. . . but of course that means nothing, for if it were a hoax—and the evidence is strong on this one—they would resolutely deny it. If they admitted it were a hoax, that hoax would be over for good, and there would be no point in continuing to add to the site.
A person at the New Zealand site Whale Oil wrote Medusa, asking them if they were genuine, as if their answer would settle the issue. Part of Whale Oil‘s post:
I came across an online Feminist magazine called Medusa Magazine with the byline Feminist Revolution now. As I scanned the headlines I wondered if it was a satirical site as once before I fell for a poorly written piece of satire thinking that it was a genuine piece. I didn’t want to make the same mistake with this site so I e-mailed them to check.
They were kind enough to reply.
Hello,
Medusa Magazine is a blog that espouses feminist ideology. We make no apologies for this, and we stand by everything we publish.
That being said, the views expressed in each article belong to the author(s) alone. We would however never have published any of the articles if we didn’t think they had any value to add to intellectual discourse. Even the articles that you describe as “over the top” have started a discussion and debate online about important issues that need to be discussed.
Say Hi to your readers from us.Cheers.
______________________
The thing is*, is that they continue to publish articles, and they’re close enough to the real thing to fool some people. But I’ve decided that they’re too over-the-top to be real. And, as a reader pointed out (see link in first line), the domain is registered to someone who would be expected to satirize feminism.
*deliberate infelicity
I think the same person is writing all the articles. Not that I’ve read all the articles, but the ones I did read had the same shaky syntax. It’s a ‘Sadtire’ — that is a Sad and tiresome attempt at satire, written by someone without a sense of humour.
…and with WAY to much time on their hands.
There are detailed forms of vocabulary and syntax analysis that can call this out.
This is how it was worked out that the novelist Robert Galbraith is really J.K. Rowling. A software program ran an in-depth analysis of ‘his’ language style with other authors.
On a much lower tech level, noted similarities in writing style were how “Richard Bachman” was exposed as Stephen King. A book clerk who had read almost all of King got suspicious when reading Bachman.
The widespread conclusion that 7 of the 13 letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament are really by him and the other 6 letters are by other authors runs along similar lines.
An honest prankster puts his hands up when he’s been called out.
This very well may be hoax; it is not satire. A hoax seeks merely fool its audience (usually so the ruse can be revealed later, to the audience’s derision). A satire must be understood by at least a portion of its intended audience to function as a send-up.
A hoax can sometimes also work as a satire, where it’s aimed at dual audiences, as Sokal’s “Transgressing the Boundaries” piece did. This is not that. As a work of satire, Molière’s Tartuffe, Medusa ain’t.
I wrote Richard Nixon asking if he was a crook. He said no.
It’s the Andy Kaufman gambit.
Or at least the Tony Clifton one. 🙂
Or the Latka as Alex one.
I still thinks it’s probably a hoax, but I have to say this line stuck out as an argument I’ve seen many times from regressives, especially when they turn out to be wrong about a situation (like UVa and Duke, for example, or Elle’s reporting last week on Gal Gadot supposedly getting paid less for playing Wonder Woman than Henry Caville for playing Superman, when she was actually paid many millions more):
“Even the articles that you describe as “over the top” have started a discussion and debate online about important issues that need to be discussed.”
That was Elle’s response when people pointed out that they were completely wrong about Gadot/Caville. They said it started an important discussion. I’ve seen this argument too many times to count.
Still think Medusa is a hoax, though. This particular line from the message might show that they’re getting a better handle on how to be more effective at it!
To read something disconcerting that is NOT satire read
White Women Will Always Keep Me Away From Feminism
by La Sha, the scourge of Otto Warmbier.
http://kinfolkkollective.com/2017/03/27/white-women-will-always-keep-me-away-from-feminism/
How sad that the author La Sha, to our best knowledge, is not a hoax.
Epimenides paradox. If Medusa is a hoax it cannot admit it is a hoax because that would be the truth and not a hoax.
And plus
Hard to know until more evidence one way or the other arrives for evaluation. I can tell you that ‘Whale Oil’ is a right wing web site in New Zealand, and they may just be trolling the Medusa web site. Stay tuned for further details.
Another piece of evidence adding to the hoax side of the scales. A byline in many of the articles refers to an author called Christie. If you do a google image search (right click in chrome) on her photo, you will see that the source photo belongs to a site for Russian brides and a lady called Svetlana…
http://www.marriage-4u.com/profile.php?id=b284
Of course this raises the interesting (in the Chinese curse sense) that the *site* is as presented, but some of the *articles* are meant as hoaxes or satire by their authors.
Yes, the site could well be run from Russia — possibly by the folks who work at 55 Savushkina Street in St Petersburg (google the address to see the background). Though an anti-feminist black ops site accords with their methods and world view, it’s probably outside their core interests, and the use of Russian speakers would likely show up more obviously in the language (though they could simply be commissioning a likeminded English-language group to do it). More likely it’s American right-wingers who have learned from the Russian playbook.
The response is very carefully worded. Here’s my interpretation (quotes are between asterisks):
**********
“Medusa Magazine is a blog that espouses feminist ideology.”
**********
Note: it’s not “we” who espouse “feminism”. The *blog* does, and it’s an *ideology*, a word that people rarely use about their own beliefs. I read this as: “I created this blog to accurately reflect my understanding of feminist ideology, logically extrapolated from what I have seen of it, so that it may be discredited”.
**********
“We make no apologies for this, and we stand by everything we publish.”
**********
An unconscious admission of guilt. Who is asking them to apologize? They stand by everything they publish AS BEING A TRUE REFLECTION OF THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF FEMINISM, is I suspect the unspoken end of that sentence.
**********
“That being said, the views expressed in each article belong to the author(s) alone.”
**********
Mere throwing dust in the eyes.
**********
“We would however never have published any of the articles if we didn’t think they had any value to add to intellectual discourse.”
**********
They actually think they are performing a public service by inventing authors to present arguments they can attribute to “feminist ideology”.
**********
“Even the articles that you describe as “over the top” have started a discussion and debate online about important issues that need to be discussed.”
**********
BJ has covered this one above.
**********
“Say Hi to your readers from us.”
**********
That’s just insulting.
Jonathan’s analysis is spot on. Medusa Mag said exactly what they meant, but nothing more.
It’s also worth mentioning that almost every ad on the site is to stuff about tits, panties, Viagra replacements, nip slips, hotties, etc. Pretty sure a radfem blog wouldn’t take money to drive clicks to that stuff.