there is something fundamentally — rather than marginally — wrong with our political and media establishment and/or (b) fails to use suitably restrained, muted and respectful language when expressing those critiques. Thus, one is “shrill” if one says that George Bush committed felonies by spying on Americans without warrants and torturing people and should be treated like any other accused criminal (rather than saying: “Bush might have circumvented some legal constraints and gone a little too far in trying to keep us safe”). One is “shrill” if one says that establishment journalism, at its core and by design, is principally devoted to serving the interests and amplifying the claims of the Washington establishment (rather than saying: “Journalists could do a better job of reporting some stories”), etc. etc.
“Shrillness” – the first cousin of “Unseriousness” – is the conceptual instrument used to deter and (when that fails) demonize those who view the political and media establishment as corrupt at its core. It’s a way of demanding that everyone just calm down, avoid impetuous and inflammatory language, and stop acting as though there’s anything seriously wrong with our political and media elites.
Via Aspasia, who points out the feminist connections and is right on the money when she says:
Switch out the journalistic/Washington specific terms for those of feminism (including sex work activism), our society, et. al. and it fits, doesn’t it?
When i read that, it was like an epiphany. Perfectly summed up the way feminists are silenced and quieted. But, fyi, it was Tobin Harshaw from the NYT who called Glenn Greenwald “shrill”.
[...] it’s rampant… and no one does a damn thing, and if you say something, you’re a shrill militant ball-busting feminazi. Yeah, no thanks. How often have I been among mainstream political [...]