'Objectification' Hypocrisy

I seem to really have hit a nerve with my post making extreme fun of Roy Edroso. Look, I'll be honest: I don't have the slightest problem posting images of Sports Illustrated cover models on my page. Doesn't bother me a bit. It's a free world, you know. And frankly, they're a helluva lot more wholesome than the floozies at the Village Voice's "Bikini Burlesque (NSFW). And shoot, if I were Roy, I'd be ashamed to be blogging at a magazine that posted stuff like that right next to each of my entries, much less some of these "Choice Cunts":

But apparently struck dumb by the return-fire ridicule, Roy was reduced to bleating a snippy comment at the post: "Don't like scantily-clad women, Don? Well, to each his own."

Well no, Roy, I obviously love "scantily-clad women," conservative women especially! What I don't like is your radical agenda, and your freaking gratuitous demonization campaigns. And what better way to ruthlessly mock you and your leftist cadres than to ridicule the extremist libertinism that adorns each and every one of your posts. Like I said at my entry, "This really was too good to pass up!"

And I guess it really was. Satan's sidekick T-Bogg jumped on it faster than Jane Hamsher's blackface on Joe Lieberman. And then, in another puerile effort at conservative excoriation, Little Scotty Eric Kaufman decided he'd have a go at it as well, with a post (almost-endlessly) entitled, "Just because he hates feminism and festoons his virtual office with photographs of naked women doesn't mean he makes female students uncomfortable."

A monument to childishness, it's on Twitter too:

I have nothing but contempt for miniscule academic mountebanks like Scotty Kaufman. This prick's an ugly little twerp, and I don't mean that figuratively. His post is yet another really shitty attempt at cutting snark, and it's so bad that even his own commenters dissed it. I will eschew substantive comments on what's posted therein, but readers are welcomed to have a look for themselves. What I can say is that Scott Eric Kaufman represents all that is genuinely wicked and destructive in university culture today. I scoff at whatever claims to moral rectitude this hate-pimp could possible make. This is a merchant of hate of the most despicable kind, although perhaps there's some humor in it that he's actually quite terrible at the trade. Indeed, so far it's been all falsehoods and fabrications, and so it is again. Indeed, this spindle of a man is obsessed with conservative academics, and he's made it his driving ambition to literally destroy them. And let me disabuse readers of Scotty's denials of his desire for my academic termination. Au contraire. That's exactly what he wants, like E.D. Kain before him. This is an agenda driven purely by desperation to purge the ideological other, plain and simple. It's really all he does. And in reading Little Scotty's tantrum at the comments, please keep in mind that there is absolutely nothing authoritative about him. His words, all distortions and lies, signify sound and fury, and little else. But keep flailing, I say. There is nothing better to illustrate the totalitarianism of the today's left than the self-supposed superiority of the politically-correct mind on display. And those denials of political disagreement are worth Olympic gold. Such hypocrisy, given the radical female exploitation at Village Voice (met with SEK's deafening silence), is breathtaking. In any case, this is truly priceless, on the evil "objectification" of a true-academic's babe-blogging:

It's not a trick, you lecherous fraud. You're a disgrace, not because I disagree with you politically, but because you're incapable of understanding that you're actively discouraging half of your students from ever being able to trust you because you want to post pictures of half-naked women on your blog.

I'm a teacher, one who's committed in a way you aren't, as is evidenced by the fact that you value your "freedom" to post pictures that play into the insecurities of half the student body over your responsibilities as a teacher. You've surveyed the field of available options, and chosen the abstraction that affords you titillation over the one that allows you to effectively reach more of your students.

You are, I repeat, a disgrace to the profession. You don't understand this, and I get that, but when you choose satisfying your libido in the company of strangers over fostering an environment in which all your students can safely invest in the rigors of your course, you have failed as a teacher. I'm not trying to get you fired. I'm not going to write anyone any letters, nor will I encourage anyone else to. But you deserve to be.