Jump to content
  • entries
    420
  • comments
    3,489
  • views
    218,606

Queen of Noise

6,357 views

Let's be real for a moment.

 

mU7arTm.jpg

 

Don't you dare deny the evils of the patriarchy. Don't you dare spit on all the women on whom our society encourages assault and violation. Don't you dare blame the victims of these assaults. Don't you dare try to justify their earning cents on the dollar. Don't you dare tell them what their role in society is, or what you want them to do, or that they should calm down. Don't you dare devalue them because they're angry - they have every right to be angry. And most of all, don't you DARE deny that this oppression exists just because YOU don't suffer it. If you don't care about oppression unless you're part of the group being actively oppressed, you're a cartoonishly evil villain.

 

Women are suffering every day and whether you see it or deny it will not change that immutable, hideous fact. It affects your sisters, your mothers, the strangers on the street. It affects women, it affects men, and it affects people of non-binary gender like me. It's not the natural order of things. It's a system of power and control, and its biggest aid is that it is subconsciously supported.

 

But we can tear it apart, together.

 

You don't have to be a radical to make a positive impact. Every one of us can fight for what is right, even in small daily ways. Call out misogynists when they make ###### jokes. Stand up for women and LGBTQ people. Make donations to positive organizations. Don't just shout out when something big happens - this stuff is a constant, daily thing, so pushing back against it needs to happen every day. This has nothing to do with politics. This has nothing to do with party lines. This has nothing to do with being some kind of hero. It has everything to do with humanity and decency.

 

Be strong. Be resolute. Do not stop being angry. Do not stop talking about this. Do not focus on gender issues, or sexist issues, or racial issues, or LGBTQ issues, or trans*misogyny issues, just because it's a hot-button thing today. The marginalizing continues tomorrow. It will continue until we burn the system to ash. Stay furious every day that women are hurt. Stay furious every day. Stand up. Fight back.

 

DESTROY THE PATRIARCHY

68 Comments


Recommended Comments



Comments such as "If you can't see the cultural misogyny hurting EVERYONE here, you're blind," which comments appear to attempt to reduce social issues for both men and women to the single matter of the patriarchy are where I get the idea that there is a great deal of reductionist thinking going on here. The issue with such comments is that they go back to such a vast and almost invisible (i.e., subconscious) matter that it becomes extremely difficult to effectively and rigorously explain the matter at hand.

 

In fact, it can easily become circular reasoning: In even more radical (and less intellectually honest) circles, it has many times before. I don't think that you personally have clearly engaged in any circular reasoning in this entry, but you've at least gotten close, and your rhetoric has encouraged it. The main deal is that you have effectively shut down any criticism of your viewpoint by effectively saying "that's just the patriarchy backfiring or working strangely" or, worse, summarily dismissing an individual as "part of the problem." That's the "excuse," because what often happens (again, not necessarily here) is that people get shut down before a valid argument is given by either side.

 

Confer your otherwise commendable response to Draezeth.*

 

I get the impression that you have swept under the rug the "vast myriad of different nuances" because I was the first to bring up the additional "nuances" related to the wage disparity. Above all, I get the sense that you are attempting to nip in the bud opposition to your beliefs. This very entry begins with a lot of ominous "Don't you dare" mandates, which mandates effectively dismiss in advance all possible objections to your beliefs and underlying assumptions. This runs contrary to the democratic spirit of a legitimate conversation, because it attempts to utterly halt said conversation before it begins..

 

I say this on a totally intellectual level, from that meta-cognitive position of reasoning and rhetoric, which perspective of course informs my diction, such as using the term "point" rather than your preferred word "struggle." And I totally understand that one should get mad about these issues,** but name-calling is never a valid means of argumentation; it's hardly a step above the ad hominem argument.

 

And I talked about the effect of your rhetoric because I fear that your post forgot its basic purpose as a call to action. When you say that the ignorant (which is, as I have said before, a value-neutral term because the natural state of man is ignorance) are "cartoonishly evil," you have attacked your audience.

 

It's like every freshman composition class teaches: Don't forget what your writing is for. In forgetting what it's for, we tend to misplace our rhetoric. When you just insult your audience, it's almost universally counter-productive.

 

As to your picking up an underlying implication that people should not get angry or upset: There is a time and a place for anger in a discussion. In fact, it can often drive a debate that civility cannot so drive. This anger is perfectly justified: I agree--it's rational! But too often it isn't productive.*** The goal of this entry was clearly to inform a larger audience about issues that are very important to you--and to a HUGE portion of the population. You need to accomplish that goal effectively, and often, that means using appropriate rhetoric.****

 

So I'm not asking you to talk about these matters "calmly." "Calm" is not the end goal. Educating others is the end goal. I'm asking for you to talk about them in an intellectually rigorous manner. We don't need a Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus on an Internet forum, but we do need valid reasoning that is expressed clearly. All that we need is the democratic spirit of conversation and aggressively thorough argumentation.

 

On, now, to the answers to my questions. Thank you for the concise and informative answers. These really are teaching something, and I appreciate it.

-- Absolutely. Why would it be any different?

Simply because comedians are well-known precisely for their making jokes. Take Louis C.K.: He's particularly well-known for his hyper-offensive brand of comedy, making jokes left and right about 9/11, the Holocaust, and pretty much anything else that will get a strong response from the crowd. There's very little reason not to know this, and I've seen him many times say that people who can't take an offensive joke simply should not attend his shows. He'd say, then: "What's so difficult about that?"

 

-- I'm a big believer in satire....

Oh, I'm also very partial to Colbert, so I don't think that I have any further questions in this line.

 

--I believe there's a little bit of wiggle room...

It's not hard to understand, but clearly it's worth saying and explaining. (If it weren't worth saying, after all, then Daniel Tosh wouldn't have a job.)

 

-- Depends on if...

So, was your paraphrasing Draezeth's post by saying "sometimes men are made fun of, boo-hoo" funny? It certainly comes across as a joke. (To me at least, it does, specifically for the use of the word "boo-hoo," which I have almost never seen used in a truly serious discussion.) And it is a joke about sexual assault. See, I'd say that the institutional bias against men who have been assaulted is an issue--certainly not as large an issue as the matter of sexual assault against women, but an issue that affects about one in twenty men nonetheless--and joking about that seems pretty awful. At the very least, that comment seemed terribly belittling. Why exactly did you say that? Is that offensive, or is it justified? Isn't that something of a double standard?

 

-- See Toa of Pumpkin's post!

I'm just glad that that's all that you advocate. I've seen other radicals demand nothing but verbal abuse or even cutting someone out of your life for an insulting joke and for differing (i.e., conservative) viewpoints. That sort of overreaction really does scare me, because for a while it informed my behavior (I believe I said things along the lines of "don't tolerate the intolerant" on this very site), and it hurt my personal relationships with others.

 

*I am in no way attempting to apologize for or suggest that I agree with Draezeth's opinions, which were in many regards wholly counter-factual and disconcerting. However, I take issue with some of the argumentation that was used in response to his post.

 

**I, for one, am particularly "mad" about issues that pertain more directly to the economy and related matters.

 

***Partly because, too often, it doesn't appear to be rational anger. At least, to the underinformed, it so seems.

 

****If the effect of an argumentation style (e.g., getting mad in the discussion) largely results in people just dismissing the argument over its tone (i.e., the "go back to the kitchen" phenomenon you referenced supra), then it may be time to reconsider how you can get your points across. If you really want to reach an audience and teach them, then you need to effectively reach that audience. That doesn't mean catering to every ridiculous demand that an ignorant audience may make, but it does mean using appropriate rhetoric for the situation. There is a time and a place for anger. Isn't it possible that this entry was not the place?

 

Or maybe this is the place: That's a very real possibility. Then, you must ask yourself, "Is this the appropriate means of expressing said anger? Does it support my thesis, or will it detract from it?" Take, for instance, the speeches of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: Many of his most famous speeches bear the marks of barely-concealed anger--rage against the horrific system that he worked against. However, what makes his speeches so commendable, so inspiring, is that they used that anger effectively. MLK was a master of rhetoric, and we can't possibly all be such geniuses. But it's certainly worth trying--because the happy reality is that MLK used tools that everyone uses: the tools of basic rhetoric. My only goal in this post the other post supra was to encourage a democratic spirit and the scrupulous use of appropriate rhetoric. That's what it all boils down to.

Link to comment

 

Comments such as "If you can't see the cultural misogyny hurting EVERYONE here, you're blind," which comments appear to attempt to reduce social issues for both men and women to the single matter of the patriarchy are where I get the idea that there is a great deal of reductionist thinking going on here. The issue with such comments is that they go back to such a vast and almost invisible (i.e., subconscious) matter that it becomes extremely difficult to effectively and rigorously explain the matter at hand.

I don't see your point - it's not reducing the issue at all. It's saying, in response to people those who are pointedly denying the existence of this system, that its existence is obvious. Which is is. That's not simplifying any issue or denying the existence of other nuances (or indeed, other interelated issues) - it's merely stating the face that this oppression is visible if one opens his or here eyes. I find nothing bold nor reductionist in that.

 

 

In fact, it can easily become circular reasoning: In even more radical (and less intellectually honest) circles, it has many times before. I don't think that you personally have clearly engaged in any circular reasoning in this entry, but you've at least gotten close, and your rhetoric has encouraged it. The main deal is that you have effectively shut down any criticism of your viewpoint by effectively saying "that's just the patriarchy backfiring or working strangely" or, worse, summarily dismissing an individual as "part of the problem." That's the "excuse," because what often happens (again, not necessarily here) is that people get shut down before a valid argument is given by either side.

There's nothing "working strangely" about it - as I've been very clear about in this thread, the patriarchal systems in our society are harmful to both women and men, and to deny it is literally to be part of the problem, and I'm definitely not going to apologize for being upfront about that. You seem caught up in the fact that "the patriarchy" is an ephemeral, subconscious thing, and it is, and what I think you're ignoring is how much influence and impact that has on our society and behaviour. I've not once denied the (very obvious) existence of addition issues and nuances - but it is CRITICAL that the overarcing social fabric, and how it contributes to these issues (and how our action/inaction can reinforce it), is understood. How could we possibly change individual issues before understanding the social background of them?

 

I get the impression that you have swept under the rug the "vast myriad of different nuances" because I was the first to bring up the additional "nuances" related to the wage disparity. Above all, I get the sense that you are attempting to nip in the bud opposition to your beliefs. This very entry begins with a lot of ominous "Don't you dare" mandates, which mandates effectively dismiss in advance all possible objections to your beliefs and underlying assumptions. This runs contrary to the democratic spirit of a legitimate conversation, because it attempts to utterly halt said conversation before it begins..

Okay let me stop you there. This isn't "democratic debate." This isn't "Let's calmly talk about issues." This is oppressed people lashing out against their oppressors. The entire entry, with is "ominous tone" (I'd use the term "furious," personally) was harldy out of the blue - it was more of a direct response to pointed dismissal. You bet I'm telling people that they not dare harm my sisters, my people, my friends. This has gone on far, far too long. To deny the hurt I see every day, the hurt I suffer - that IS deplorable. That IS reprehensible. To tell a woman she needs to suffer that is downright insulting.

 

You don't get to have a calm debate with someone who's chained in a cage. If you want to calmly debate them, you'd better help them out of the cage first, and not get insulted when they're mad at you for not helping - you get what I'ms aying?

 

I think you're interpreting this post in a comple

 

 

I say this on a totally intellectual level,

See, there's the root of your problem, I think. If you're on a totally intellectual level, then you're removed from a significant portion of reality. To focus purely on an "intellectual level" ignores the emotions, pain, and hardship that are integral components of the issue - and the struggle - in the first place. I can't stand a philosophy that ignores emotion and pain - those things are a DEFINITIVE part of humanity and pointedly flavour experience, interaction, and truth...issues like this, in particular.

 

I think you're approaching my post here through a suppostition that it was intended as a measured essay, so let me note upfront now that it's not. Do I think there is a place for those? Absolutely; I havent spent years studying the academic side of gender issues for no reason. Indeed, I've even written feminist literary criticsm that I've contemplated submitting for peer review.

 

But this is not that. This is me, casually and angrily responding to a pointed denial of the pain my sisters - and even I - suffer daily. There's a time to educate and I'm a huge huge huge proponent of that because I feel it's absolutley essential to continued progress.

 

But there's also a time to, metaphorically, break some skulls, and right now is one of those times. Passions are high. Fires are stoked. This is a time for war paint.

 

And I talked about the effect of your rhetoric because I fear that your post forgot its basic purpose as a call to action. When you say that the ignorant (which is, as I have said before, a value-neutral term because the natural state of man is ignorance) are "cartoonishly evil," you have attacked your audience.

I didn't call people who are ignorant "cartoonishly evil" - read my post. I called people who don't care "cartoonishly evil." And You'd better believe I'll fight against people like that!

 

-- Depends on if...

So, was your paraphrasing Draezeth's post by saying "sometimes men are made fun of, boo-hoo" funny? It certainly comes across as a joke. (To me at least, it does, specifically for the use of the word "boo-hoo," which I have almost never seen used in a truly serious discussion.) And it is a joke about sexual assault. See, I'd say that the institutional bias against men who have been assaulted is an issue--certainly not as large an issue as the matter of sexual assault against women, but an issue that affects about [EDIT: STATISTIC MAY BE WRONG; DOUBLE CHECKING] men nonetheless--and joking about that seems pretty awful.

I'll be straight with you (ha): it was not intended to be humourous. I was downright aghast that he was suggesting that sexual assault and emascualtion were equivalent issues, and my sardonicism was, I suppose, intended to drive home the serious disparity between the two, which you've noted here as well.

 

This is not for a moment to suggest that emasculation of this caliber is all right, or worthy of joking about - it is indeed a serious and terrible thing. I've participated in campaigns to raise awareness about it (and sexual assault of men in general), in fact. But to place emasculating teasing in the same company as sexual assault; I can't abide that assertion.

 

I'm just glad that that's all that you advocate. I've seen other radicals demand nothing but verbal abuse or even cutting someone out of your life for an insulting joke and for differing (i.e., conservative) viewpoints. That sort of overreaction really does scare me, because for a while it informed my behavior (I believe I said things along the lines of "don't tolerate the intolerant" on this very site), and it hurt my personal relationships with others.

There will always be a small percentage of any group that is a pendulum swing into absurd territory, no doubt, though I tend to be more forgiving of it when it's the result of years of oppression, manifesting itself in anger. I can understand that and empathize, even if it doesn't make it "right."

 

Suffice to say though, I'm not of that variety. I don't hate men; indeed it would be hypocritical of me to do so. Feminism isn't about hating men, or hating conservatives - it's about eliminating oppression and inequality (and righteous fury!). THAT SAID, however, it is VERY important to remember that not all viewpoints have equal credence. A common error many people make when trying to be "logical" or approach things from a "purely intellectual" standpoint is the treat all arguments and all viewpoints as equally valid. This is one of those areas where something that is sound logically and intellectually does not hold up in reality. A viewpoint that actively harms another person, or another group of people is NOT legitimate - it is immoral and inhuman.

 

And that's where taking a "purely intellectual approach" gets murky - sometimes it's not a "point." Sometimes is is a "struggle."

 

I skipped directly responding to some of your paragraphs because I feel I adequately responded in other areas but if I missed something you want to know, inform me.

Link to comment

Rage is not the answer. Rage followed by fitting action is the answer.

 

Yes I am starting off this post with a reference to a MTG card that only I will get. Deal with it.

 

Now then, I feel as if Princess has sufficiantly hammered the point home to Bio Gio. I'm fairly certain that my response will mostly be not as eloquent as his, and I know it will mostly be redundant. However I feel as if a different viewpoint could help shed some light on the issue.

 

Let me start off by saying that there is very little more powerful than the overwhelming ability of logic. I love it. It's my go to tool when it comes to arguments. I took Greek as my foreign language just so I could translate Plato in his original language. I love it, and there's very little I hold more dear to my heart.

 

However as powerful logic is, it can also be too cumbersome. As much as I want it to be, this is not a simply academic problem that can be solved via logic and nuanced arguments. This is a very real thing that impacts people in ways that words fail to describe. It's not something as simple as 'Well I can't paint my nails because I appear to be male and people will laugh at me', although I do admit that is a part of it that gets me sad. It is a repressive, corrupt system that permeates almost every aspect of our culture and society. While it is easily demonstrably proven as wrong, arguing "The Patriarchy is bad. It hurts everyone in society. As such we would overthrow it." often does nothing.

 

As much as it pains me to say it, I've become increasingly convinced that logic will not solve the problem with the patriarchy anymore than it will solve institutionalized homophobia. If you need any proof go read this and this. See how people don't listen to me. Perhaps I was wordy. Perhaps I was overly verbose. However nobody listened to my arguments. Nobody took me seriously. People ignored me, belittled me, and spat the homophobia I was trying to combat right back into my face. I would be lying if I said I wasn't upset. I would be lying if I wasn't hurt.

 

I would also be lying if I wasn't furious. I'm still furious about those entries. This fire still burns.

 

We don't need another logical argument. Logic is lost on those who seek to oppress us and subvert us. Rage is not the answer. Rage followed by fitting action is the answer. I speak not of riots nor a military political revolution. I also don't speak of passive resistance by meek petitions against those who marginalize us. I speak of standing up. I'll let people push me around on a lot of things, but this is one thing I won't be pushed around on. We must take action. We must subvert the patriarchy.

 

Granted I'm more focused on institutionalized homophobia more than I am the patriarchy and feminism, but I do realize that the issues intersect on a lot of points and both Princess has my backing along with any other feminist out there.

Link to comment

Shane :*

Anyway now for some important issues I've been neglecting...

yeah dogg, this is pretty spot on yo
all these points are definitely relevant and also awesome
like, dang, this is the stuff that really shouldnt just be swept under the rug because of 'no politics' because tbh this really isnt encompassed entirely by politics, its just there
like, theres a bunch of politics surrounding having kids yet people can still talk about their kids or having them (not in excruciating detail mind, but..)
also let me echo ran in saying its really awesome that you acknowledged transmisogyny (ily btw)

truly a most radical feminist indeed
*guitar riff; rides away on skateboard*

Yo, totally agree on the political front. Everything is poltiicized but that doesn't make all issues political. What we have here boils down to "people are being hurt. Hurt is bad. Stop the hurt." Ain't no silencin THAT.

times like these i wish there was a "like" button

i'd be clicking it so hard right now

I wish there were a litke button on you so I could click it over and over~

smeag I love you so much


And I love you, buddy!! We're gonna miss you hard this year at the 'Fair.

<3 <3 <3

i love this entry and you smeag


Eee <3 <3 <3

Feminism bros for life, mang.


Fist? BUMPED.

All, let's please make sure we stay away from name calling and insults - it has no place here. Also, please remember that BZPower is a family-friendly site and all language used here should be appropriate for such an environment. Just because there is a filter to block out inappropriate language doesn't mean you should use it here expecting it to be blocked out.


I know there were certain words I didn't realize were filtered that appear to have been, so I apologize for inadvertantly triggering those. Appreciate the warning.

I think this is the greatest thing I have ever seen on this website


blush.png you gettin' this gal all a-flutter *curtsies*

Dear Smeag,

Yes.


Dear Cyrix,
*high five*


Bryan, Neelh, Becca - you all are absolutley wonderful and recieve endless glitter and kisses from me. Also I recommend everyone read Becca's posts as she's (arguably) borne the brunt of misogyny more than many of us. Heed her perspective.

Link to comment

look at all these words

 

just look at them

 

Did a specific event inspire you to this or was it just sort of, like... something you felt like saying?

 

Because I can't think of a (public) event at the moment that would have inspired this, but I could have missed something.

 

Edit: Never mind. This is likely about THAT THING that occurred in MY MOST GENERAL VICINITY.

Link to comment

You no like my post? I is sad now. ;_;

 

Just kidding. I'll gladly admit I'm no expert in this field, but I feel baffled that in such a diverse world, there is still discrimination. I think I can say I'm a feminist. I never joke about patriarchal subjects or objectify them, I believe that it is not the fault of the woman in sexual assault, and I treat any woman I meet with respect. I am also cool with LGBTQ people.

Link to comment

Responded in Georgia, black, etc. within the quote.

 

I don't see your point - it's not reducing the issue at all. It's saying, in response to people those who are pointedly denying the existence of this system, that its existence is obvious. Which is is. That's not simplifying any issue or denying the existence of other nuances (or indeed, other interelated issues) - it's merely stating the face that this oppression is visible if one opens his or here eyes. I find nothing bold nor reductionist in that.


Well, I suppose that that's because I feel that "its existence is obvious" is a bit extreme. I think that a patriarchy exists in some form (i.e., a cultural pattern of sexism that informs many related issues), but I feel that blaming everything on it takes it a step too far. For instance, when you said that "it would be folly not to recognize the influence of the patriarchy's umbrella over" the "nuances" related to oppression. That seems, to me, to deny the complexity of the issue by blaming these problems almost solely on men. (I may have misread that comment, actually. Just ignore this if I did.)

There's nothing "working strangely" about it - as I've been very clear about in this thread, the patriarchal systems in our society are harmful to both women and men, and to deny it is literally to be part of the problem, and I'm definitely not going to apologize for being upfront about that. You seem caught up in the fact that "the patriarchy" is an ephemeral, subconscious thing, and it is, and what I think you're ignoring is how much influence and impact that has on our society and behaviour. I've not once denied the (very obvious) existence of addition issues and nuances - but it is CRITICAL that the overarcing social fabric, and how it contributes to these issues (and how our action/inaction can reinforce it), is understood. How could we possibly change individual issues before understanding the social background of them?

 

Yeah, "working strangely" is definitely the wrong way to put it. I just meant to refer to the notion that patriarchy does not wholly hold back women and can in some cases hurt men. That seems like "working strangely" in the sense that it does not conform to the most basic definition of patriarchy (i.e., rule by fathers or more generally men).

 

My only issue with the "ephemeral, subconscious" nature of the patriarchy is the fact that this ephemeral nature has made it more difficult to define within this very discussion/comment section of a blog post. If someone is skeptical of this notion of a patriarchy, then I feel that they would see mostly circular reasoning in these posts. See, the main definition of "patriarchy" here given is something along the lines of "system of power and control" and cause of sexism against both women and men (again cf. your response to Draezeth). Thus, when an issue related to sexism or gender inequality should come up, the response is to attribute that to the patriarchy. I'm just afraid that that mindset leads to a sort of scapegoating mentality, one that--even if it does not deny actively the existence of "nuances"--at least leads to focusing more on the overall trends and less on the vital nuances.

Okay let me stop you there. This isn't "democratic debate." This isn't "Let's calmly talk about issues." This is oppressed people lashing out against their oppressors. The entire entry, with is "ominous tone" (I'd use the term "furious," personally) was harldy out of the blue - it was more of a direct response to pointed dismissal. You bet I'm telling people that they not dare harm my sisters, my people, my friends. This has gone on far, far too long. To deny the hurt I see every day, the hurt I suffer - that IS deplorable. That IS reprehensible. To tell a woman she needs to suffer that is downright insulting.

 

I cribbed the term "democratic spirit" from David Foster Wallace's essay "Authority and American Usage," which essay defines the term as "one that comes rigor and humility, i.e., passionate conviction plus a sedulous respect for the convictions of others. As any American knows, this is a difficult spirit to cultivate and maintain, particularly when it comes to issues you feel strongly about. Equally tough is a DS's criterion of 100 percent intellectual integrity--you have to be willing to look honestly at yourself and your motives for believing what you believe, and to do it more or less continually."

 

Also, I'd like to point out that I never once in my original post used the word "calm" or any derivation thereof. I requested integrity and a DS, and those notions were belittled as hopelessly idealistic.

 

By the way, I wasn't aware of all of the direct basis for this post; it's been a while since I've been on BZP.

 

See, there's the root of your problem, I think. If you're on a totally intellectual level, then you're removed from a significant portion of reality. To focus purely on an "intellectual level" ignores the emotions, pain, and hardship that are integral components of the issue - and the struggle - in the first place. I can't stand a philosophy that ignores emotion and pain - those things are a DEFINITIVE part of humanity and pointedly flavour experience, interaction, and truth...issues like this, in particular.

I think you're approaching my post here through a suppostition that it was intended as a measured essay, so let me note upfront now that it's not. Do I think there is a place for those? Absolutely; I havent spent years studying the academic side of gender issues for no reason. Indeed, I've even written feminist literary criticsm that I've contemplated submitting for peer review.

But this is not that. This is me, casually and angrily responding to a pointed denial of the pain my sisters - and even I - suffer daily. There's a time to educate and I'm a huge huge huge proponent of that because I feel it's absolutley essential to continued progress.

 

Oh, it my understanding that the purpose was in fact to educate. I never thought that it was a masterful thesis, but I did think it was to educate the underinformed. I see now that the audience was totally different. Forgive the presumption.

 

I didn't call people who are ignorant "cartoonishly evil" - read my post. I called people who don't care "cartoonishly evil." And You'd better believe I'll fight against people like that!

My issue was with the possibility that the ignorant would seem to be those who don't care, since on some level they are. That sort of name-calling turns people off.

I'll be straight with you (ha haha): it was not intended to be humourous. I was downright aghast that he was suggesting that sexual assault and emascualtion were equivalent issues, and my sardonicism was, I suppose, intended to drive home the serious disparity between the two, which you've noted here as well.

This is not for a moment to suggest that emasculation of this caliber is all right, or worthy of joking about - it is indeed a serious and terrible thing. I've participated in campaigns to raise awareness about it (and sexual assault of men in general), in fact. But to place emasculating teasing in the same company as sexual assault; I can't abide that assertion.

 

OK, I get you. I think we've both agreed to drop this topic, so let's let that one lie.

I skipped directly responding to some of your paragraphs because I feel I adequately responded in other areas but if I missed something you want to know, inform me.

 

I did the same! :o

Link to comment

Okay, I am through trying to figure out quotes, so I'll just do it like this!

 

I'll make clear that I by no means believe that sexual assault is 'encouraged' in any serious way, shape or form. And I do not believe that women are being discriminated against in the proud US of A.

This isn't limited to the United States, and you can deny it all you want, but you're flat-out wrong. The patriarchal society is a long-running establishment. It's not necessarily conscious - leaders and citizens aren't (usually) actively saying "Let's make laws and systems specifically to oppress women." But that's what makes this all the more insidious - because the reality is they ARE enforcing a system that hurts, marginalizes, and oppresses women, regardless. And I won't stand still until that is dismantled and all genders are truly treated equally.

 

I won't deny it's not limited there. But it's the only country I can speak for, since I live there. That's why I said it specifically.

The fact that it isn't conscious is precisely what I was arguing.

 

I believe instead that the government is making bad decisions regarding all women, where they are focusing on a much smaller demographic which they could handle better anyways.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, and I'm not sure what the "smaller demographic" at hand is - considering women are more than half the population. The fact that they have such ridiculously small representation in government despite literally being more than 50% of our populations makes it pretty obvious the idea of government "for the people, by the people, of the people" is grossly inaccurate. Hey, while we're at it, could we make the Senate less of a white club, too?

The smaller demographic is specifically the women with a male provider that are likely to take a long maternal leave due to having children. And yes, I see what you are talking about there.

 

I know, I'm not affected by it, but I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that there is a different explanation for it than radfems think. Namely, that the gov. is stupid, and not actually mysoginistic.

Misogyny and stupidity go hand-in-hand, buddy. Heh. Do you really think misogyny is always a conscious thing? Do you think any kind of cultural marginalizing is? As said, even the worst offenders in the government out there aren't sitting down and saying "I'm going to write a bill to hurt all women" today - but they've been so steeped in cultural misogyny and sexism their entire lives (and so have we), that so many cultural attitudes and traditions they (and we) view as "normal" are controlling and oppressive towards women. And make no mistake, we all were raised in this, and we all will always have more to learn about things we're doing and saying that are inadvertently harmful - but that's why we have to open our minds and educate ourselves, rather than pout and lash back and take offense when someone says "stop hurting me."

 

Ah, my mistake, I honestly did think you were attacking people who did it consciously with your rant.

Do you care about your fellow people at all? Then you'd better stop telling people they're wrong when they hurt, and instead learn why they feel that way (even if you don't believe it to be true). Nine times out of ten you'll be shocked by what you discover.

 

Of course I care for fellow people. And I can't help that we have opposing views on certain points. Telling people they're wrong when you oppose them is human nature. And I've talked with feminists before. Not many times, but I have. Frankly (and this doesn't go for all of them, only the ones I talked to), I was not impressed. But these were crazy Sarkeesian fangirls, sooooooo yeah.

 

 

I take part in low-toned ###### shaming,

Disgusting.

 

LOW toned. As in cultured voicing of my disapproval.

but I also shame "studs" as well.

This is what we call "false equivalence." You may disapprove of both to a degree you feel is equal, but one of these is supported by a cultural institution and one is not. The traditional, pervasive attitude in Western culture is to congratulate men for their sexual activity and condemn women for the same, and that's basically a textbook definition of I N E Q U A L I T Y.

 

I don't see the point you're trying to get across here, or how it relates to my shaming both men and women in this regard. You made all of this perfectly clear before, and it in no way refutes or devalues my point.

And of course, the fact that you're using the words "######" and "stud" - one of which is a sexual slur and one of which is a cultural compliment - makes me question how "equal" your disapproval is regardless.

 

What am I supposed to call them, then? He-#####s? I put quotes on 'stud' for a reason.

In fact, I heavily and vocally disapprove bedding out of wedlock in general, particularly if they do it frequently. Sorry if you don't like it, but hey, at least I'm not discriminating.

Yes, you are. Are you so naive as to think you're the only one doing this in the country/world? When you ######-shame, you're one of countless people the woman you're shaming on that given day. Your comments have the weight of an entire society behind them. When you tell a guy he's wrong for sleeping around, you're probably the first who's said that to him in aeons. Again - false equivalence. And what you're doing is oppressive.

 

I still fail to see how what I'm doing is discriminating. In my view, promiscuity (I meant promiscuity specifically, sorry about my poor choice of words) should be frowned upon in any case, whether it is a man or a woman doing it, and view the fact that it is unequal as just as bad as the fact that it is praised at all.

Furthermore - even without the cultural weight, what you're doing is arrogant, sanctimonious, and evil regardless. No matter your personal feelings, you have absolutely no right to police what other people do in the bedroom or otherwise. I don't care what your supposed moral code tells you - if it's not telling you to stay out of other people's business, it's not a very moral code in the first place.

 

I don't police, I disapprove vocally. I'm not going to forbid anyone from it. That would make me just as bad as the homophobes still trying to keep gay marriage banned. And while it does step from my Christian moral code originally, it is not entirely from it.

 

 

But I'm not going to go out and riot, or donate to any old organization, and you had better not expect me to support that $######% Sarkeezian.

You must have missed the part where I specifically said "You don't have to be radical to make a positive impact." Small supports are just as important - not everyone has the means to financially support, and not everyone has the stomach to torch the senate, and that's fine. But every little small thing is a positive thing, and I encourage people to find the level of participation that is comfortable for them, so long as they PARTICIPATE.

 

I was just saying. Rest assured, I'll participate in the ways I mentioned before.

And about ####-culture, think about it this way. If a girl is assaulted, 99.9% of people who find out about it are going to be sympathetic to her, console her, and call out the one who did the act.

False, and statistics show otherwise. Even family and friends will often question the situation and try to put blame on the victim, saying absolutely ridiculous, reprehensible things like "you shouldn't have worn such revealing clothes." EXCUSE ME. WE SHOULDN'T BE TEACHING WOMEN THAT THEY NEED TO WEAR CERTAIN CLOTHES TO NOT GET RAPED. WE SHOULD BE TEACHING MEN NOT TO ######, PERIOD.

 

Yep, heard this a thousand times. Thing is, men are taught not to ######, but there are still those who do it. Can't help that. And yes, I know it is shameful that people will put the blame on the victim.

Especially given that statistics show clothing has NOTHING to do with sexual assault rates regardless! Rates are just as high among victims who are fully, "modestly" clothed - sexual assault isn't, as many try to portray it, a case of men being "unable to control their libido." It's a case of violent power play. It's about dominance, control, and violation; not libido. It's one of the most reprehensible crimes imaginable.

 

Actually, that's not entirely true, but doesn't make the accusations right either. Tight, revealing clothing is actually less likely to attract an assaulter than would loose, easily-removed clothes. I agree with the rest of that.

This can be particularly harsh if it's a false accusation. False accusations of assault have ruined many men's lives in the past. Now, if you think about men, and what happens when one of them gets assaulted... Yes, the majority of people will comfort said person, but because he's a man, he is more pressured to stand up and be strong, and as such, he will definitely, certainly receive at least twice as many assault-jokes as the women. Because men are like that. Sure, assault happens much more to women than men, but just consider that for a while.

Are you serious? Are you kidding me? You're really saying "yeah, statistics show that a woman is sexually assaulted every two minutes in the USA, but sometimes men are made fun of, boo-hoo, these issues are equivalent?" Seriously? Get out! To even mention these things in the same breath is so ludicrously insulting and terrible I barely even know how to respond to it. You're putting some of the worst physical violence and a little boo-hoo inconvenience on the same pedestal. That's ridiculous and reprehensible.

 

Now you're just interpreting things your own way. I was under the impression ######-culture referred more to the "okay-ness" of ######, and the claim that the victim isn't treated right afterwards, not the statistics at all. Which is the issue I addressed here. I am not saying they balance out at all.

BUT OKAY - let's humour you for one moment. Because the very reason the (much smaller, but by no means unimportant) group of men who are sexually assaulted feel uncomfortable talking about it is, as you said, because they'd be emasculated - they'd be viewed as weak, and often made fun on. This is a direct result of the duality of roles that the patriarchal society enforces - women are "weak"; men are "strong." Men are "strong" because women are not - and a man who is not being "strong" is acting like "a woman"...the worst thing to act like, because women are "weak."

The cultural view of men as hard, strong, and powerful is DIRECTLY related to viewing women as meek, weak, and inferior. And the ridicule that a man might face for being a victim of sexual assault is, by extension, calling him a woman.

If you can't see the cultural misogyny hurting EVERYONE here, you're blind.

 

I'm pretty sure you missed the fact that I meant that this was a bad thing.

To get anyone who might be hating me now off my back, I'll say that I am not sexist. Heck, I even like abs on a girl a lot! I want a nice strong woman as a partner.

Are you serious? You claim not to be sexist, and then your justification is objectifying a woman's body and tying a woman's value to being your mate? Are you for real?

 

Oh wow, you actually pulled that one out. I've heard that one at least a million times and am sick of it. Objectifying, this, objectifying, that! If women don't want to be objectified in the slighted bit, then why do most of them still wear makeup?

 

I am not objectifying, I am admiring. I am saying they are attractive. Women want to be desired, don't they? I said I want a nice strong woman, not "I would totally bang a strong woman without any emotional attraction to her". This is utterly absurd. How am I supposed to compliment my future girlfriend if she's going to shout at me for 'objectifying her' every time I do so?!

But I simply don't believe that these issues are quite as bad as many people would have you believe.

That is all.

You're denying observable truth and you're part of the problem.

 

I apologize for having a differing opinion.

 

Also, BioGio, I applaud you.

Link to comment

Thing is, men are taught not to ######, but there are still those who do it. Can't help that.

Oh wow, you actually pulled that one out. Objectifying this, objectifying that! If women don't want to be objectified in the slighted bit, then why do most of them still wear makeup?

I am not objectifying, I am admiring. Women want to be desired, don't they?

I apologize for having a differing opinion.

I hope you don't mind that I pulled out the most disgustingly misogynistic things from your post.

Link to comment

 

times like these i wish there was a "like" button

 

i'd be clicking it so hard right now

I wish there were a litke button on you so I could click it over and over~

 

ohhhh myyyyyyy~

Link to comment

 

Thing is, men are taught not to ######, but there are still those who do it. Can't help that.

Oh wow, you actually pulled that one out. Objectifying this, objectifying that! If women don't want to be objectified in the slighted bit, then why do most of them still wear makeup?

I am not objectifying, I am admiring. Women want to be desired, don't they?

I apologize for having a differing opinion.

I hope you don't mind that I pulled out the most disgustingly misogynistic things from your post.

Care to explain?

Link to comment

 

 

Thing is, men are taught not to ######, but there are still those who do it. Can't help that.

Oh wow, you actually pulled that one out. Objectifying this, objectifying that! If women don't want to be objectified in the slighted bit, then why do most of them still wear makeup?

I am not objectifying, I am admiring. Women want to be desired, don't they?

I apologize for having a differing opinion.

I hope you don't mind that I pulled out the most disgustingly misogynistic things from your post.

Care to explain?

 

Where do I start? "Can't help that" to the idea of the perpetuation of assault, a simple shrug-off to a serious frickin issue that affects several people. Clearly, men are not taught well enough, because they still assault people on a large scale.

CONTINUING to objectify women with the rationale of a sexist stereotype of women that the patriarchal society has, in fact, provided you.

And then, to top it all off, despite the obviously ill-informed state of it, you merely say you have a differing opinion, despite the fact it hurts women, men, and non-binary genders in several ways, and still among all this, you claim to be "not sexist".

Link to comment

Where do I start? "Can't help that" to the idea of the perpetuation of assault, a simple shrug-off to a serious frickin issue that affects several people. Clearly, men are not taught well enough, because they still assault people on a large scale.

 

 

 

There will always be psychos. You cannot change that. That is what I was saying. Not that it can't be changed at all.

 

 

CONTINUING to objectify women with the rationale of a sexist stereotype of women that the patriarchal society has, in fact, provided you.

 

Apparently the line between 'objectifying' and 'finding attractive' is blurred in your eyes.

 

 

And then, to top it all off, despite the obviously ill-informed state of it, you merely say you have a differing opinion, despite the fact it hurts women, men, and non-binary genders in several ways, and still among all this, you claim to be "not sexist".

 

Yes, I gave false statistics, as hyperbole. My opinion is that things are not AS BAD as they are made out to be. Not that the issues don't exist. I have a differing opinion on that, and Smeag claimed I was wrong without providing proof of that. I have a different opinion, and I am hurting nobody.

 

And I still stand by my claim of non-sexism.

Link to comment

 

Where do I start? "Can't help that" to the idea of the perpetuation of assault, a simple shrug-off to a serious frickin issue that affects several people. Clearly, men are not taught well enough, because they still assault people on a large scale.

 

 

 

There will always be psychos. You cannot change that. That is what I was saying. Not that it can't be changed at all.

 

The current batch of assaulters is way too large to be outliers or 'psychos'. Our society is still normalizing sexual assault and that is definitely something that can be impacted highly by the dismantling of the patriarchy.

CONTINUING to objectify women with the rationale of a sexist stereotype of women that the patriarchal society has, in fact, provided you.

 

Apparently the line between 'objectifying' and 'finding attractive' is blurred in your eyes.

 

Your rationale to not being sexist was literally "I find strong women attractive". That's reducing women to something for you to ogle and enjoy, and practically setting a standard for what you think women should be.

And then, to top it all off, despite the obviously ill-informed state of it, you merely say you have a differing opinion, despite the fact it hurts women, men, and non-binary genders in several ways, and still among all this, you claim to be "not sexist".

 

Yes, I gave false statistics, as hyperbole. My opinion is that things are not AS BAD as they are made out to be. Not that the issues don't exist. I have a differing opinion on that, and Smeag claimed I was wrong without providing proof of that. I have a different opinion, and I am hurting nobody.

 

You are hurting almost the entirety of the Earth by continuing to enforce a system that affects and hurts everyone, with an extra focus on women, an entire half of the human race.

 

And I still stand by my claim of non-sexism.

 

Your claim means nothing when your actions do nothing to back it.

 

Link to comment

Okay, I'm done here. It's clear everything I say here can and will be twisted to suit your worldview. I will just say that "The current batch of assaulters is way too large to be outliers or 'psychos'. Our society is still normalizing sexual assault and that is definitely something that can be impacted highly by the dismantling of the patriarchy." is the most radfem thing I have ever heard.

Link to comment

Toa of Pumpkin summed up my thought perfectly, but I'll try to respond to stuff.

 

 

 

Where do I start? "Can't help that" to the idea of the perpetuation of assault, a simple shrug-off to a serious frickin issue that affects several people. Clearly, men are not taught well enough, because they still assault people on a large scale.

 

 

 

There will always be psychos. You cannot change that. That is what I was saying. Not that it can't be changed at all.

 

As Pumpkin said, the current group of sexual assaulters are too big to be considered isolated incidents. I believe that if we raised children to be more respectful of women, we would not see the current statistics of sexual assaults. (Those reported anyways)

 

 

CONTINUING to objectify women with the rationale of a sexist stereotype of women that the patriarchal society has, in fact, provided you.

 

Apparently the line between 'objectifying' and 'finding attractive' is blurred in your eyes.

 

Your words pretty much reduced women to a trait, and by extension, a standard.

 

 

And then, to top it all off, despite the obviously ill-informed state of it, you merely say you have a differing opinion, despite the fact it hurts women, men, and non-binary genders in several ways, and still among all this, you claim to be "not sexist".

 

Yes, I gave false statistics, as hyperbole. My opinion is that things are not AS BAD as they are made out to be. Not that the issues don't exist. I have a differing opinion on that, and Smeag claimed I was wrong without providing proof of that. I have a different opinion, and I am hurting nobody.

 

Pumpkin sums up my thoughts perfectly.

 

And I still stand by my claim of non-sexism.

 

Sorry man, with your words, not exactly buying it.

 

Sorry if this was redundant.

Link to comment

Let me start off by saying that there is very little more powerful than the overwhelming ability of logic. I love it. It's my go to tool when it comes to arguments. I took Greek as my foreign language just so I could translate Plato in his original language. I love it, and there's very little I hold more dear to my heart.

 

Nice--I'm more of a Latin guy, myself, but there's really no beating Plato.

 

While it is easily demonstrably proven as wrong, arguing "The Patriarchy is bad. It hurts everyone in society. As such we would overthrow it." often does nothing.

 

I'm not sure if I understand? What exactly is the antecent of "it" here? The patriarchy?

 

Perhaps I was wordy. Perhaps I was overly verbose. However nobody listened to my arguments. Nobody took me seriously. People ignored me, belittled me, and spat the homophobia I was trying to combat right back into my face. I would be lying if I said I wasn't upset. I would be lying if I wasn't hurt.

 

I remember those posts, and what I mostly remember now is that you made a lot of sense and played the bigger man. There was a time when I though that the correct response to intolerance was intolerance and name-calling: I compared homophobia to racism and religious prejudice, and now I sincerely regret that.

 

Now, my views have changed. I don't think that any sort of name-calling is appropriate--whether it's "cartoonishly evil villains" or something even worse. Hateful insults are not the response to hateful insults; that just perpetuates more malice. Honestly, I don't understand how insulting people for not having your views will help anyone come to see your side. It will just make the bigoted angrier and turn off the moderate.

 

I have come to believe that so much of this issue comes down to education. It's kind of strange, actually, how you've moved more toward one side while I've moved toward the center. (It's as though there were some sort of strange cosmic equilibrium that has to maintained, eh?)

 

I also don't speak of passive resistance by meek petitions against those who marginalize us. I speak of standing up. I'll let people push me around on a lot of things, but this is one thing I won't be pushed around on. We must take action. We must subvert the patriarchy.

 

What exactly do you mean by "passive resistance"? My vision of passive resistance is the SCLC, a group of people who were outraged over racism but stood up to it with compassion rooted deeply in their moral convictions. They didn't call names to any great extent, but they were certainly effective.

 

Of course, at the end of the day this all just comes down to personal ideology and belief.

 

 

Also, BioGio, I applaud you.

 

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm a feminist, or something of the sort, and I strongly disagree with a lot of what you've said. All that I think is that we need to all have a bit more Democratic Spirit--even myself.

Link to comment

I know. I just admire the points you made. They were very well set up and, frankly, much better thought out than mine. I always like a good, effective, logical argument, whether it agrees with my views or not.

 

 

I'll take that as a compliment.

It was a humorous exit more than anything, but take it as you will.
Link to comment

 

Let me start off by saying that there is very little more powerful than the overwhelming ability of logic. I love it. It's my go to tool when it comes to arguments. I took Greek as my foreign language just so I could translate Plato in his original language. I love it, and there's very little I hold more dear to my heart.

 

Nice--I'm more of a Latin guy, myself, but there's really no beating Plato.

 

Nothing can quite beat Plato. Also Homer's work will always trump anything Virgil wrote.

 

 

I'm not sure if I understand? What exactly is the antecent of "it" here? The patriarchy?

 

The Patriarchy was the intended antecedent, but really you could replace it with whatever oppressive institution you want.

 

Perhaps I was wordy. Perhaps I was overly verbose. However nobody listened to my arguments. Nobody took me seriously. People ignored me, belittled me, and spat the homophobia I was trying to combat right back into my face. I would be lying if I said I wasn't upset. I would be lying if I wasn't hurt.

 

I remember those posts, and what I mostly remember now is that you made a lot of sense and played the bigger man. There was a time when I though that the correct response to intolerance was intolerance and name-calling: I compared homophobia to racism and religious prejudice, and now I sincerely regret that.

 

Now, my views have changed. I don't think that any sort of name-calling is appropriate--whether it's "cartoonishly evil villains" or something even worse. Hateful insults are not the response to hateful insults; that just perpetuates more malice. Honestly, I don't understand how insulting people for not having your views will help anyone come to see your side. It will just make the bigoted angrier and turn off the moderate.

 

I have come to believe that so much of this issue comes down to education. It's kind of strange, actually, how you've moved more toward one side while I've moved toward the center. (It's as though there were some sort of strange cosmic equilibrium that has to maintained, eh?)

 

Don't get me wrong. I haven't really become someone who insults those who disagree with me. I've gone toe to toe with Tilius several times in the past over it, and I will continue to do so. I disagree with any sort of shaming or insults, but I don't consider calling people's statements bigoted to be hurtful or insulting either.

 

 

What exactly do you mean by "passive resistance"? My vision of passive resistance is the SCLC, a group of people who were outraged over racism but stood up to it with compassion rooted deeply in their moral convictions. They didn't call names to any great extent, but they were certainly effective.

 

Of course, at the end of the day this all just comes down to personal ideology and belief.

 

It does come down to personal ideology and belief in a lot of ways. So long as people are taking a stand against oppression, whether it be active or passive, to be helpful. I've come to realize that being "What you said is homophobic/sexist and here's why...." to be less effective than "No. You're wrong. You're being hurtful, and you're hurting me. Stop." If they don't understand why, then I'll tell them why in detail. In the more political sense, I want more people like Wendy Davis who proudly stood up to protect the rights of women.

 

Also you seem really, really invested in the Civil Rights Movement. That is awesome, since the civil rights movement is in many ways the blueprint for all further rights movement. However it's interesting to note that after King's death, the movement became more 'radicalized.' I use the term extremely loosely, since that's the way I originally heard it. After King's death, the idea of Black Power became more and more wide spread in the black community, especially after it became clear that the change they wanted was not happening soon enough.

 

Interesting stuff. I suggest reading up on it if you haven't.

Link to comment

PFFFT everyone knows misogyny don't real. The real problem in this world is MISANDRY. I can't stand how people are trying to regulate men's abilities to control their own bodies, how people can justify paying them less for the same work, how they're always belittled for expressing the slightest hint of sexuality...

 

DOWN WITH THE MATRIARCHY!

Link to comment

WOW, you guys and girls and beautiful non-binary peeps!! I've been busy for hours working on some stuff and occasionally checking in here and was dismayed at how I was surely going to have to write an absolutley massive post and maybe take a few shots of scotch just to make it through, but you lovelies were on fire in here. Especially you, Toa of Pumpkin and JiMing. Thanks so much for keeping the information flowing and the breaking down the misogyny! You are beautiful.

Draezeth, I think Toa of Pumpkin and JiMing have done a pretty thorough job of responding to your arguments and explaining why they are sexist, but if you're still confused or need to have things clarified, feel free to ask ol' Princess Grr. She's always amped about this stuff~

There is one thing that got lost in the fray though that I did want to address, and it's this:

Oh wow, you actually pulled that one out. I've heard that one at least a million times and am sick of it. Objectifying, this, objectifying, that! If women don't want to be objectified in the slighted bit, then why do most of them still wear makeup?


You do not know why a woman wears makeup. Okay, repeat after me: you do not know why a woman wears makeup.

It could be -

  • Because it makes them feel comfortable
  • Because they have blemishes they're embarassed of (many men wear make-up for this reason as well - and the others!)
  • Because societal/advertising pressures make them feel obligated to
  • Because they enjoy the art of it
  • Because it makes them feel empowered
  • Because they like the way it looks
  • Any number of other reasons, none of which have to do with attracting you or any other man

Yeah, there are exceptions to anything, but generally speaking, makeup is NOT a show put on by women, for men. I could name a number of people on this site who have tonnes of eyeshadow and nail polish and lipstick in tons of beautiful colours and they wear this because they love it! None of them is looking for a boyfriend (one of them is married).

Makeup is no different than a hairstyle or a pair of pants - it's just part of an outfit! It's not for you, or for me; it's for the person who is wearing it. Trust the person who's got a bigger makeup box than most people would ever fathom of having, haha.

Moving on...


BioGio, I think we've come to talk through our misapprehensions and are on roughly the same page now so I don't think it's necessary to respond to your whole post (plus it saves valuable room). The only thing I want to clarify, just to be extra clear, is that I understand where you're coming from with feeling "focusing on the trends ignores the vital nuances," and I generally concur. As I've noted, I'm most certainly not encouraging ignoring those fine details (never ever ever ignore the fine details) - I feel, rather, that they should be examined individually and in terms of where they fit in the broader social context. otherwise, how can we hope to understand them fully, and overcome them? The road to victory is complex, fought on many levels! We have to understand all the details, from the macroscopic to the microscopic.

Suffice to say I believe we're actually in general agreement on that point and i just wanted to clarify.

And now for the final additional notes:

@Spink: Kissu :* BTW please tell me you're coming to the 'Fair this year so I can give you a hug.

@JiMing: I loved your post! I was primarily responding to direct addresses and to things that I felt needed some additional commentary. Didn't mean to make you feel left out <3

@Canama: This post gets a medal

@Shane: I'mma mix you a drink tomorrow when you get home form work. You like Chivas Regal right?


Remember to kill the patriarchy today, everyone!

Glitter and kisses~

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...