> Consider, for example, his gendered attacks on female journalists who called him

That was during the same period where they were doing the magazine, which is supposedly then doing a character. Wouldn't that be the characteristic response?

> Is that dedication to staying in character?

I'm not sure it's all that dedicated, it was at the same time as when they were doing that.

> ? Or is it an attempt to whitewash conduct that was acceptable in that time and place

It was during that time and place, not later. At least, I assume you are talking about this:

The Times of London’s Anna Blundy also received scathing write-ups by Taibbi after she wrote articles about the state of women’s rights in Russia. Taibbi said one of her pieces “oozed such obvious bitterness and desperation that it might as well have been a perpetually unanswered personal ad in the back of Sagging Breast Weekly.”

That was in 1999. Look, I don't know whether the whole satiric performance art explanation is true or not, but given what appears to be very specific behavior that appears to be limited to the scope of that time, and eyewitness people at that time (which would have been the victims if the behavior was true) that say it specifically was satire, it seems at least plausible to me, and I don't really have feelings about him one way or the other.

It sounds a little like you've fallen into a confirmation bias loop. You accepted and internalized some very negative information regarding him, and now any evidence presented by him in his defense is easy to dismiss because of your preexisting negative assessment, whereas if all the information was presented at once a more neutral impression might have been reached (I know this sounds presumptuous, I'm not trying to be, but this is a pet idea of mine for a while and I may be seeing it because I'm interesting in it).

That said, even if it is true that it was all satire and does not reflect his personal views, the vigor with which he went about degrading others for that satire does leave a bad taste in my mouth. It's entirely possible he's not a misogynist, but is (or at least was) a colossal asshole.

As an aside, it strikes me as odd that we as a society seem to have very mixed ideas about crimes and taboos and forgiveness. Sometimes it strikes me that we're more willing for forgive a murderer than someone that said harsh words and hurt feelings. Oftentimes I suspect that can be chalked up to the murderer asking for forgiveness and repenting, but I'm not sure that really works in the case of cultural taboos. Denial still has very many negative consequences now, but while admission and (truthful) repentance might sate a large number of detractors now, I suspect many multiples more people would see that as something to rally around against the person.

To some degree, the current climate of accusations reminds me of what I've read of McCarthyism and the red scare. Accusations are all that's needed to end careers. If in the 1950's and faced with an accusation that you attended a few communist meetings a couple decades earlier, is it ever a better idea to admit it than deny it? Denying it has a chance of you coming out somewhat intact, but admitting it may immediately ruin you in multiple ways, regardless of how involved you were or your current beliefs. This comparison obviously breaks down in certain ways, to greater or lesser degrees bases on the people and groups involved and their goals, and how problematic you view communism in that area generally. I'm really bringing it up to focus on the how accusations were used then, and may be trending towards being used now. I think the vast majority of accusations so far have been leveled rightfully and the punishments meted out deserved, I'm just a bit worried that a cultural moment for good will slowly be hijacked for personal gain and petty grievances.