I can’t wait to hear why The Great Sandwich Caper was different.

This is all so confusing and not funny.

Just a scorecard to keep up with the ironies:

1. Zuzu of the anti-Sammich brigade has left Feministe because of the OIIDPs of piny, who, like Ilyka Damon in comments there, thought the only issue at hand was JG’s “misogyny” and so let Britney completely off the hook.

2. JG was attacked by idiots like the above as a woman hater, when clearly he was and is not. A smear of OIIDP origin.

3. Scott Kaufman is being attacked in a very shitty way by a JG commenter. Because of an OIIDPs which couldn’t and wouldn’t see the context of his “offending post”.

4. Twisty Faster of excellent OIIDP pedigree is now being shunned by piny because of Twisty’s blog’s “transphobia”. Twisty’s a white lesbian who considers straight women who perform blowjobs moral criminals. TF is *the* strawfeminist that other feminists claim their opponents make up. But even she is not pure enough for piny.

I’m sure I’ll think of more soon.

[Recent exchange at Acephalous] …

I am reminded of a common ploy used on right-wing talk-radio and on cable news shows in which the commentator goes on at great length bemoaning how much ‘coverage’ a story is receiving, while, of course, covering the story.

And (since context is king) I recall that the Pandagon contingent nearly lynched a poor progressive boy from Arkansas for photo-shopping a sandwich into a fat man’s hands.

Posted by: R.L.Page | Monday, 11 June 2007 at 01:05 PM

RL Page, aren’t you getting bored, waiting at the martyr’s stake? No one’s coming to burn you, dear. Get over yourself.

Posted by: Sheelzebub | Tuesday, 12 June 2007 at 05:32 AM

Now I can just wait for you to return and try to explain your comment.

Posted by: R.L.Page | Tuesday, 12 June 2007 at 10:20 AM

If context is king, you might try getting yours right: First, the discussion to which you refer happened at Feministe, not Pandagon. Second, last I checked, HTML Mencken was alive and walking around breathing and everything.

Third, that you’d characterize an admittedly acrimonious discussion as a “lynching” . . . well, you do realize that this not only doesn’t detract from my point that some white male progressives have entitlement problems, it kind of supports it a whole bunch?

Thanks for playing.

Posted by: ilyka | Tuesday, 12 June 2007 at 11:34 AM

[Note: I did not say the contretemps played out at Pandagon; I said “the Pandagon contingnet” was leading the mob with torches and pitchforks.]

Well, “Ilyka,” I guess it’s true what they say: — you just can’t take the Goldstein out of the girl.

Posted by: R.L.Page | Tuesday, 12 June 2007 at 03:39 PM

http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2007/06/time_to_be_tatt.html#comment-72526166

[Shorter version: The still don’t approve of you or your sandwich.]

I looked into it a tiny bit this morning, just ’cause none of it was making any sense in dribs and drabs. Now I’m gonna shut up, ’cause frankly I don’t want to play, but here’s my takeaway.

Everyone acts like an asshole now and then. Not everyone who at least occasionally acts like an asshole IS an asshole. But an asshole will ALWAYS act like an asshole.

And all those of you involved in this monumental electronic landfill would be better served if you remembered that. The extent to which you were or were not surprised by any specific individual’s behavior is an important data point….

mikey

I think his analysis of what happened in ’92 is just wrong. Perot, who got nearly 20% of the vote, wasn’t running to the right of Bush I. He was just an oddball who appealed to the mushy middle as a “straight-talker.” The idea that the GOP moved toward the mushy middle in response is simply laughable. If I recall the two issues Perot discussed most were the deficit and NAFTA. Not like the GOP moved an inch on either of those issues: remember Dick, “Deficits don’t matter” Cheney? Have we seen Bush cave to those anti-globalization, anti-free trade folks who want to close our borders to immigration.

I will agree with jeff, it isn’t funny.

I like sammiches.

Before I respond to the meat here, I gotta say, the other thing you gotta love about Ilyka is how she shows only a convert can be pure. She was a Bush supporter up until 04 or 05, now she’s the true voice of feminism, at least when Twisty isn’t talking about her dinner and lack of breasts.* Those of us who’ve always been against Bush, in favor of basic feminism, and so on just don’t get it like she does, unless we agree with her. Don’t ask me why.
I wish she didn’t auto ban anyone who disagrees with her so I could, like, argue with her on her blog about this kinda thing, but, well….

As for your greater points, well, you made them far better than I could so there’s not much to say beyond I agree. Identity politics drive me fucking nuts, and not just because as a rich white guy who’s fairly liberal I hate the standard reactions of I’m full of it and slumming or a class traitor.

*- My grandmother and aunt died of breast cancer, so I’m allowed to make that joke. Rule 115a, subsection 2c.

Umm, one thing. Pandagon has nothing to do with this. Yes, Ilyka and Chris write there but the site is seen as Amanda’s and despite Ace’s obsessions to the contrary, she’s not like Ilyka or piny.

Here’s a for instance. Amanda acknowledges that Twisty goes way too far. It’s just that, for the sake of personal gain, she excuses it — she recognizes that it’s often valuable to have someone push from an opposite extreme than what is normal (many people push Amanda from an anti-feminist viewpoint; therefore it’s good that someone is more feminist, in a way, than she is). That is a pragmatism of sorts rather than, say an endorsement of extremism for the sake of purity, and something beyond Ilyka or even zuzu (or at least was, before zuzu’s apostacy).

Man, HTML, you make me sorry I haven’t been keeping up.

Typo: Brittney not Britney.

When I used the phrase “the Pandagon contingent,” it was intended as short-hand for a group of rather self-righteous & sanctimonious folks who tend to orbit that particular site. The phrase was not intended to mean the site itself or its head-writer, Ms. Marcotte.

Just as it doesn’t matter right now whether Ilyka Damon’s first instinct to call Jesus’ General a mysogynist and Barbara O’Brien a racist were conscious smears or heart-felt denunciations: it was still OIIDP.

Wonder what we have to do to send Ilyka back over to the Reich Wing side. I think we were all safer with her on the losing team.

Twisty’s a white lesbian who considers straight women who perform blowjobs moral criminals.

So what does that make men who perform blowjobs? Just icky? Or teh benevolent rescuers of a world of reluctant female cocksuckers?

I kind of feel sorry for zuzu. We’ve had our differences in the past, but when she made it clear that this discussion was upsetting her because of its proximity to Gilliard’s death, piny refused to back down and just kept screaming in her face. I don’t blame her for bailing.

Of course, one could easily say, “Shoe? Meet the Other Foot. You guys are going to get along fabulously.”

Interesting that the two shrillest ideologues in this whole misadventure are both recent arrivals to the world of Progressive Feminism, one an ideological chameleon, and the other a recent gender re-assignee.

You know what they say about the recently converted.

HTML,

I’m with you on the whole sammich controversy. 100%.

However, I really don’t think this is what Chris is talking about here. Chris’s post is pretty evidently not a defense of OIIDP, which is an entirely different issue altogether.

Now, perhaps you agree with this assessment of Chris’s post but, as you consider Chris to be an OIIDPer, you feel that every defense of his own position is, implicitly, a defense of OIIDP. I guess I don’t really agree with that either.

mikey hits the nail on the head when he writes:

Everyone acts like an asshole now and then. Not everyone who at least occasionally acts like an asshole IS an asshole. But an asshole will ALWAYS act like an asshole.

Chris was on the wrong side of the sammich debate (such as it was). But that doesn’t make him an asshole. Or even, in the main, an OIIDPer, even if he was taking the OIIDP position in that case.

I’m afraid that I think this post is kinda cutting off your nose to spite your face. Like Chris (and I), you are someone who rejects the notion that the answer to every problem in the world is “elect more Democrats.” And like Chris (and I) you receive a fair bit of shit for saying so. That‘s what Chris is talking about here.

So keep loudly disagreeing with him on the sammich (you’re right about that!), but don’t, out of a sense of personal animosity over a giant submarine sammich, reject an important post with which I would imagine you actually largely agree.

But, as Chris would say (and I’d agree), it’s your blog, so who am I to tell you what to post?

TRex said,
June 13, 2007 at 1:30

Wonder what we have to do to send Ilyka back over to the Reich Wing side. I think we were all safer with her on the losing team.

I’m not sure Goldstein would take her back at this point, but I’d try offering him a bottle of Scotch and a player to be named later.

HTML;

I’m tired and really fucking demoralized about this whole thing and I may phrase myself badly, so please be patient with me. I’ll try to make some systematic responses, starting with the most important:

0) What you said here, and your good-faith approach toward me, means a lot to me. I’e sort of been stuck on the “make amends or reopen old wounds?” dilermma, and I appreciate your breaking me out of that.

1) I don’t know piny all that well, but prefer to presume the best of people. I do know ilyka better, and I strongly encourage you to reconsider your characterization of her as not being an honest opponent.

2) I have never had any impression other than that you, and your co-conspirators here, are likewise honest opponents, on those occasions when we are in fact opponents. I strongly prefer the times when we are not opponents.

3) The Sammich thing got way hotter than it needed to, for various reasons. (Get it? Hot. Sammich. ha ha ha ha ha.) Some of those reasons were because I got angrier than the situation warranted. It was a trivial thing, and humor that isn’t transgressive generally isn’t funny, so risks will be taken. Also, sometimes I’m just irritable, and react to moderate annoyances as though they’re more important than they are. And my typical reaction in such circumstances is to reach for the snark, which is a really fucking bad habit, and part of the equation in my decision as to the role I’ll play, if any, in the online world. I feel sometimes like I get kudos for being an asshole, and I’d sooner walk away from every last intertube than be an asshole for spare change.

4) I did appreciate the fact that you took my initial criticism seriously, and I realize I never said that. I should have said that, and I’m sorry I didn’t.

5) Also unspoken in that argument was this notion: criticism of a perceived offensive attitude or action isn’t necessarily an attack.

This last point is I think crucial to understanding where we went wrong over the sammich thing. I like reading TBogg, and his mockery of Hugh Hewitt’s torso, which resembles mine more than a little, bugs the crap out of me. On the other hand, he was one of the people out in the blog world that said the most generous things about my dog’s illness and death, making me feel a lot better than his fat jokes make me feel bad. Does that mean I’m not gonna criticize him for the fat jokes? Not necessarily. As a person who, like all the rest of us, mainly has assholes for friends, and also as a recovering catholic, I can love the sinner and hate the sin.

Look, I’m a straight white guy from a middle-class background who had access, if truncated, to a college education. I’m not gonna win anyone’s oppression sweepstakes. If I make a criticism of what I perceive as someone’s insensitivity to a disempowered group, it’s almost certainly from a perspective of someone who’s fighting the same demon. Including the fat thing, as I’m just as susceptible to going down that path as anyone.

Which means that if I (hypothetically) say something like “Pinko Punko? What you just said is sexist.” that does not necessarily translate to “Hey PP, you’re a misogynistic cobag.” Even when I’m annoyed. It most likely means something friendlier.

This is a problem given that — especially in the case of racism — such a comment is often seen as the ultimate rhetorical weapon, calling someone Hitler. But I’m racist. And sexist. And homophobic. And fat-phobic. And emu-phobic. I don’t think I’m Hitler. I just have certain attitudes and prejudices put in my head at an impressionable age that I’d really like to get rid of.

6) Some of what you call OIIDP is plain old in-group out-group politics, some of which is inevitable. Sometimes, as in the fundie example you bring up, it’s manipulated for nefarious political ends. But sometimes it’s an honest appraisal of insults and injuries borne by a group of people, those insults and injuries having enough commonalities among them that the recipients find that they are systematic.

When you look at the kinds of people on (what for lack of a better phrase given your quibble with my use of it I’ll call) “the left” who tend to make complaints about being marginalized, casually (if sometimes unknowingly) insulted, disregarded, and even hated, and cast them as a Venn Diagram over the set of “more or less left people,” and then look at who’s left out, and well it pretty much looks like me. And, if I may presume, like HTML Mencken. (Though I do know Southerners are not precisely the most un-fun-made-of people in the world. It does get complex.)

Given that setup, one can make some empirical, scientific judgments about the degree to which the OIIDP-ers have legitimate complaints, or to which they’ve fallen prey to in-group out-group politics. One could ask “Do the different groups’ complaints have commonalities in the way they’re regarded by the “mainstream”? Do the groups’ complaints remain consistent, despite the individuals in the group not having corresponded?” and like that. If so, it’s likely that the problem isn’t internally generated within the complaining group, but stems from like treatment of all the groups that have been marginalized.

That’s getting pretty abstract. More concretely: I prefer to take people at their word when they describe being marginalized by what’s considered the mainstream of society. Eventually, after listening to what people say — almost always patiently, in my experience — it really begins to make sense. I’m white, but my spouse isn’t, and she and I can witness the same conversation at a party and I’ll come away unaffected, until I notice she’s shaking with rage. As she explains to me why the person we were talking to was inadvertently insulting to Chinese people, I begin to get a better sense of it. And we’re not talking to Klanspeople here: we’re talking left activists, Berkeley progressives. Example: standing at an ATM, voter registration people pushing an enviro initiative skipped her over. She was upset, and I asked why. I’d have been relieved not to be bothered. I asked a person from the campaign why she was skipped over, and the response: “we assumed she wasn’t a citizen.”

That’s a tiny thing, right? A stupid mistake. Way smaller even than a sammich. But a lifetime of those stupid mistakes directed at you adds up.

Which is why I don’t find the concept of OIIDP helpful. I’d rather gve those folks the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes, as in the case of the fundies, their complaints are so palpably ludicrous and disingenuous that you can dismiss them. Sometimes the complaints make sense but are difficult to hear. And sometimes the complaints seem like they ought to make sense, but they come from so far out in left field that it’s hard to determine just why you deserved the anger you got.

Kinda like you and me and the sammich.

Here’s where I think your take on my post goes off the rails. I think Brittney fucked up, perhaps inadvertently. I understand why Steve’s friends were pissed off. But when it was pointed out that there were disturbing aspects to the sexual politics of the response — some people calling JG a misogynist, others responding strictly to specific sexist statements of some people — the reaction got really weird and virulent. You didn’t even have to disagree with JG to think there were sexist aspects to the response. You could agree that Brittney needed to leave her job and still think that. But that’s when it spilled over to all the other blogs in the world.

I thought that was unnecessary and sad, and it prompted my post. And structurally speaking there are a lot of similarities here to the sammich fooforaw, though that was over something far more trivial. I felt something you said was problematic and said so, not particularly constructively. You, it seems to me, reacted out of feeling attacked, for which (again) I apologize. You’re a smart person and I know you can take criticism if it’s offered in a humane way: I see you do it all the time. But then we were off to the sammich races, people getting angry at defensiveness and other people getting defensive at anger.

So I don’t see a contradiction between my take on the sammich and my take on this latest Unpleasantness. They seem to me to stem from the same root.

This is way too fucking long. Sorry. I said I was tired. Too tired to write concisely. But thanks for being human about this. Like I said, it means a lot.

Hey, Chris. Thanks much for your reply. I’ve been on the phone from my last comment to just as you posted yours, so I’ll have to get my mindset back and digest your reply before I can offer one of my own. Gimme a few hours. Thanks again for replying.

that was a very nice comment, Chris. I apologize for my snarky comment at the top of the thread.

1) I don’t know piny all that well, but prefer to presume the best of people. I do know ilyka better, and I strongly encourage you to reconsider your characterization of her as not being an honest opponent.

*spit-take!*

I love the comments on this at feministe.
One guy quoted me a couple times from Aunt B’s as demonstrations of misogyny in the debate.
The shorter quote, “You do realize if I’d used the word hysterical it’d be seen as nearly calling someone a bitch? Or don’t you know the etymology of the word?
Do you say “herstoryâ€? like other uninformed fools?”
I was being a dick, sure, but, ummm, help me out here. Where exactly did I hate on women there?
The other quote was me asking how disagreeing made me a misogynist.
Can’t we all just get along?
*snicker*

I would go ask Ilyka about her sordid history as a cheerleader for Dear Leader’s Great War on Terrah, but after setting numerous brush-fires across the Internets, she appears to gone and closed the comments at her own blog.

Pity.

Of course, you can still leave comments at this post if there’s anything you need to discuss with her.

http://ilykadamen.blogspot.com/2007/06/this-post-is-not-for-vegetarians.html

Maybe Chris Clarke is transferring his (widely felt in the blogosphere) anger about the ineffectual/sellout Beltway Dems and their liberal apologists onto the Brittney incident?

Could it be that the Brittney/Jeebus General thing has absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic Party’s ostracism of their progressive activist base?

Yeah angry mobs can suck, but I don’t see the connection besides that.

I’m way, way out of my depth with this issue, but I want to re-state a platitude that, if observed, can prevent so many of these unpleasantries:

“Know your audience.”

I enjoy impersonating anti-gay preachers in my spare time; however, I (now) realize that this avocation quickly disrupts parties where I’m not very, very well-known by everyone. (‘Cause, you know, I’m gay and also not a anti-gay preacher.)

Of course, I don’t blog my lame act, so it’s much easier to gauge who my audience is. Trust is very important for people who’re routinely victimized in our society… (Which is not to say that lack of humour is equally responsible.)

Best to HTML, Chris, JG, etc.,

….and Pinko as well, if he’s in trouble.

Just my humble thoughts.

TRex- been there, tried that. She deletes yer comments but leaves little jabs at you. Banned me faster than Debbie Schussel, and I wasn’t even being particularly unkind.
Although, in the interests of full disclosure, I had asked her if she’s ever commented anywhere without mentioning her bf over at Aunt B’s. It really does come off like the bigot who keeps mentioning his wife is Jewish.

Btw, my wife is Jewish, in case I haven’t mentioned it.

Love and sammiches. It used to be so simple.

What Mikey said about assholery made sense to me.

I promise, if only for my own well being, to stop talking about her after this, but Ilyka seems to have noticed the love fest going on here. Cheggitout.
She’s going home and taking her toys with her. Cause, y’know, it’s oppressive to express disagreement with someone who makes extremely provocative claims.

Trying to catch up:

I dunno who mikey specifically had in mind, but here’s my take: Chris Clarke is not an asshole. piny is. Ilyka, who admitted to me in private I got a raw deal from piny but couldn’t say it in public lest it damage her OIIDP credentials (and keep her from ripping on Gavin), and who smeared the hell out of JG and Maha, who says “I hate progressive male bloggers”, is.

The whole JG/Brittney thing is a clusterfuck. Neither are or were assholes; no, the assholes came out later (and before: smantix is the asshole of all assholes).

Well, fuck.

I guess I’ll be following ilyka’s lead, then.

HTML, you have my email. I’d be glad to hear from you.

Well, looks like we got Ilyka all summed up because of the ol’ history thing. I know HTML sometimes thinks that people should not get credit for changing their minds, but Ilyka is not a pundit with a megaphone so I think it certainly must be OK for her to change her mind. Andrew Sullivan can rot in hell. Who am I trying to score points with in this comment? Hard to tell. Not so much with TRex.

Ilyka, whatever her history, I think is straight up. You may not agree with her, and she throws bombs, but come on, HT- she was wrong about JG’s motivations for going after Brittney, but she wasn’t that wrong about the language and modus operandi employed in the swarm- there was misogyny there (and mysognynee, and several other spellings). I think those peeps screwed up with their attribution of misogyny as the instigator, it clearly was JG’s feelings about Steve. Seeing how JG is handling it though, he has no desire to even deal with the appearance of any wrongdoing, and if he can’t take a step back and see what’s going on, I feel bad for him. It is the same old thing. Somebody does something to piss someone else off, and up goes the blog post, nobody wants to communicate in an e-mail using normal language, just the coded language of blog rage. It is fucking stupid. JG decided he’d fight for Steve in public, and he kind of screwed up because he didn’t know the whole story (and it appears he didn’t care). One e-mail, even if angry, to Brittney could have cleared everything up. I mean he bothered to express himself in his usual shtick, suggesting he was playing it for dark, dark humor (couldn’t his inner Frenchman made the point instead?).

You also really don’t get Twisty, which is fine, but you just aren’t correct about her, either, IMHO. She’s provocative, and she has railed against the funk-filled bratwurst, but I think you are missing a lot of agitprop there. Let’s not argue about it here, because I think this could be a good thread, ignoring landmines being placed.

Anyway- I appreciate this post.

No, Chris, come back. WTF?

Evidently, the local costume shop was fresh out of anti-cocksucking-identity-uber-alles-purity-troll suits so that trip to the mall will simply have to wait.

HTML-

There are some things I admit in e-mail that I don’t pronounce all over the place because it might just inflame things- and I have gotten shit from lots of people for not posting all the laundry there is on my bloggo. You know why? Some people view every single argument as going to the mattresses- I don’t support those people 100% even if I agree with them on one thing, because if I disagreed with them on another thing that would burn a bridge. Given that there are a lot of people on the internet like this, sometimes you decide to not take a shit where you generally hang out, maybe when the train has gone so far off the tracks it would be useless to say something. So maybe saying something to you in e-mail privately is a way to start to mend a fence, even if it falls short of some golden ideal of proclaiming it to the world. Does any of that make sense? I say we try to drop the High School Theater Club backstabbing shenanigans, and have some conversations.

Shit. I’ll never get to Chris at this rate.

HT- she was wrong about JG’s motivations for going after Brittney, but she wasn’t that wrong about the language and modus operandi employed in the swarm- there was misogyny there (and mysognynee, and several other spellings). I think those peeps screwed up with their attribution of misogyny as the instigator, it clearly was JG’s feelings about Steve.

No. It’s not that simple, PP. Not that simple at all. It’s not merely “a bomb throwing”, it’s a smear — and not just a smear of character assassin proportions against another Leftist, but a consistently lazy one used like a Swiss Army Knife as a multi-tool to attack *everything* she doesn’t like. It’s Stalinist and pathetically Stalinist.

Now Chris said in his post that there’s a difference between telling someone, “hey, that’s racist/sexist/ageist” and saying “you racist!”. Ilyka was doing the latter, like she always does.

Maha *IS NOT A FUCKING RACIST* Period. JG is *NOT A FUCKING MISOGYNIST* period. These accusations to the contrary were not just wrongly placed insults, they were de facto Godwin’s violations when thrown at a Leftist and she fucking knows it; in fact, that’s why she does it. And worse, they are *lazy* Godwin’s violations. Smear artists are bad enough; one-trick smear artists so smug in their OIIDP purity are worse and damn near intolerable.

It wasn’t to build a bridge, PP.

Just to keep going, since I got my soapbox. The internet is a fucked up place. Some of us have a weird collection of friends based on random positive interactions, but this doesn’t mean we have to agree with every little thing out of their mouths, because we aren’t tribal like that, except when we are. Meaning I can’t defend anything anyone has ever said, especially in the middle of a flame war, and it is stupid to even ask me to. I can say if you try to deal with someone as if they are a human being instead of an anonymous asshole, maybe you could get somewhere. Using their own behavior of your own hurt feelings or your rage to excuse your own assholishness doesn’t really fly. Of course it feels awesome to just unload on someone, especially when they have really hurt you or you are feeling really mad, or you are just playing to your crowd. It doesn’t make you a better person. We all do it. The question is whether you want to just fucking burn someone into nothing or if you still consider them a human being. For whatever reason I end up in the middle of these things and I think that lots of people are still human. So I would defend Ilyka to HTML and vice versa, even though I suspect they really hate each other. Such is our daily drama. I’m not talking down to anyone, I’m just saying how it is. I’m sure my back’s been stabbed all over the internet, but I’m not gonna use it to score any points. Who cares. Maybe I am being smug in my own little self-righteous world right now, but I don’t think so.

Ilyka, whatever her history, I think is straight up. You may not agree with her, and she throws bombs, but come on,

Ilyka is a histrionic blowhard with the intellectual depth of a mud-puddle. Her political convictions reliably take a back seat to whatever poisonous resentment or grudge she’s nursing at any given time, and Rich at Acephalous nailed it when he told her:

I don’t know whether you’re actually a conservative and a provocateur, but if you were, I’d expect you to be doing exactly as you have been doing.

The sooner she flames out and takes up basket-weaving or macrame or whatever, the better.

Fuck it. Now I have to chill for a bit. I was calm writing the post and I really want a dialogue with Chris, whom I respect, but gah. I know PP hasn’t tried to piss me off and I respect him, too, but there it is.

Fucking Ilyka was greivously wrong and I’d like some people to admit it. And no, it’s not a single instance like JG or Brittney, it’s a fucking pattern. Grrrr.

Chris was on the wrong side of the sammich debate (such as it was). But that doesn’t make him an asshole.

What makes him an asshole is that he devotes a tremendous proportion of his posts to slagging progressive blogs.

He’s like the Joe Lieberman from the state of Pandagon.

He’s not at all an asset to the ‘progressive blogosphere’ — so who cares if he ‘quits’ it.

And for that matter, except by self-appointment, by what measure was he a member of it in the first place? Because Amanda thought he was cute and gave him a job without regard to the (nonexistent) merits of his writing or ‘ideas’?

Not so much with TRex.

Oh, but Panku Puncture, I heart you!

I’m just crushed.

Pinko- First off, I mean this unsnarkily, but telling me, by extension, as I agree with HTML, that I’m just wrong about Twisty is, at least, unfair.
The simple fact is in some contexts what Twisty has to say is at best anachronistic, at worst actively counterproductive. Anachronistic because it isn’t 30 years ago. Some guys have learned about things such as the male gaze and male privilege and so on, and yet we don’t agree with her. And, PP, you have to admit some take her positions to unfortunate, but I’d argue natural, conclusions and unquestionably engage in misandry.
I’m too hungry to get terribly verbose right now, so I’ll sum it up like this. She has points to make, but vastly overgeneralizes, and promotes antagonism between the genders. Empowerment is not a zero-sum game. Men don’t have to lose for women to gain, and I don’t believe she understands that.
If she recognized her misandrist streak as a problematic internal tension and discouraged blaming men for EVERYTHING I might even be willing to agree with you. But I think you’re giving her both too much and too little credit. Too much in that she’s a bigot and that has to be recognized as having a massively negative impact on her work, too little in that the only way I can see to defend her is to say she doesn’t mean for her words to be interpreted as they are (not just by me but by her even more radical supportive commenters.)
I guess maybe that was verbose, but whatev.

Which means that if I (hypothetically) say something like “Pinko Punko? What you just said is sexist.� that does not necessarily translate to “Hey PP, you’re a misogynistic cobag.� Even when I’m annoyed. It most likely means something friendlier.

This, right here, is probably the most important distinction that’s been made so far. I know I’ve tried to make it a few times myself, although I doubt I’ve ever done so as clearly or succinctly or just so all around swell-ly.

And this, I think is where the contingent that Mencken’s referring to usually goes awry. Because of their investment in identity politics, they move first to an attack on another’s identity, not their behavior – calling someone racist instead of (righteously) bitching about racist behavior.

To my mind, there’s a big difference between telling me “Jillian, that comment you just made is incredibly racist, you stupid asshole” and “Jillian, you are a racist”. If you say the first to me, you’ve given me something to stop and consider – even if I eventually come to disagree with you and choose to stand by my original statement. If you just call me a racist (or imply I’m a racist), then there’s nothing to think about. You’ve labelled me as a person, not my behavior. I can’t really change me as a person – my behavior, however, is always subject to my conscious control (more or less – just keep the chocolate and the curried cauliflower under wraps!)

It’s why I hate the idea of claiming that “all white people are racist” or “all men are sexist” or whatever……it just creates this no-win situation where the possession of a certain melanin level or a penis makes you into something most people think is pretty awful. Saying, however, that all people are part of a racist system and therefore occasionally behave in racist ways takes the onus off the identity and puts it on the behavior – which is where it belongs.

Not to say that there AREN’T racists – I used to live in a town whose mayor was an open member of the KKK, so I know firsthand that there ARE racists – but putting labels like that on everybody is profoundly unhelpful, for a lot of reasons.

But it seems to me that these sorts of kerfluffles always seem to blow up around issues where identity politics have taken over – I see traces of it in the feminist-trans wars, in racial vs. women’s issues fights. It’s yet another reason I’d just as soon either see all sorts of identity politics set aside.

Besides, prejudices only persist at this point because there’s profit to be had in promulgating them, so if y’all would just join up with the socialists and help smash the capitalist apparatus of oppression, we’d be well on our way to doing away with the whole offensive mess of Otherness, anyway! 😉

HT-

I already agree that the characterization of JG’s motivation as misogynist was wrong- she should have said that she felt there was the “appearance of misogyny” for reasons X,Y,Z- she fucked up- she was mad. I think you could make a case for a lot of the stuff said previously about women and subsequently in the Brittney debate as being misogynist in tone, EVEN IF the instigation was JG’s thoughts and feelings about Steve.

That is all- she totally screwed up, but she could have made a plausible argument- or someone could have stepped back and said “why is she saying these things”- perhaps there is a worldwide, history-spanning tradition of treating women like garbage, even if they have done a perceived wrong that has nothing to do with their sex. A lot of the words that came after JG’s from his commenters and what not were just completely were off the rails. This is what I’m saying. And it is not like Aunt B. went apeshit on JG, but I think his response to Tiny Cat Pants was disproportionate. I also think he’s kind of in a bunker mentality about Scott Kauffman, and I can’t understand why? Is the tribalism that big a deal, does he have to go to the mattresses for people that clearly are acting like psychos?

What the hell is going on here?

That’s where I’m coming from.

You can even look at Smantix’ original post as the ultimate troll. Fuck that dude. These assholes are gonna say shitty stuff about us when we are alive and when we are dead. They are racist buffoons. And we got our own problems too. Imagine that.

Regarding the idea that people should not get credit for changing their minds: Perhaps I haven’t been able to scrub off my cradle Catholicism, but I don’t want to give people credit for changing their minds–unless they acknowledge that they were wrong to begin with, and (if they’ve caused any damage) apologize to those whom they wronged.

It’s really nice to say “Wow! This former jackbooter is now a Progressive Feminist Good Gal! One more comrade for The Cause!” It’s really nice to say that, but people who change sides like they change undergarments cannot be trusted when push comes to shove. They frequently revert to their old beliefs; they have little underpinning their new “convictions”. They also have a plainly established track record which isn’t pretty.

Not sorry to see Illyka go. Never did hear that apology.

PP — agitprop is fine, of course, but after a point, the “cantcha take a joke” excuse gets old, whether it’s used by TF or by P.J. O’Rourke. Especially when nearly everyone who like the agitprop takes it *not* as comedy but as serious social criticism.

Now I really have to get away from the damn computer for a while.

HTML: I wasn’t out to identify assholes. I was describing behaviors. I leave it to the individual, with their own point of view, to make that determination. I made mine. One man’s trash, and all that.

Pinko is saying something important here. The people I’ve come to know around this here blog are good, kind, empathetic, caring, loving people who would fucking LOVE to make a difference, somehow, somewhere. And then one post or one comment comes along and we’re at each others throats in a particularly ugly and tribal way. Honestly? I don’t get it. I LIKE pinko, I LIKE HTML, I – well, I’d be happy to engage with Ilyka ’cause we’re not as far apart as she thinks we are. Why is it that it has come to this so often?

Look, I love the snark, and the name calling, the cleverness and the less effective attempts. But where does the anger come from? Why the quickness to the trigger? Clear the chamber, put the pin back in the grenade and have a fucking DIALOG like Vint Serf and Marc Andreesen would have wanted it. Save your anger for the people that want to take your liberty, and for those who would use military force without regard to consequences, the people who run gitmo, those that threaten what you think is important…

mikey

HTML Mencken said,
June 13, 2007 at 3:00

Fucking Ilyka was greivously wrong …

I’ll bet you’re not the first the man to say that.

TRex- I’m just a little bug, but shit dude, I think some might argue your comment maps squarely on the pot/kettle continuum.

Jillian- that is exactly what I was trying to say in how I think if you want to call someone out on racism/sexism should go- thank you for writing that. This is what I would strive to do- love ya, J- you are the best.

H-

When you get mad you just get beyond the point of even trying to reason with assholes, so you unload, and lots of the time it is really hilarious and since I agree with it, totally awesome. That is what certain people that get you going do too. That is what ID does. People see the world through a particular filter and when they see the same thing over and over again, sometimes they just respond in total anger because they are already over the line. I can see that with myself when I do it and I can see that when you do it, and when Ilyka does it. If I want to have any sort of relationship with you or with Ilyka, or with Chris, or anyone on the internet, I need to know what their baggage is before I know how to really deal with them. If I want to deal with them as abstract nothings, then I don’t have to care. If someone is gonna call me out, maybe I can see where they are coming from. I’m not gonna go to the wall for anyone right now. I just see people’s minds being made up and everyone ready to start it all over again and pile on. You can’t put the train back together after a trainwreck, so we can’t defend or make excuses for every little crime that people have committed when seeing red- you just have to get past it or not. And if all these things are death penalty offenses, this is fine, but it doesn’t solve anything. Maybe we should have a chatzors about it.

I don’t know.

And to expand on Doc’s point, perhaps, just maybe, the converts shouldn’t expect to get leadership positions within the first few years. Those of us who recognized the situation for what it was all along have many reasons to question someone who screams “I get it! Now follow me!”, from the stereotypical blind zealotry of the recent convert to the history of questionable judgment. If anything, I’d rather follow the lead of those who demonstrate consistent wisdom in their positions throughout their lives. Figuring out Bush is bad after Katrina is not an achievement.

mikey, I think it starts to become hard to dialog when one’s rightness or wrongness is seen in relation to the relative size of a bit of spongy erectile tissue at the joining of the speaker’s legs. I don’t want it to be that way, and I’m not happy about it being that way, but I also don’t think the situation is overly fixable, either.

H-

I’m gonna go see your Cards on Saturday, maybe I’ll even root for ’em.

I’ll check back in later. I know I must be pissing you off- I don’t mean it.

I promise, if only for my own well being, to stop talking about her after this, but Ilyka seems to have noticed the love fest going on here. Cheggitout.

I read that post as a response to this continuing discussion, but I could very well be wrong.

Some people view every single argument as going to the mattresses- I don’t support those people 100% even if I agree with them on one thing, because if I disagreed with them on another thing that would burn a bridge.

Perhaps I’m being too romantic, loyal, selective in my memory, or just plain ignorant, but I don’t see that happening here at this site. For example, there was plenty of disagreement here over the Giant Sandwich, as there was over TBogg’s use of Trudeau’s joke about Secretary Rice, and I don’t recall witnessing this kind of permanently damaging fallout. I also don’t recall seeing categorical statements about the character or core principles of those they disagree with. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. I hope this thread won’t prove me wrong.

I’m not saying taking it to email is a Bad Thing; I understand where and when it would be a Good Thing. I’m just saying I think a public discussion environment in which people feel comfortable disagreeing publicly is a Very Good Thing.

Chris said it way way way way way better than I did, Pinko. But thanks for the kind words – you have a level of compassion I can only hope to emulate.

Just to make clear for any looking in, and J, who matters more, I didn’t mean that in any toss another scalp on the bbq way. I am not grabbing at my crotch and strutting. You’re right, J, I just meant I suspect she’s aware of this thread, too. N like I said, ’nuff from me on that one. More than enuff.

Just to make clear for any looking in, and J, who matters more, I didn’t mean that in any toss another scalp on the bbq way.

I didn’t take it that way. I just didn’t know if you had seen that thread.

What makes him an asshole is that he devotes a tremendous proportion of his posts to slagging progressive blogs.

Couldn’t disagree with you more, moron.

To begin with, Chris had established a deserved positive reputation in the blogosphere long, long before he joined Pandagon. The man can flat out write. And he generally has interesting things to say. Creek Running North, while hardly an “A-List” blog was on a lot of excellent bloggers’ blog rolls.

Secondly, Chris really doesn’t devote a particular large proportion of his posts to “slagging progressive blogs.” But…

Third, there’s nothing wrong with slagging “progressive” blogs when they deserve it. Most of the time Chris’s targets do. And given Chris’s unusual, and admirable, rhetorical composure, even when his targets don’t deserve it, there’s usually an opportunity for a good conversation.

J_-

S,N is usually waaaaaay better than average- also even when it has gotten crazy, there are always threads here where it actually comes back to “OK, I see your point, goodnight John-boy”- which is awesome. I was talking more in general or maybe when people travel afield.

Jillypants, do you mean EMUlate?

🙂

Just for old times sake Capt. Trollypants says “suck 1t cobags!”

Jillian. Lemme try it this way. My argument against capital punishment is that it’s not about the crime, not about the criminal, it’s about what kind of society we want to have, the kind of people we want to be. My argument here is the same. Regardless of the crap flung in my direction, I want to respond in a measured, thoughtful way, without anger or weapons. It’s about ME, not them. I cannot control their behavior, but I know what an environment I’d thrive in looks like, and I’m not going to contribute to the destruction of that environment if I can possibly avoid it.

Plus, I have the “advantage” of knowing what the opposite of “dialog” looks like. When we’re all ready to start digging holes, filling sandbags and placing guns and claymores, well ok, lets go. In the meantime, I would like to try to live up to my most basic belief systems…

mikey

Okee. Someone, I think Incontinentia Buttocks, posted a link to that sad story back before it became about…
Yeah, the odd thing about this clusterfuck is it has such long legs.

Pinko, where do you come up with such flights of fancy? I gannett begin to imagine which writers you’ve been robin in order to come up with such clever phrases to crow over. Really, quit acting like a boobie and just give it up.

Yes, I did post a link to it.

But the first person to mention it on this blog was actually a troll, who wrote an incredibly cryptic attack on JG in relation to this mess, and then provided a link to a blog that seemed to have had nothing to do with it.

When we’re all ready to start digging holes, filling sandbags and placing guns and claymores, well ok, lets go. In the meantime,

mikey

“Say when.”

[cf. Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in “Tombstone.”]

I’m old, and my bones hurt. Can you start without me?

mikey

Ok, back:

Another irony:

5. JG printed what was one of the stupidest OIIDP posts of all time, by the unapologetic mexican. You know, the one where UM trashed all the progressive blogs for not blogging like he thought they ought — on his pet issue, the racism of anti-immigration, and just like the pattern I described in the post above, his post made all other progressive issues subordinate to his OIIDP (the war, health care, all of it). JG caught hell over that one. You’d think, though, that printing the post would have been a prophylactic measure against those who love to fling the “racist/sexist/anti-fat/etc” smears on fellow lefties. But no, of course not: even 99 and 44/100 percent Ivory blogging is pure enough for such people.

Actually everyone should read that Acephalous thread.

We’ve got X and Y just piling on because they love the pain, and you know they have enemies lists, and we see some really smart people just trying to needle the shit out of each other because they have personal stakes in the matter. There is not a single argument there to convince- that is not the point, the majority of the comments are “gotcha, you fucking asshole” or thinly or thickly veiled versions of the same. Maybe the arguments are proceeding from feelings of loyalty or righteousness, but what is the point of them? Point scoring and take downs. We all do it. It becomes a real drag when we do it amongst ourselves.

Play for blood. Tha’s JUST mah game.

I’m yer Huckleberry…

mikey

IB brings up, through random association, a question that’s been lingering in the back of my mind. There was a trackback to aunt b’s blog stuck randomly in the comments of Gavin’s post about the six meat bullshit, and I’m very curious who put it there. I think this might all add up to six meat’s big move. Not to give them too much credit, but the origin and means of continuation of this are starting to seem a little suspicious.
Or maybe I’m trying to dodge acknowledging my own stupidity inre: this mess. Ah well.

Someone had some in hawk at the pawn shop. I used my eagle-eye to snag it. you should have seen the spoonbill though. They needed a crane for that thing.

I’ll catch you guys on the flip.

there is too much swarming around for anyone to have a real handle on the situation. That said, I think it is pretty much mistake compounded by mistake, snowballing through hurt feelings and anger and the wish of some to advance their agendas into a fiery mess.

I wish those involved could take a step back and see a bigger picture, but that isn’t really human nature.

mikey, I totally agree with you. It’s just that I fear attempts to have real dialog with some folks would work about as well as attempts to get the American government to stop putting explosives in Castro’s cigars. But in that case, I do what I can to just avoid escalating. It’s why I’ve never once attempted to comment at, say, Twisty’s blog, and never would. The dialog won’t work, but I don’t have to make it worse by trying.

I know it may not seem this way from me, but I really, really, really do restrain myself on this topic (what’s wrong with feminism). It’s really personal to me – five or six years in NOW, a women’s studies major, a trained domestic violence crisis intervention counselor……I really do take my feminism seriously. I am MIGHTILY pissed at the invasion of what I see as wacko identity politics into something as damned important as feminism. But my experience tells me that the loudest and most active members of the community are also totally immune to dialog – so I don’t try anymore. I bow out.

I don’t know if that makes me a better person, for not dragging something I love into a Jerry Springer-esque gutter, or a worse person, for cowardly dodging out of a worthy battle I ought to be fighting.

It’s the same with what they call Queer Theory, which is (in my opinion) little more than a bunch of insanely deluded gay people sitting around insisting that they don’t really exist, because nobody’s actually gay unless society makes them that way. I’ve tried dialog there, too – with the same lack of success. And I am no less passionately committed to an end to homophobia than I am to an end to misogyny.

I’d love it if someone had some ideas for getting past this particular impasse. I know I’m fresh out. The only one I’ve had lately – asking everyone I know to promise that when they die, they will kick Michel Foucault in the balls for me – hasn’t really helped much yet.

I was talking more in general or maybe when people travel afield.

I understood that.

The Left—or the Progressive Blogosphere—is crazed with serious epistemological, theoretical, and practical differences. Open and honest discussion about them should make us stronger, I would hope.

To begin with, Chris had established a deserved positive reputation in the blogosphere long, long before he joined Pandagon.

Obviously a matter of opinion. I used to like his writing about the environment — and his Chris Muir parodies were very funny.

But somehow he decided to spend more and more time bonding with Dafydd ab Hugh and launching bizarre attacks on people on his own side like John Aravosis.

Chris: It’s stupid, no one wants to hear how much purer you are than everyone else, no one wants to read essay after mean-spirited, petty essay about how everyone should be nice and sensitive like yourself. If you can’t say anything positive about other progressives, then STFU, find yourself another dog and disappear into the woods somewhere — the progressive blogosphere won’t be any the poorer for it.

mikey

(… sore bones and all.)

what the fuck was that…..?

This contraption somehow removed: You’re a daisy if you do …

before the bones thing …

oh, fuck it.

Count me in with IB — Chris is way, way better than moron describes.

He doesn’t often slag progressive blogs/bloggers. That’s Feministe’s habit.

And another thing, everyone I talk to in private on my side of this, like me, read and enjoy Amanda’s stuff. I’ve never seen Amanda slag another PB. Commenters, yes. Yes, she is a feminist and a strident one. And that’s good. What she’s not concerned with, I think, is purity. Neither is Chris. Constrast with piny, Ilyka, etc and …voila.

PP — you don’t have to root for the Cards, man, but it’s cool of you to offer!

Sooner or later I’ll get to Chris’s reply…

There was a trackback to aunt b’s blog stuck randomly in the comments of Gavin’s post about the six meat bullshit, and I’m very curious who put it there.

This? I thought it was because Aunt B. linked to Gavin M.’s post in her post. Am I missing something?

TRex- I’m just a little bug, but shit dude, I think some might argue your comment maps squarely on the pot/kettle continuum.

Ooooooh. The old ‘I know you are but what am I?’ defense.

I am, like, sooooooo chastened.

But somehow he decided to spend more and more time bonding with Dafydd ab Hugh and launching bizarre attacks on people on his own side like John Aravosis.

I actually agree with taking on Aravosis, and here’s why. Aravosis sees everything within the prism of the gay — is so and so gay friendly? is this policy good for the gays?. Which is fine. But *if* he’s gonna be like that he has to also respect other peoples’ tribalism — and he does NOT. So for Aravosis in re: the Cynthia McKinney thing, Aravosis was effectively saying “OIIDPs for me, but not for thee.” Double standards.

Boy, this is interesting. As a XCVII-level blogger, but sincere political junkie, and frequent visitor to this blog because of its entertaiment value, and to me, basically sane POV, I have to admit I don’t know what OIIDP means. And Wiki didn’t have an entry.

Here’s what I do know. Chris once banned me from Pandagon, and Ilyka was a big part of the moronitude and doctrinaire bullshit that got me so flaming mad I basically dared Chris to ban me, which he did. I deserved it. I was pissed off. No longer rational, and more importantly no longer caring.

And our first run in (me and Chris) was his post and defense about anyone thinking that U of Illinois grads unhappy about the mascot Chief’s political death were moron, racist pigs of irredeemable character.

And the only thing I can write worth a damn, and I say that lightly, is “anger.”

I really, really resented being called out on the misogynist carpet for using the word “shrill,” (not welcome in feminist spheres, evidently) for calling my mother the original MILF, for admitting that, “a long long time ago, in a galaxy far away,” I found Ann Coulter sexually attractive, for admitting to opening doors for women (and now men, since I fear the sexist label) and for being just generally abused personally without performing any personal abuse of my own.

Which I can do quite well, but don’t think is appropriate for people you know jack about as “complete” human beings. I don’t play that, as the Negros say. And I personally say anyone who takes the time to post their thoughts about the direction and tone of their country’s positions pretty much automatically makes them at least a little worthy of respect.

Chris, if you read this, I apologize again for calling you a fascist on my own blog. It was only anger. I am pretty sure that overall I would think you’re a great guy.

I just learned about poor Jesus’ G. I read the original post, and was reminded of a lesson I learned very early in my online experience: Use emoticons. Had Brit used, *sarcasm/irony alert* as a pretext to her link none of it would’ve happened. It is just plain stupid to fail to differentiate the written from the “live” communication, where tone and inflection and body language and context all factor in without much trouble.

But we all are guilty, from time to time, of assuming the world would be a better place if everyone else just saw things as we did, no? I consider that a fundamental human condition. When I use it at work, I’m generally crucified.

My mother was a big part of the feminist movement when I was a youngster in the ’60’s, and she taught me that women were equal, or should be, in the eyes of the law. I kept that. I still don’t see how opening a door for them (nor them for me) qualifies me as a misogynist.

Enough babbling. What it all amounts to is that fanatics of any stripe just scare the shit out of me. People of any value are generally very complicated entities, and trying to pigeon-hole them is for the weak, insecure, and stupid.

I love women, in a very respectful way. That doesn’t mean I don’t want to fuck most of the good looking ones. Sue me.

As J- says above, there are all sorts of disagreements within the progressive blogosphere, and we ought to be able to discuss them openly and honestly and be stronger for it. Indeed, I’d say we have to. Otherwise, we really will become an echo chamber.

The principle “if you can’t say anything positive about other progressives, then STFU” is a great way to end all meaningful discussion among progressive bloggers.

And if attacking John Aravosis is grounds for expulsion from the circle of the elect, I’m not sure who’d remain. At one time or another, Aravosis has really pissed off virtually every major progressive blogger.

Jillian, don’t worry. Nietzsche and his viking horde have been beating the shit out of Foucault since he died. Only Hitler n Heidegger did more to set Nietzsche study back than Foucault did with Madness and Civilization.
And my best suggestion to getting past this would be finding ways to get people to read Said’s Orientalism. The first way to lead people past needing an Other is to get them to recognize that they’re constructing one, and forcing people into that construction.
However, that requires people to learn, which brings us to a different impasse.

Jillian. Dead right, young lady. But it’s not the outcome that counts, its the trying. To give up is to become something, well, something you might find in this very sad, stupid story. But to continue to try, and fail most of the time? Well, I’m gonna take the position it’s better than the alternative…

mikey

No, I was. I forgot she linked to it.
Randall Byrd’s antics have left me a little paranoid, I guess.

That was in response to J.

Shit. I’ll never get to Chris at this rate.

I doubt “getting him back” will be a problem since Chris is a reasonable, rational, decent, thoughtful chap, capable of knowing when he’s an ass and when he isn’t but I’m sort of at a loss as to understand why you didn’t respond to Chris in his blog in the first place instead of in this round-about-invite the opinions of the universe.

It seems in blogland every possible two-way conversation gets turned into a Mad Hatter’s Tea Party attended by a million Toms, Dicks and Doormice all weighing in, not that there’s anything wrong with that but… it’s a little nutz after awhile.

I doubt “getting him back�

I’m not trying to “get him back”; I want to “get back to him”. One is aggressive; the other, not.

Are you saying I shouldn’t have blogged about Chris’s post? Geez, Lesley, I’m not attacking him.

you know what it reminds me of…and I see this a lot on public transit.

two guys who know each other board the bus, train, trolley. they sit a few seats apart and yell over the heads of other passengers to each other (instead of sitting next to each other on a double bus seat like the girls do.)

Wtf?

I know I was asked to stop defending SEK, but I’m confused: which side is TRex on? I can’t keep it straight. Which is the one that tries to get people fired and which is the other one?

Html, I quoted you. copied and pasted your text. I know you didn’t intend or mean “get back at him” by “getting him back.” GEEZ LOUISE!

Holy CRAP! Defense! Defense!

My definition of what/who a good looking woman is should not be pre-supposed. It has changed a lot over the years.

My mother WAS the original MILF, as my adolescent pals made no secret of how hot she was to them. This is mid-70’s, folks, and I considered it an amusing thing even then. And Mom is still a fine looking woman, “age-adjusted at least,” which I quoted her last weekend and to which she laughed appreciatively.

And SHE did teach me to respect women, which I do to this day. Every single one of ’em I’ve ever been crazy about has been in some-to-most ways far superior to my pathetic self, emotinally, intellectually, physically, or spiritually.

Just trying to cut off some flaming. If this was Pandagon, it wouldn’t work. LOL.

We’re all wildly different, and we’re all wildly the same. People need to chill and get over it.

Enough for now. This is a great, great blog, and that’s all that matters to me in the end. So is Pandagon, my first ever link, and so is The General, who by and large does us all a service by pointing out rightie hypocrisy.

Regards.

You’re probably right, mikey – I should be more vocal, and less afraid of sticking with an argument when I care about the outcome. Growing up with a dad in the mob, though, left me with a profound wariness when it comes to escalating things – in my house, “escalation” meant from words to fists to guns. And when I see the same potential for violence – even if only verbal – I tend to shy away from it. Never ever want to have another gun pointed at me ever again, thankyouverymuch.

My favorite thing about you guys is how y’all can challenge me to think about my position in a way that does not make me feel threatened, or fear escalation.

Never ever want to have another gun pointed at me ever again, thankyouverymuch.

Amen to that, sistah!!

mikeyh

And to try and make my reference to the Other relevant to what Jillian was talking about, I mean I think the Other is at the root of tribalism. Without an outside there’s no inside, and one of the striking features, to me, of identity politics is how fundamentally reactionary it is no matter its location on the political spectrum.
Anyway, I’m gonna try and be quiet now and let the better spoken folk eloquize.

I’m a long time commenter here, and I’ve never said it before, but I am Ilyka’s significant other. I can tell you for a fact that she is no double-agent–Christ-I can attest, she tells you what she feels inside. She, like I, used to be Republican (as embarrassing as this is, I was still subscribing to National Review when I first started dating her), but like many people, lost their faith in Republican bullshit.

Can we agree to disagree once in a while? A lot of people (including Ilyka and I) came over because in order to be conservative, you had to hate the poor, the gays, etc. You guys can win an election! Don’t fuck it up! Don’t piss off the middle!

egads, I meant “I doubt getting his attention” will be a problem. Sorry if it came across the wrong way. This really is a mad hatter’s tea party.

Jillian,

Yikes! A perspective to respect!

Being of Italian family, I sort of get it, though admittedly have only seen gun play once, not pointed at me, and more related to the gun pointer’s psych issues than anything else. A tense moment, for sure, and it was only pointed at my father. Luckily diffused without incident.

There are some distant relatives I wonder about from time to time…

Twinkle, twinkle, twinkle, twinkle–

Ilykla’s not gay? Get OUT! *shove*

Just fucking kidding. Get it?

*confession* I’m not a Democrat either. *blush* I think both parties are pathetic money whores, and little else as political entities, though I understand there are great folks in either one. The system is broken.

Oh, btw, could someone please enlighten my ignoramous self what the heck OIIDP stands for?

Mark, lots of “us guys” aren’t the middle at all. But yeah, I have no problem with agreeing to disagree.

Have to say, though, that this highlights what I’ve said before – the tensions in the “progressive” blogosphere come in large part from the fact that we are all not on the same side and do not want to achieve the same goals. Democrats do not want what liberals do not want what progressives do not want what political feminists do not want what leftists do not want.

Sigh……another problem with identity politics is that it makes tactical alliances with people who do not share one’s overall agenda impossible to manage. Thus, the infighting.

Seriously – could someone just summon up the shade of Foucault so we can all kick him in the balls just once?

Mark:

All that’s fine. All I care about is the BS of attacking other PGs as being impure. Fuck that. The “I hate progressive male bloggers” shit just needs to stop. If Ilyka wants to do her IDP thing, that’s her prerogative (it’s good that there are single issue bloggers); she just needs to understand that neither I nor Gavin nor Maha nor JG exist to be smeared as de facto wingnuts just because we don’t share her overinvested and monomanical axe-grinding. Not everything is about feminism or racism or whatever IDP issue.

Over-Invested IDentity Politics, which was I believe just coined by Mencken in this historic post.

Mark S.,

You seem to be saying that politically you’re “in the middle.” If I have read you right, I would suggest you get the hell out of the middle, and quickly. There are some very bad times coming and the only thing you’ll get there is grief … from both sides.

4:31 is in response to John O., BTW.

Not everything is about feminism or racism or whatever IDP issue.

No. It’s all about class. And don’t you forget it.

How sad is it that I can do this whole scene from memory?

(Humor is good for the soul).

No, Trex Mix,

It was the “I know you think Ilyka is but what are you” defense. I’m obviously none of those things.

Capt. Trollypants says “don’t dance with a train.”

PP thinks that would be inflammatory, instead PP says “møøse attack, chundernozzles in the hizzay! BUHSQWACK!!!!” which is just fucking incomprehensible.

Thank you, Jrod. A great acronym, no surprise given all the things I’ve read from HTML, a genius in my mind about many, many things.

Tribalism runs very deep. It needs to be reconsidered, on a meta level.

We’re all in the same boat, like it or not.

Jillian,

Once again, I get it. Most of the most important things going on in today’s political environment are, ultimately, class issues.

And I consider one of the roots of this problem the tax code, all 60,000 pages of it.

A person with a decent H.S. education should be able to figure out Bill Gates’ tax nut. We’re collecting money here, not trying to solve the mysteries of the universe.

Preview’s making this look screwy, so I’m chopping it in two to be safe.

Fucking Ilyka was greivously wrong and I’d like some people to admit it. And no, it’s not a single instance like JG or Brittney, it’s a fucking pattern. Grrrr.

I think she was flat-out wrong, but she was the funniest Althouse on the Althouse thread and that counts for something.

I have been wrong many a time. Not only do I use this stupid pseudonym to (poorly) protect my privacy, but some of the shit I’ve written under my real name is embarrassing and moronic, and I’d hate to be associated with that idiot.

Brittney’s post was bad, really honestly bad (my probably dumb reasons for thinking so over at LGM) but I can very easily see myself doing something equally stupid and offensive and more.

Two:

On that basis I think JG’s initial response was reasonable…subsequent actions not so much. On the other hand, a guy died and when a preacher told all my friends we were going to hell at my father’s funeral you’d better believe I ejected him and would happily have beaten him senseless if allowed – all of which made something of a scene which was not smart to make no matter how obviously offensive I still believe it is. Free pass for reprehensible actions around dead people for a bit in my book, though somehow I believe the Ghost of Adolph Rupp should receive legal attention. There we go, I have no consistent standards.

The contextualizers…all wrong as far as I’m concerned, and if they’re right then cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt it’s a useful word and is a part of my culture, male and female alike. I don’t, however, think they’re idiots and I gave their view a lot of thought when I was too goddamned chicken to write what I thought. Or maybe too smart. We’re all getting dumber the longer this goes on.

When I feel as if I’d make better or more courageous or more honest or more coherent arguments than all of these folks I’ll happily throw out the babies with the bathwater. Wait, let me rephrase that: if I can’t take the arguments they make, right, wrong or infuriating then I can go fuck myself.

Hmmmph. Is it wrong of me to not want to debate it, other than to say that people on the left should perhaps stop cannibalizing each other and consider going after that smantix douchebag if they need to get their rant on?

That being said, I graduated on Friday, so I more or less got to miss this entire poo-flinging ordeal. Not only that, but while everyone was busy yelling, people were giving me presents and stuff. How sweet is that? I should graduate every time the left blogosphere decides to melt down.

Righteous Bubba- consider me the choir, preach on brotha!

M, then you’d have like fifty Ph.Ds

congrats Marita!

LOL, Righteous. Right on.

she just needs to understand that neither I nor Gavin nor Maha nor JG exist to be smeared as de facto wingnuts just because we don’t share her overinvested and monomanical axe-grinding

No, if you read Ilyka’s blog, she’s just trying to stop us from inflicting our values and comfort-levels on other people. Instead, we must all rigidly conform to HER values and comfort level, which makes infinitely more sense and isn’t hypocritical at all. [/sarcasm]

I appreciate that she has at least stopped voting republican, but she’s brought the whole shrill, controlling, myopic, fanatical, Freeper attitude with her into her new arena and has proceeded to use it to assault the rest of us who were already here. Frankly, I hope she gets so disgusted with our unwillingness to write our blogs from her perspective that she goes back to Goldstein/Esmay land.

Congratulations, Marita! Hope you haven’t been sober too often in the interim – that’s what graduations are for.

Here’s the thing: I don’t think the people fighting are all “on the left”. I think there’s a good chance that they aren’t even all “on the same side”.

It comes from having the political spectrum skewed soooooo badly right in this country….the finer distinctions on the not-left start to get lost. Much as if, say, you were trying to use the balance scale used by Sir Bedivere in Monty Python and the Holy Grail…..things which are actually quite different start to look the same.

Either that, or everything in life is ultimately reducible to a Monty Python sketch. I dunno which.

Thanks, Kathleen!

PP, are you suggesting that a woman can’t get like fifty PhDs? What are you, some kind of misogynist cobag?

And to Bubba I say “Hubba, hubba!”

Oooh, and thanks as well, Jillian! I’ve been relatively sober, but relative to what, precisely, I won’t say.

TRex said,
June 13, 2007 at 4:50

… she’s brought the whole shrill, controlling, myopic, fanatical, Freeper attitude with her into her new arena and has proceeded to use it to assault the rest of us who were already here.

You can clean the Protein Wisdom off the girl, but you’ll never get the Gold-stain out of her.

Oooh, and thanks as well, Jillian! I’ve been relatively sober, but relative to what, precisely, I won’t say.

I’m willing to bet, however, that it’s relative to certain silica gels, however.

“møøse attack, chundernozzles in the hizzay! BUHSQWACK!!!!�

That’s a lovely thought, Mr. Punko, but how many Progressives are actually following through?

There are people I respect all over this question, and I agree with some of it and not with some of it.

The one absolute here, as I see it, is that something everyone agrees is foul is still sitting there on a network site with no asterix on it because it’s symbolic of the power struggle for some lame shit or other.

That this is so was, at every stage, at the complete discretion of the person who made the judgment to post it.

Lots of nasty shit has come down on all sides since, and I don’t endorse any of it.

I think it’s candyass to use it as an excuse for something everyone agrees is foul to still be sitting there without a disclaimer.

Mark S.- and just to say it, considering my overheated rancor in this thread, my dickishly argumentative nature doesn’t translate into ill will. Ilyka is not always open to debating her assertions, and that frustrates an opinionated person like me. I’m sorry to you, and Ilyka, for my hostility and schadenfreude.
And I’m of course glad the middle has recognized Bush for who he is, and thrilled to know that he’s unwittingly created a new openness to left leaning politicians and policies.
But, well, how to say this without sliding back into snark…
I’ve been a lefty my whole life. Ilyka’s been one, what, 25 months? I don’t mean to question her sincerity, but…. she questions mine. There’s complexity and nuance to issues like gender politics that aren’t always immediately apparent, especially when you’re new to a field and freshly passionate about it. Lecturing one and all about what’s right and proper in a field you’ve just entered is, well, pompous.
Which, to reiterate, doesn’t make my own childish response appropriate.

Oops, spent enough time writing that to make it irrelevant.

One thing is certain: Smantix crafted one of the most effective trolls in the history of blogging. He was lucky that it got so big, sure, but he knew exactly which buttons to press.

Another certain thing: Jillian is 100% correct that it’s all about class.

Addendum: The BG/JG/SEK/MISC situation was like school in summertime.

Less certain: We’re not all on the same side. We just share common enemies. You just don’t get capitalists and communists to team up without Nazis to fight.

So can we please remember those fucking Nazis already? They run the damn country, you know.

1st target: Six Meat Buffet…

Nazis….I hate these guys.

I got no idea what y’all are talking about. Not even sure I want to know. There’s times where it’s awful nice to be the Z-list dork who never gets told who’s been fucking who.

Back to this very tasty Shiner Bock and my Anthrax CDs.

Jrod, I’m about to patronize your blog. Well said. Though there’s no link in your smart posts.

I hate Nazis. And those who represent Nazi traits. So there.

I like to try to make the complicated simple, so here’s my shot, since I have to show up at the hell-hole that is my job pretty early in the morning: Snowflakes are a clue. No two of us are alike. Not even identical twins. Deal with it, try to enjoy the similarities and disregard the differences when larger goals are at stake.

Good night, all. ‘Twas a pleasure to participate. Repeating now: GREAT blog, and thank you to the smart and funny hosts.

Please, no more ball kicking! Derrida started stomping on them soon after he arrived and has only recently taken a break. He said something about not being able to deconstruct my balls further. What an asshole!

I actually agree with taking on Aravosis, and here’s why. Aravosis sees everything within the prism of the gay — is so and so gay friendly? is this policy good for the gays?.

I agree that John can tend in this direction though I do n’t think it’s quite as uniform or unidimensional as you’re saying.

On the McKinney matter and the Illiniwek matter I disagreed with Aravosis on substance — but Chris Clarke managed to make himself sound even dumber than John with his sanctimonious, hyperbolic trashing of someone who — unlike Chris Clarke — has managed to stay constantly relevant and effective, if not always right.

reasonable message, wrong messenger.

Wow. Normally I make a policy of not delving too far into the S,N! links, on the grounds that I already know 7,000 ways of being an arsehole in print and besides, it’s bad for my blood pressure. But as a good progressive who got blindsided by this whole issue, I thought I’d better go read some Ilyka Damen.

And now I’m flashing back on the 1974 incident where I was dis-invited from all future meetings of the local lesbian-separatist coalition on the grounds that my “so-called sense of humor” indicated an unwillingness to truly confront the essential mysogyny of Amerikkkan cultural norms and embrace the re-creation of a wymyn-centered alternative. (Also, it was not acceptable to miss the first few hours of every weekday meeting just because they conflicted with my work-study job. And pointing out that (a) if the meetings started at 8pm, nothing was going to be decided before midnight anyway; and (b) that all the most dedicated marxist-separatists in the group had their evenings free because *their* college careers were being entirely parent-sponsored, only confirmed my lamentable unwillingness to go beyond the narrow boundaries of my personal concerns.)

At least those wymyn had the excuse that it was thirty-plus years ago, we were still (re)inventing this whole Feminism concept, and none of us was over the age of 24.

Although I am compelled to point out, not that Ilyka Damen or anyone who agrees with Ilyka Damen is going to give a flying shite, but anybody past puberty who writes I’m fucking merciless when I’m angry… For every time my ability to cut people off at the knees verbally comes in handy, there are nine other times it just makes things worse… needs to be informed: If you have to *tell* people this, it ain’t true. You’re just a pissy little person having a tantrum. While you may be able to hurt people badly, it’s not your mad skillz, it’s your lack of any sense of proportion. And if that’s the *best* you have to bring to the blogging universe, maybe your immanent defection will not be so noticeable — much less so lamented — as you seem to believe.

But then, I’m still burdened by that “so-called sense of humor”, myself.

God this is awesome. I love it.

People who make a career out of snap judgements get all pissy when someone makes a snap judgement about one of their friends. People who make a career out of attacking people who commit some alleged slight get pissy when their friends are attacked for commiting some alleged slight.

Give me a fucking break. Delicious.

One thing I will say about Amanda is that she is self-aware. (Some of the time, when she isn’t being stubborn) Zuzu is not. Ilyka is not a thousand times over. Twisty is not. Chris Clarke is not. These people have no problem doing the exact same things they constantly complain about – all that matters is who the target is. Make sexist comments while complaining about sexism. Campaign for PC-speak under the guise of “common decency” while refusing to show any common decency themselves. Complain about a crusade founded on stupidity when their own crusades are constantly founded on that same shining principle.

They drum up the Outrage of the Day(tm) all the time, then act offended and surprised when their own friend falls victim to the outrage. These people excel at taking things out of context in order to call someone a racist, sexist piece of trash. They are very good at picking a singular sentence out of ten responses and using that to “prove” that the speaker is a terrible person.

Where was Chris Clarke when the torch brigade went after Imus? Or after Joe Scarborough? (The latter of which was another stupid-person comprehension issue) Why wasn’t Chris Clarke arguing that it is possible to speak with a voice other than your own? (wrt Imus) Why wasn’t Chris Clarke arguing that the intended audience was in on the joke? Where are Chris Clarke and Zuzu in comments threads where the regular commenters, or themselves, immediately categorize, label and dismiss someone based on reading comprehension errors or grand stupidity?

But *now* they are upset. Too little too late. You can’t brandish the torch like a maniac then complain when your friend gets a bit crispy.

I feel bad for the woman who resigned, she did nothing wrong other than exist in the same universe as these stupid, self-righteous morons who consider “introspection” the dirtiest word imaginable. God forbid ever looking in a mirror and examining your own behavior, and god forbid ever holding yourself to even half the standard you hold others to.

Make your bed and sleep in it. That’s how it works. Chris Clarke and Zuzu finally knows what it feels like to be on the other side of the torch-bearing mobs. Maybe this will knock some sense into them – probably not though.

I can dish it with the best of them but one thing I don’t do is ask other people to behave far better than I myself do. That is what makes Chris Clarke and Zuzu so useless. They are scolds who exist to complain about behaviors they exhibit in spades. It never seems to even occur to them that the same wrong behavior doesn’t become magically right just because they are the ones engaging in it.

Chris Clarke and Zuzu are upset because the world is full of other Chris Clarkes and Zuzus. Cry me a river. Lead by example instead of bringing up the rear.

When you create an atmosphere that encourages people to jump all over each other with gotchas don’t act so fucking surprised when it comes back around. Jesus fucking Christ, look in a mirror. I got sick of people who could dish it but not take it 20 years ago.

By the way let me make it clear that the woman who resigned did absolutely nothing wrong. It’s too bad that the liberal bloggosphere is full of people who combine instant outrage with abject stupidity.

Isn’t a lot of this a case of “if he’s driving slower than me, he’s an idiot; if he’s driving faster than me, he’s a maniac” syndrome? It’s not surprising that people want to identify with a group of people that thinks like them, but we as Liberals(TM) supposedly subscribe to the belief that we can peacefully coexist with groups of people who don’t think like Us. Extreme is a relative position.

The saddest thing about identity politics is how it ends up embracing what it claims to reject.

Women who argue that being women in a patriarchcal society gives them special insight into the nature of oppression that privileges their discourse over that of mere men sound amazingly like Victorian men who didn’t want women to vote because getting involved with politics would only soil their purer voices. Queer theorists who argue that society determines a person’s sexual orientation would fit right in with those in the ex-gay movement who say that society (or bad mothering) makes people gay. Foucault did as much to harm the gay rights’ movement as groups like NARTH do.

Now, for Chris:

3) The Sammich thing got way hotter than it needed to, for various reasons. (Get it? Hot. Sammich. ha ha ha ha ha.) Some of those reasons were because I got angrier than the situation warranted. It was a trivial thing, and humor that isn’t transgressive generally isn’t funny, so risks will be taken. Also, sometimes I’m just irritable, and react to moderate annoyances as though they’re more important than they are. And my typical reaction in such circumstances is to reach for the snark, which is a really fucking bad habit, and part of the equation in my decision as to the role I’ll play, if any, in the online world. I feel sometimes like I get kudos for being an asshole, and I’d sooner walk away from every last intertube than be an asshole for spare change.

You had me and the you lost me. I can understand how you and zuzu would be put-off or angered by the Sammich. I’m not saying it necessarily followed that you would be or ought to be, but that you could be. Where you lost me in all that is, I think hinted to in the remainder of that paragraph: you tried to codify it into an IDP framework, that it was “anti-fat”, that it was an insult to all fat people, etc.

Which means that if I (hypothetically) say something like “Pinko Punko? What you just said is sexist.� that does not necessarily translate to “Hey PP, you’re a misogynistic cobag.� Even when I’m annoyed. It most likely means something friendlier.

Right. But aside the times where you’re annoyed, strategy ought to come into play. Also, tone (as you said). You know what’s worse than the “you’re a misogynist cobag” thing? The patronizing of the Feministe crew; their “I am educating you if you’d but listen” routine. No one’s gonna persuade me like that. Also, no one is going to persuade me by saying that they *own* opinion on a given subject. Ilyka has said that she gets to define what sexism is; she gets to decide who is objective or trying to be objective. Naturally, giving oneself such an amorphous and protean tool, of course it will be abused… and it is. And since it’s also an inevitably self-aggrandizing tool, it becomes careworn. Behold, a chainsaw! I shall now open canned foods and give manicures with it, as well as cut down trees — plus, it’s fun to use and it makes me look good. Ugh.

This is a problem given that — especially in the case of racism — such a comment is often seen as the ultimate rhetorical weapon, calling someone Hitler. But I’m racist. And sexist. And homophobic. And fat-phobic. And emu-phobic. I don’t think I’m Hitler. I just have certain attitudes and prejudices put in my head at an impressionable age that I’d really like to get rid of.

I agree with this. But not all in-group/out-group biases need to be annihilated. Not all ig/og issues are as important as others. Incidentally, this brings up the one time you really pissed me off: when you said looksism is “cut from the same cloth” as racism. It is not. But I see your logic. Is there a bias based on looks? Yes. But it’s not important to battle. In fact, it’s so silly to battle that even associating it with something as awful as racism is a huge disservice to anti-racists. Bias qua bias is not categorically wrong. Here’s the thing, when the desire to combat ig/og biases gets so meticulously anal-retentive that it is reduced to arguing looksism and fat-acceptance (of the Ampersand variety, let us say) this is what I’m talking about when I say that OIIDPs’s ultimate trajectory leads to atomization. Everybody’s an Other to the Self — and in the end, as the IDP traits pile up which separates you ever more from the whole, that’s where you end up. Alone. The reactionaries aren’t in substance wrong to sneer as they do along the lines of “Yeah, you’ve got your feminist, black, Jewish agenda, but what about that of feminist, black, Jewish, Native American, senior citizens?? What about their needs????” Where does it end? The rainbow coalition becomes a fucking Crayola box of colors and interests utterly without harmony. Or to switch metaphors, for whatever light it catches, it functions as not as a prism but a mirror ball.

6) Some of what you call OIIDP is plain old in-group out-group politics, some of which is inevitable. Sometimes, as in the fundie example you bring up, it’s manipulated for nefarious political ends. But sometimes it’s an honest appraisal of insults and injuries borne by a group of people, those insults and injuries having enough commonalities among them that the recipients find that they are systematic.

Well, yeah. We all agree there is racism, sexism, etc. But we aren’t talking about Freepers here. We’re talking about people who call fellow Progressive bloggers the same things they call Freepers. (PBs who blog on racism, sexism, etc, just not exclusively.) And when those epithets are applied to other PBs, well, what do you have left to call Freepers?

(More in a bit, and I realize that this is very uneven. I’m honestly trying to give you a good argument.)

(Edited post to hopefully improve coherence.)

attacking John Aravosis is grounds for expulsion from the circle of the elect,

That’s not the point — all rational people probably disagree violently with Aravosis a lot of the time.

What’s likeable about him is that — even if it’s mostly because of his gay-issue monomania — he goes after republicans like a pit bull.

Maybe it’s because he’s a disillusioned and bitter ex-republican.

But Ilyka is also a disillusioned, bitter ex-republican and she spends most of her time… attacking progressives, not Democrats.

Whether the nominal complaint is that they’re “not sensitive enough to feminist this or that” or that they’re “soft on islamofascism”, the ilykas, the ann coulters, and the chris clarkes spend most of their time doing the same thing: attacking liberals.

John Aravosis mostly doesn’t.

That, and that alone, settles the question of who I should trust.

Chris: fuck. off.

no one, no one at all on pandagon or any other site stands to benefit from your sanctimonious moral lectures.

you want to “quit”?

GO, AND GOOD RIDDANCE.

Wow, Anne Laurie and Random Observer.

I think I love you both!

This gave me goosebumps:

anybody past puberty who writes I’m fucking merciless when I’m angry… For every time my ability to cut people off at the knees verbally comes in handy, there are nine other times it just makes things worse… needs to be informed: If you have to *tell* people this, it ain’t true. You’re just a pissy little person having a tantrum. While you may be able to hurt people badly, it’s not your mad skillz, it’s your lack of any sense of proportion.

BOO-YAAAAAH!!

typo: attacking progressives, not Democrats.

should have read: “attacking progressives, not Republicans”.

my proofreading suffers because I am consumed with incoherent rage at being lectured — yet again — by the most empty, insincere, hyporcritical phony on the nominal left side of the blogosphere.

please Chris: GO. or at least have the common sense to write about something you understand like nature and shit.

Re: Foucault

I once heard Marvin Harris ran into him at a conference and punched him in the stomach. I’m sure it’s a myth, but I thought it was funny and passed it on.

I loved Marvin Harris.

Just a scorecard to keep up with the ironies:

6. This post should clear it up for us.

Jillian, if I wasn’t on dial-up, I’d have been able to read your comments before I spent mine composing. You’re right, especially about how people who are most eager to talk about escalation!!!1!! seldom have a clue how where that road leads…

And Mikey, some of these people are making me feel very, very old. Fortunately, you and I will get our revenge, because we know from experience that these young people are going to get old themselves, and way too soon, at that. (Of course, they won’t believe us, because they’re sure they’ve been granted an exemption. As if!)

I really don’t have much faith in the insight and wit of a person who only realized a year and half ago that Bush was not the reincarnation of Jesus, Solomon, and Churchill. You know, it’s swell that you finally figured it out, but tell me again why anyone should take you seriously? I’ll give John Cole and a few others a pass on this because, quite frankly, they seem genuinely ashamed. But for someone like Ilyka to claim flawless insight on any issue is plain arrogant and stupid. When you’ve been so thoroughly and completely wrong you owe it to yourself, and anyone in earshot, to step back and think twice, maybe three times before letting loose with the “truth” about how bad a person is for thinking in a way with which you disagree.

John O., thanks for the praise, though as sentences like my previous show it’s probably for the best that I don’t have a blog.

*Ahem* Anyway, that might seem like a lot to ask of anybody, though it’s perhaps more reasonable to ask it of everybody, myself included. Shit, I was completely right about Bush and the Iraq War, but that doesn’t mean I or anyone else right about that can’t be wrong elsewhere. For what it’s worth I always thought Chris and zuzu had a point about the sandwich, but seemed uninterested in making it (zuzu more than Chris, for whatever that’s worth)

TRex. I don’t spend a lot of time over at your house, but lemme tell you the news. Anne Laurie is TEH SHIT! You are reading the work of someone who wields the language like Randy Shughart wielded a suppressed M14. If you wanna hold the line, I’d welcome her into your perimeter…

mikey

I’ve been reading this blog for years now. HTML, I love your writing, but you’re going way overboard here. Saying things like “Not everything is about feminism or racism or whatever IDP issue” just sounds resentful and petty. This mess appears to be about people on many sides being fallible and messing up in very similar ways. I don’t see why you have to discount the impact of sexism and racism to make your point, so hope you will reconsider the line you’re taking.

As punishment for breaking my own “I like hash” verdict, I’ll share the fake internet version of the retardo-hash now.
Anyone who wants has to line up and kick Foucault in the balls first.

I think we could go on forever on who is and is not self-aware. I think we all have blind spots. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Twisty Faster is not one of them. We can’t really go into it as it is a massive sidetrack. I would say that the biggest problem with people’s blind spots is when it gets personal. BIG SHOCKER I KNOW.

Aravosis=huge blind spot, but I’m sure he has a doctor’s note for being a narcissistic self-involved total fucking emu. Kos=pretty big blind spot. Zuzu=I think she has a big blind spot, and I’m not sure she always fights fair. Chris, for all his thoughtfulness, has a little bit of one. He’s defending Ilyka based on his personal experience (hell, I stick up for her because I’ve seen other sides of her, and Twisty and the loathed Zuzu). Just like I’ve seen sides of HTML where he’s not a ruthless lefty pitbull (always from the heart, tho).- how can that translate in an online argument with people that have only seen the worst of her? It can’t, so how can he convince Rich Puchawhatever of that fact. Or that the possibility exists that the main reason he disagrees with Rich’s argument is that he is defending someone that he likes, or maybe Rich just is a huge asshole. It seems so arbitrary, and it clearly doesn’t relate to trying to convince anyone of anything. Sure Rich (in the Acephalous thread) comes off as a sanctimonious prick, but hey, who doesn’t. If you don’t agree with me, I’m sure I sound like one now. The other thing is the “everything and the kitchen sink” style of debate- it’s not debate, it’s scoring points from your homeys watching you flame. BORING. Except I put on a good show for my homeys.

Pinko, unlike so many others you ALWAYS raise the level of discourse to impenetrable levels. And with your understanding of vietnamese and thai cuisine, hell, babe, you oughta have your own blog.

Oh yeah…

mikey

To clarify my above post a bit, in the thread where Zuzu gets angry Piny is playing the role that Zuzu often plays. The shoe is on the other foot. I didn’t mean to imply that Zuzu was upset that the woman was attacked; rather that she is upset because her own behavior came back around. Were it not a personal friend of hers she would be heartily approving of the slagging.

Chris and Zuzu are upset for different reasons ostensibly, but in reality they are all angry over the same thing – other people acting the way they themselves often act. Of course they will bend over backwards to explain away how When Other People Do It It Is So Very Different From When They Do It.

If you play with fire you get burned; but beyond that people like Chris, Zuzu and Ilyka are usually building the fires in the first place.

The patronizing of the Feministe crew; their “I am educating you if you’d but listen� routine. No one’s gonna persuade me like that.

To be fair, that is mostly Zuzu and then Ilyka in comments, I don’t see Jill engage in that very often. That said, I think “I’m right and you’d see that if only you weren’t so terribly stupid” to be very convincing, especially in lieu of any actual cogent argument.

When you look at the kinds of people on (what for lack of a better phrase given your quibble with my use of it I’ll call) “the left� who tend to make complaints about being marginalized, casually (if sometimes unknowingly) insulted, disregarded, and even hated, and cast them as a Venn Diagram over the set of “more or less left people,� and then look at who’s left out, and well it pretty much looks like me. And, if I may presume, like HTML Mencken. (Though I do know Southerners are not precisely the most un-fun-made-of people in the world. It does get complex.)

I really don’t think it does, because everyone can get an IDP if they want. After all, you can get one on the basis of your weight, while I can get one on the basis of my coloring.

Which reminds me, Paul Johnson once confided to *James Baldwin* that he too knew what bigotry was, since he’d been born left-handed and ginger. If you get the stupidity of Johnson’s comment, then you know how IDP can be abused. Everybody wants one! And because the legitimate ones become overinvested in, the fake ones gain traction. And the legit ones get cheapened because of people like piny and Ilyka, who are to feminism what NPod and Peretz are to Jewishness: IDP gangsters.

One could ask “Do the different groups’ complaints have commonalities in the way they’re regarded by the “mainstream�? Do the groups’ complaints remain consistent, despite the individuals in the group not having corresponded?� and like that. If so, it’s likely that the problem isn’t internally generated within the complaining group, but stems from like treatment of all the groups that have been marginalized.

It’s not that bigotry doesn’t exist. It’s that the cause of opposing whatever specific bigotry, real or percieved, is fashioned as the be-all/end-all issue of all time by the opposers. Among them is a bullying demand, a moral blackmail, that says that if you do not invest in that opposition to the extent that they do, that you’re a Bad Person — you know, like a Freeper.

That’s a tiny thing, right? A stupid mistake. Way smaller even than a sammich. But a lifetime of those stupid mistakes directed at you adds up.

Which is why I don’t find the concept of OIIDP helpful. I’d rather gve those folks the benefit of the doubt.

I do understand that. I really do. And I do sympathize. I don’t wan to go into my personal life too much, but I have had a similar experience as you with your wife. I know. But still, Chris. But still. I cannot give the benefit of the doubt to reckless smearers, moral blackmailers, and other thugs. I do not, for instance, agree that everything that concerns progressives ultimately boils down to racism, much less anti-Hispanic racism of the kind that is piled on illegal immigrants. Yes, it is extremely important. But it is not everything, and I’m not a fucking racist or a racist fellow-traveller for saying that. Nor do I agree that everything boils down to blaming the patriarchy. (And no, these are not strawman positions.)

Moreover, not only am I and everyone else on the Left *not* wrong for disagreeing with these few, we’re not “less Left” than those who do. What you term as a quibble is actually very important to me. You know who’s more left than me? Leninists, like, say, Zizek or the blogger lenin. Jillian is probably slightly more Left than me. And how they are more Left than me has to do with traditional ideology, not OIIDP-as-ideology. Otherwise, I think your interpretation of 92 is spot-on. The Dems did fuck the Left. But they did it on class grounds.

Here’s where I think your take on my post goes off the rails. I think Brittney fucked up, perhaps inadvertently. I understand why Steve’s friends were pissed off. But when it was pointed out that there were disturbing aspects to the sexual politics of the response — some people calling JG a misogynist, others responding strictly to specific sexist statements of some people — the reaction got really weird and virulent. You didn’t even have to disagree with JG to think there were sexist aspects to the response.

I don’t know enough about the second wave of the response, but the intial one, on Aunt B’s thread, well, I saw no sexism (which doesn;t mean it wasn;t there — a lot of comments to read on that thread). I did see smears though. I did see accusations that since JG attacked the girl and not the guy, that it case-closed instance of sexism. I did see a bunch of stupid stuff like that. And the Maha = racist thing, which is the stupidest non-wingnut thing I’ve ever encountered. Now I don’t doubt that some of the General’s commenters said sexist things. But fine, attack them. Not JG.

I felt something you said was problematic and said so, not particularly constructively. You, it seems to me, reacted out of feeling attacked, for which (again) I apologize. You’re a smart person and I know you can take criticism if it’s offered in a humane way: I see you do it all the time. But then we were off to the sammich races, people getting angry at defensiveness and other people getting defensive at anger.

I agree and for my part, I’m sorry that I got pissed off at you. Like I said, I think you’re an honest guy and I was genuinely sorry that the Sammich hurt your feelings.

So I don’t see a contradiction between my take on the sammich and my take on this latest Unpleasantness. They seem to me to stem from the same root.

Ok. I can see that, then: it was inspired by the consequences. Fair enough, and I can respect it — also, that seems to be PP’s take. But I do wonder what you think of Shystee’s point?

You know, I can’t tell you how happy I am that this post and comment thread came up. Its been extremely frustrating watching this whole thing blow up. I’ve been commenting on a series of threads (oddly enough, ilyka showed up in almost all of them), and the complete jettison of actual discussion in favor of name calling and holier-than-thou dismissals got incredibly draining.

That said, Mencken, great post. I’ve been thinking about IDP and how it relates to these discussions a lot, and you’ve managed to sum up a fair amount of the criticism I’d level, just worded purdier. I’ll probably be commenting a bit more here rather than at pandagon or feministe… maybe I’ll actually be able to ask a question without being called a misogynist or racist.

Also, this:

It’s the same with what they call Queer Theory, which is (in my opinion) little more than a bunch of insanely deluded gay people sitting around insisting that they don’t really exist, because nobody’s actually gay unless society makes them that way. I’ve tried dialog there, too – with the same lack of success. And I am no less passionately committed to an end to homophobia than I am to an end to misogyny.
made me laugh out loud. Thank you, Jillian. That last bit definitely rings true – my attitude with most comments is “Look, we’re probably on the same side, but can I get some clarification here?” or “Yeah, that seems almost right, but this part seems weak.” This somehow is equivalent to me being a Young Republican.

Bottom line is, everyone’s got their pet interpretive theory. The trouble with interpretive theories is that they’re born in Theory, which is meant for literature, not politics. Can it be useful? Yeah, sure. Trouble is, used in exclusion it’s distorting. When you have a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.

You can clean the Protein Wisdom off the girl, but you’ll never get the Gold-stain out of her.

R.L Page, stick your two inch dick up your ass.

I don’t see Jill engage in that very often.

True. And Lauren, too, for that matter.

“Back to this very tasty Shiner Bock and my Anthrax CDs.”

Among The Living FTW!

A reading recommendation, if I may be so bold.

R.L Page, stick your two inch dick up your ass.

Now see? That’s the kind of constructive contribution that makes the intert00bz the pleasant, peaceful place that it is.

Hey Mark. You wanna try again? Or is that the best you got?

mikey

Thanks J.

Does Anne Laurie have a blog?

Email me, Anne! df530 at bellsouth dot net.

*air kisses*

Capt. Trollypants said R.L. deserved it, but I’m on an Anthrax jag right now

I’M THE MAN!

mikey- sorry I haven’t been around, I miss the peeps over here

“Sure Rich (in the Acephalous thread) comes off as a sanctimonious prick, but hey, who doesn’t. If you don’t agree with me, I’m sure I sound like one now.”

Thanks, dude. You do sound like one.

Ilyka could be the hidden saint of the universe, for all I know. What I wrote about how she was behaving was still accurate. As for as I can tell, she never stops to think whether other people may be hidden saints before she judges their behavior. That means that I don’t particularly worry about it in her case either.

Mark S.,

Don’t you find it interesting that when your baby-love insults, mocks, and name-calls anyone with the temerity to disagree with her Simon(e)-pure views, you’re all like, “You go, girl!” but a joke at baby-love’s expense? well, that’s just ‘over the line,’ isn’t it?

[Shorter version: get your ass back to the Right-Wing, asshole.]

And stop thinking about my dick … you’re creeping me out.

now to catch up:

Marita: Congratulations! Can I call you Dr. Marita, now? Cos it’d be awesome to write, “Dr. Marita makes great fun of shrieking harpy here [permalink]”

TRex: Annie Laurie is awesome.

A.L.: So is Jillian

RE: Aravosis. Yes, he’s also an elitist. But you’re right that he does spend his time attacking Republicans. And not attacking other Progressive Bloggers for not being invested in gay issues as much as he is. So, yeah, he does good work.

I agree with HTML, if that means anything.

I would like a sammich.

Before I go to bed, I just want to say that I think the thing that blew zuzu’s fuses in this was that it was a conflict between a man and a woman where the woman was (from zuzu’s perspective) arguably in the wrong. She watched her fellow-travelers blast away heedlessly, assuming that in any and all confrontations between people of opposite genders, the man MUST BE WRONG!

Because of zuzu’s personal (and clearly painful) connection to the story, she couldn’t go with the prevailing spin at her own blog. And piny (Why do none of them capitalize?) insisted on heedlessly blatting away because she (like ilyka) is a reactionary before she is anything else, apparently even before being a friend or even a decent person.

Maybe this is a case of zuzu getting a taste of the very kind of relentless, doctrinaire pogrom (blogrom?) she has waged against so many of us who failed to exhibit the proper sensitivity to her issues. In this way, I feel like the Single Issue Screamers of the Left are just as borderline psychotic as Bill Donohue and Leslee Unruh. They see the entire world in terms of its potential to upset and infuriate them. Every book, commercial, blog post, magazine ad, and billboard can only be seen through the lens of whether or not it conforms to their concept of how the world should be, and how angry it makes them when it inevitably does not.

What a fucking hellish way to live.

The terrible irony of it all is that I agree with these people on probably 95% of the issues. There is a patriarchy and it is fucking evil. People are disgustingly unaware of how privileged and thoughtless they are. But I’ll never change any of that by screaming at people on my own side that they are impure, unworthy, secretly bigoted, and invalid as writers and thinkers.

I would be fully entitled to play Teh Gay Card, but I don’t, because every time you assault people for not being aware of your feelings, or of secretly hating you because of Your Single Issue, you define yourself as that, and that only. It is an exercise in self-limitation.

I don’t want to be A Gay Blogger. That’s not how I choose to define myself. Sure, I could raise holy hell about how uniformly straight and whitebread the guys I know through blogging are, micro-manage their terminology on gay issues, and be a big pain in the ass. But these people are my friends. So rather than shame them and beat up on them for not anticipating my needs, I just try to be forthright and honest, but I’m not aggressively righteous. I don’t call up Matt Stoller and say he’s secretly homophobic for not writing about more gay issues. That’s not his job, and it’s not my job to beat up on him.

So, yeah.

Gosh, I really poured out my heart, there. I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and this is the kind of thing that would get me crucified if it was on the front page of FDL.

Thanks for this thread, y’all.

Yeah, Rich, see my point?

My point was that it’s pretty arbitrary about how any of our comments want to be understood. If you don’t give two shits at getting to the bottom of what’s going on with Ilyka, then you’ll just continue to make your points for who? OK, some other people. And since Chris doesn’t give to shits to see where you are coming from, you will continue your dance. Part of the whole deal that drives people to insanity is that all we do is talk about OTHER people right in front of their faces, as if they weren’t there, because it is impossible to always go deal with the people were talking about first. Of course I had to bring up Rich Puchalsky as an example for whatever in this thread because we’re already talking about this whole debate here.

And I look like an asshole because I didn’t go to Rich first and say “Rich, I don’t know you from Adam, and I agree with some of your points, but what is it you are trying to accomplish? Are you trying to troll here? Are you trying to antagonize Ilyka further, or are you trying to convince her of something? Or are you just trying to prove to other people right in front of her face that you think she is horrible, or has acted horribly? Did you ever once just say to HER “Ilyka I think you are being unfair for X,Y,X”” Did I ever say “Rich, I think you are being unfair to Ilyka, but I think Chris is being unfair to you”- kind of. I fully admitted that my words have a life of their own once they leave my keyboard, and that they can certainly be interpreted in multiple ways. I think it might have been a little subtle. I took the shot at you in a little performance art, but it was entirely unsuccessful, all you had to do was not take the bait, and I would have gotten a point across. Alas, the points were too juicy, you were like Pac-Man going for the cherry. CHOMP, cherry time.

moron,

there are two points on which I guess we just have to disagree….

1) Your assessment of Chris as someone who spends all his time attacking other progressives. I simply think this is wrong.

2) Your sense that progressive bloggers should be judged largely on the basis of whom they argue with (or against), rather than on the basis of the quality of their arguments, or even on the basis of what they argue for. There are plenty boring, uninteresting, and unproductive ways to argue against Republicans (e.g. “If only the Iraq War were managed more competently!”), and there are plenty of valid, interesting, and helpful ways to argue against fellow progressives. In my book, the ultimate goal here is not to crush the GOP, but to make this country and the world a better place. Crushing the GOP is certainly a necessary part of that, but it’s hardly sufficient.

Whatever it’s responding to, Chris Clarke’s post at the top of the thread uses “marshmallow” as a slur and is thus anti-fat, and, by extension, racist, sexist, homophobic, and, I think, antidisestablishmentarianist. Q.E.D.

YOU try walking around the mall in a marshmallow suit and see how people treat you!

TRex- thanks for that (I’m serious)-

One thing that would be teh awesome is if you didn’t get all crazypants when someone asks you not to throw “cunt” around? Even if they didn’t ask nicely-

(I’m not sure people have to be nice about that)

I meant the heart-pouring out, not the marhmallow suit. I’d spray you with hot cocoa if I saw that.

DIE MARHSMALLOW DIE

I don’t get offended to hear the Jarvis Cocker song “Cunts Are Still Running The World�, but I do get supremely annoyed when our resident troll calls me all the variations on “our esteemed hostess�. I know that the first case means, “upper class assholes are running your life at your expense for their benefit� and the latter means “I believe you are beneath me because you have a cunt�.

Amanda Marcotte
12 June 2007

So,TRex, unless you’re Jarvis Cocker, you’d better watch your step.

I’m sorry… these people are exactly who, again?

Gawd, we’re back to the Great Cunt Flap of 2006.

Obviously, when people at our blog complained about that, I changed it. I changed it about an hour after the post went up. And I apologized. But that was the moment that all the Feministe crowd had been waiting for, and it rapidly devolved into our favorite societal game, “Kill the Fag! (Cos Fags Hate Women!)”. The same game has been played against Aravosis and, on the right, Andrew Sullivan, and it’s (at heart) what’s at the root of Twisty’s hate of the transgendered.

I knew at the time that’s what was going on, and it was nasty. Naaaaaasty. Very personal. Very bitchy. And if you’d been in my shoes, you would have felt the need to raise the middle finger a few times yourself, I’m sure.

Fortunately, I at least had the intestinal fortitude to stand there and take it rather than writing some Goodbye Cruel World post and flouncing away. I also understand that a certain part of the blame for what befell me was my combative writing style, which, if you look, has been toned down a lot in the last six or seven months because I, in fact, learned something from what happened. We’ll see if any of the particulars in this latest fracas are similarly benefited by their experiences.

The end of Chris’ rant is pretty funny. It essentially says that he hasn’t learned anything, everything is everone else’s fault, and that he isn’t changing one iota. The entire thing is just another “I’m a better liberal than you because I’m a bigger hypocritical scold.”

When things go wrong I tend to blame myself. Some people, like Chris, blame anyone and everyone except themselves. In his latest screed he manages to attack those who are both too left and not left enough, while excusing himself from any real wrongdoing. He is like Bush – utterly convinced of his own infallibility despite all evidence to the contrary.

This part is really quite precious:

and progressives have made a commitment to self-criticism, connection of different political issues, and front-building among diverse people and cultures.

Break your arm patting yourself on the back there? Self-criticism and front-building are two things Chris cares nothing for. It’s funny that when he writes “self-criticism” what he actually means is “criticizing other people.” Self-criticism actually involves the self. (Believe it or not) Front building? This is coming from a guy who recently wrote “Helpful hint: STFU” (or something like that) aimed at other progressive men. That’s what I call being a uniter.

See, the only problem Chris has is that he is better than us. He’s old-fashioned, a geezer from a bygone era where progressives were far superior to what they are now. That is as far as his self-criticism goes. His failing is that he is too awesome. That is the entire point of his rant in the end: Chris Clarke is just plain better than everyone else.

Look at how he uses “we” throughout his rant to mean “you people over there.” Hilarious.

People who are completely blind to their own failings, and completely convinced of their own rightness at all times, are very dangerous. That is the lesson of Bush. Whether that person is a liberal or a conservative is trivia.

Nobody could ever claim that Chris, Ilyka and Zuzu are too hard on themselves. I can’t even type that without chuckling.

Shorter RL Page: Misogyny helps prove that the left isn’t misogynist!

I read recently that Great Cunt Flaps can be corrected with plastic surgery.

I love PP and TRex.

Unless of course they’re the Play-doh and Bacon kind, … you’ll have to ask Ace about that.

I love PP and TRex.

You’ve been doing bong-hits again, haven’t you?

Alright, there. I’ve said everything I can think of to say. I should go to bed.

Good night, Sadlys. You’re my home away from home tonight.

Yo, Mencken, can I crash on your couch?

Shorter Auguste: I took it as a guide for my personal life when Soren Kierkegaard wrote: …People do not know what they ought to say, but only that they must say something.

But, Auguste, I will defend to your death your absolute right to say nothing and believe you’ve said something.

T- I know there are all sorts of axes that every has, but sometimes just taking an eensy bit of medicine, even if it is to diffuse a situation, or to get past it for a little bit and examine it in the cold morning light, that can be a HUGE deal- or by not making it FDL against the world (even if the bad guys act like it is that way). Putting a chill on the tribalism. You know what I mean.

And I agree Amanda just stirred the c*nt pot BIG TIME. What can I say, I don’t use the word and I love the Cocker song, and I don’t think people should use it, even though I know exactly what Jarve means.

OH NOES Im in ur worlz not bein consistent kthnx bye.

Hmmm … that really wasn’t quite ‘shorter,’ was it ?

Oh well.

RO: I have seen Chris be extremely self-deprecating about his occasional forays into moral superiority. He really does try to be fair, I think. As IB says, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

And I really wish, R.L. that you would quit bringing Amanda in this. She’s a great blogger, she doesn’t attack her allies, she does her own thing on her own blog like all the rest of us do. I really do appreciate it that you took up for me at Acephalous, but I have nothing against feminists in general or Amanda in particular.

Kumbaya my lord Kumbaya!

rlpagecobagsaywhat

Kumbaya my lord Kumbaya!

I brought Ms. Marcotte’s quote in because it made sense, and because I tend to agree with her point of view far more often than I agree with Mr. Clarke.

If you misunderstand my comments, Mr. Mencken, I will assume it is because you have been preoccupied. You see, “I (too) have nothing against feminists in general or Amanda in particular.”

But I am firmly opposed to self-righteousness and sanctimony.

Night, Trex. And sure, you can crash on the couch.

Gah. Sorry, then, R.L. Been a long day.

No big deal

My problem with the “cunt” flap (and I hate the word “cunt” BTW) is that how outraged people were over “cunt” was directly proportional to how vitriolic, sexist and racist their own language was.

Some people have made “when I do it it’s ok; when you do it it’s awful” and turned it into an art form. You would think that the people writing multiple posts about “common decency” would be the ones who are very respectful – not the worst abusers themselves!

“Cunt?” That’s two of my top five favorite words (others include sesquipedalian and defenestrate).

RO: “By the way let me make it clear that the woman who resigned did absolutely nothing wrong.”

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you’re completely mistaken. Since this post isn’t about her, I’ll drop it.

Yeah, but RO, most of the time it doesn’t start off all crazy, it just goes there BECAUSE NOBODY ON EITHER SIDE DECIDES to take it down a notch.

See I just wrote in almost all caps, and for that I apologize. And with big blogs that have 100s of commenters, any one person can light the dynamite. This is a big problem. It’s like a dorm cafeteria on mashed potatoes day on the last day of finals. HELLO

I have seen Chris be extremely self-deprecating about his occasional forays into moral superiority. He really does try to be fair, I think. As IB says, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

No, we’ll have to fight an extended blog war and call each other names while accusing each other of various things. That is how this works right?

I see Chris throw out some token self-deprecation but never in earnest, I think his linked post is a good example of that. He takes some responsibility – but no, (Sadly) not really. It’s just for show. That said, Chris is fine some of the time. So is Ilyka and so is Zuzu. Unfortunately their better natures are absent much of the time and their audiences prefer them to bring Teh Outrage rather than Teh Thoughtful Musing. Nothing like watching someone work themselves up into a good lather, go apeshit on someone and “tell it like it is.”

One thing I appreciate about Sadly, No is that while there is outrage and mockery there is real thought behind it, and sometimes real action like picking up a fucking phone and gathering actual information rather than arguing out of willfull ignorance.

Two random things:
First off, if you type something then delete it, the preview just says “You say:”, which makes me want to hunt down and kill Lisa Loeb.
Second, why does the rightwing blogosphere always focus on the bad news coming out of leftwing circular firing squads, and never the good; post fight sex and the bonding that comes after. Or the newly painted schools.

And another thing, everyone I talk to in private on my side of this, like me, read and enjoy Amanda’s stuff. I’ve never seen Amanda slag another PB. Commenters, yes. Yes, she is a feminist and a strident one. And that’s good. What she’s not concerned with, I think, is purity. Neither is Chris. Constrast with piny, Ilyka, etc and …voila.

Unlike you, maybe, I think that there is and has always been an extreme danger of The Movement leaving certain of its own marginalized groups behind, and consequently, I believe that it is important and useful to

1. Be very careful about what you say, the humour you use and so on.
2. Be willing to point the Finger of Blame at your comrade when you see him in danger of leaving someone behind.

Consequently, aside from this recent rather bizarre dustup that I still can’t understand, I don’t see why there is such animosity towards the presently accused parties. I feel that there is a “They Doth Protest Too Much” vibe to all of this.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you’re completely mistaken. Since this post isn’t about her, I’ll drop it.

(Punches Auntie Occident in face repeatedly)

Shorter version of all this kerfuffle: yeah, we all say that we believe in the same things, but when it gets down to the so places that really set us off, we devolve into screeching howler monkeys. Some of us are sorry ’bout dat, others prefer to continue to screech until they wind down.

170 posts and repeat mentions of Der Sammich Der Doom! Oh frabjous day! That and the earlier pie mentions have totally blown my low-carb Atkinsesque diet, dammit. Chalk it up to my typical bourgeois overexposed to advertising at a young age suggestibility.

Now can I get a shovel so I can get back to digging the hole in the sand that I’m allegedly s’posed to be sticking my head into because I haven’t gotten screechingly indignant about … uh, what, exactly?

And mikey? Does a suppressor really work on an M-14? Damn .308 round is supersonic anyway, makes that really loud “crack” no matter what kinda doohickey you got weighing down the end of the barrel, neh?

When’s the Sadly, No meet-up again?

‘Cos I think I have a dentist appointment that day.

Just kidding. I actually read this entire thread … and aside from wishing several people would just fuck and get it over with, found it quite enlightening.

It takes some balls to reference Kierkegaard after calling someone a cum-dumpster.

“(Punches Auntie Occident in face repeatedly)”

I see you’ve unleashed your inner, violent, sexist oppressor. Way to win an argument, oinker. =>P

In other news, you’re still wrong.

RO: I have seen Chris be extremely self-deprecating about his occasional forays into moral superiority. He really does try to be fair, I think. As IB says, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

If the humility were in the slightest degree sincere rather than completely feigned, he would show it by not sharing his banal, condescending ‘moral insights’ with the rest of us who, almost without exception, have nothing to learn from him.

Secondly, I’d like to put in a good word, if you can call it that, for Twisty Faster. This is, by the way, as someone who relatively recently had 2.5 entire threads devoted to his dramatic excoriation and execution on that blog, before and after being banned, and whose name is still bandied about there in the same tones as one might say “devil” or “patriarch” there.

She usually acknowledges that she is white, middle-aged, and wealthy. Her sin, perhaps, is completely different from what is described. Her site is like a strange sort of bridge game and is a kind of performance art to prove a set of points. She’s a kind of recursive self-troll, at least to some extent. People who don’t clue into it will read it either in a very hostile manner or adore her in a very strange way.

However, since we’re quoting SAK: Above all do not forget your duty to love yourself.

In the most carnal manner possible, if you see what I mean.

It sure does, Auguste. And I can just imagine the pair on you, pal. A large part of the ‘discussion’ (such as it was) here tonight was about taking the leap from ‘I don’t like what you said and how you said it’ to ‘and therefore you are a misogynist/racist/whatever and must be purged from the body politic.’ And in you come, apparently blissfully unaware of how, in one short comment, you demonstrated the problem.

And I wouldn’t be so sure that Kierkegaard didn’t have occasion to call a few people ‘cum-dumpsters’ in his time.

I think Mandos is getting at some version of what I meant by agitprop. But maybe you have to read Twisty for a year and a half to get it.

DA-

I know you hate the A’s, but I hate the Giants. Let’s compromise and go to an A’s game.

makes me want to hunt down and kill Lisa Loeb

I played a gig with her once. She was really sweet and nice, I mean, like, glowingly sweet and nice. You know how you always kind of wish that when you meet a famous person they’ll be nice to you and make you feel special and interesting? It was like that. I didn’t even like her music, but she was just soooo nice.

Honestly, for a second, I thought she must be someone from the record company because she didn’t have any of that *star* stuff going on. She just walked into the dressing room and stuck out her hand and said, “Hi, I’m Lisa. Ooh, I like your glasses. Has one of you guys got a 9-volt battery or a tuner that works?”

Anyway, random, I know. Time for bed.

Yeah, but RO, most of the time it doesn’t start off all crazy, it just goes there BECAUSE NOBODY ON EITHER SIDE DECIDES to take it down a notch.

The problem is a couple of bad apples who set the tone. Commenters reflect the dispositions of posters. Most of these conflagrations include the usual suspects. Even at sites with multiple posters you’ll see that different posters attract different followings.

I think you could remove 5 to 10 established thought leaders and see a sea-change in attitudes. Being a poster on a major blog confers some responsibility IMO, and some people are simply better suited as commenters than example-setters.

‘I don’t like what you said and how you said it’ to ‘and therefore you are a misogynist/racist/whatever and must be purged from the body politic.’ And in you come, apparently blissfully unaware of how, in one short comment, you demonstrated the problem.

Did I say you should be purged from the body politic? All I said was, you’re using misogyny as a tool to attack a woman. (You’re conflating my complaints about your misogynistic comments with my calling you a misogynist.) That’s one of the main complaints leveled by Ilyka and others against SOME of the anti-Brittney contingent in the first place: They thought nothing of taking a perceived wrong done by a woman and using sexist language and themes as the tools of attack.

So maybe I misspoke: Maybe what I should have said was “Shorter RL Page: You’ll listen to my misogynistic comments and like it!”

RO, sometimes it is more gradual than that, but sometimes it just explodes within minutes. Everyone has serious pent-up anger. I just had to call off a hit on TRex! I mean, you know? We’re buds now, but a minute ago I was all let’s baptise this child CORLEONE STYLE, MOTHERFUCKERS!

I also think that maybe we should think of people who are not really allies as allies owing allegience to one another. I mean, there’s a vibe of “How DARE they point the Finger of Blame at us, when we are their friends against [INSERT BORING RIGHT-WING BUGABOO] here?”

Look, I love the snarky debunking of generic wingnuts as much as the next non-wingnut guy, and I love the S,N! schtick (some of it, at least, and I don’t believe the Sammich affair was blown out of proportion myself). But at some point you kind of have to start thinking of drilling down deeper and asking questions like

1. Where is oppression, anyway? Where does it come from, why, how?

2. How am I different from the wingnuts except in the really obvious ways? I mean, all you need to do to be a non-wingnut is to have minimum sanity. But that, I submit, is not enough to move towards a non-oppressive society.

3. If I’m not willing to acknowledge the importance of the oppressions I perpetuate, what does it mean for me to tell other people to do so?

I’m not satisfied with mere wingnut-debunking. Some people are good at it, fine. I like them for it. I laugh. But I’m getting the feeling here that for some people, that’s a unifying and binding force. And it really isn’t enough.

Erm,

I also think that maybe we should NOT think of people who are not really allies as allies owing allegience to one another.

Correction, thanks. Ugh, scope of negation errors.

I know you hate the A’s, but I hate the Giants. Let’s compromise and go to an A’s game.

Sure … just so long as it’s in San Francisco.

Auguste is doing exactly what not to do – posting useless one-liners that accomplish nothing other than blatant points-scoring.

This is what I mean by thought-leaders, and how some people aren’t cut out for that. Thought-leaders should not be the people dragging the discussion down with lazy knee-jerk posts.

About Twisty:

She usually acknowledges that she is white, middle-aged, and wealthy. Her sin, perhaps, is completely different from what is described

I don’t think the complaint against her is that she is white, middle-aged and wealthy. The complaint is that she is a straw-feminist, to the point where she appears to be a college-aged male pretending to be a feminist for some yuks.

Some of her stuff is tongue-in-cheek but she has fallen into the trap of telling a joke so often that it stops being a joke. And that is doubly true for her audience. The train is off the tracks and out of control, and she makes no attempts to bring it back.

I think I already packed my snow parka away, and my moneybelt, so maybe we can just head over and maybe see the Angels?

You can clean the Protein Wisdom off the girl, but you’ll never get the Gold-stain out of her.

Let me bring this down a notch, and just ask you to look at this again. Is there any level on which that’s not designed to be a big “fuck-you” to anyone who has feminist values? Any level on which it doesn’t resemble the kind of rhetoric Ace of Spades wields every single day?

Maybe you misspoke, Auguste? Maybe?

I would have thought you’d be used to that now. I know I’m beginning to expect it from you.

Listen … and trust me on this … I have no use for someone who wants to monitor my use of language, my thoughts, or my humor (such as it is and sometimes isn’t.)

The joke I made at your darling Ilyka’s expense had nothing to do with gender, genitalia, or sex.

Whether a good joke, a funny joke, or somewhere in-between, I guess you just didn’t get it.

RO, she’s not even close to a straw-feminist, but I know why some people think that. I think that one can look at a lot of radical feminism and learn something- even if it is an intellectual exercise in seeing the world. I’m not a Marxist but it can be a useful way to examine the world, just like radical feminism- it gives you a handy dandy framework within which to slaughter your embedded assumptions. I find it quite eye-opening.

Auguste actuall had a point and it related to a specific comment of R.L. Page’s that was double posted. It was not clear if R.L. meant it ironically

hold on—–I;m dying here———Smokey Dog just dropped a chemical weapon. oh jesus

RO,

You are a generous referee if you think Auguste scored.

I don’t think the complaint against her is that she is white, middle-aged and wealthy. The complaint is that she is a straw-feminist, to the point where she appears to be a college-aged male pretending to be a feminist for some yuks.

See, while she surely has her rhetorical foibles and bad habits (and has occasionally acknowledged such, even quite recently), I can’t help but get the feeling that you believe that you know what a “good feminist” is and what a straw-feminist is. Her position is ultimately utopian, yes, and in her utopia, we wouldn’t be interested or aware what our genitalia might look like, and from that point onwards, we would be oppression-free.

You may have difficulties accepting a utopian argument, but the thought-experiment is valuable, and what she says, even when overtly self-trolling, often touches those raw points in the psyche of the patriarchy-dweller, and that in itself merits discussion and attention. You may see that as straw-feminism, but she’s not there to care for the image of feminism in a patriarchal world. It’s not her job. Might be yours, but not hers.

An entire oeuvre of humor revolves around Protein Wisdom being the jismatic emanations of Jeff Goldstein. Most people would read the “Gold-stain” as the “Gold-wad”- maybe you just meant that there was some taint to her (not TAINT, but stain as in actual stain), but it sure as hell looked like you were saying she was Jeff’s friend-with-privileges, R.L. Maybe you weren’t but it seemed like it could be sexist. I just can’t think about Jeff Goldstein and not think about his junk, and that is quite sad for the state of my mind.

Auguste,

Ace can only dream of twisting a cliche quite so aptly. (Besides, he couldn’t spell all the words.)

The sub-text of the one-liner is political, not sexual. Now, why don’t you look at it again.

HTML;

I don’t have an email address for you. Can you ping me when you get a chance? Thanks.

– Chris

R.L. that is GREAT that it wasn’t sexual, but given how people talk about Goldstein, it seemed very much like it could be. So maybe you just have to say that that wasn’t how you meant it, instead of the old “you are a fucking moron you can’t read gambit”- (which is a classic).

I thought it was sexual when I read it, and it really pissed me off, but I believe you if you say it wasn’t because it can be read both ways.

I’m sorry, but semen-on-women jokes/puns, even when used in irony, is a dangerous, dangerous place to tread. If you are not willing to “police” your humour, to examine its potentially-oppressive content, and to accept criticism for it, I’m not sure how that makes you “self-aware” in any seriously political way.

OK, apparently there was a nonsexual reading of it but I find it really hard to believe that one wouldn’t also have been aware of the sexual reading of it especially given the context of the thread, who is being criticized, and so on.

Actually, I find it borderline disingenuous.

I just can’t think about Jeff Goldstein and not think about his junk, and that is quite sad for the state of my mind.

That’s awful. I hope you get that worked out.

But, how often do we hear that someone is “sucking (someone’s) dick” and we understand that it is not meant literally, but that it indicates a sycophant hard at work?

I don’t recommend anyone reading PW regularly, but if you did, you’d know that not a month goes by without Jeffy pining for his lost Ilyka. No, not as a lost lover, but as a lost ideological mignon.

I would rather hold a steroid-filled syringe in my teeth for Barry Bonds to squat on than watch the A’s play the Angels. Actually that might get him out of his power slump.

I’m not satisfied with mere wingnut-debunking. … ’m getting the feeling here that for some people, that’s a unifying and binding force. And it really isn’t enough.

Thanks, Mandos. I think I’ll go kill myself now.

And that’s what makes a joke interesting/funny … that it can be seen in different ways from different angles. Otherwise, it’s just snark.

And I’m quite sure that everyone here can read; the question is through what ideological filter are we processing what we read.

RL, it’s not that I didn’t get your metaphor. I did, thoroughly. But I didn’t realize that there were still areas of the liberal/left blogosphere in which it wasn’t understood that misogynist texts are off-limits no matter the subtext.

Maybe off-limits is too strong. Offensive and inviting of backlash might be a better way to put it.

Chris —

Check your email.

OK, A’s versus the Yankees? Then we can root for the A’s? Or you can root for snipers.

… as a lost ideological mignon …

Now you’re saying she’s a cut of meat? The Rolls Royce of cuts, but still …

Inre: twisty, my heated outburst earlier aside, I’ve tried to repeatedly read large chunks to find what people whose opinions I respect see, and I just don’t. It’s certainly possible I just haven’t gotten it yet. Insofar as she’s ill and her place is part of her support system I’ve accepted it’s closed system nature against my own tendencies and not tried to stir anything there.
But it’s also possible that she’s, in a certain regard, stuck in a feedback loop trying to make the same points repeatedly, points which were made effectively, for the most part, decades ago. I’m just not sure where there’s anything new or constructive to be taken from her ways, tho imbw.

When you hunt for reasons to be offended you will be, invariably.

Is there any level on which that’s not designed to be a big “fuck-you� to anyone who has feminist values?

Please don’t pretend to speak for all people with feminist values. It sickens.

About Straw-Feminists: a straw-feminist is someone who behaves in the way strawman feminists behave. White lesbian women who can’t appreciate any science fiction other than feminist-utopian SciFi where all males are dead, who consider blowjobs inherently degrading, and who can literally blame the patriarchy for any and every problem in the world today. It is pure charicature.

Hairy lesbos who hate men. That is the strawman, and that is Twisty or pretty damn close to it. She is a conservative wet-dream because people like her allow them to laugh and point instead of seriously addressing issues. As such, her contribution to feminism is overwhelmingly negative.

Andrea Dworkin has been hanging over the heads of feminists for decades. The response to any feminist argument is “all sex is rape LOL get real!!” Not a path one should attempt to mimic.

Thanks, Mandos. I think I’ll go kill myself now.

That would be Sad, No?

Really, though, I just don’t understand what’s so hard about it. When someone—someone you claim to consider an ally—says that “joke X was hurtful to me and a sign that the things and people important to me are being left behind”…

…why not just stop making joke X? Why all these rationalizations and circumlocutions and so on in defence of joke X? Is humour not infinite? Why is it so hard?

Despite my shiny, shiny halo, I’ve been known to make or say things that inadvertently hurt other people when I thought I was being so, so clever. When I got called out from it, I made a mental note and hopefully have been avoiding doing it again—assisted, of course, by the chip installed in said halo.

Urgh. “its closed system nature”
sorry to be so anal but I hate making that mistake.

RL – I will take you at your word that your line about Ilkya was not sexual. For whatever its worth, however, I read it exactly as Auguste did, and thought it was a low and sick comment, unworthy of someone who professes to be interested in a reasonable discussion.

I didn’t realize that there were still areas of the liberal/left blogosphere in which it wasn’t understood that misogynist texts are off-limits no matter the subtext.

Ferchrissake, that’s the damned point. The joke was a shot at one Person, not half the species. I like women; I don’t like Ilyka. How hard is that for you to grasp?

And you were “offended” and you “lashed back” …. Isn’t that enough?

Her position is ultimately utopian,

Just the word I would have used!

Because nothing says ‘utopia’ like a world where half the species denigrated for carrying a ‘funk-filled bratwurst’ between their legs.

I do not like green A’s and spam, PP.

BTW, we never got around to discussing the look on Kirilenko’s face when B-Dogg posterized him in Game 3 …

Hairy lesbos who hate men. That is the strawman, and that is Twisty or pretty damn close to it. She is a conservative wet-dream because people like her allow them to laugh and point instead of seriously addressing issues. As such, her contribution to feminism is overwhelmingly negative.

And you think that they would seriously address her issues otherwise? Why, when it comes to the dreaded so-called Identity Politics issues, is it suddenly just *assumed* that it matters what wingnuts laugh at, that they wouldn’t be able to twist it like they twist everything else if it were put some other way? Just like they do for Iraq, Palestine, supply-side economics, etc, etc…

Andrea Dworkin has been hanging over the heads of feminists for decades. The response to any feminist argument is “all sex is rape LOL get real!!� Not a path one should attempt to mimic.

OMG!!!1!1on1!1! Andrea Dworkin reference! That’s an automatic win on the straw-feminist bingo!

Have you actually read any Andrea Dworkin and thought about it seriously? What she is saying is not stupid and not trivial and not even ultimately that extreme, and that it hangs over people’s heads is due to wingnut misreading and propaganda—even if you disagree with her, and there are ways to disagree with her without giving into lazy misreading.

although you do appear, upon refreshing, to imply that you did intend the sexual subtext after all.

whether it was a specific attack on ilkya and is or is not appropriate to be seen more generally as an attack on feminist values, it was still a low and vile comment.

It’s not her job.

Exactly the problem. For supercilious trust-fund ‘feminists’ like Twisty Faster, nothing is.

Maybe if they had one they’d understand a lot better that the real world has a lot more serious problems than bratwursts, patriarchy-blaming and icky BJ’s.

… unworthy of someone who professes to be interested in a reasonable discussion.

Kathleen, you may have mistaken me for someone else. I would not be so foolish as to think there could be a reasonable discussion on these issues.

Ferchrissake, that’s the damned point. The joke was a shot at one Person, not half the species. I like women; I don’t like Ilyka. How hard is that for you to grasp?

Because you are doing a cosmic sort of Feeding Of The Troll whenever you use sexualized insults? Why is THAT so hard to grasp? Is that a good enough analogy for you?

… When someone—someone you claim to consider an ally—says that “joke X was hurtful to me and a sign that the things and people important to me are being left behindâ€?…

I wasn’t actually talking about that joke … more about your shattering of my belief that thinking up ways to ridicule Michelle Malkin is the most noble of progressive projects.

Is that a good enough analogy for you?

Not really. Would you care to try again. Analogies are not quite as easy they seem, you know.

a different brad-

if you pay attention to our popular culture, you’ll see that the ways in which women are packaged, marginalized and degraded constantly, it is not so much the same point over and over (to me at least).

RO. – blowjobs can be sooper awesomely pleasurable friction and yet still symbolically degrading or actually degrading if you consider a main goal of human society to both control and sexualize women. It’s kind of true. Maybe it is a lot easier for Twisty to see this because she doesn’t have an inborn attraction to dudes and she’s resistant to the societal one foisted upon the rest. Marriage is also a sexist institution. Oh shitz0rs, I guess I’ve fallen down on the issue of BJs and possibly marriage, doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a point. But you can take the most extreme of her points to toss into her face, it doesn’t seem like you really care. I mean it is fine to disagree with radical feminists, that’s pretty easy, what about our horribly sexist society? Twisty’s too revolutionary? The problem with that argument is it sounds like “just play nice and don’t rock the boat, or else you’ll just continue to get fucked over.”

I kind of agree with TF, what’s so revolutionary about treating women like they are full human beings?

Because nothing says ‘utopia’ like a world where half the species denigrated for carrying a ‘funk-filled bratwurst’ between their legs.

This is merely a mirror she is holding up to society. She is saying, rightly or wrongly, that our sexual culture has certain metaphors for “degrading” and “uplifting”, and that she believes that certain sexual acts thus have connotations of dominance and submission.

Dominance by what physical instrument? A piece of meat. In her utopia, we wouldn’t even be aware of the meat, let alone attach dominance hierarchies to it. But apparently we do. So, to her, an appropriate response is to denigrate the hierarchy-defining meat.

And if you don’t like it, Blame the Patriarchy.

There’s lots that people have criticized her for in that particular conflict, if you were actually following it. But most of the serious participants, including the serious critics, actually recognized that “funk-filled bratwurst” was intended as a rhetorical reversal of what she perceives patriarchal symbols to be.

moron,

Twisty talks about what she wants to talk about on her own blog, nor does she tell other people what they should talk about. I myself get pissed when the Canadian Curling Association Blog neglects to talk about Darfur more. Cobags.

But when “funk-filled bratwurst” meets Play-doh and bacon, there is no way I’m volunteering to do the laundry.

Well a funky bratwurst is a lot closer of an analogy than playdoh and bacon, so I’m not sure there is an equivalence. Maybe “hairy abalone” or some such would have worked for Ace, bless his little pointed head.

But when “funk-filled bratwurst� meets Play-doh and bacon

Exactly. Two sides of the same coin.

I would just like to step in for a moment, here, and say that Blow Jobs Are a Good Thing All Around.

If there aren’t going to be any blow jobs, then I don’t want any part of your goddamn revolution.

Why is it so hard?

Because all humor is based on cruelty. Chris as much as admits this in his reply.

Look, if the over-invested had their way, we’d have to ban Voltaire because he made fun of fatties (really, cutting steaks from a fat girl’s rump!) and militaristic homosexuals (because of the Frederick the Great sneers).

And oh, look, there’s the Onion which ran a story about the Surgeon General waring that Americans have gigantic fat asses. And that other thing about Gaywads and Dorkwads signing an historic Wad Accord. Plainly the Onion is fat phobic as well as homophobic and should be banned.

In the end, you get “jokes” like: “my, what a stupid wingnut!”

Amen, TRex. Blow-jobs for everyone. Even Auguste.

I wasn’t actually talking about that joke … more about your shattering of my belief that thinking up ways to ridicule Michelle Malkin is the most noble of progressive projects.

Oh, I misunderstood. Apologies. It appears that some people do think it *is* that important. And in its own way, it can be—some of us, I guess, are good at being Culture Warriors and all that.

Not really. Would you care to try again. Analogies are not quite as easy they seem, you know.

Sure, I’ll try again. When I eat a Donut Company donut in public, I am doing two things:

1. Giving Donut Company my money.
2. Advertising Donut Company to passers-by.

2 is particularly important, and why Donut Company gives you napkins and bags with Donut Company logo. 2 may be a more important component of your individual act then 1, from Donut Company’s perspective.

When I make a remark with possible racist connotations, I am advertising the acceptability of a racist conception of the world to others. I am doing 2 for the Donut Company of racial supremacism. So, if I suffer such possible connotations, I’m going to think hard about using it. Hopefully. When I don’t forget my positronically-enhanced halo (sometimes I leave it at home, by accident).

Same thing with other kinds of oppression-connoting remarks.

Did that work better as an analogy for you? No? Go have a donut and come back.

Oh Auguste, not exactly.

When someone—someone you claim to consider an ally—says that “joke X was hurtful to me and a sign that the things and people important to me are being left behind�…

How come this argument never works in reverse? I don’t like it when feminists like Twisty and Ilyka talk about white men as “shorthand” for the bad guys, but that never stops them. When anyone complains about that they get called stupid and selfish. It certainly doesn’t stop commenters on sites like Feministe and Pandagon calling people “limp-dicked.” If I say “this offends me” the response is always “we don’t care about you are your fee-fees! This isn’t about you!”

Two way streets – are you familiar with them? This is exactly what I mean when I says rules aren’t just for other people.

Pick a position and stick to it. If not offending people is valuable then let’s all play nice – otherwise don’t bother protesting.
—

The “it’s not her job” comment is interesting. Someone who is supposedly a crusader for feminism does not have the job of actually advancing feminism? Curious.

I submit to you that Twisty is not a feminist at all – merely a complainer. There is a difference. Someone truly upset at the state of the world would take action to change it, rather than engage in ego-gratification that actually makes things worse.

This is true of most people who claim that they aren’t interesting in convincing or furthering an agenda – they aren’t interested in those things because they simply don’t really care all that much. The ranting is the important part.

I don’t want to get into a discussion of Dworkin, my point was simply that playing into feminist stereotypes is not a good thing.

Because all humor is based on cruelty. Chris as much as admits this in his reply.

I submit that not all rhetorical cruelty is unwarranted or necessarily even battens off oppressive systems. For instance, I have seen takedowns of Michael Ledeen here that are 90% non-oppressive-battening to me, hilariously funny, probably pretty cruel in their own way. The 10% that is borderline sometimes comes up when his odious daughter is brought into view, but even then…

Mandos,

Maybe you ought to lay off the doughnuts. Too many of those things and you’ll get fat, and then you’ll have a whole ‘nother galaxy of jokes to be offended by.

“Culture Warriors”?

Why are you appropriating a Pat Buchanan term to characterize lefty snark bloggers? Is that meant to be subversive and condescending, or was it an accident?

PP- I do see that happening, absolutely. My whole point is basically that some guys are the sons of the second wave feminists. I take my politics from my mom, who worked for the ERA back before having me and slowing down a bit. I’ve already spent a great deal of time blaming myself for the privileges I’ve had as a rich white male. Which doesn’t make it fine and dandy for me to have had all the advantages I have, but at the same time, I had no more ability to choose my parents than anyone else.
Getting back on point, my problem with blaming is that some of us have gotten the message. It’s well and good to say we all can benefit from reminders, you’re right, but I kinda feel like twisty is some old deadhead remnant selling peyote paste to kids who’ve shroomed once, weakly, in their lives. I realize there’s major limits to that analogy, and i’m not saying twisty should be quiet cause some spoiled rich girls won’t get it.
In my opinion, which I would not want forced on her, if twisty wants to avoid coming across as a misandrist she should make sure to plant the tongue very firmly and obviously in cheek every once in a while.
In any case, I hope we can agree to disagree and move on to the post sex jokes.

Oh Auguste, not exactly.

Well, in that Twisty anticipated Ace’s power-grubbing/wielding shorthand of genitalia==genitalia-havers. “Her version” is not often aired, while Ace’s is aired all the time – although not in such colorfully ridiculous terms.

Eh, now RO touches on something I’ve noticed.

Now we all know that wingnut “gotchas” on double standards are bullshit because we all know that a black person saying cracker is not the same as a white person saying “nigger” because of history and power issues.

But I do think a Funky-filled bratwurst is about the same as play-doh and bacon. Not that history of male/female relations is equal or anything, but the intent surely is of those particular epithets. And none of these phrases are loaded with history because they are original creations.

I’m, curious, PP: is there anything TF can call a man or a man’s genitals and it be a case of gone-too-far? of obvious fear and loathing? is there *anything* a feminist can say, ever, *to a male or about the male gender* than can qualify that feminist as a sexist pig?

Because it seems to me that your position wrt TF is dangerously close in principle to the one Ilyka uses against Maha: that *it’s impossible* for a black person to ever be racist.

(Okay, I think I cleaned up this comment.)

Isn’t Culture Warrior a registered trademark of Bill O’Reilly, Inc.?

blowjobs can be sooper awesomely pleasurable friction and yet still symbolically degrading or actually degrading if you consider a main goal of human society to both control and sexualize women.

A woman giving a man a blowjob in the privacy of their own bedroom is not a symbol of any kind unless the two people make it one. Nothing is symbolic unless someone ascribes symbolism to it.

Is a tree falling in the forest a symbol of the decay of the natural world? Maybe. Or maybe it’s just a fucking tree falling over because a woodchuck chomped on it. (Do woodchucks even do that?)

You can’t go from the general to the specific. Are blowjobs in our culture often portrayed in a degrading fashion? Sure. Are all blowjobs therefore degrading? No. Absolutely not.

But you can take the most extreme of her points to toss into her face, it doesn’t seem like you really care. I mean it is fine to disagree with radical feminists, that’s pretty easy, what about our horribly sexist society? Twisty’s too revolutionary?

Too revolutionary? What revolution is Twisty drumming up exactly?

My complaint is exactly the opposite. Affecting real change is merely an aside for Twisty. That is her luxury.

Ilyka has a post that already completely dominates the hell out of the argument “I hate it when white men get generalized”

The point is that is allowable shorthand, if you know it is shorthand- if you say “powers that be” there is only a slim difference in saying rich white dudes.

Twisty can do whatever she wants. I am enlightened by the way she thinks, and she’s pretty bright, whatever her flaws.

Twisty realizes that the existence of her dream is impossible, however she continues to share it, thus the “revolutionary” aspect of her writing. So more pragmatic approaches need to be reflected or distilled from such thinking. Big fucking deal. Even if this makes her entire blog an intellectual exercise, why do the thought police need to shut it down? Respectfully, I find the argument from utilitarianism kind of BS in response to whether someone can write what they want on their own blog, or present some defined facet of themselves for public consumption or thought. What are all our stated goals again? What if my goal was to just think about stuff and have conversations with people? At least I succeeded, and thus have fought off the goal police for another day.

Two way streets – are you familiar with them? This is exactly what I mean when I says rules aren’t just for other people.

I’m sorry, but the two-way street isn’t two-way. It’s more of a tilted pinball machine. The point of oppression is that it creates a hierarchy of resource distribution with excrement flowing downwards and cheesecake and lasagna flowing up.

It’s not about “not offending people.” It’s about not advertising for the Oppression Donut Company, that is secretly owned by a horde of emu shareholders, at least two of which may or may not be named “Cush” and “Bheney” or something like that.

I submit to you that Twisty is not a feminist at all – merely a complainer. There is a difference. Someone truly upset at the state of the world would take action to change it, rather than engage in ego-gratification that actually makes things worse.

OK, so I think that part of the reason for my amusing and precipitous bannage there is that I sort of broke the first and second rules of IBTP Fight Club, which happen to be “You do not talk about IBTP Fight Club” and “You do not talk about IBTP Fight Club” respectively. Yes, I do think that there is a part of Twisty’s overall ostensible ideology that is ultimately futile and self-defeating (including the way she uses her own concept of Blame) but it has nothing to do with how ugly she appears to wingnuts or liberal men who haven’t read and thought about any sort of serious radical feminist writing.

Zoinks! How did we wind up back in the place where we’re starting to devolve into a purity-troll-esque argument about whether or not a sentence can be read in a double-entendre way so as to be interpreted as an attack masquerading as a joke?

I can see the faint traces of the old “It’s a joke, get over it,” vs. the “It’s not a joke – can’t you see that you’re (sob) hurting people, good sensitive people with your crude, wingnut-worthy language?”

Sheesh.

And TRex – go to sleep. It’s late. You have conservative cobags to bash in the morning, if the springs on Mencken’s couch don’t kill ya.

Guh, you know I mean one of those “history”s as something different than the other. I shouldn’t blog while sleepy.

RO, that is ANY of our luxuries. If that is a valid criticism, we’re all fucked, dude!

It is a thought experiment. Twisty says let’s look at the world in a particular way and see what we can learn. Does the world make sense with this particular filter on? That is it. It just sounds like you have some acceptable version of “feminist” in your head, I just don’t think it works that way.

If a blow-job is not a symbol, could it be an ‘objective correlative’ ?

(Please disregard the above if you did not major in English literature.)

Why are you appropriating a Pat Buchanan term to characterize lefty snark bloggers? Is that meant to be subversive and condescending, or was it an accident?

I meant it to appropriate a right-wing term in a positive way, the way terminological appropriations happen all the time. It’s possible to do this. I feel qualified to do so, because I too on occasion snark-blog Canadian wingnuts. It is a kind of front-line trench warfare sort of thing. The term is very unintentionally apt.

Holy shit. As a casual reader of a few progressive blogs, this whole controversy is utterly terrifying. Still, here are my (probably severely misinformed, but oh well) thoughts:

a) That Six Meat Buffet asshole is a repellent piece of shit. Fuck him.

b) Brittney Gilbert did not do anything *wrong*. Furthermore, she absolutely completely 100% should have kept her job. However, she should have (firstly) used sarcasm quite a bit more skilfully, or not at all, in the title of her post, and (secondly) considered that covering a topic like Steve Gilliard’s death would mean that her blog would likely be read by a lot of people beyond Nashville, people who wouldn’t know her modus operandi or political views and would hence read the situation as Jesus’ General did.

c) Jesus’ General’s initial reaction to Gilbert’s post is entirely understandable and, not knowing the context, thoroughly correct. But the witchhunt that he stirred up against Gilbert that eventually caused her to lose her job was FUCKING RETARDED and deeply reprehensible.

d) I can’t for the life of me understand how this whole shitstorm turned into a feminist issue. I’ve read the argument that JG is being misogynist because he attacked Gilbert, a woman, for reposting the “obituary” but not Mr. Six Meat Buffet, a man, for writing it in the first place. That doesn’t really make sense. The idea that condemning a news affiliate for reposting something offensive requires that you also condemn the original wingnut poster is kind of like the idea that anyone who criticizes America for torturing people is a hypocrite if they don’t denounce Osama Bin Laden’s human rights violations just as loudly. Wingnuts are wingnuts. They exist to write awful, awful things. If, say, Pam from Atlas Shrugs wrote an eye-poppingly bigoted obituary for Gilliard, and then the male blogger for some local news affiliate in…. wherever Pam lives linked it, I’m sure Jesus’ General’s first instinct would be to go after the man. I know mine would. Still, of course, none of that changes the fact that JG’s actions got an innocent person fired, and hence, intentions aside, he is (at least in this case) an asshole. But not a misogynist asshole.

(Be gentle, I’m kind of new to all this.)

Oh, shit, no one’s saying she can;t write it, PP, it’s that she’s an idiot for writing it like she does.

I submit that not all rhetorical cruelty is unwarranted or necessarily even battens off oppressive systems.

Okay, not defending every funny joke ever told … but do you understand how difficult it is to think up clever, funny shit … the kind of stuff that makes the funny-loving parts of the brain light up all nice and laughy-like?

That’s before you’re contending with a severely impaired imagination brought on by age and multiple hangovers.

And you want to hamstring us with yet another gatekeeper to teh funny, one that double-checks with Twisty and two dozen other ideologues to see if a given joke passes as a non-oppressive system battener?

On the other hand, your current acceptable rate for oppressive system battening content is 10%, which, you know, is higher than the FDA’s for rat parts in funk-filled bratwursts …. so I guess we have that going for us.

Mandos, I think IBTP Fight Club is more subliminal, and I’m not sure that TF 100% agrees with its existence. I’m on the fence, but I saw the BJ sitch as Mandos’ exhibit #1.

I’m, curious, PP: is there anything TF can call a man or a man’s genitals and it be a case of gone-too-far? of obvious fear and loathing? is there *anything* a feminist can say, ever, *to a male or about the male gender* than can qualify that feminist as a sexist pig?

So, if I may answer a question directed at Revolutionary Comrade Punko (and I’d do it anyway…), it is generally believed among most feminists, including Twisty, that advocating generalized violence and death against men is a no-no, EVEN AMONG *MOST* OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT MEN BRING SUCH TO WOMEN.

But it’s much harder in a context where men’s oppression against women is being examined to say that some rhetorical epithet against men is beyond the pale.

The Oppression Donut Company doesn’t try to sell that many man donuts to women.

Guh, well, if you could parse my sleepy code, PP, I’d be interested in an answer.

Can a feminist be sexist? can a minority be racist? Is merely asking these questions sexist or racist of me?

IOW, I’m trying to see if you subscribe to the Ilyka formula. And no, this is not to score points, it’s to see what you believe (because I believe one answer is rational and one is so flamingly irrational that it changes.. well, don’t let me influence your answer. I’ll always love ya even if you’re insane.)

” … rat parts in funk-filled bratwursts … ”

Now what do we do? Read that in a culinary or a sexual context? Or both?

Because it seems to me that your position wrt TF is dangerously close in principle to the one Ilyka uses against Maha: that *it’s impossible* for a black person to ever be racist.

Sadly this is “common knowledge” among certain people. It is a rhetorical trick – racism can only exist there there is power, so black people cannot be racist.

Of course, how this new definition of racism that differs from the common usage came to exist is never explained. Nor is there an explanation for how this applies to individual blacks who do wield power. And of course it is all semantics, what we used to call “racism” before this clever redefinition still can exist in all communties.

It’s an attempt to confuse, obfuscate and grab the moral highground via semantics.

I don’t like to draw straight lines between different word choices- “you can’t say ‘dickhead’ if I can’t say ‘cunt’.” But there is a broader point here – you are either against offending your allies with your word choices or you don’t give a shit – it can’t be both. You have to pick.

Someone who continuously excoriates “white men” or “white male progressives” or some other variation has chosen to not give a shit, and therefore loses all right to complain. It really is that simple.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask people not to use “cunt.” And it is also perfectly reasonable to ask people not to use broad generalizations that impugn a bunch of innocent bystanders. They are not equivalent but the idea is the same – a very simple change in word choice could spare a lot of grief and you either make that change or you STFU when someone refuses to indulge your requests the same way you refused to indulge theirs.

It can be as simple as adding capitalization and a (TM), nice guys vs. Nice Guys(tm). If you can’t be bothered don’t ask others to bother.

I am not advocating siccing the Donut Inspector on you to examine every rhetorical donut you eat. That would be wasteful and impossible. Why do people automatically assume that, when I suggest people take complaints about humour seriously, I am planning to send the Inspector after them?

You would rightly say, “Physician, heal thyself.”

On the other hand, your current acceptable rate for oppressive system battening content is 10%, which, you know, is higher than the FDA’s for rat parts in funk-filled bratwursts …. so I guess we have that going for us.

Heh 🙂

Sadly this is “common knowledgeâ€? among certain people. It is a rhetorical trick – racism can only exist there there is power, so black people cannot be racist.

It’s not a rhetorical trick, it’s an assumption that the reader is educated to know that class-based analysis and language is being used.

Also, and I’m sorry but I gotta say this,
does the bj line mean Twisty and her sig other don’t go down on each other? Or is giving pleasure to someone because you choose to only oppressive when a man is receiving it?

Can a feminist be sexist? can a minority be racist? Is merely asking these questions sexist or racist of me?

I’m conspicuously NOT Pinko, but I hope you’ll let me give you my answers to those questions. Otherwise, well, don’t read. Last question first, no, it’s not.

First two questions second: It depends on what your definition of “is” is. If you define racism and sexism as the shape and form of oppression, then no, they really can’t, not when we’re talking about stuff like funk-filled bratwurst. Slurs, stereotypes, etc. gain their power to harm from the system that backs them. No one has a power to harm me by calling me “cracker”, because “cracker” isn’t emblematic of a huge power structure.

If you simply define racism and sexism as “one ‘side’ belittling another” then sure, anyone can be racist or sexist; the problem is that you’re arguing from two different sets of first principles.

Of course, how this new definition of racism that differs from the common usage came to exist is never explained

But see, that’s the point: it’s not new.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask people not to use “cunt.â€? And it is also perfectly reasonable to ask people not to use broad generalizations that impugn a bunch of innocent bystanders. They are not equivalent but the idea is the same – a very simple change in word choice could spare a lot of grief and you either make that change or you STFU when someone refuses to indulge your requests the same way you refused to indulge theirs.

Sorry, this is still an unexamined belief in the two-way street here.

Part of the radical feminist story is that in patriarchy, one has to be a hermit to be a completely innocent bystander, anyway. This belief is expressed in Wingnuttia as “All sex is rape”, which is not what it means.

Also, and I’m sorry but I gotta say this, does the bj line mean Twisty and her sig other don’t go down on each other? Or is giving pleasure to someone because you choose to only oppressive when a man is receiving it?

Explicitly not. Twisty very strongly believes that homosexual relationships pattern after heterosexual ones in alarming and dangerous ways because that pattern is the only paradigm they’ve got in our culture to follow.

HTML-

I missed that post-

Listen, in our culture, there is just no power to those kinds of insults- in my mind Twisty can say anything about fucking knobs (she already does)- I just don’t read it as all dudes specifically, I view it as referring to a strain of humanity relating to entitled “dudedom” even though ALL dudes are born into said entitlement, it kind of reflects more a Platonic dudedom where the hopes and aspirations of many major strains of society (certainly most traditional religions and marketing) are to make women fuckable and ownable. I just never ever read her as talking about all dudes the way say, a racist talks about black people. It means something else. And in our current society, the crazy flesh snail, or funky bratwurst, or whatever could never really be offensive because it is a symbol of being an entitled dude, not a fucking “pussy” or vagina or whatever. Given that the way women are treated is to force them into a sex-class (we can argue about this later) I think it is quite alright to flip the rhetorical tables on men and talk about them as being actual sex-organs. It is a rhetorical device. I think it is effective. I think in this case, maybe more so that in other cases, it is hard to figure out where Twisty could cross the line (because I think she doesn’t)- I know some of her commenters have, but I know many of them are victims of abuse and have had very, very difficult lives, so I don’t get too mad at it. Does that make sense?

Pinko Punko said,
June 13, 2007 at 3:08

You can even look at Smantix’ original post as the ultimate troll. Fuck that dude. These assholes are gonna say shitty stuff about us when we are alive and when we are dead. They are racist buffoons. And we got our own problems too. Imagine that.

Nice, someone who gets it. Now step up and display your disgust at the real life attacks.

Ilyka has a post that already completely dominates the hell out of the argument “I hate it when white men get generalized�

No, that post was amazingly stupid and condescending. Generalizing white men is not significantly different than generalizing immigrants or the gays. (It is in severity, but it’s the same idea)

The argument boiled down to “we know what we mean and if you complain it’s because you are selfish.” Anyone can of course use that same argument. When someone calls someone a “cunt” I know that they don’t mean it as insult to all women, and anyone who says otherwise is being selfish. Right?

If that wasn’t bad enough, it was clear that some of the people generalizing white men weren’t even using it as shorthand; they literally meant all white men.

Sloppy language leads to sloppy thought, and lazy language to lazy thinking. There is never any reason to talk about the gays, the blacks, the Jews, the femnists or anyone else in those terms unless you really mean all of them.

Just type an extra word or two. Or stop pretending that not offending people is valuable. The problem with “it isn’t about you” is that anyone can say that for anything. Hey Auguste, saying that Ilyka is a whore who gets fucked by some winger – that isn’t about you! Stop making it about you and your fee-fees you self-centered twit! Why do you have to barge in here and stick your nose into our business????

Dumb.

Mandos, how does that find expression in acceptance of a personal share of responsibility for the state of the world?
Because that’s a massive part of what I’m not seeing.

I am not advocating siccing the Donut Inspector on you to examine every rhetorical donut you eat.

Neither did I mean to imply that was what you were advocating. I meant “gatekeeper” as a self-editing mechanism, though that wasn’t very clear. I can see how you would be confused, assuming that I referred to a third-party gatekeeper despite my not implicitly referring to one.

I think I scored a quarter of a point against you on that one. Ka-ching!

Hey Auguste, saying that Ilyka is a whore who gets fucked by some winger – that isn’t about you! Stop making it about you and your fee-fees you self-centered twit! Why do you have to barge in here and stick your nose into our business????

I’m trying to find an explanation for this passage that doesn’t ignore the fact that a) this isn’t a private blog; b) I haven’t mentioned my fee-fees once, and c) seriously, fuck you, shithead.

Guh. Um, doesn’t intent have anything to do with, well, anything? In both cases, play dohy and funk-filled, the intent is to denigrate an entire sex. Now things can’t be said without an accounting to societal-structural content, but neither can things be said without an accounting of the speaker’s intent.

OHHH! There’s the explanation. Sorry, RO, I see what you were doing now.

HTML-

I don’t know why I think tbhis, so I really have to examine it, but I think it is possible for a minority to be racist and for women to be sexist, but not necessairly in meaningful ways. Or perhaps if push came to shove, I would expect there to be many more instances of the former than the latter. Women that do not choose to be, say, political lesbians, still interact with men in their daily life and they may certianly be heterosexual, and it is hard to imagine a society so segregated between men and women that we could have any meaningful female sexism. For whatever reason I can more easily imagine racism in any group- I mean nationalism and Fascism go hand in hand, and if you follow down that road you will always get to racism, no matter the nationality.

PP-
If someone said “Platonic blackness” or “Platonic femininity”, would you find that acceptable language?
RO makes an important point.

Mandos, how does that find expression in acceptance of a personal share of responsibility for the state of the world?
Because that’s a massive part of what I’m not seeing.

She doesn’t talk about her sex life, so I’m not going to speculate on it.

As I said above, she’s well aware that she’s a seriously upper-class white person living it up in Austin (aside from the recent bout with cancer and all that pain that’s caused).

But yeah, people do accuse her—even in her style and form of self-trolling—of being as much a handmaiden of the Patriarchy as anyone else. And her answer seems to be “Yup, that’s me!” That’s the problem some people (including me) have with the whole Blame metaphor—she does start, in a way, from futility, and she does sometimes abuse her own rhetorical power (she acknowledges this).

But whether that excuses it is another matter.

I blame the cocktail-party effect. My name! That’s my name, and it’s a bunch of shit-talking! With no signifier whatsoever! I see the signifier now, and while I still don’t agree that the analogy is apt – racism and misogyny are Village problems (ick), not personal problems – I’m a tool for not catching your point.

Incontinentia Buttocks said,
June 13, 2007 at 3:37

But the first person to mention it on this blog was actually a troll, who wrote an incredibly cryptic attack on JG in relation to this mess, and then provided a link to a blog that seemed to have had nothing to do with it.

My name is Randall. You can desire me if you want, but i won’t fuck you, fatass.
Thanks for enjoying a long boring meta comment thing all about other non issues, notice none of you has come out and said, “Going real life is wrong”.
Pussies.

RO, I just don’t buy what you are saying. If I know what someone means, and I know they don’t mean me, I can handle it. I don’t flip my lid. Everyone is wired differently. We can go on forever about this, but I just can’t be convinced. You can convince me that anyone could make themselves more clear, but I kind of agree (not with you) that “what about the menz” stuff is silly. However, it can be used as a blanket retort, which is bullshit.

Mandos, I think IBTP Fight Club is more subliminal, and I’m not sure that TF 100% agrees with its existence. I’m on the fence, but I saw the BJ sitch as Mandos’ exhibit #1.

Well, the Fight Club I’m thinking of maybe different from the one you’re thinking of, and in mine, Twisty is its Tyler Durden.

And do you administer the Loyalty Oath after we recite that, Randall?

a different brad-

that point is not valid referring to platonic dudeness- by that I mean “Platonic Patriarchy” I do not hold that talking about all dudes means all dudes (fucking shoot me, I know that sounds ridiculous), it means dudeliness as defined by an unbelievably obvious misogynist culture. Misogynist in even the tiniest facets. Totally misogynist. A Patriarchy that acts on both men AND women, creating a dude class and a vagina class. That is it. “Dude” to TF seems to mean what Patriarchy does to entitle and empower and propagate itself for the benefit of XY individuals. There is nothing here that is equivalent to talking about “Platonic Blackness” or what have you-

So, actually, the issues regarding Twisty’s use of language against classes whose behaviour she considers problematic have, in fact, been covered repeatedly and ferociously on her own blog and on other feminist blogs, including radical ones. It’s not like feminists don’t examine their own issues from time to time—well, they do it way more than liberal snark-bloggers do, in my experience.

Anyone who thinks a minority can’t be racist needs to go to school where I did, where a small black population mercilessly attacked the even smaller Vietnamese population.

It’s laughable. One error here is thinking that because someone is a minority they have no power over anyone at all – that it is a strictly binary proposition. In reality nearly everyone has *someone* underneath them. A minority population can easily have some real power over another smaller minority, and beyond that numbers and minority/majority aren’t the issue at all. Women aren’t a minority.

A “power structure” can be as simple as you and your three friends who like to beat people up because they have slanty eyes.

By the way let me make it clear that I really don’t give a shit when Twisty and Ilyka talk about white guys, other than that it makes their own complaints about word choice rather intolerable. Again – if you aren’t willing to make a very simple change in word choice to not offend people then please just STFU and don’t ask others to do what you weren’t willing to do yourself.

Whether or not they are exactly equivalent phrases is irrelevant, the point is if you aren’t willing to follow the spirit of your own requests your requests are worthless.

mikey said,
June 13, 2007 at 3:15

mikey

Its not about politics, its about online communication.
JG and his drones went real life on people over nothing.
That shit needs to be scorned no matter what political persuasion.
Otherwise we surrender the medium to the anonymous mobs.

Mandos,

I can’t talk about whether i’ve seen Fight Club or not, but I think you can assume not if we were to hypothetically not talk about it.

So, actually, the issues regarding Twisty’s use of language against classes whose behaviour she considers problematic have, in fact, been covered repeatedly and ferociously on her own blog and on other feminist blogs, including radical ones.

Yes, and the conclusion, surprisingly, is always that such shorthand is perfectly acceptable. Amazing how that works out. Who would have thunk that people can justify their own bad behaviors?

I don’t think Twisty and Ilyka are the same person. And I think I made it clear that racism and sexism are different in my comment directly after the one you just responded to, RO.

I think sexism is a completely different egg than racism and should be treated separately, even if there are certain similarities.

a different brad said,
June 13, 2007 at 4:03

No, I was. I forgot she linked to it.
Randall Byrd’s antics have left me a little paranoid, I guess.

Oh please. Grow a sack already. Maybe go watch ‘flamewars’ on Livejournal.

but I think it is possible for a minority to be racist and for women to be sexist, but not necessairly in meaningful ways.

Indulge me. Now the various IDP movements are or were about making a more equitable society, yes? And shouldn’t those movements, then, be developing norms for when that equitable society comes? Then why do some of them in the extremes like TF cultivate a hatred that, when they do get more power, would turn into exactly what they purport to battle against now?

You know why so many on the Left get worked up over Israel, PP? Now wingnut OIIDPers say leftwing anti-semitism, but that’s not right. I’ll say what it is. It’s the fucking huge sadness that comes in watching the victim of the world’s most extreme historic brutalities turn right around and become a bully. And I can see the same process in utero among other groups. TF brand feminism, seething with hatred and resentment, is exactly that sort of thing in the brewpot. It would not stop and set an example, it would not remember to not repeat to another what was done to it. No, it would turn into exactly what it hated. It would become a new boss the same as the old boss. Well, fuck that.

TF + likeminded + power = misogyny as it exists now in “the system”

“Grow a sack already.”

That phrase alone should be good for a few dozen comments.

It’s not like feminists don’t examine their own issues from time to time—well, they do it way more than liberal snark-bloggers do, in my experience.

Well, examining our own issues seems to be selling quite a bit of popcorn, so maybe we should follow the feminists’ lead.

Of course, saying we liberal-snarkers don’t do much own-issue examining 300+ comments into a colossal wankfest of own-issue examining … is, well, a trifle ungracious for a guest, I would say.

R.L.Page said,
June 13, 2007 at 10:02

And do you administer the Loyalty Oath after we recite that, Randall?

Whatever floats your boat, dumbass.

RO, I just don’t buy what you are saying. If I know what someone means, and I know they don’t mean me, I can handle it.

So what do you say to the people who call people cunts, but they know what it means, and the audience knows what it means, and it doesn’t mean anything insulting to women in general? You clam up right?

What it means, or what you think it means, or what the person who said it means, does not matter. The point here is that if you are going to advocate not insulting people, and someone is insulted by a word choice you could *easily* change, you should either choose better words or stop pretending that not offending people matters to you. I don’t care which.

What annoys me is that the language police are most often the people who abuse language themselves constantly.

So, hmmm, well … since the English word ‘testicles’ derives from the Latin for “little witnesses” (i.e., therefore, etc. the testicles ‘testify’ (if you will) to the man’s virility) is it wrong to say to a woman: “Grow a sack already.”? Because, would you not then be saying that unless the woman becomes “like a man” (cf. the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas) she can not be courageous or strong ?

Then again, maybe it’s just a crude idiom in the American language.

“But it sure as hell looked like you were saying she was Jeff’s friend-with-privileges,”

Really? Maybe I’m dense, but I certainly didn’t take it as anything but metaphor. The “Gold-stain” was ideological, and nothing else. But then again, I’m not all smarty gender studies type person.

Randall, that’s Mr. Dumbass to you, fuckwit.

Trolly, being summoned at mention of six meat’s malignant teen of the year only makes you even more obvious.
Mandos… It’s getting too late for me to be coherent. You and PP seem to feel Twisty is artfully dancing on a thin line. You both know her work better than I do, but I disagree, and think she’s artfully crossing that line in ways that are not so much endorsement as too clearly leaving the space for the hate to pour in.

To clarify, the following:

A: “I find ‘cunt’ very offensive, and offending people is wrong!
B: “OK, I’ll stop using it.”

—

B: “I find ‘white dudes’ very offensive”
A: ???

It really isn’t that hard. Again, I’m not trying to draw an exact parallel between ‘cunt’ and ‘white dudes’, I realize they are very different. But if you want people to honor the spirit of not being needlessly offensive just do the same yourself. That’s all I ask.

Anyone who thinks a minority can’t be racist needs to go to school where I did, where a small black population mercilessly attacked the even smaller Vietnamese population.

Well, that’s Ilyka. I’ve seen the same thing. One time in a book/record/movie store I was doodling around on my own and my then gf, a Chinese, was doodling around on her own. So she comes up to me all flustered and says, “I can’t believe this shit!” “What?” says HTML. “This black guy came up to me while ago and started going all ‘ching chang chong kung-fu’!! A black guy. In the South! I mean, doesn’t he know what racist shit feels like? What an idiot! I told him to fuck off.”

So yeah. But that didn’t have to happen in my life to know that Ilyka was full of fucking shit in what she said.

HTML,

The arguments over TF-brand feminism have been hashed out extensively on feminist blogs, and it happens that I think that even her harshest feminist critics (and she has some!) would probably disagree with you. Yes, some people dislike her for her particular brand of aggression. But there’s no analogy to the behaviour of certain Jewish folk who decided to be aggressive colonialist settlers in the territories, or whoever.

There is a very fringey brand of feminism to which a small number of vociferous people on her blog hew. That fringe does seem to believe that male genitalia, due to its pointiness or something, has a tendency to make its owners seek dominion over All Creation or something like that. Twisty believes that we have imbued male genitalia with all kinds of social power, and that mockery of it is thus a legitimate tool to “deflate” its power. But there’s no desire there for a reversal of fortunes, or anything.

People have argued that her somewhat self-trolly rape-law-change series of threads (where my bannage started) was a kind of a reversal. But despite its flaws, she ultimately only proposes it in a world where males are believed first, and given perhapsh unwarranted benefit of the doubt.

HTML-

I think there is a distinction between the actual TF brand and the brand that you think it is- seriously. I agree with you 100% about Israel. It is too late tonight for me to explain, but I there are definitely commenters at TFs that fit your bill o’ goods, but I don’t think TF does. TF’s deal is that equality is most likely absolutely impossible in our current society, and the equality she considers on her blog is a radical, utopian vision- that’s what she talks about- or that is where she thinks about her in her rhetorical exercises. I honestly believe that no oppression would really mean no oppression. Her ideal world is so different from our actual world that you can’t think of just snapping your fingers and having men and women be equal and then seeing how things shake out- if you think about it in our current framework (think say, the show “Oz”) for how groups interact, of course you would get the same exact system for whatever group is in power. It is much easier to see race versus race because groups can function as whole societies based on shared histories. Men and women don’t function like that, even though there is extensive segregation of the sexes in certain areas. I’m not really worried about out totalitarian feminist overlords. A lot of the rage and hate exists there for a reason- a really terrible thing called Patriarchy. Does this make sense?

Maybe I’m being massively inconsistent, but that is kind of my deal.

PP- About Platonic dudeness, I still disagree, because you’re allowing the Form to be defined by the worst examples of it, who have been the loudest and most numerous. Most people are mediocre, male or female, that says nothing about gender.
How is this different from a homophobe saying there’s a Platonic gayness that doesn’t refer to all homosexuals but just the flaming queens?

DA, a 300 post thread after one blowup is nothing. Think, oh, a 300 post thread every 3 days on it or something 🙂

Mandos… It’s getting too late for me to be coherent. You and PP seem to feel Twisty is artfully dancing on a thin line. You both know her work better than I do, but I disagree, and think she’s artfully crossing that line in ways that are not so much endorsement as too clearly leaving the space for the hate to pour in.

No, your criticism has been raised many times by other feminists themselves. It’s a plausible and probably valid critique of her work but not the one that people were raising around here. The problem is that sometimes she nonchalantly lets the anger from some of her posse fall on the heads of other women…

PP- About Platonic dudeness, I still disagree, because you’re allowing the Form to be defined by the worst examples of it, who have been the loudest and most numerous. Most people are mediocre, male or female, that says nothing about gender.

What she and others believe that they identify is a continuum of patriarchal behaviour that sets women behind en masse. (And that the worst examples are also fairly widespread, but that’s another story.)

RO,

There is a specific entitlement in our society granted to white males. It is OK to talk about that. In a way, several 100 blog posts at IBTP kind of define the terms, so they are what they are.

Anyway, I’m just not into your arguments. I’ll think about it though. Have a good night.

H- maybe I don’t agree with what Ilyka said, maybe I can’t get behind that, but it take all kinds, yo? We make all sorts of compromises every day, and I’m certainly not gonna start crossing people off my list for stuff they say in the middle of completely irrational flamewars. I’ll just continue to try to have obnoxious love-ins with everyone, but don’t worry, you know I rock the HATE on the inside.

Good night, everyone.

Okay, I’m dead. Will continue tomoz.

adb-

last thing- “dude” doesn’t mean XY human in this discussion, it means “operating patriarchical chundernozzle”- or “scion and instrument of patriarchical power”- not Platonic Manliness.

night

“Here’s a for instance. Amanda acknowledges that Twisty goes way too far. ”

I can’t read this whole thing, I’ve kids to deal with in the morning, but if you think Amanda ISN’T Twisty, or a Twisty Acolyte, take a look at her column at offspring, called, unsprung, where Amanda takes on (i.e. steals) Twisty’s Spinster schtick.

And Amanda is right there with Twisty hating on the kinds of sex that married people engage in, especially blowjobs, while Amanda claims that the same acts between unmarried straights, or lesbians, or gays, or the transgendered is some how morally better.

Are you sure she meant “morally better” ? Or just better executed ?

Note to Pinko, et. al.,

I would love (and I am not saying it doesn’t exist, I am saying I am ignorant) to find a good positive description of a world without the Patriarchy.

I have never seen one except for early 20th century writings of a well, a racist I’m told.

I don’t understand why our feminist bloggers don’t write EVER of what a world without the Patriarchy looks like in terms of positive descriptions: it looks like this, and it acts like this, and the courts work like this, and electricity works like this. Instead I just see descriptions of what it is not.

In the large, I see no descriptions of a world without Patriarchy. I just see ever present blaming of the patriarchy for EVERYTHING BAD.

Well, I just don’t find that useful or valid.

I can tell you what a world without sexism, ageism, racism, genderism looks like. But I am told by the Patriarchy blamers, that that is a far cry from what a world without the patriarchy looks like.

morally better.

I have a young one stirring who should be sleeping, but look for Amanda on the moral crimes of married women who give a 5 minute quickie blow job to their husband.

She changed one comment (or I can’t find it) but she referred to it what a “self-help” book described as a five minute quickie blowjob as “allowing one’s husband to masturbate on your face.”

As a white dude, I’ll admit, it’s true that even if some assaults are undue the effects of bias against us are non-existent, aside from annoying us liberal white dudes online. (Which only really gets in the way of doing it ourselves.) But part of any bias, as I’ve seen them displayed, is to find the worst examples of the Other and treat them as archetypes. The basic point RO keeps bringing up still rings true to me; two wrongs don’t make a right. That Twisty’s wrong is immeasurably smaller than the wrongs men have done women doesn’t make it not wrong. Reverse bias isn’t an acceptable part of reversing historical discrimination. It’s continuing the cycle of abuse.

There is a specific entitlement in our society granted to white males. It is OK to talk about that. In a way, several 100 blog posts at IBTP kind of define the terms, so they are what they are.

Again that is irrelevant.

People who talk about “the gays” know what they mean. People who talk about women, the feminists, immigrants, etc – they all know what they mean. It isn’t about what you claim to mean. It’s about not asking for what you aren’t willing to grant.

When a woman I somewhat respect says that “cunt” is insulting that’s enough for me. Whether or not *I* think it is insulting is irrelevant. Whether or not *I* know what it means is irrelevant. Whether or not I say that I don’t mean it in a bad way is irrelevant. Whether or not I have a FAQ entry about it is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if I say “look, when I mean ‘cunt’ I just mean ‘annoying person’ and no more than that!!”

It isn’t about me telling other people what should offend them. It’s about them telling me what offends them.

If you are too lazy to add a single word, ‘most’, to your comments, or add a (TM) or capitalize then don’t ask other people to do *anything* for you either. Again lead by example instead of pulling up the rear.

And then there is the practical matter. This comes up over and over again, people bemoaning that their comments are being taken the wrong way. Then phrase your comments better – learn.

And as I said, lazy language leads to lazy thinking. What starts as shorthand morphs into something else – this has undeniably happened for some of Twisty’s commenters if not Twisty herself. Language like “the Jews” has been used throughout history very deliberately to demonize and dehumanize. Note that “some Jews” really doesn’t have the same effect.

Really, is adding a ‘most’ that fucking hard? Wah wah wah, we don’t want to cater to people, we don’t want to qualify ourselves. Please.

That explanation fails as utterly as “I called her a ‘cunt’ because I was too lazy to think up another word.”

RandomObserver said,
June 13, 2007 at 8:12

One thing I appreciate about Sadly, No is that while there is outrage and mockery there is real thought behind it, and sometimes real action like picking up a fucking phone and gathering actual information rather than arguing out of willfull ignorance.

Yeah right.

And as far as dude’s entitlement, with all due respect, fuck that noise in a hole torn in its throat.
I have opinions. I express them. There’s nothing more to it than that.

I’m not sure where I thought I saw that phrase, either, which means it’s time for clownyboy to go to bed.
nite non trollies

Before I forget again: CONGRATULATIONS, Dr. Marita!

Also, thank you, Mikey, I always get a warm glow knowing I’ve made you happy.

And thanks, TRex, as well. I think {g}. Sorry, no blog for me: I’m on dial-up. Plus, old & lazy, but mostly… dial-up. Which is why I read FireDogLake religiously, but almost never post there; just can’t keep up.

HTML, much as I love you, can I ask a small favor? There is no “i” in the first part of my name. Yes, it’s idiosyncratic, but the idiot in question was my late father, from whom I inherited the snark gene.

Being a poster on a major blog confers some responsibility IMO…

There have been some… challenging… statements made in this long thread, but contemplating the “responsibility” of being a blog-poster seems like… well… it’s like the awesome power of being chairman of the town sanitary committee, isn’t it? It’s mostly a volunteer position, there’s a lot more paperwork than you’d expect, and people only acknowledge your existence to mock you, or when the septic systems back up on their lawn.

“Yeah right.”

Look at that: Mr. Byrd has proved that two positives can make a negative.

Oh, that’s where. Heh.
Gooood nite for real.

RO- fine, they can add “dude class”- or capitalize White Dude, as opposed to lower case white dude or a different brad. A think that is already what is done, but I’m not sure it isn’t just misdirection to really focus on these little hypocrisies in the face of massive inequality, or individual racism and sexism versus the institutionalized kind. I’m not saying it is an either/or, but I think I agree with the argument that hypocrisy does not create equivalence given actual history, so I can acknowledge it, but I’m not really going to be pissed about it.

adb, I really need to go to bed, but you are but a padowan learner if you don’t see dude’s entitlement. You didn’t ask for it, you just got it when you were born. Don’t take it personally. Or, for everyone else, Don’t Take It Personallyâ„¢

Have a good night.

The basic point RO keeps bringing up still rings true to me; two wrongs don’t make a right.

Note that I’m not saying that I’m going to call women cunts unless they appease me by not calling me a white dude. I’ll not call them cunts regardless. That said, if I stopped offending you at your request how about you put forth a tiny tiny amount of effort to not offend me? That isn’t a deman for quid pro quo, just a request.

I don’t call women “hysterical” online anymore, even though I think it is a perfectly good word. When I use it I don’t mean anything bad about women. I use it to mean “overly excitable person”. But I don’t use it because women are offended by it. Good enough for me. (I like this example better because ‘cunt’ is a pretty nasty word while ‘hysterical’ is less severe) I never knew that hysterical meant something specific about women and I never used it that way knowingly.

I could simply say “look, shut the fuck up about your fee-fees you hysterical harpies, I’ll call people hysterical if I want to! It isn’t about you!!!” I don’t say that, although under the logic of Twisty and Ilyka I would be perfectly right in saying so.

Demonizing language is a dangerous thing. Language abuse is a pet peeve of mine, I do believe that thoughts and the language used to express thoughts are inseperable. If you mean some, say some. If you mean most, say most. It really is not that difficult.

“Its not about politics, its about online communication.
JG and his drones went real life on people over nothing.”

As was pointed out earlier, and/or somewhere else, the entire JG schtick is to “go real life.” The General is forever sending emails to “real life” people in his persona as a 100 percent heterosexual leader of the Glorious White Christian Revolution (or whatever). And it wasn’t over ‘nothing.’ Brittney whatshername reposted the most vile paragraph out of a vile blog post, without comment, in a forum connected to an NBC news affiliate. After her commenters pointed out to her that this could be misconstrued as an endorsement of the vileness, she -still- refused to change it. THEN JG sent his email. He opted not to retaliate against sixmeatbuffet, because they didn’t deserve the traffic, and they weren’t working for a television station.

arouet said,
June 13, 2007 at 9:34

d) I can’t for the life of me understand how this whole shitstorm turned into a feminist issue. I’ve read the argument that JG is being misogynist because he attacked Gilbert, a woman, for reposting the “obituary� but not Mr. Six Meat Buffet, a man, for writing it in the first place. That doesn’t really make sense. The idea that condemning a news affiliate for reposting something offensive requires that you also condemn the original wingnut poster is kind of like the idea that anyone who criticizes America for torturing people is a hypocrite if they don’t denounce Osama Bin Laden’s human rights violations just as loudly. Wingnuts are wingnuts. They exist to write awful, awful things. R.L.Page said,
June 13, 2007 at 10:17

Then again, maybe it’s just a crude idiom in the American language.

Sorry, didnt realize ‘a different brad’ was a woman. I will be more careful in the future. Thanks for the headsup.

Just for the record, if that was in response to me, I only used the word hysterical in reference to it being used against me in the thread in question. I wouldn’t directly use the word.
Really, truly, gone sleepy now.

Hmm, Randall Byrd seems to have fucked that last post up with the cut and pasting.
Randall Byrd is not above apologizing for his drunken mistakes.
Sorry, “arouet”.

I would love (and I am not saying it doesn’t exist, I am saying I am ignorant) to find a good positive description of a world without the Patriarchy.

Try Joanna Russ. THE FEMALE MAN and KITTATINY are good starting points, and anybody who doesn’t laugh at “Useful Phrases for the Traveller” in THE ZANZIBAR CAT was probably born without the snark gene. Of course, if you run across HOW TO SUPPRESS WOMEN’S WRITING on the way there, you’ll really need the laugh.

a different brad said,
June 13, 2007 at 11:10

Just for the record, if that was in response to me, I only used the word hysterical in reference to it being used against me in the thread in question. I wouldn’t directly use the word.
Really, truly, gone sleepy now.

No worries mate. Sweet dreams,

RO- fine, they can add “dude class�- or capitalize White Dude, as opposed to lower case white dude or a different brad.

That would be fine, except that I don’t see that being done and I suspect I never will, even though it is extraordinarily simple and would also save the headache of having to write another explanatory post every six months about how people get all offended over nothing.

I’m not saying it is an either/or, but I think I agree with the argument that hypocrisy does not create equivalence given actual history, so I can acknowledge it, but I’m not really going to be pissed about it.

Hypocrisy annoys me because rank hypocrites only drag down causes I believe in. (Plus it just annoys me, I won’t lie) People who expect other people to play by different rules than they play by themselves are slime. It doesn’t matter if they are feminists or George Bush, people I ostensibly agree with or people I despise. Nothing good can come of people who think they are above the rules they advocate.

That said, I’m hardly pissed. It’s just a pet peeve of mine. Language abuse is the gateway to worse evils.

adb, I really need to go to bed, but you are but a padowan learner if you don’t see dude’s entitlement.

Of course men have some entitlement – wholly irrelevant to the point I’m making. The fact that men are born with some degree of entitlement is not some catch-all argument.

I only used the word hysterical in reference to it being used against me in the thread in question

I don’t know if you were talking to me or not, but no worries here.

I’ve written a lot on this subject but I care about 1/10th as much as it appears. (Really I’m just kind of bored and an insomniac) I personally don’t give a shit what sort of awful language people bust out, as long as they don’t try to have their cake and eat it too.

Randall Byrd said,
June 13, 2007 at 11:18

No worries mate. Sweet dreams,

Or perhaps better, sorry empowered woman with a man’s name. Dream not about my tall tan tube cuz you aint getting it. Haha.

No fears RO. I’m not so much an insomniac as able to live the natural effed up hours my body seems to prefer thanks to grad school.
Sorry I missed your last comment till now, PP, but it’s not that I don’t recognize dude’s entitlement so much as I don’t recognize it as any kind of valid argument against me or liberal dudes in general. So we have enough confidence in ourselves to state our opinions and maybe even expect others to consider them. Not gonna apologize for that. I hope all women come to feel the same way too. People in general should be open and honest, in my opinion. Then you can know whether they’re dicks or not. Entitlement in terms of expectation of power is shitty and problematic and something some white dudes abuse, but so do some white… umm, I’d say chicks but probably the wrong time and place,,, females, just in different ways. Gender plays different roles depending on class and location and ethnicity and religion and etc etc etc. And I’m tired n rambling so ’nuff said.

Anyone who thinks a minority can’t be racist needs to go to school where I did, where a small black population mercilessly attacked the even smaller Vietnamese population.

Well, that’s Ilyka.

No, it is not.

I’ve put up with you mischaracterizing my positions on damn near everything, in a thread to a post ostensibly responding to Chris Clarke, delightfully enough, but this is where you get off. I have never said that minorities cannot be racist; Kenneth Eng’s column entitled “Why I Hate Black People” from Asian Week would be enough to disprove that, even without your own example from your personal life.

Much as I love Pinko Punko, I don’t think I would say minorities “can’t be racist in any meaningful way,” either, though here I’m probably quibbling over words. What I would say is that I don’t think it’s possible for racial minorities to engage in systemic or institutionalized racism because, duh, they lack systemic power.

That may well change in another 50 or 100 years, but right now we’re still in a world where people write articles with titles like, “Is America Ready for a Black President?” and they’re completely in earnest about it; I’m not saying they’re wrong to write those articles, but it’s a sorry commentary on the ol’ state of the union that the issue exists at all.

Anyway, good to know you don’t hold grudges, or still nurse grievances over three-month-old disagreements. That might be divisive to the movement, but fortunately you’re all about the unity, especially when it comes to sorting out the good feminists from the bad ones.

And Amanda is right there with Twisty hating on the kinds of sex that married people engage in, especially blowjobs, while Amanda claims that the same acts between unmarried straights, or lesbians, or gays, or the transgendered is some how morally better.

Quotes, please.

This is what I get for being a teacher who decides to work in the summer….I can’t stay up late and miss all the good stuff. And I have to go to work today, too.

Just remember, pleasepleaseplease, before y’all start again this afternoon, that many of us are after the same goals.

I really, really believe that there is a conversation here that we’ve all been trying to have for some time now, and if we ever find a way to have it without screaming at each other – we, the radical feminists, the liberal feminists, the queer theorists, the Black power activists, the socialists, the greens, the liberals – if we ever find a way to have it without screaming at each other, something really powerful will happen. Call me naive, but I really believe that.

I’d like to see it start here.

“We’re not all on the same side. We just share common enemies. You just don’t get capitalists and communists to team up without Nazis to fight. So can we please remember those fucking Nazis already? They run the damn country, you know.”

Someone on this thread said this about 200 comments ago. That’s the thing to take away from all of this, if nothing else.

a different brad: [Twisty] has points to make, but vastly overgeneralizes, and promotes antagonism between the genders…

This seems to miss the point, which is that Twisty is very funny and charming in her kind of over-the-top “Pol Pot was right!!!1!” fashion. And indeed, what you read there almost always makes perfect sense, once you’ve properly calibrated your snark compensator.

Though I sit right at her Ground Zero (white, male, het, so boring!) when I happen to read her blog I always come away laughing or at least smiling. I don’t end up antagonized, but informed and entertained too. A well-formed rant, though it possibly shouldn’t be considered an official policy document, is still a beautiful thing.

RandomObserver said,
June 13, 2007 at 5:38

When you create an atmosphere that encourages people to jump all over each other with gotchas don’t act so fucking surprised when it comes back around. Jesus fucking Christ, look in a mirror. I got sick of people who could dish it but not take it 20 years ago.

Sweet.That’s what I’m talking about.

Pinko Punko: “My point was that it’s pretty arbitrary about how any of our comments want to be understood. If you don’t give two shits at getting to the bottom of what’s going on with Ilyka, then you’ll just continue to make your points for who?”

In that thread, first for Scott, who I was trying to warn. Then for Ilyka, who asked me to address her directly. And no, I don’t take everything to Email with people who I don’t know to some extent, nor do I feel the need to get to the bottom of what’s going on with every commenter.

“I took the shot at you in a little performance art, but it was entirely unsuccessful,”

And I didn’t flip out. See how easy that was?

I was told there would be sammiches?

I was accidentally cryogenically frozen at a meeting of SDS in 1968 and just woke up. Fortunately, I see nothing has changed at all.

Up against the wall, mothafuckaz!!!Time to let our impenetrable squabbles over ideological feuds which even we don’t even understand anymore torpedo the left’s chances in the next Presidential elections! C’mon, let’s do this!

I was accidentally cryogenically frozen at a meeting of SDS in 1968 and just woke up. Fortunately, I see nothing has changed at all.

Let’s be fair to the SDS endgame, brooksfoe.

Weatherman actually tried (and managed) to destroy SDS because they felt it was insufficiently revolutionary and proletarian.

I honestly don’t see anyone in this argument doing anything remotely like it, although a very few folks may have, in passing, conjured some strawpeople who are accused of doing that.

As for “the left’s chances in the next Presidential election”….the left has no chance in the next presidential election.

Are you talking about the Democrats’ chances in the next presidential election? And before you accuse me of being a purist, I’m really not. I’m just asking that language be used precisely. And with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich, there’s not a single candidate in the Democratic field to whom the word “left” applies in any meaningful way.

Just to clarify…

I am not insisting that the (actual) left shouldn’t vote for the Democratic presidential candidate in November 2007. I do think, however, that we need to be clear about what we are doing if we do so.

It was important for Germans to vote for Hindenburg over Hitler in their 1932 presidential election. But Hindenburg’s reelection wasn’t a victory for “the left,” only a defeat of Nazism.

…and, of course, the next year Hindenburg ended up making Hitler Chancellor, anyway.

So perhaps Ernst Thälmann and the Commies–whose 1932 presidential slogan was “A vote for Hindenburg is a vote for Hitler; a vote for Hitler is a vote for war”–had been right all along.

To me the bottom line is that the actual left needs to have an open and concrete discussion of how best to respond to the likely 2008 presidential race between a center-right Democrat and a far-right Republican. And such a discussion is not helped by falsely declaring that the Democrat represents the left or that questioning that platitude constitutes purity trolling.

Righteous Bubba said,
June 13, 2007 at 6:59

Thanks J.

I went on a Tova Reich tear a couple of months ago—with her novels at least—after reading a review of My Holocaust in the Forward. If you like the Biting Satire, Reich is in my opinion a Good Thing.

Now I shall read everything between Righteous Bubba’s comment and this one here. Wish me luck!

And congratulations to Marita.

370 comments?! Good Lord. I bet this was a good one.

Quotes please, Auguste? It’s your fucking website, I only get deleted, mischaracterized and banned there.

But you want to find Amanda hating on married couple’s blowjobs?

Check out:

http://www.pandagon.net/2007/02/18/if-you-slap-some-porn-on-the-tv-you-can-save-two-more-minutes/

In which the consensual behavior of a married couple is not protected by get the government out of our bedrooms Amanda but judged and judged as worthy. IIRC even many of the commenters there told her to shut the fuck up. And where did that link come from? Well from Trans bigot and hetero bigot Twisty Faster of course, Amanda’s mentor.

Ya know Auguste, you really should actually read your blog more often, it’s filled mostly with authoritarian douchebags, and you assholes really are hated by the GLBT bloggers as well as POC bloggers.

I’m sorry, there was a car fire outside and I got distracted. Did you say something?

mikey

>shrill, controlling, myopic, fanatical>

Excuse me, Mr. Pot? There’s a Kettle on line two for you. and, finally, what is this “we” shit? It’s not a fucking football game.

per Joanna Russ: I like her too, but I don’t think “The Female Man” (or more accurately the short story about Whileaway” is exactly a feasible or even desirable scenario. I don’t even think -she- thought so.

“How to Suppress Women’s Writing” is good, though. Of course, it’s also probably not going to go over real well with people who think all this identity politics, p.c. crap is so thirty years ago.

You know why this sort of bullshit happens? It isn’t because of “identity politics.” It’s because people are ASSHOLES who WON’T EVER ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG. About ANYTHING. Much less christ forbid ask “gosh, what can I do to make it better?”

As a bisexual man, I have a request: Please explain, what’s the big deal about blowjobs? You don’t want to suck cock? So don’t. Jesus.

Marcotte:

My take on the whole thing then and now is that there’s nothing inherently degrading about blow jobs, but I agree with Twisty that giving a blow job is framed in our culture as degrading and subservient.

So how does “our culture” “frame” a sixty-nine? Is that politically acceptable? Will you blow me if I rim you first? Can we please not bring our politics to bed? What? We can’t? I’m a clueless entitled asshole? Drat.

Have you seen the accident outside?

Seven children took a ride … >/i>

Anon, if you came her to prove to everyone here that you’re stupid, full of shit or both then nice job. Amanda was not “hating on married couple’s blowjobs” in that post as will be readily apparent to anyone who clicks the link you provided. You win the award for grossest simplification of another person’s views on this thread despite all the competition. Congrats.

And let me join in on the Anne Laurie love. What a woman but that’s no surprise because my experience tells me that’s the way they grow them in the Bronx.

To clarify my above post a bit, in the thread where Zuzu gets angry Piny is playing the role that Zuzu often plays. The shoe is on the other foot. I didn’t mean to imply that Zuzu was upset that the woman was attacked; rather that she is upset because her own behavior came back around. Were it not a personal friend of hers she would be heartily approving of the slagging.

Well, I’m glad to see that the myth that I’m some sort of stiffnecked, hypocritical purist continues apace.

I’m not sure what the source is of the persistent idea that I’ve been running around labeling people as essentially “racist,” “misogynist,” “fatphobic” and the like. Because I can recall only objecting to the use of racist, misogynist or fatphobic language or insults to dismiss people for completely unrelated behavior. But, hey, if you can come up with some examples of where I dismissed someone wholesale as, say, a misogynist, rather than objecting to the use of a gendered insult to attack someone when a more targeted attack on their actual dipshittery would have been more effective (and possibly funnier), then I’m all ears.

As for those who are saying that I got mine, or the shoe is on the other foot: not really. I’ve been quite consistent in maintaining that by objecting to poorly-targeted insults that sweep allies into the net like so many dolphins in a tuna net, I am not excusing the underlying behavior. I just think there’s a better way to go after the person for it.

And I think that where piny, ilyka, et al. went wrong was in excusing the underlying behavior in the face of the use of gendered insults by some of JG’s commenters. And then they compounded the harm by maintaining that not only did Brittney not do anything wrong, but that anyone who thought so was, to paraphrase a commenter on ilyka’s blog, inexplicably employing fucking retarded reading comprehension skills.

And my efforts to point out that this business of not allowing that some people who cared for Steve and didn’t agree that Brittney did nothing wrong might just be insulted that their reading comprehension and intelligence were being dismissed as fucking retarded were met with the same kinds of arguments that piny and ilyka decried during the whole sammich/cunt wars — oh, we weren’t talking about YOU, why are you making this about you?

I wouldn’t take a different position if it weren’t a personal friend. I can condemn both the original behavior — reposting the most vile paragraphs of that vile post, which was utterly unnecessary and utterly within the control of Brittney — and the gendered insults thrown at the blogger.

What would be different if it weren’t a personal friend is that it wouldn’t cut so deep. That, and the sixmeatbuffet post would have outraged me, but wouldn’t have followed me to the funeral home, where all I could think about when I looked at Steve in his coffin was bacon grease.

HTML came along after I died. I’m doing the best I can here.

there’s not a single candidate in the Democratic field to whom the word “left� applies in any meaningful way.

“Left” and “right” are subjective positional adjectives. There are some Polynesian languages which don’t have them, and use the absolute positional adjectives — “North-South-East-West” — to express all positional relations. You might be more comfortable in one of those languages? I’m uncomfortable with the idea of a body politic which, like Ludendorff’s original plan for the invasion of France, has only a right and a center, and no left.

Yeah, but Rich, you went for the easy slam I put on a tee for ya.

Because of this thread I’m investing in a factory. A factory that makes nanoscopic violins. I think I can trick Glenn Reynolds into investing too.

Ilyka, I think I qualified later where I was kind of talking about little r racism and big R racism (not in those words). And I differentiated sexism as kind of a different thing.

Anyhow, in the cold light of morning, I think I am donezoes here.

So, here’s a question: since the really foul thing came from the “sixmeatbuffet” character (ugh), why is everyone not going after his sorry ass?

>As a bisexual man, I have a request: Please explain, what’s the big deal about blowjobs? You don’t want to suck cock? So don’t. Jesus.>

As a queer woman who doesn’t to suck Jesus’ cock, at least, I second that.

Sometimes I think all the sex-related “wars” are ways for people to talk about S-E-X while still reassuring themselves that they’re doing it for acceptable, y’know, POLITICAL reasons.

So, here’s a question: since the really foul thing came from the “sixmeatbuffet� character (ugh), why is everyone not going after his sorry ass?

He’s a wingnut so it’s boring. What do wingnuts do, after all?

“Left� and “right� are subjective positional adjectives. There are some Polynesian languages which don’t have them, and use the absolute positional adjectives — “North-South-East-West� — to express all positional relations. You might be more comfortable in one of those languages? I’m uncomfortable with the idea of a body politic which, like Ludendorff’s original plan for the invasion of France, has only a right and a center, and no left.

Sadly, No!

“Left” and “right,” though admittedly protean terms that get employed in somewhat different ways in different contexts by different political actors are not purely subjective, or even merely relative political terms (however their original spacial referents function). Just as it is ridiculous to call Hillary Clinton a “socialist” (as wingnuts are prone to do), it is similarly ridiculous to call her “left.” The political left has a long and complicated history in modern political culture. In this country, at least since the early 20C, it has usually been employed in contrast not simply to conservatism, but also to liberalism.

For decades the right has tried to label liberals, as well as not-even-liberal Democrats as “the left.” In recent years, for a variety of complicated reasons, a variety of non-left Democrats have tried to lay claim to the word in its wingnut usage to mean “anyone who isn’t Republican.”

But I think it’s important to resist this redefinition of “left”…and not simply because of its origins as a crude right-wing pejorative.

It’s important not to arbitrarily change the meaning of “left” because, in fact, our “body politic” does have a left that rejects militarist foreign policy and corporate-centered economic policies, that wants true national health insurance, that favors equal marriage rights and an end to the “wars” on drugs and terror, that wants to restore the rights of working people to organize that have been slowly but steadily deteriorating since Taft-Hartley.

The fact that this portion of the body politic finds meaningful expression in the leadership of neither of the major parties is no warrant for denying its existence, nor for giving the “left” mantle to politicians whose actual political views bear no resemblance whatsoever to what the various lefts, in the U.S. and around the world, have supported in recent memory.

Thanks HTML, Anne Laurie, and J-! (Oh, I hope I didn’t miss anyone…)

HTML – you can refer to me as Dr. Marita if you’d like, but it’s not compulsory. Except for a troll who will not be named, lest he be summoned. He should refer to me as Dr. Marita, PhD, if he would like a response.

And Atrios, if you wander through again, sammiches are no longer available. Although I’m sure someone could rustle you up some giant celery, if you’re so inclined.

So, here’s a question: since the really foul thing came from the “sixmeatbuffet� character (ugh), why is everyone not going after his sorry ass?

Actually, Belledame, his sorry ass was bbq’d here and might have been elsewhere if the circular firing squad hadn’t formed so quickly.

Mandos, normally I’d agree, but seeing as how this one actually managed to cause some hurt, I’d find it less boring (actually, I did write a post, and I didn’t even know Gilliard) than, well…what exactly is this all about, again?

I mean, look, bonding together against the Oppress0r is a fun bonding activity, yes? We’re all engaging in that in lieu of y’know agreeing on anything actually productive. Hence the constant infighting.

But when a golden opportunity presents itself to go smack either some sense or some serious “shut the fuck up” into a soulless, pointless assberet like that…

No, I’m serious. People have been asking what went wrong with the body politic, that, THAT is what went wrong with the body politic.

slip. thanks, lawnguy.

for the record, it’s not that i don’t think other people acted dumb and/or thoughtless in this, too; it’s just that y’know, ONE of the ways we might differentiate ourselves from people like rightwingassholebuffet is to just go “all right, you know what: I fucked up. I’m sorry.” No ifs, ands, or buts.

And no, I’m not gonna say who I think should be doing it.

Maybe I’m naive or I’m being a softie here, but I’ve got some quick hits:

1. Since I don’t know the background to the whole brouhaha that generated so many shock waves on Feministe, etc., I can’t comment. That said….

2. While I don’t agree with everything everyone says at Feministe and Pandagon, I’m a regular reader of both, and I’m just not seeing the rampant authoritarianism at either blog. I get enough out of each to keep going back.

3. I’m not too familiar with ilyka’s oeuvre, and though some of her bombs that I have seen rub me the wrong way, I can’t fault her for changing her mind on politics. I’ve considered my self left-liberal for years now, but I was once one of those campus conservatives who worked for the newspaper modeled on the Dartmouth Review (which is likely a partial explanation for why I didn’t get laid in college, but that’s another story….). I changed my views several years into adulthood, and I welcome those who do at any stage in their lives.

4. zuzu doesn’t need me to defend her, but I don’t really understand the criticism directed at her here. Yes, she can be aggressive (not a bad thing) and like anyone else, I don’t always agree with her. She was, however, a good writer on Feministe and probably the funniest.

Just my riff on all this. That and two bucks..well, that’ll hardly get you a cup of coffee in my town.

But, hey, if you can come up with some examples of where I dismissed someone wholesale as, say, a misogynist, rather than objecting to the use of a gendered insult to attack someone when a more targeted attack on their actual dipshittery would have been more effective (and possibly funnier), then I’m all ears.

Hey Zuzu, here you are getting the popcorn and egging on the attacks:

http://pandagon.net/2005/09/27/possibly-the-most-ineffective-protest-strategy-ever-continues/

Ooh! MRAs!!! They’re bad people.

In fact you fucktards even get the language wrong.

MRA != FRA. But to you types we all look alike.

And yeah, dismiss FRAs and ban and delete us. Why? Because we would llike to be better fathers and have more time with our kids.

Specifically, because we want courts to have a rebuttable presumption of joint shared custody, and not what you advocate which is single custody.

And how do you and yours frame that?

We are trying to bias the courts in our favor. And we are rapists and we are pedophiles and we are domestic abusers and we are deadbeats and we do this to lessen child custody obligations.

And yet, time after time it is shown, the courts give child custody overwhelmingly to the mother and not to the father, and in fact, many many feminist founders have stated that 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s feminism strenuously advocated for joint shared custody. Which is why we have Karen DeCrow, former head of NOW, and other former leaders of NOW working with the FRA movements.

But no, Zuzu, to you and yours FRAs are teh devil. And you are not willing to talk, to converse, to dialogue. It’s mischaracterize, misquote, delete, ban, mock, dehumanize.

Consider the age of almost all fathers of school age kids now. ALL born AFTER Title IX. Most with mothers that worked. Most with fathers that were worked to the death by the corporation.

What started this shit? It was when Auntie B got all identity politics and decided that JG was a misogynist. Maha is a racist. This is what the “I like the Mans”, Twisty’s Amanda’s Auntie B’s Zuzus Piny’s Chris Clarkes do. Everyone is a misogynist. Women have no responsibility for their actions, or even for their words.

And that’s what you jackasses do in regards to Fathers and the Courts.

Bully, demean, dehumanize, mock, and you don’t even realize who you’re stomping on.

The real work of feminism these days is not being done by the identity politics feminists, but is being done by women and men that have separated from the identity politics feminists. That is the equity feminists. And those are the ideas that ring true for most American women and men.

Equity, not superiority. Working together, not working against. Progressive politics, not identity politics and victimization.

It’s the Wendy McElroy’s, Cathy Youngs, Karen DeCrows, Wendy Kaminers, Daphne Patai’s.

And yes, it is actually the FRA’s most of who have daughters that these men want to see grow up in a world of equality.

It is completely illogical to paint FRAs as misogynists when they are doing what women have been asking for for years and years and years which is to have the men play a significant role in raising the children.

So Zuzu, grab your popcorn and jam it.

C.S. Lewis, Jr.:

So how does “our culture� “frame� a sixty-nine? Is that politically acceptable? Will you blow me if I rim you first? Can we please not bring our politics to bed? What? We can’t? I’m a clueless entitled asshole? Drat.

Okay, I’m drifting here, but I have to differ with you on this one. I didn’t agree with Twisty Faster’s original characterization, but Amanda Marcotte’s right on the “framing” point. It’s context-dependent, and maybe she could have been more precise in saying so, but she’s not wrong.

Oh, fuck off, gobshites’-rights-whoever-you-are, isn’t there enough bullshit going on without your rusty little hacksaw grinding too?

Linnaeus: yeah, i think more or less.

Ilyka, as I’ve said elsewhere, is one of the few people I know who -will- say “I was wrong, I changed my mind.” Which, I think is a -good- thing, but that seems to be a minority position.

also, I think it’s more that she used to be liberal and was briefly one of the “after 9/11 everything changed” people than she’s a totally recent convert.

i dunno. mostly right now i think pretty much everyone are fuckwits, but that could change. ask again later.

Pinko Punko: “Yeah, but Rich, you went for the easy slam I put on a tee for ya.”

I could have played the saint, but given that your original complaint was that I was sanctimonious, I didn’t feel like it.

Is that it, then? Performance art is weird.

W. Kiernan- I don’t mean this snarkily, but PP, Mandos, and I spent a couple hours going over that last night. That topic is played out for now.
I accept I may be missing something, please, in return, accept it might be that I do get it and still have legit concerns about her.

I just don’t see why everyone is being so defensive.

*laugh track*

And Amanda is right there with Twisty hating on the kinds of sex that married people engage in, especially blowjobs, while Amanda claims that the same acts between unmarried straights, or lesbians, or gays, or the transgendered is some how morally better.

The implication that my vanilla straight sex life is queer because I dip my toe into the radical idea that women should enjoy sex instead of just cross it off as another duty performed for men says more about you than about me, I’m afraid. Your attempts to spread acrimony on the left would work better if you came up with slightly more plausible accusations, Iago.

Other than that, I have no idea why my name is getting dragged into this. I find the entire controversy repugnant and want no part of it.

1. There was nothing wrong with Amanda’s post on blowjobs. Anon is just trying to cause trouble and doing it poorly.

2. Ilyka’s contribution to this thread was fine. If she always posted like that I don’t think anyone would complain. What she said was entirely reasonable.

3. Zuzu.

And then they compounded the harm by maintaining that not only did Brittney not do anything wrong, but that anyone who thought so was, to paraphrase a commenter on ilyka’s blog, inexplicably employing fucking retarded reading comprehension skills.

Someone lambasted someone else for being stupid an Feministe for simply disagreeing? Why I cants hardly believes its! THAT NEVER HAPPENS. Lol.

The shoe is on the other foot, that is *exactly* what describes the situation. People being slandered because they disagree politely is the status quo that you helped foster.

And my efforts to point out that this business of not allowing that some people who cared for Steve and didn’t agree that Brittney did nothing wrong might just be insulted that their reading comprehension and intelligence were being dismissed as fucking retarded were met with the same kinds of arguments that piny and ilyka decried during the whole sammich/cunt wars — oh, we weren’t talking about YOU, why are you making this about you?

Ha ha ha. This is too much. Too much. Jesus. “This isn’t about you” is Ilyka’s fucking rallying cry.

As I said upthread, this is the problem with “it isn’t about you.” Anyone can say it, any time, for any reason. At feministe you linked to Ilyka’s piece about how white guys shouldn’t get offended when Ilyka slags them – the ENTIRE POINT of that piece was “it isn’t about you” and that furthermore making it about you is being selfish. Did you just forget all about that?

At Feministe you’ve made that same point yourself, going further to talk about not catering to people, not caring about people’s fee-fees, etc etc. Did you just forget all about that too?

But now, when “it isn’t about you” is used against you instead of your enemies, suddenly that argument is terrible and you rally against it! How noble.

Too little too late. Make your bed, sleep in it. If “it isn’t about you” is such a stupid argument why is it one you’ve leaned on repeatedly in the past?

Once again: rules – they aren’t just for other people.The only consistency you or Ilyka has shown about the “it isn’t about you” argument is that it is always ok when you say it, and never ok when someone you disagree with says it. That’s it.

When I have more time later today I will gladly provide quote after quote showing that what I said above is entirely accurate, although I think it is rather obvious to anyone who has followed Feministe and Ilyka.

I’m glad you’ve finally realized that “it isn’t about you” is a stupid fucking non-argument, it’s too bad that in the past you consistently used that argument yourself and slagged people who tried to point out how silly it was.

I think PP/Mandos “win” last night’s debate over HTML/adb.

What I take away from the discussion is: PP and Mandos are willing to reflect on what someone says about patriarchy and take it or leave it. HTML/adb think they are not sexist and don’t need to reflect on what feminists say about Dudes, because there isn’t anything for them to learn.

I am not trying to slag HTML and adb at all, it’s fine if you think you are not sexist and don’t have anything else to learn, but not every one feels that way.

I hate to go back to not-niceness. but I disagree that lyka’s comment was fine. She basically said “y’all don’t get it like I do”, and closed on a hypocritically passive aggressive note. I don’t mean to go back to grumpyland, but that was most definitely not her participating in the i’m human and fallible, you’re human and fallible, let’s stop being dicks and be friendly de-escalation.
Which is not to say I expect a personal apology or anything narcissistic like that, but that Ilyka, you’re still being a dick.

adding: I think this goes beyond HTML/adb on this thread, for example to the random detour into Amanda’s alleged statements about married people’s blow jobs.

To me, you take what she said, think about it, think about your own situation, and apply it or not. I don’t see where getting all offended and angry about “Amanda’s hatred of married couples’ sex lives” is all that relevant, interesting, productive or rational.

That’s not at all what I’m saying, Kathleen.
I’m saying I have considered twisty’s perspective and don’t agree, which the admitted caveat that there may yet be more to see.
Please stop casting disagreement as lack of curiosity or basic knowledge.
It’s not.

*with the caveat

Sexism ? Misogyny ? or just a vulgar idiom in the American Language ?

Whoever you are, thanks for spelling Alkibiades right.

… Ilyka, you’re being a dick.

[Insert above]

Oh dear.
I’m hoping that’s not a snarky way of saying I used gendered language unknowingly and all that leads to.
Sometimes a dick is just a person behaving in ways you think are inappropriate.
N sorry if I’m overreacting. Tryin not to.

adb – If you really think that you have considered things that Twisty has said and then discarded them, why are you so upset about what she says? Isn’t it valuable for people to speak and foster thought? That is what I don’t get.

And your comments about Dude Entitlement exactly fit into what I am saying.

Oy.
I said I’ve tried to consider twisty’s POV, and insofar as I’ve succeeded I still find real problems. I also said that I don’t go over to her place and try and stir shit. I think she effectively promotes misandry. You don’t have to agree but don’t pretend my concerns are groundless.
My point about Dude entitlement is it’s been thrown back at me for daring to offer my opinion. Fuck that, period. I did not dismiss the underlying point about injust power structures and abuses within them, but I don’t agree that it comes down to whether one has a penis.

Sometimes a dick is just a person behaving in ways you think are inappropriate.

Suppose we replace that “dick” with a cunt ?

Anne Laurie — I’m so sorry. Nothing quite says “dickhead” like someone constantly getting your name wrong. I sincerely apologise.

Oy vey.
So instead of accusing her of acting like a man I’m calling her uppity?
Maybe I just don’t like how she behaves, and don’t feel a need to meet your definition of acceptable expression of disagreement?
Nah, I must be rooted in misogyny, somewhere.

anon, anyone else: stop bringing Amanda into this. This post is not about her or what she blogs about.

My point about Dude entitlement is it’s been thrown back at me for daring to offer my opinion. Fuck that, period.

I guess I just don’t get it. I’ll have to think about it some more. Why “Fuck that, period”? because you know that you haven’t benefitted from any “dude entitlement”? so feminists can’t talk about Dude entitlement, because some of them have accused you of having it?

I did not dismiss the underlying point about injust power structures and abuses within them, but I don’t agree that it comes down to whether one has a penis.

no, but I don’t think that’s what most of the discussion is about. It’s about a subset of penis-havers, i.e. Dudes.

Look, I’m not an expert on the whole discussion, but all I am saying is that I read this whole thread, and several others on S,N! where you have made similar comments and I am telling you that what I get out of your comments is that you think there is nothing more you have to learn about sexism. Why should you care, I have no idea, but there it is.

I know everyone has moved on from this thread, but if I could add a thought:

it seems to me there is some tension with the unhappiness expressed here (as represented by HTML/adb/RO and otheres) with the alleged purity enforcement of piny/zuzu/ilyka et al. But yet, it seems like they want to enforce just that sort of purity on what it is appropriate for feminists to discuss and think about.

Oh no, Ilyka, you’re not weaselling out of this:

Maha, you forgot to mention the part where you’re racist.

That’s okay, DI. Some of us remembered anyhow.

Now read those comments in the link that Ilyka endorsed.

And just in case she also denies hating white male progressives, the quote is here.

Amanda your judgmental post(s) on what happens in the bedroom or the kitchen between married couples is very relevant.

You makes these claims to all of progressive liberal politics. And you call out anyone that disagrees with you as a rightwinger. You claim you want gov’t out of the bedroom, but then you are in it constantly.

Read your post. You say that it is wrong for married women to provide blowjobs to their husbands. Period. It is a form of subjugation and degradation.

You basically are putting your politics into our bedroom.

You Amanda are the person that enables Auntie B and Ilyka to jump all over JG as a misogynist.

You Amanda are the person that says the vilest things about anyone that disagrees with you.

You Amanda are the person that has been documented over and over by the LGBT community, the Left Wing Community, the Libertarian Community, and the Right Wing Community as a bully that distorts comments, makes up quotes, projects your own bullshit onto others and the deletes and changes any evidence of your nonsense.

Amanda, your fingerprints are all over this mess, because you are the enabler of Auntie B and Ilyka.

RandomObserver, I am sorry we see differently on this, but I think you are quite wrong about Amanda’s blowjob posts — and even her regular commenters called her on her nonsense.

I, obviously, disagree. I think, honestly, you’re falling into the trap of assuming disagreement is born of lack of education or awareness. I don’t consider my opinions binding on others, but that doesn’t mean I can’t express them with conviction. I don’t agree Dude entitlement is a useful concept, but that doesn’t make me sexist or uneducated. It means I disagree, because entitlement, in my experience, isn’t about gender but economic class. You can disagree with me, and for good reason. But it’s arrogant and unfair to presume I have no idea what I’m talking about.

I’ve never cottoned to the “it’s not about you” line myself, because it’s way too convenient a get-out-of-jail-free-card, and it seems entirely self-defeating. The point of making a caustic generalization seems to be precisely to provoke the reaction that it _is_, in fact, about you, and it stings, and it’s supposed to sting. Otherwise everyone gets to keep on cherishing and nurturing one’s own sense of self-satisfaction, content in the idea that the satiric target is never him or her, but someone else, one of the Bad People, at a reassuringly distant remove.

I’m glad you’ve finally realized that “it isn’t about you� is a stupid fucking non-argument, it’s too bad that in the past you consistently used that argument yourself and slagged people who tried to point out how silly it was.

You seem to be confusing my statements above with my statements to you when I banned you for the third time for persistent, constant thread derailment over hundreds and hundreds of comments and multiple threads, as well as classic trollish behavior.

I stand both by my statements above and by my decision to ban a disruptive, derailing commenter.

Kathleen — nope. I don’t care what they talk about. I’m not about controlling anyone’s blogging. I do think TF sucks, but I am free to dislike someone else’s blogging without wanting to ban it, right?

What I do care about is the constant attacks. You know why I read the good feminist sites? Because I do like to read about feminist issues, I do think I have things to learn. But Progressive Bloggers don’t get attacked at those sites. I don’t have to read shit about so and so PB is a worthless racist, or so and so PB hates all fat people and wants them to die!!1!, or so and so PB has failed to conform to the purity standards of whatever and therefore is evil and a de facto Freeper.

(to continue)

But I’m not even forbidding attacks. I’m just saying, if I or my allies are attacked, I’ll fight back. I completely disagreed with zuzu’s and Chris’s positions on fat politics, for example. I bit my tongue — and so did everyone else here — the first time they attacked us for the Sammich, because we didn’t want to ruffle feathers too much and did admire what they do, and were genuinely concerned about their feelings. But then piny went too far, because going too far is the nature of their game. That’s when I said, ok, fuck *you* then.

That came out harsher than I meant.
There certainly are valid recognitions underlying the idea of Dude entitlement, but even more than feeling entitlement is more strongly tied to class I think it’s part of an attempt to see gender politics as homogeneous in ways they’re simply not. Class, geography, race, religion, and countless other factors go to determining individual situations, and simply saying men oppress women is, in the context those of us commenting here, is so simplistic as to be untrue.
I was raised in an uncommonly equal setting. Girls were consciously not discriminated against in the classrooms I’ve learned in, mostly, and my mother is unquestionably the equal of my father in their marriage. I may be taking some criticism too personally, and for that I apologize, but I just don’t agree with the basic premises of blamers.

H- Twisty does her own thing and she rarely even deals with the rest of the blogosphere, so I think I would say that she isn’t the droids you’re looking for (to mix a metaphor, she actually isn’t the droids you’re looking for, but I am also trying to use my Jedi minds tricks).

adb, the problem is that if Dudely Entitlement actually exists, but you deny it, what then? I think this is why it is a case where people don’t like to agree to disagree. This is why HTML’s identity politics come into focus, if someone really wants to say something exists, but then people keep denying it, what response is there other than getting increasingly shrill? But they you get taken to task for being shrill- it is the same argument the global warming deniers have with environmentalists- they are just so goddamned shrill. Listen, I’m not trying to stir the pot, but there are real, unanswerable conundrums here, and they are unsolvable.

And zuzu, I am sorry about what you’ve gone through lately.

Ok, I’ll play. Since I went naively over to IBTP like I would any other blog and got pounded mindlessly and visciously for no good reason, I personally think that twisty and the denizens of that site are assholes. Pretty much anybody who treats me like shit, won’t listen to what I have to say and dismisses me based upon a whole bunch of assumptions without understanding who I am is an asshole in my book.

But other than the fact that I think they are assholes, my problem with their editorial content is it’s blatent hypocrisy. They hate that men oppress ALL women. So they hate ALL men. There is no difference between either of those positions. If one is wrong, both are wrong. And the “ALL of X is Y” construct is ALWAYS wrong. Are there some white liberal males who don’t get it, who are sexist and entitled? Of course there are. But to say that it’s true of everyone is idiocy.

And this entitlement thing rings particularly hollow to me. Any woman who thinks that my male entitlement has made my life so fucking great is hearby invited to go back and live it for me. It has not been a whole lot of fun, on the whole. Personally, if I could relive my life, I’d want to do it as a woman, even with the Patriarchy. I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be any worse, and chances are I’d be a lot less fucked up…

mikey

adb- the general premise is that if you take a man and a women in seemingly equal circumstances they will be treated different on average. This is a scientific fact. Therefore, to focus on male/female issues doesn’t exclude other factors. It may seem like other factors are excluded, but that is not really an argument. TF writes about what she wants to write about- none of us can tackle every little thing we’re supposed to tackle. It is the part of liberal guilt that conservatives love to throw in our faces- “if you’re so worried about this, why haven’t you talked about this?” that sort of thing.

I would also add that I have never in my life seen a situation where I’ve felt absolutely certain that men and women are treated equally, unless it is with equal heinousness, but it those cases the women probably got raped too before everyone got murdered, if you know what I mean.

differently – sheesh

mikey,

I don’t think this is the case. I’m sorry you got hammered over there, that was my fault. I gotta do some work, so maybe we can catch up later.

PP- how about instead of lodging valid problems in loaded, antagonistic language that’s easily misused, like Dude entitlement, we just discuss those problems directly and individually?
If global warming was called “the male ego overheating effect”, there’d be decent reason to debate its existence.

The patriarchy just laid off 200 people at my company. Including all the Irish wymyn.

You say that it is wrong for married women to provide blowjobs to their husbands.

I do think it’s wrong for people to treat their wives as sex toys that “provide” blow jobs. I think sex is a mutual thing, not a service women “provide” men. Get a pocket pussy if you’re turned off by sex as a mutual activity and prefer it to be a service provided. Attempts to provoke me into describing in lavish detail what kind of sexual activity I pursue will not work. I don’t write porn for free.

Sorry about the thread drift, HTML. One day I’ll figure out why on earth I’ve become such an object of loathing for these freaks. You’d think I’m the only woman in the world who talks back, the way they act.

PP- I have experienced more or less actual equality. I don’t mean perfection where every girl blows off the guys who treat them like trash and every guy knows their lady’s eye color and birthday because they care. I mean functional equality where we’ve all got issues, and society ain’t perfect, but what you have between your legs doesn’t really matter to anyone else. And I don’t care, except in that my wiring leads me to want to play with one set of squishy parts instead of the other, so I’m not likely to feel romantically about a guy.
I’m not claiming perfection or that I don’t still have things to learn, just saying I’m not going to accept being called an oppressor.

Mikey – if I may, I remember your foray into IBTP and I thought then and think now you were treated unfairly. I even told them so, and was basically told I was brainwashed by the patriarchy. That said (and your experience was in the back of my mind when I posted above earlier today) I think that you could have taken a stepped back and actually learned something from what the IBTP people were saying. I know I did. Now it’s perfectly reasonable to be insulted by their behavior towards you, and to not want to learn anything from assholes. No criticism there. But what I get out of what Pinko and Mandos were saying last night, and what I think, is that there is that opportunity, and I personally think it’s a shame when we dont’ take it.

One day I’ll figure out why on earth I’ve become such an object of loathing for these freaks. You’d think I’m the only woman in the world who talks back, the way they act.

if you knew, you could bottle it and be rich.

hell, I would be rich if I had a dollar for every random liberal website, in a totally Marcotte-free post, where an “anon” in the comments starts going off on something you said.

And zuzu, I am sorry about what you’ve gone through lately.

Thank you. That’s very kind.

But could you maybe draw back a bit from the accusations of “constant” attacks on progressive blogs? I went back and looked, and I personally wrote only about four posts that could even remotely have been characterized as “attacks,” and only if you are of the opinion that I was completely coming from left field. I think you’re way overstating the attention you, or other progressive bloggers, have gotten from me, in addition to overstating the nature of my statements.

To be honest, I haven’t really thought about you guys in months. Sorry. I just followed a link over here.

And that was well said, FlipYrWhig.

By all means defend yourself if you want to, Amanda, I’m just sorry you’ve been dragged into this. My beef is not with you or your blog. You’ve never attacked me or any of my mates. And Chris and I can argue civilly about our disagreements. Cheers.

it seems to me there is some tension with the unhappiness expressed here (as represented by HTML/adb/RO and otheres) with the alleged purity enforcement of piny/zuzu/ilyka et al.

I don’t ask people do to do things that I don’t do myself. I don’t care about purity, just a lack of consistency.

I stand both by my statements above and by my decision to ban a disruptive, derailing commenter.

Like I said, I’ll dig up plenty of quotes when I have more time. This has nothing to do with my banning but thanks for tryig to change the subject entirely.

zuzu — it’s not just about me. It’s really not. How many Feministe threads devolve into slagging the dreaded “White Progressive Male”? Now that doesn’t mean “Sadly, No!”; it’s a categorical attack. And I’m sick of it.

Kathleen, you are absolutely right. All I want from my blogging/commenting experience is to learn and grow, and as someone without education whose life ran off the rails early and often, I have a great deal of learning to do. And even as I said in this very thread, while I don’t agree with Ilyka, I do wish there was a way to engage with her in a calm discussion, because we really are not far apart.

That said, the only way we learn from each other is to engage and communicate on some kind of even, reasoned basis. I’m sorry, perhaps it speaks poorly of me, but there’s nothing I’m going to be able to learn from a bunch of people screaming epithets and flinging poo at me. I only have two responses to that kind of hostility – Run away or fight. I ran away. I won’t go back – I honestly don’t see the point. But I welcome a conversation with anybody who will treat me with the same level of respect and dignity that I’m willing to treat them with…

mikey

Also I don’t see anyone in this thread denying male entitlement, it’s just irrelevant to this particular discussion. Males are entitled, I was banned at Feministe, the sky is blue – and? You going somewhere with this?

I believe that males are entitled, that Zuzu is a hypocritical scold who can’t take what she dishes out, and that Twisty is horrible. These aren’t mutually exclusive thoughts.

One thing I never understand in these discussions is why there always has to be one bad guy, instead of a whole raft of them. The system that lends men entitlement is wrong, that doesn’t make Twisty right, she’s just wrong in a different way about something else. Zuzu is often scolding the bad guys but that doesn’t make her scolding any less hypocritical.

It’s because you’re the enabler Amanda. You bully, and you try to make it okay for others to be a bully.

I do think it’s wrong for people to treat their wives as sex toys that “provide� blow jobs. I think sex is a mutual thing, not a service women “provide� men. Get a pocket pussy if you’re turned off by sex as a mutual activity and prefer it to be a service provided. Attempts to provoke me into describing in lavish detail what kind of sexual activity I pursue will not work. I don’t write porn for free.

Oh, that’s your strawfeminist again isn’t it? Because that is explicitly not what that book was about, was it?

And ya know, even if it was, what business is that of yours? If in a married relationship a woman sometimes gives a freebie to the man, what business is that of yours? And if that man sometimes gives a freebie to the woman, what business is that of yours?

What business is this of yours? And why do you go off over married sex in ways that you do not go off over unmarried sex?

And why the fuck should a government that you want to innoculate young children with a relatively untested vaccine ever stay out of our bedrooms.

Amanda, it is your bullshit and your bullying and your decrying of others as THE OTHER, and your seeing the Patriarchy in everything, and your judgmental nonsense that enables the Auntie Bs and the Ilyka Damen (I Like the Men), and Pinys and the Sheelzebebs (Sheelze still claims with Amanda that the Duke students were rapists), Amanda it is your bullying that enables the others to think that bullying is okay.

Check out Ilyka Damen’s old blog today…. Oh look at that, she is taking it down because she doesn’t like to have her old hate shoved into down her throat. And that Amanda is what happens to you on blogs these days. People are taking YOUR words and linking to them.

Think about how a fascist brownshirt like Damen came to feel that your brand of feminism was her cup of tea. It’s because she sensed in you Amanda, a kindred spirit. Similar tactics, and a similar environment of goading people into hatred.

You don’t like to be associated with hate? Stop hating.

Feministe isn’t a monolith, HTML. It seems like you’re lumping together bloggers and commenters, posts and comments.

I’m not going to take responsibility for what my commenters or former co-bloggers say. And I’d appreciate not having their comments attributed to me. If you don’t agree with what they say, and you aren’t comfortable with the discussion, so be it. But to hold all that against me personally?

After all, I’m not going to hold you responsible for what anon or RO said to me above. But we all have things we get sick of, don’t we?

To be fair, I am denying it with qualifications. I’m not denying the behaviors lumped together as Dude entitlement exist, I’m just debating the veracity and functionality of grouping them together under that name.

mikey, I learn stuff a lot of times without a conversation, or maybe the conversation comes later after I’ve thought quite a bit about it. People get pissed off when they feel like they’ve got a boot on their neck and they are constantly beign told how to feel. Even if I end up collateral damage, I just don’t take it personally. The point is whether I can understand where the anger is coming from, or if it is understandable, then I can think about whether it is legitimate or not.

HTML-

I don’t know what Feministe threads you read, but I really don’t get that vibe from Feministe. Maybe there is that feeling because the only time some people go over there is when they seem like they are getting called on something, and not noticing the several hundred posts where they don’t get called on something. I’ll offer to bake cookies for when you guys rock the house, I’m sorry that they don’t provide any carrots, but you know maybe it isn’t their job to pass out gold stars. I love you guys so I’ll provide them. You can obviously get that vibe from IBTP threads, but that is a whole nuther ball game, and I think my views at least on IBTP are pretty clear from the last 700 posts I have left.

What happened to mikey at IBTP is a great example of people doing their best to not get along despite being 95% in agreement. A single poorly worded phrase or an argument that *looks* familiar and trollish is enough to make people enemies for life. Mikey stumbled over some hot-button terminology and was immediately categorized and dismissed because his writing looked like the writings of the bad guys; and for his part he has used that single incident to dismiss everyone associated.

And course, neither party will admit to any error. Same as it ever was.

Alkibiades said,

Suppose we replace that “dick� with a cunt ?

Do not go there. Seriously. It’s the N-word of feminism. I actually had to stop using it after Sammichgeddon because it was just too loaded and I was persuaded that it was (a) over-the-line sexist and (b) too easy.*

Similar arguments apply to “dick,” really, but that’s so much milder that it seems silly getting one’s unisex undergarments in a knot over it.

* Essay question: Ann Coulter is a(n) _______________ . Be creative!

zuzu — I’ve already noted that Jill and Lauren are exempt from my criticism wrt Feministe; I know it’s not a monolith. And of course you aren’t responsible for commenters, except when you agree with them and repeat their charges. You can’t tell me that I’m inventing the “Hating on Progressive White Males” trope. You can’t really be saying that Feministe, and a few others, doesn’t attack PBs for not being as invested as they are in whatever type of IDP in question? And it really seems that Ilyka is a nexus for it; I don’t think it’s any accident that she’s friendly with the unapologeticmexican, another of the “if you’re not as invested as me, you’re immoral (i.e., de facto wingnut)!” types.

anon — chill. we’ve already gone into how Amanda is not Ilyka and piny and Twisty; there’s a huge difference. It’s like you’re blaming Marx for “enabling” Stalin (sorry to everyone for the analogy, but that’s what I’ve got this soon after waking up; you get my point).

RO,

Yeah, that stuff happens because people feel like they have the same conversations over and over again. I don’t take it personally if I hit someone’s tripwire. I can have a grudge about it, or I can try to understand it. That’s my philosophy. Maybe I don’t always live up to it, but there it is.

#

I say that if the people at that table are your “oppressors,� your life is gravy. Everybody should have such problems.

When White progressives need to wonder why progressive people of color won’t join their organizations, eagerly attend their events, or even talk to them? Remember this comment. The contempt you have for the real issues people of color are trying to bring to the forefront in this is crystal clear.

Comment by Delux — September 20, 2006 @ 7:53 pm

Weaselling, hell: Explain to me how my linking to that remark constitutes my saying that people of color can never be racist to each other. Really, I’m dying to hear it.

By the way, I had an email from Dead Inside apologizing to me that I’m getting blamed for a remark s/he originally made over at Tiny Cat Pants. S/he needn’t have bothered, though, given that even if s/he’d typed “MAHA IS AN IRREDEEMABLE UNREGENERATE RACIST” and put it in bold type, you’d have found some way to attribute it to me anyhow.

As for “whitemaleprogressives,” I explained that over at Acephalous. I’m sure you saw it, since you apparently keep a database of comments of mine to seethe over. For the less obsessive participants in this thread: I do not mean all progressives who happen to be white and male. I mean a particular type, one HTML is at the moment exemplifying beautifully, whose sustained reaction to requests for inclusion and respect is, “I’ll be the boss of who gets inclusion or respect around here. I’ll also be the boss of telling you when you can feel included and respected” The cute part comes later, when this type then sits around whining that people are offended by that attitude, and claims that said people taking offense constitutes a lynching.

Zuzu, I realize I am not your favorite person at the moment, but:

But to hold all that against me personally?

This thread is chock-full of airheaded musings that it’s so strange piny and Twisty don’t love each other, seeing as how they are both Teh Fascists!!!1!. And you’re surprised you’re getting lumped in with people you don’t agree with?

must….
resist…
*goes away from computer*

I disagree.

HTML: You’d only need to apologize if you were doing it on purpose. It’s kinda my own Boy-Named-Sue legacy. If I were prone to nostalgia, it’d be nice to know the song remains familiar to Southerners of a later generation {g}.

And this entitlement thing rings particularly hollow to me. Any woman who thinks that my male entitlement has made my life so fucking great is hearby invited to go back and live it for me. It has not been a whole lot of fun, on the whole. Personally, if I could relive my life, I’d want to do it as a woman, even with the Patriarchy. I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be any worse, and chances are I’d be a lot less fucked up…

Mikey, odds are you’d still be just as fucked up, but in very different ways. Starting, ferinstance, after the Prom Night Incident, which decent people agree would never have happened if Michelle wasn’t such a mouthy b*tch in the first place, and as for her decision to press charges, well, it’s pretty significant that her own parents threw her out after she decided to (chose one:) get an abortion/give up the baby/keep the baby/fight her rapist’s parents’ custody suit… Michelle wouldn’t have been drafted, but she’d still have grown up in a war zone, although her DSS/DCFS chart would probably list the general diagnosis as “Borderline Personality Disorder” instead of “PTSD”. That’s the real tragedy: We’ve all been wounded, some of us far worse than others, but it’s fatally easy to assume that anyone whose scars don’t match our own must’ve been given a free ride, which of course they are taking full advantage of, the heartless bustards.

(Note to the literally minded: My speculations about ‘Michelle’ are not personal. I am not Michelle, but I have known & loved her.)

Amanda Marcotte:

I do think it’s wrong for people to treat their wives as sex toys that “provide� blow jobs. I think sex is a mutual thing, not a service women “provide� men. Get a pocket pussy if you’re turned off by sex as a mutual activity and prefer it to be a service provided.

I agree 100% with that. I just wish people could shut off the culture in their own beds. I idealize the “lose your hangups with your clothes and get free” concept whereby how “our” culture “frames” oral sex does not enter into the proceedings except insofar as the participants care to use the cultural baggage as spice. Maybe that’s naive.

Sorry about the thread drift, HTML. One day I’ll figure out why on earth I’ve become such an object of loathing for these freaks. You’d think I’m the only woman in the world who talks back, the way they act.

Personally, I’ve enjoyed Amanda’s writing since Mouse Words won that award. She can be strident, but she’s smart and mostly fair and often very funny. I have no axe to grind here other than that I don’t see why favoring your spouse with some head as a courtesy is so awful. I’ve certainly gone down on my wife when she just wanted to get her rocks off. Nonreciprocal sex can be fun in its own way … CMNF, anyone?

I get that the Patriarchy wants Wifey to schedule a hummer in between waxing the floor and basting the roast. Fuck the Patriarchy. It’s just that this is so alien to my experience. No woman I know would put up with that for a second. Evidently I am naive.

You can’t really be saying that Feministe, and a few others, doesn’t attack PBs for not being as invested as they are in whatever type of IDP in question? And it really seems that Ilyka is a nexus for it; I don’t think it’s any accident that she’s friendly with the unapologeticmexican, another of the “if you’re not as invested as me, you’re immoral (i.e., de facto wingnut)!� types.

Wait, now you’re asking me to answer for ilyka and nezua as well?

There is no person called “Feministe.” Feministe is a blog. As for posters, there’s Jill and piny right now, and previously me and Lauren. And that’s it. Not ilyka, not nezua.

I’ve called out some progressive bloggers in the past for racist, misogynist or fatphobic remarks. To reiterate, there are things we all get sick of. Am I not allowed to post about what I get sick of hearing from people on “my side”?

But like I said, such posts amounted to less than half a dozen in the entire history of my time there. And on most of those occasions, I wasn’t the only one doing so, and on several occasions, I wasn’t the first one to do it.

I’m really not sure why you’re still nursing a grudge about any of it, and I’m *really* not sure why you’re now expanding the things you’re holding me responsible for to include nezua’s or ilyka’s posts. Unless you’re positing the existence of some kind of feminist hive mind, where Ilyka is pulling the levers.

I’m not very concerned about this kind of discussion cannibalizing or otherwise destroying the Left. Yeah, there’s a lot of sound and fury; yeah, some people get their underclothes in a wad; yeah, feelings get hurt, tears get shed, balls (spherical toys, that is — no need to get testy) get picked up and taken home….

But ultimately, the whole thing is just like taking a piss when you’re swimming in the ocean. It might make you and those around you warm for a little while, but in the end, the ocean doesn’t change. And then sharks eat you.

Do I need to work on that metaphor?

May I propose a time-out and Powerpuff Girls break for anyone tempted to comment or blog on this further? Posting in a good mood might help the situation.

Sure, ok, Ilyka, you don’t agree that Maha is racist. You just accidentally shared that link. And of course your “hurl” post is the only time, ever, that you’ve said you hate white male progressive bloggers. Is this how you cut people off at the knees? Because I’m still walking.

zuzu — I’m talking about a tendency. And no, I haven’t put you in the same class as Ilyka and piny.

zuzu — I’m talking about a tendency. And no, I haven’t put you in the same class as Ilyka and piny.

Maybe if you could provide some examples of what you mean by this “tendency.” Like names, comments, etc. Because you’re being as vague as “Mudcat” Saunders when he talks about the “Metropolitan Opera Wing of the Democratic Party.” I can’t respond to what I can’t figure out for vagueness. And I’m just not as hung up on progressive white male bloggers as you appear to think I am.

And you may not have put me in the same class as ilyka and piny, but if you weren’t asking me to answer for ilyka and nezua, why did you ask this: “And it really seems that Ilyka is a nexus for it; I don’t think it’s any accident that she’s friendly with the unapologeticmexican, another of the “if you’re not as invested as me, you’re immoral (i.e., de facto wingnut)!â€? types.”?

No, I’m serious. 200 people were laid off at my company today. I’m pretty bummed.

Ilyka:

I do not mean all progressives who happen to be white and male. I mean a particular type, one HTML is at the moment exemplifying beautifully, whose sustained reaction to requests for inclusion and respect is,

Don’t say what you don’t mean – this concept is apparently amazingly difficult.

And here you are, lauding inclusion and respect again. Is this seriously some sort of gimmick? Including people and showing them respect is something you appear totally disinterested in, so it is more than a little disingenuous to be arguing for that now.

Someone who is consistently one of the least respectful people in the room is not the person who should be lodging such complaints. This is just a tiny step removed from “why do you fucking assholes swear so much?” Spare us.

D. Aristophanes replied:
No, I’m serious. 200 people were laid off at my company today. I’m pretty bummed.

I’m sorry, D. that is such a bummer. when a friend of mine got fired from my old job, I never really recovered my morale.

DA-

Did you get laid off? That must be really depressing even if you didn’t. I’m really sorry.

zuzu — I thought it was obvious: because the tendency to attack PBs comes from the tendency to demand that *everyone* be invested in IDP as much as you are.

Now it turns out your not as invested as Ilyka, who prefers to see misogyny in the JG/Brittney thing at the cost of all context and everything else. But still — as with say, the Sammich — you demand that others be invested as much as you are; you demand no fellow progressives catch you, a dolphin, in their tuna nets (to use your rather nice metaphor). But the thing is, intent of the fisherman — fisherperson — doesn’t come into account, and neither does the fact that your demand if taken to its logical and grossly oversensitive conclusion, would destroy all comedy in perpetuity and forever. You demand that your idea of proper IDP-speak be univeralized and all infractions, even from your allies whose intent you know is decent, be criminalized. I’ve been through all this in his thread and in the post. I’m simply not going to be coerced or otherwise morally blackmailed into what I think is over-investment. And when I refuse to do exactly that, I’ll be goddamned if I’m consigned to the Freeper pile, or even merely told I’m “not really Leftist” by people whose entire schtick makes a mockery of socialism.

I’m okay, but have had to say goodbye to some very good colleagues. Thanks for the sympathy, PP and Kathleen.

Also, zuzu: sorry, but contrary to Ilyka’s self-aggrandizing delusion, I don’t really have a bunch of links collected. All I know are those that have been linked here and those on the Aunt B thread that I read a few days ago because it trackbacked to us.

I don’t even have the “go fuck yourself” thread bookmarked.

[dodges flying poo, and pats DA on the back reassuringly]

I wish Gary Ruppert were here. Then we could all focus on hating a common enemy.

But the thing is, intent of the fisherman — fisherperson — doesn’t come into account, and neither does the fact that your demand if taken to its logical and grossly oversensitive conclusion, would destroy all comedy in perpetuity and forever.

The dolphin really doesn’t care what the fisherman’s intent was; the dolphin’s still caught in the tuna net. The dolphin just wants the fisherman to use a net with bigger holes so the fisherman can still catch tuna, but leave dolphins out of it.

I’m sorry you think the dolphins are trying to blackmail you. Even though the dolphins just want to be left out of the nets.

And with that, I bow out.

Shit. That sucks, DA.

I do have to agree that HTML Mencken should provide some actual quotes, although I do also think that posters are somewhat reponsible for comments they they encourage.

For fuck’s sake, do you people have to drag everyone into this ?

Yes, Flipper, we do.
I think this is all Mike Ditka’s fault, and if you disagree with me you clearly hate the Welsh.

Pinko. I admire you, I truly do. I see you as a genuine man of peace. I hope to be there myself one day, but I’m a long way from having developed the more nuanced reactions. It’s hard for me to learn the greys between “kill it” and “run from it”. I’m working on it, and you all are helping. Thanks.

That said, dammit, I can’t fucking HELP get the jackboot off your throat if you’re busy standing on MY throat. Put another way, if you’ll put your pride in your pocket enough to accept me as an ally, I’ll be a pretty damn good one. But incoming rounds have no discretion – they are ALWAYS fired by “the enemy”. And you must ALWAYS return fire. It is the nature of things.

DA. A good friend of mine was laid off by his employer (memory company in fremont) yesterday. And here the Merc keeps telling us how great the employment situation is here in the valley. Sure it is…

mikey

I would type a transliteration of a dolphin noise if I knew how to do it.

(Don’t start on me — you try typing with these things.)

The most extreme practitioners of OIP are just narcissists.

mikey –

So my boss tells me today that our company will be hiring after the layoffs … and that the people who got laid off will be eligible for those jobs if they want.

Which is like, did Joseph Heller write this clusterfuck, or what?

Sure, ok, Ilyka, you don’t agree that Maha is racist.

My, look at those goalposts go! You said:

it seems to me that your position wrt TF is dangerously close in principle to the one Ilyka uses against Maha: that *it’s impossible* for a black person to ever be racist.

Except I never used any such argument.

As for whether Maha said anything racist in that post, that isn’t for me to determine. It isn’t for you to determine, either. The people who get to determine what’s racist are the people directly affected by racism, and those people are neither you nor me.

I did note that several people of color felt she had displayed a racist attitude, and you may take from that that I can definitely see why they felt that way. If that offends you, I’m sorry, but I am under no obligation to love every blogger.

Unrelated, now: I don’t know who brought it up, but, Nezua: In the same way that Amanda had nothing to do with this and should never have been brought up, Nezua has nothing to do with this and should really be left out of it.

I’m sorry you think the dolphins are trying to blackmail you.

I’ve read this fifteen times now — and I know the context, as I’m Mr. Context Man — but it’s still damn funny.

There was a catch. There was always a catch, and it was Catch 22.

See, they are eligible for those jobs, but the jobs now pay $6.35 an hour, for 19 hours a week. So sorry, no health coverage either. But let us know if you want one…

“That’s some catch, that Catch-22,”

“It’s the best there is”

mikey

Well, whataya know. The former Dean Esmay contributor still adheres to an Instapundity definition of her linkings — no, it’s not an endorsement!

I’m still walking here.

As for whether Maha said anything racist in that post, that isn’t for me to determine. It isn’t for you to determine, either. The people who get to determine what’s racist are the people directly affected by racism, and those people are neither you nor me.

That’s just silly. Of course it’s up to me if I read it or write it, because I have a brain. Am I not supposed to be able to understand All in the Family?

Bubba, but that’s identity politics in a nutshell. Only racial minorities can know what racism is. Only women can know what sexism is. Only gays can know what homophobia is. And if you, as a (presumed) white straight male ever disagree with an assessment made by one of these, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Don’t try to parse it out or make sense of it. Just let it go. Breathe deep. Think happy thoughts.

H-

Why don’t you propose a resolution to the situation, either a document or a position that Ilyka can consider, and then she can come back with a counter-proposal. You are just flaming right now, and it kind of chafes- I mean, OK, you’re still really pissed, what’s next?

Here… It may not be a giant sammich, but someone’s bound to like it.

[continues obstinate refusal to engage in discussion of topic at hand…]

What Jillian said.

And that’s why it attracts the true intellectual totalitarian, like Ilyka: because its nature offers a moral monopoly on a subject.

You’re either with me or against me.

My enemies are the enemies of freedom, and dolphins.

To me, celery! To me!

And that’s why it attracts the true intellectual totalitarian, like Ilyka: because its nature offers a moral monopoly on a subject.

Because, duh, there is a moral monopoly on that subject…

Marita, if you really want to not engage, we could start a contest of posting links to the absolute worst slash fanfic we can find, to see who can find the worst…….. 😉

I really don’t think the conversation is going to move forward from here. Not because I don’t think it should, but because I don’t think those who are not on my side are capable of moving it forward. I don’t, don’t, don’t say this out of any snark or flame or glee or joy. It makes me absolutely sick in my heart that I do say it….I wish I had something other than words to convince people that it really does make me heartsick. But I just don’t think that those who disagree with me will ever hear anything I say – I think they’ll just dismiss me as a “mindless victim of the patriarchy” or some such. I don’t want it to be that way. I wish someone could convince me otherwise.

Until then…..there’s always the bad slash contest, I suppose.

hell, I would be rich if I had a dollar for every random liberal website, in a totally Marcotte-free post, where an “anon� in the comments starts going off on something you said.

I will take this opportunity to invoke Lemieux’s Law.

I really don’t think the conversation is going to move forward from here. Not because I don’t think it should, but because I don’t think those who are not on my side are capable of moving it forward. I don’t, don’t, don’t say this out of any snark or flame or glee or joy. It makes me absolutely sick in my heart that I do say it….I wish I had something other than words to convince people that it really does make me heartsick. But I just don’t think that those who disagree with me will ever hear anything I say – I think they’ll just dismiss me as a “mindless victim of the patriarchyâ€? or some such. I don’t want it to be that way. I wish someone could convince me otherwise.

I think it’s a matter of what you’re trying to accomplish. It’s an age-old fight caused by the bipartite division of US politics.

Hmmm… I haven’t really delved into the world of slash fanfic, so I’m at a disadvantage, but I suppose I could put in an effort.

I’m catching the T home now, but will be back online in a bit. I eagerly anticipate your opening salvo.

Well, Mandos, I’d trace it back to the Left/New Left split in the sixties, which is something I’d really like to see repaired.

What I’d like to accomplish is a mass movement, as opposed to a bunch of little movements. Not a mass liberal movement, either – a movement that is squarely on the left. Alas, there’s no left to speak of in this country anymore. And so, I’m back to the bad slash contest again.

I bet I’d win, too.

So, furthermore, it’s worth examining whether people who claim to be allies really are. Are feminism and liberal practical politics tied to one another? One drum that’s regularly beat on IBTP is that they clearly are not.

Yeah, that’s where the split may have happened, but what is the obstacle to repairing it? I know that Democrats regularly still excoriate 2K Nader voters, for instance.

any chance we could agree, as a community, to call him “Dean E.?” because Esme is my very favorite name for a baby girl, and I don’t want it ruined for me like Jonah was by mr. doughboy. (although a friend did just use Jonah, so that gives me a more rational excuse that I can admit to people.)

But Esme is just short for Esmerelda, right?

500th post! Yes, it is mine!

Yes! My work here is done! I own the precious 500th post! So long, suckers!

(Well, at least for a few hours.)

But Esme is just short for Esmerelda, right?

sometimes, but not always. see, e.g.

D. Aristophanes, I am sorry to hear about your company’s low dishonest maneuverings. Please remember to take care of yourself, and don’t let a combination of intelligent-paranoia-cum-survivors-guilt push you to make insane efforts to do your own work plus all the work of your former colleagues (only better! and faster!) which is what Teh Suits are probably hoping for. Save your strength for your own life.

we could start a contest of posting links to the absolute worst slash fanfic we can find

People write fan fiction about the Velvet Revolver lead guitarist? Who knew?

mikey

It’s because you’re the enabler Amanda. You bully, and you try to make it okay for others to be a bully.

I’m supressing the urge to make a mildly sexist remark about what a weiner you are that the very idea of a woman criticizing your little series of entitlements you lean on instead of developing an actual self-esteem (which would probably require you to become a non-hateful person) is the same thing as “bullying”. “That big bully suggested that it’s not exactly right for men to expect that women are nature’s slaves! Wah, I want to feel entitled to a slave without anyone making me think even for a moment that it’s wrong!” Boo-fucking-hoo. I get that women’s equality scares you, because there’s a good chance that no fully empowered woman would condescend to “provide” you with sex, at least not at the rates you’re paying. Your reaction reminds me of the entitled aristocrats gnawing over their irrational hatred of unions and empowered labor. It’s fucking pathetic.

Mandos, the obstacle is that the two groups don’t even see the world through the same set of eyes anymore. Identity politics is the OPPOSITE of Left politics, yet most identity-pushers swear they’re the vanguard of the Left, and would be pissed as hell to be told otherwise.

It’s a long, long, messy story, and even after all the time I’ve spent digging into it, I still only feel like I know maybe a hundredth as much as I need to about it. I have NO idea how to fix things. If I did, I wouldn’t be proposing bad slash contests instead of actually dealing with the issues at hand. I like fixing problems. I don’t like letting them just fester. But this one seems hopeless to me.

And speaking of bad slash contests…I think I win out of the gate with this.

I have no axe to grind here other than that I don’t see why favoring your spouse with some head as a courtesy is so awful.

It’s not. He’s referring to a post I wrote where I noted an article I found appalling because they advised women to learn how to give 5-minute blow jobs so they could cross off “make sure husband has orgasmed properly” off their list of duties. I like sex far too much for it to be treated like a chore for women. My attitude is that if sex is a duty in a list between “wash dishes” and “put baby to bed”, the quickest way to reduce your workload is to dump the useless husband and find someone you enjoy fucking.

I don’t excoriate Nader voters, but other cheeses do. Nader, though, deserved excoriating. Maybe from his view, Gore and Bush were really just the same, but operationally none of that was really true. I can still see the Michael Moore directed clip for RATM’s “Testify” and for as right as it could be in some corners, I just have to look around to see how wrong it was.

I’m with Somerby, I blame our “liberal” media.

Am I not supposed to be able to understand All in the Family?

No, I wouldn’t take it that far. Maybe a better way to put it would be that I’m generally uncomfortable with having white people in charge of the final determination? Because of course our inclination is going to be to go “Nuh-uh! Not me!” I would rather more weight be granted to the people who experience it every day in most circumstances.

I’m still walking here.

It’s really interesting to me that you assume I use a battle axe to swat flies. But speaking of “still,” I’m still waiting for you to admit you attributed to me something I did not say.

You didn’t learn much from the Vidal wars, did you? Oh, well.

that’s why it attracts the true intellectual totalitarian, like Ilyka: because its nature offers a moral monopoly on a subject.

Don’t let the uncomfortable reality that under that system I, too, give up a host of privileges (hardly the makings of a “moral monopoly”) get in your way. Sure, maybe I get treated almost like a human being for being a woman (this is a totalitarian desire how, again?), but that still leaves me, let’s see: Cisgendered, ableist, white, and heterosexual privilege. Not really a way of looking at the world I’d recommend for aspiring totalitarians, but then, I’m not looking at the world through a film of bong water.

Perhaps it would help. Couldn’t hurt.

Fuck, PP, there is no what’s next. I respect you, but I blog because I care about certain principles, not to make friends with people who have shitty principles or none at all. I have absolutely no fucking interest in coming to a compromise with someone who I think is a thug, especially for the sake of getting along.

As for whether Maha said anything racist in that post, that isn’t for me to determine. It isn’t for you to determine, either. The people who get to determine what’s racist are the people directly affected by racism, and those people are neither you nor me.

Because, duh, there is a moral monopoly on that subject…

Ah, victimhood as the fount for exclusive, indisputable moral and critical authority. This is a major sticking point, no?

It’s really interesting to me that you assume I use a battle axe to swat flies.

Aquila non capit muscas.

Jeez, Ilyka, let’s don’t throw the baby out with the bongwater here…

mikey

No, I wouldn’t take it that far. Maybe a better way to put it would be that I’m generally uncomfortable with having white people in charge of the final determination? Because of course our inclination is going to be to go “Nuh-uh! Not me!� I would rather more weight be granted to the people who experience it every day in most circumstances.

Well, racism’s an uncomfortable thing and I’m okay with the idea that I’m going to be kind of a dummy about some things I don’t deal with on a daily basis. In everyday dealings when I have to figure out how best to avoid being punched, your framework’s just not practical. I still make my own “final determination” regularly, because I’m the arbiter of what I say or do or choose to read or watch. I don’t consult a committee, and if I did it would not just be a committee of x race, but a committee of x race who were sharp folks. Who decides who’s sharp? Me.

My dumb ideas and opinions are always in my lap, which I suppose is why I was so initially chicken to go out on a limb in the Brittney fiasco, but there it is, and down with the discomfort.

How’d I get dragged into this?

It’s really interesting to me that you assume I use a battle axe to swat flies. But speaking of “still,� I’m still waiting for you to admit you attributed to me something I did not say.

No, you only approvingly linked to it, iow, endorsed it. But thanks, Glenn Reynolds.

Don’t let the uncomfortable reality that under that system I, too, give up a host of privileges (hardly the makings of a “moral monopoly�) get in your way.

Yeah, but as per above, you find a way around that don’t you? But even if you did play fair and didn’t allow yourself to smear other people as racist, it’s a small price to pay to be able to smear anyone as a sexist. And the “no tag backs” part is the irresistable icing on the IDP cake.

You didn’t learn much from the Vidal wars, did you? Oh, well.

Like, what exactly? That some formerly pro-war nimrods are still assholes even when they’ve belatedly come around to decency on the subject? I’d say that lesson well applies here.

H-

that’s all fine, but why waste precious energy- you operate from the conclusion that Ilyka is a thug- but this means you treat her as such and you don’t argue with her as you would argue with me- this just makes it look like you don’t really care and you are just fucking around with your kill, like a kitten with a flavor. At some point I don’t see the point anymore.

Is Ilyka a thug or does she argue like one. Is she in that box forever, or does she get to come out. I have a different view on that than you do, but even if she is, why not just publish your “Ilyka is a thug” white paper and be done with it. I just disagree with the “I still got my shins, cobag!1!!” triumphalism. It’s fun for awhile, I think it just doesn’t accomplish anything.

There was this chicken, out on a limb
Flinging poo at every whim
They all said what they said
But Steve is still Dead
Feels like a blogistan phantom limb

Sorry Bubba, but the image was to great to pass up…

mikey

This whole thing is better in verse
It sure couldn’t get any worse
With poo-flinging errors
And holier-than-thou terrors
All dragged from the back of a hearse

Dammit, PP, it’s not about triumphalism at all. Her position is stupid; her beliefs are dangerous, her tactics are abominable. It’s not that I’m superior; it’s that the hideous over-investment she embodies — so much that *misogyny is the only fucking issue she can see in anything, even in the JG/Brittney issue* — is so godawful stupid, superficial, irrelevant, and narcissistic that it must fucking be condemned by somebody.

It’s not even about her per se. It’s that she is an example of extremism that too fucking many people have allowed a free pass.

But to be personal about it, if you like, she’s probably that way because a)she brings over the wingnut mentality, b)she’s a convert with all the exaggerated piety that entails, and c)she’s never going to be as good as the A list feminists on the subject and she knows it. Therefore a sort of, forgive the phrase, vagina envy takes hold. Good feminist bloggers don’t make “I hate the White Male Progressive” their fucking schtick, precisely because they aren’t over-invested to the point of monomania, to the point that they shit all over their friends by calling them de facto wingnuts; nor do they have authenticity issues that come with being a former wingnut. Ilyka does. Thus, her supermegaextremism.

That’s why it’s worth this amount of energy.

I might phrase it this way……..

The identity politics approach to social change actually hurts those it claims to be helping. Therefore, they are in a position to do way more harm to things lefty-types care about than are your regular wingnuts. Therefore, they are worth the energy.

Yes, thanks, Jillian. You can tell when I’m aggravated, can’t you? Gah, can’t let anger subvert my point. I’m out for a bit.

Jillian,

Ilyka posted a big post (gone now) how she wasn’t ignoring everything else with the issue, she was talking about a particular angle. I can’t defend every single thing she said, but the other side of this debate is that whenever some minority/oppressed group has claimed X,Y,Z the oppressing group tends to say “no, that’s not -ist, you want to see -ist, let’s talk about this worse thing.” So there things that aren’t -ist that get called -ist- it doesn’t bother me, no one is going to be right all the time, let’s talk about it. People have “identity politics” because shit matters to them, and if they are in a small group, then their concerns will get marginalized. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and when we are talking about centuries or millennia of getting marginalized, I can let some stuff slide. I don’t think it is dangerous at all to talk about things. The only bad thing that can happen is I get my feelings hurt, yet the people I’m talking to feel like their lives are being discussed, so they bring a little bit more emotion to the table. If they are worth the energy to engage, fine. If you are trying to destroy, fine. Don’t claim to do one and then do the other, and there are lots of good people out there that probably disagree with me on tons of stuff, great. I’m glad they don’t decide that I’m dangerous and need to be destroyed. There are of course ideas that ARE dangerous and need to be destroyed, but we can’t (as much as we’d like) destroy the people that have those ideas, we need to convince them to think differently. And if you want to convince someone who might be on the fence that thinks similarly to Ilyka, you don’t do it by destroying her and flame war games. You take a complicated and fragmented as fuck situation, and you try to break it down point by point, and to do so you have to examine every single underlying premise and context for a whole bunch of widespread statements. That is a lot harder than lobbing “fuck yous” back and forth.

There are tons of people in this thread choking back their desire to tell me to fuck off, and I’m doing the same thing with them, no matter how enraged I get. This is what is worth effort in my mind.

That bongwater crack really is half a step from “i woulda gotten away with it if it weren’t for you damned dirty hippies and your dog”, innit? I gotta agree someone’s inner wingnut is showing.
As a longhaired pot smoker I feel my identity is being insulted. I demand satisfaction.

Do you think we could convince ilyka to make her comments on other people’s blogs invitation-only, too?

I’ll chew on this for awhile.

There are tons of people in this thread choking back their desire to tell me to fuck off

They’re all just eating those powdery doughnuts and breathing in at the wrong time. You’re swell, PP.

PP- I’m not choking back anything. You’re not calling those of us who disagree with you bad people, which is part of why I continue to respect your opinion even if I disagree with it.

That link was horrible, Jillian, but in my brief (less than an hour) exposure to the genre, I’m wondering how exactly it’s possible to declare a worst. This, for example, is atrocious. This is also very bad. It’s just too tough to choose.

Having said that, this page, while not technically slash (I don’t think), should earn some sort of honorable mention…

I just feel like the two groups here are dealing with completely different views of how the unvirse operates, Pinko, and I have no idea how to reconcile them. I disagree with your description of identity politics…. identity politics is not just a function of being a minority and feeling marginalized, it’s the belief that marginalization gives you a sort of privileged access to the nature of reality. And it is a deeply harmful thing to believe. But how do you attempt to reason with someone who believes their ability to perceive reality is more accurate than yours – which conveniently allows them to dismiss anything you say which they do not like?

I’m up for advice, because I know I haven’t been any good at it up until now. Seriously – school me on this if you can. I’ll take any help I can get, because I think it matters.

HTML and Pinko are two denizens of left blogistan I admire, for their intellect, for their heart and for their passion. If either one of ’em smeared poo on the wall I’d drive over to try to read it. My sympathies here, however, are running in Pinko’s direction. Not because I think Mencken doesn’t have good points, but because when there’s nothing left in front of your hole but bodies and shellholes, that means it’s time to clear the chamber and go get a shower and some chow.

Oh, you can keep firing, and with the anger and adrenaline running hot, it’s certainly satisfying to keep the rounds going downrange. But there comes a point where it would make a helluva lot more sense to cease fire, sit 50% security and wait to see if any live targets show up…

mikey

That’s the joy of a bad slash contest, Marita…..it never has to end! And everyone can be the winner! It’s the ultimate self-esteem sport, because you can’t lose!

Who are Andy and Roger, anyway?

I have to run out the door to catch my bus, but I wish I could do more than toss of a quick response to you Jillian.

I think that IP can be the way you described, but not always.

I just read a terrible news story about a gang rape (5 men, one woman) in the Bay Area last night. I feel that my reaction to that story is different than all/most men’s reaction. And I feel that difference is based on my being a woman.

That seems to be both IP and reality to me, and where it seems relevant is where “Dudes” don’t acknowledge things like “rape culture”.

gah. I wish I had more time to make this better.

For what it’s worth, looks like we’re going to extend this thread even further than the notorioius Prussian Blue post, and most of us are still trying to conduct a polite conversation or four. Tolerance, yay!

FYI: The Valve did a book event on Walter Benn Michaels’ The Trouble With Diversity last year. (Link takes you to the event archives.) The uneasy truce between identitarian and class approaches to social justice were hashed out at some length.

For Jillian & Marita:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0vrM1qCAKtA

[Sick and funny; kind of like this thread.]

Jillian-

You know it is “with great power…”- sure people can abuse it, but the reason women are better at determining sexist situations is that they experience it to a degree many men will never admit exists. The desire to say “walk in my shoes if you want to decide what is -ism and what isn’t makes ton of sense. Yeah, there can be limits, but if people aren’t even willing to talk about -ism, how can we even know what the limits really are. Are the limits when generally reasonable people get fed up with it because it doesn’t really involve their daily lives? Or is it after a long hard look? There are groups that I see on the web that I feel really try to leverage their position, but how else would you expect a marginalized group to act. I don’t know if it is fair that they need to be above it all when they are at such a disadvanatge. If we had a rule book we could agree upon, maybe we could deal with it. Here’s my actual true view- I don’t know if I would go about things the way a lot of people do, but I think “identity politics” is a perfectly understandable and predictable response to “your concerns don’t matter”- I know it seems like a privilege for some to somehow be able to be the arbiters for what they view as racism, but it is probably not even close to a privilege to live their lives. I’m just trying to say that I totally understand the phenomenon, whether I agree with it, and I am actually willing to try to accept it as even a handicap to a liberal society.

I can’t be as clear as I wan’t because I really need to get some stuff done and there are so many issues here it is just crazy.

pp

That’s the joy of a bad slash contest, Marita…..it never has to end! And everyone can be the winner! It’s the ultimate self-esteem sport, because you can’t lose!

Hooray! Everyone can heal!

Will there be medals awarded to all the participants?

Who are Andy and Roger, anyway?

Tennis players. I think it’s Andy Roddick and Roger Federer.

Ooooh. I’m off to peruse the Starsky and Hutch slash fanfic page. What the hell is wrong with these people?

Anyone else care to join in? PP, I’m sure you can dig something up…

I think there’s utility to identity politics, and I think it’s okay if they try to deliver an ass-kicking once in a while. Would the civil rights movement in America have advanced so far in the 60s without a little of that? I mean, substitute privileged reality for different reality and I think it’s a truism that Jillians have a wildly differing experience of the world than Bubbas do.

Would there be meaningful breast-cancer research without identity politics? AIDS treatment?

I hear you, Kathleen.

But what about men who do acknowledge the existence of rape culture? And fight against it? Why should they be marginalized because they share a gender with the perpetrators?

No man will ever know how it feels to be a woman and hear a story like that, and have it be the sort of thing that lingers in your mind as you walk to your car in the empty parking lot. But you don’t have to know how it feels to be able to fight effectively against it. And just because you do know how it feels doesn’t mean that you are better able to do anything about changing the society that lets it flourish (Not “you” you, Kathleen, but the generic “you”.)

To me, that is the biggest problem with that idea.

There’s also the fact that this sort of thinking tends to marginalize people who really would like to help. For example, I’ve been homeless. I know how it feels to not be sure where you’re going to be sleeping that night – and then when you do find out, it’s worse than you could’ve imagined, because it turns out that you’re going to be sleeping at your pervy, druggie uncle’s place that night or something. This is an experience that most people will never have. Most people will never, ever know how that feels – and they’re better off. But does that mean that because YOU, Kathleen, have never been homeless, you can’t really help the homeless? I don’t believe that for a second. Hell, if I were having a bad day because I was dealing with some unpleasant memories of stuff that happened to me while I was homeless as a little kid, I’d even be willing to talk to you about it, in the hopes that talking to you might make me feel a little better – and you’ve (presumably) never been there, never had that experience. But I know you have empathy, and I know you have compassion. While you will never really know how it feels to be a homeless eleven year old, you don’t have to in order to help me out.

Are lots of guys assholes? Sure. Lots of people are assholes. Are lots of guys completely unaware of the vast array of privileges their penes earn them in this culture? Yep. But it’s not the penes themselves that make them unaware – it’s their own assholery. So forget the gender, and focus on the asshole.

Does that make sense?

Zuzu:

And my efforts to point out that this business of not allowing that some people who cared for Steve and didn’t agree that Brittney did nothing wrong might just be insulted that their reading comprehension and intelligence were being dismissed as fucking retarded were met with the same kinds of arguments that piny and ilyka decried during the whole sammich/cunt wars — oh, we weren’t talking about YOU, why are you making this about you?

As promised, time to look at how Zuzu (and Ilyka) really feels about the “it isn’t about you” argument. (Hint: she likes it, except when people use it against her)

Exhibit A: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/03/04/4549/

Ilyka wrote a couple of posts about the dustup in Twisty’s comments, including this one about a conversation she had with her boyfriend, which shows how some men take feminist discourse a little too personally:
…
“It’s not as hard if you move yourself out of the center of everything, though. That’s what I finally got through my thick skull. It’s not ABOUT me, always”
…
“Then don’t identify with them. It’s not about you!”
…
“What we aren’t doing is taking care of them. Nurturing them. Putting their feelings first.”

Zuzu didn’t express any problem with the “it’s not about you” argument here, in fact she excerpted it and endorsed it. This post (of Ilyka’s) was also reproduced or linked to at ShakeSis, IBTP, Feminism 101 and a whole bunch of other blogs – universally lauded. And now Zuzu is claiming that the “it’s not about you” argument upsets her? And apparently Ilyka was also upset when people threw that argument in her face?

Exhibit B: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/03/08/lazy-blogging-against-sexism/#comments, 118, my first banning. (For using a phrase that Zuzu herself quoted in her post…

Sweetie, go back and read Ilyka’s post. She’s talking about a specific group of white dudes who are acting idiotically. I’m sorry if you identify with the 95% rather than the 5%, but them’s the breaks.

Translation: It’s not about you.

Yeah, she *really* hates the “it’s not about you” argument, can’t you tell? And she really hates casting the net too wide, as you can tell from both Exhibits A and B.

Exhibit c: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/04/02/labels/#comments, Zuzu once again excerpts a piece bashing men/progressive males.

Mr. Shakes has an excellent post over at the new digs, Shakesville, discussing why feminism benefits everyone — and why the continuing insistence of a lot of men (even progressive ones) on denigrating, attacking or maligning feminism (even as they accept individual feminists) is against their own interest.
…
“If men were smart, they wouldn’t fight against feminism.”

This is the start of the “excellent post”, by the way:

This morning, Shakes asked me why it is that there are so many men, including far too many progressive men, who seem so bloody-mindedly determined to malign and attack the feminist movement, even as they are supportive of individual feminists. What is it, she wondered, that makes it feel so threatening, that elicits the urge to try to discredit it or deny its necessity?
…
This tendency among men to swallow this bullshit strikes me as being particularly stupid.
…
The only reaction that predominated in any discernible way has been one of hostility toward the feminist movement, from the overt sexism of anti-choicers to the condescending sneering so often witnessed even in men who define themselves as progressive.

How much did Zuzu complain about casting the net wide and trapping allies? Zero. Rather she helped unfurl the net.

Comment #11: (Not Zuzu)

Oh and can I be first to point out to all the men in the audience: It’s not about you, your fee-fees or whether a woman was mean to you once upon a time in a far far land, civil rights are not an optional extra for the politics of people who aren’t evil fuckstains,

How many times did Zuzu complain about this variation on “it’s not about you.” Zero. (By the way I fully admit that in the linked thread I am half-trolling)

The entire unstated premise of Mr. Shakes post (which was then outright stated in comment 11) is that it’s ok to bash men, progressive men, etc, because once again “it isn’t about you.” There is no way his post is justifiable otherwise. Once again, if you are offended it is your fault for being a sensitive flower and for being selfish. The “it’s not about you” sentiment appears many times in that comment thread – objections from Zuzu zero times.

Zuzu has no problem casting the net wide and catching allies, and no problem leaning on the “it’s not about you” excuse to justify that wide net. But now she raises her voice in protest and claims she never endorsed that argument? Please.

If Zuzu never bought into the “it’s not about you” logic, why did she use that logic herself and praise other people who did so precisely *for* that reason?

Again, the only consistency Ilyka and Zuzu show wrt “it’s not about you” is that it’s ok when they do it, just not when you do it.

So yes, the protestations now come a little late. Sucks when your own frail logic gets thrown back in your face. When Ilyka wrote “it’s not about you” to men Zuzu clapped her hands and cheered her on; now when Ilyka says the same thing about Zuzu suddenly it’s Oh So Very Wrong.

Tennis player slashfic? Oh, my.

My world will never be the same.

HTML Mencken now owes me $5 for doing his legwork for him.

You know what, Pinko?

I would probably even be willing to work with that, if the flip side of that coin didn’t get played……the one that says “you are a man, ergo your view doesn’t count”.

I’ll have to check out that Valve link…..I’ve scanned through a bit of their stuff before and always been amazed by what I’ve seen. They say things I thought I was the only person thinking sometimes. It’s just that with the crush of work during the school year, my outside reading time is very limited. Thanks for the heads-up, SEK.

Pbbbbbbbbt. Tennis player slash fic?

I give you, neocon slash fiction.

Y’know, if nobody’s made a dildo called Ivory Tower yet they’ve gotta get cracking.

Uhh, the check’s in the mail, R.O.!

RB- But it ain’t the 60s no more. As much as Ilyka might want to see white liberal progressive guys through the lens of, say, the boys club mentality in the original film version of M.A.S.H., that’s not who we are. Somewhere, someone in this thread mentioned SDS being a bunch of white guys who didn’t recognize their privilege, and from what I know that’s fair, but i’m freakin 30. HTML is, I think, a bit younger than me. We’ve, scratch that I, don’t wanna overstep my bounds n speak for HTML, was brought up in a different culture where the inequality of women was acknowledged as a very bad thing which we all have a duty to change.
When Kathleen says “‘Dudes’ don’t acknowledge ‘rape culture'” I’m not sure how that’s really different from saying the NAACP doesn’t acknowledge “inner city violence.” I know that’s a charged analogy, and I’m not calling you, Kathleen, hateful, but I don’t like the implications of what you’re saying.
I’ll put it like this. Part of dude entitlement is something like what Ilyka said earlier where dudes decide to be the arbiters of something we don’t experience. That’s bullshit, because it’s nothing more than saying dudes can’t have valid opinions on topic x, and if they do they’re being oppressive.
Furthermore, not acknowledging rape culture, which I’d suggest is something only a member of that culture would do, does not connect to having opinions on experiences white dudes can’t directly experience. But the catch-all of dude entitlement can serve as a link, letting you insinuate that disagreeing about dude privilege probably means someone thinks gang rape is ok or that the word slut isn’t expressive of a societal double standard or so on.
I’m sorry to get touchy but I have a problem with what you said.

Thanks for saying that, Jillian.

And to be clear, I stopped addressing Bubba in the second paragraph. Sorry for the muddle.

For what it’s worth, I’ve located Snape/Hagrid slash. It’s terribly romantic. Or something.

I also found Blackadder slash, but as it didn’t involve Baldrick, I didn’t think it was worth linking.

1. A person who spent a good deal of time hating on *all* progressives does not get to write a post about hating white male progressives without taking a mountain of shit for it. Deal with it, Ilyka: your history has not gone away, and it is definitely in the way of any claims to purity. I’ve spent enough time in women’s studies courses (hell, my mom developed women’s studies curricula for colleges back in the ’70s) to recognize “trashing” and hollow arguments decorated with anti-patriarchal rhetoric. This particular white male progressive has no apologies to make for his feminist credentials–hell, I was doing clinic defense and rape crisis outreach when you were wearing a Ronald Reagan T-shirt–and I resent the hell aout of your Janey-come-lately attempts to grab hold of an issue that many of us have been working on for decades while trashing us all the while.

2. Still haven’t run across that apology for your previous stances and actions. That goes for you, too, Mark S.

I apologize if I’m coming across as angry, but God damn it, I got enough shit about having a Y chromosome back when I was at Berkeley and surrounded by caricatures. This shit has *got* to stop–and it’s especially galling coming from someone who was actively an enemy until relatively recently.

adb,

I’d normally respond with “it’s not you that people are talking about” but that ain’t gonna fly today.

What I will say is that you can’t ignore the history of the world outside of your existence, this doesn’t invalidate your thoughts, but it is a burden we all have to deal with. You can have whatever opinion you want to have, there are reasons why it doesn’t carry an equal amount of weight. I think that seems like an obvious conclusion, that while seemingly unfair makes sense to me. The history of how many groups have suffered through the ages IS “dudes arbitratin in thr existence” so why should adb get a free pass?

I will merely repeat my assertion that I have existed in the halls of the ivoriest ot towers and they are sexist cess-pools. My own personal experience suggests that we have a long way to go, thus I personally don’t mind admitting that I, albeit the possessor of boundless empathetic skillz and sensors, can’t truly imagine- and I can imagine a lot, right up to the point of A. Roddick and R. Federer doing what they do in the slash-fic- I can’t truly imagine what it is like to experience life in certain other circles. It seems really intuitive to me, I’m sorry I can’t get it across to you. We should be in the same boat, all I can do is try to explain why I don’t feel sensitive about this stuff.

Time to go away from computer again, methinks. If you’re going to keep touring slash, check some Spinerfem stuff out for me, plz. After Trekkies I always think of Spinerfems when I think of fan fiction.

Sorry for introducing you to this, Marita – it’s just that I have a morbid fascination with slash.

If you look long enough, you will find everything from Shakespeare slash to Bible slash to….well, you’d probably really rather not know.

I love how weird humans are.

officially lamest comeback in the post:

“It’s really interesting to me that you assume I use a battle axe to swat flies.”

fer realz? as they say where i’m from: no mames güera! battle axe? swatting flies? estas de la verga.

and for the rest of you: me, i’m more oppressed than all of you, me! you hear it! me! not teh gheys, not the penis-less, not the left, ME!

and if you don’t acknowledge that you are obviously misogynistiracishomophobilookisantiimmigrationisnazizionispeadophillic gasbags!

I guess it’s my fault for not making something clear, PP. (Said without passive aggression.) I’m not arguing that my experience is definitive, or that everyone should change for me. Far from it. I’m not denying realities of those who haven’t had my advantages. How could I? I’m not burying my head in the sand or trying to minimize anyone else’s experience.
I’m saying that two wrongs don’t make a right, and overgeneralizing about guys isn’t the way to fix structural imbalances in society. I went to Vassar undergrad and go to the New School for grad school and, one or two profs aside, women are equal in my ivory towers. I know my experience is uncommon but it’s hardly unique or even rare, and I don’t agree that men have to see themselves as oppressors to begin to respect women. Put it that way.

HTML Mencken now owes me $5 for doing his legwork for him.

How much to make you stop already? I can understand HTML being pissed over the giant sammich but the obsessive axe grinding of you and a few other guy’s here is disturbing. As a guy who figured out at an early age that white dude entitlement is real (really fucking real) and figured out how to benefit from it I find people minimizing its impact laughable. Just not funny.

Doc,

Just want to say, that was Amazing … well said.

Can the subaltern speak?

RB- But it ain’t the 60s no more.

Sure, but it’s trying hard, and brown people of a different order of swarthiness are getting picked on again, and “feminist” remains a dirty word.

I’d rather the focus was on class issues, but if you buy that gay people get where they are today – seriously threatening to force James Dobson to marry every Village Person – without identity politics I think you’re being a little blinkered.

That’s not to endorse a newer set of blinkers but I see the utility in aggrieved groups having a voice. In fact I prefer those voices to Raytheon and Boeing.

The bashing on white male progressive, uh, hetero limbfully endowed whatever bloggers…I don’t really pay attention and don’t want to, but even if it was a pervasive problem, cleaning that up would rank way low on my list of priorities.

*One or two profs aside meaning I can think of a couple exceptions where guys might still be favored, but these are ancient profs whose ways were set long, long ago. Not saying its ok, but they’re anachronisms at this point.

… seriously threatening to force James Dobson to marry every Village Person …

Make it a campaign promise and I’ll sign the petition.

As a guy who figured out at an early age that white dude entitlement is real (really fucking real) and figured out how to benefit from it I find people minimizing its impact laughable. Just not funny.

Nowhere here did I minimize the impact. It is wholly tangential to the subject I’m addressing. I haven’t said anything substantive about entitlement in this thread at all.

Zuzu said something that was clearly false, I called her on it and demonstrated why it was false, and furthermore why both Zuzu and Ilyka are the hypocritical scolds I accused them of being.

Unlike yourself, when I accuse people of unkind things I attempt to justify rather than just lobbing it out there.

Would he have to marry them all at once, or one at a time?

Because all at once would be hot.

I guess I’m saying a member of a minority shouldn’t have to define themselves solely as a member of that minority to have a political platform? And that there’s all sorts of reasons, as Jillian has expressed better than I could, why that isolated self-definition is harmful?
I’m not saying quit bashing me, I can take it. I’m saying bashing me reveals an underlying hypocrisy. If you can generalize about white dudes then it’s only tribalism that makes white dudes generalizing about everyone else bad.

Would he have to marry them all at once, or one at a time?

All at once and their pets too! Because it’s a slippery slope, right?

By the way I really can’t follow the conversation of PP and adb, they appear to be arguing about something but what exactly I have no idea. They both believe that males are entitled but the exact degree of which is apparently something that must be debated ad infinitum.

Damnit! I now want to see Televangelist/Village People slash!!!

Someone write some for me, right now!

I don’t mean bashing me, sorry. I tried to head away to calm down earlier, probably should now for real.

adb I don’t see why you are getting worked up, you and PP are disagreeing on a minor detail only.

It was an earlier implication that dude entitlement connects to not concerned about rape culture that got my dander up.
But Marita and Jillian are trying to do the wise thing and let far more amusing forms of absurdity take over this thread, and I’m going to stop getting in their way once and for final, now.

All at once, Jillian, all at once. Hot man-on-preacher action.

(Did you watch the Stump the Band trailer? I’ve seen the whole awful thing … produced by no less than Robbie Rist.)

Of course, that would make somebody in that relationship a Mormon. But then for Dobson it would only be a matter of adding a consonant to what people usually call him.

I guess I’m saying a member of a minority shouldn’t have to define themselves solely as a member of that minority to have a political platform? And that there’s all sorts of reasons, as Jillian has expressed better than I could, why that isolated self-definition is harmful?

Sure to both of those propositions. Nothing I’m babbling about is a manifesto. I just think there’s proven utility to identity politics.

I’m not saying quit bashing me, I can take it. I’m saying bashing me reveals an underlying hypocrisy. If you can generalize about white dudes then it’s only tribalism that makes white dudes generalizing about everyone else bad.

Not trying to dig but there are lots of hypocrites in the world and it’s weird to me that so many straight white guys get so wound up over a certain sub-set. The premise of the Ace-Is-Gay yuckfest is that he blabs so much about a certain topic that inevitable conclusions are drawn. There are some bitter jokes that could be made about this thread.

If a new Village People tour should ever happen, I think getting one of them to dress up as Pope would be hottt.

One should also dress up as a taxidermist.

Sound’s not working on my computer right now, R.L., but I will definitely check it later. I’m always in need of teh funny.

It’s not the hot man-on-preacher action I’m after, so much as the hot Indian-on-Cowboy-on-Motorcycle Cop-on-Construction Worker-on-Sailor-on-Soldier-on-Preacher action that I’m after.

What? Don’t tell me I’m the only one.

btw, I’m not looking to stop or stifle conversation on this topic at all. I said upthread that I think this is a really important conversation to have, and I meant it. I’m just hoping a little silly here and there can help keep it from become a completely unhelpful-temper fest.

And I really do have a morbid fascination with slash. I know the rest of you do, too, so don’t deny it.

It’s … the hot Indian-on-Cowboy-on-Motorcycle Cop-on-Construction Worker-on-Sailor-on-Soldier-on-Preacher action that I’m after.

That’s a relief. For a while there I thought it was only one visualizing that.

This thread began with a moral scold and his dramatic taking his ball and going home speech pointing out how he was so much better than everyone else. Pointing out in this thread that he and others caught up in the same episode are hypocrites who got a taste of their own medicine is at least somewhat on-topic.

I could point out in this thread that a bunch of other people are hypocrites too, but those people have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I don’t see what is wrong with saying that innaccurate generalizations are just a bad thing. (In general) And I don’t see why some people cling to their crappy word choices so strongly. They aren’t worth defending!

oh fuck …

I thought I was the only one, etc.

It’s also how he blabs, RB. It’s that, unlike every straight guy I know, he’s not fascinated by vaginas, but repulsed.
The reason it irks me perhaps beyond proportion is that part of my experience of equality has been occasionally serving as a proxy for the misdeeds of rich white guys throughout history. I’m not saying woe is me, but it is annoying, and it is hypocritical, especially coming from an equally privileged white woman who’s identifying against an oppressor in part to dislodge from her own share of guilt for the economic imbalances in society. It’s a pet peeve. Maybe a little irrational, but don’t go all armchair psychiatrist on me.

I know, i know. *smacks self, unplugs computer…. after hitting submit*

The “Goodbye Cruel World” ploys [cue Bobby Goldsboro] so clumsily executed by Mr. Clarke and Ms. Ilyka also have a certain Right-Wing Blogger feel to them. (The Suicide-by-Pulling-the-Plug-on-the-Blog has been a regular feature for Trevino and Godlstein in their side-show acts.)

especially coming from an equally privileged white woman who’s identifying against an oppressor in part to dislodge from her own share of guilt for the economic imbalances in society

I’d have to disagree with “equally privileged” but yes privilege is not binary. I love these slapfights about who is the most marginalized. (Chris Clarke hit on that as well, where *he* was the most marginalized somehow LOL, it boggles the mind) According to Twisty racism is just sexism-lite. (So pipe down blacky!) Then there are the people who debate whether or not gays have it worse, or Mexicans, or whoever the fuck.

Who cares.

What a pointless discussion. When you look around it isn’t hard to find people worse off than you – we should help those people, directly and indirectly. Whether or not those people are the most oppressed or the third most oppressed is a real who gives a shit.

The “Goodbye Cruel World� ploys [cue Bobby Goldsboro] so clumsily executed by Mr. Clarke and Ms. Ilyka also have a certain Right-Wing Blogger feel to them

I was thinking more World of Warcraft myself. (“Can I have your stuff?”)

They’ll come back, and they’ll act exactly the same as they did before, because the problem is always everyone else.

Ilyka posted a big post (gone now) how she wasn’t ignoring everything else with the issue, she was talking about a particular angle.

That’s a cop out. There was no particular angle but “JG is a misogynist; I hate progressive white males”. That’s the only particular angle you ever get from that source. And — grrr, PP, here I was all calmed down, but that standard issue “particular angle” coming from that source (which *owns all morality on that angle*) and demanding that its take is the only viable and decent one, is wtf I’m talking about when I say monomania and overinvestment, blackmail and coercion. It’s fine, to a point, that that’s the only fucking thing Ilyka can do. But my problem is that it’s because it’s the only thing she can do, that it’s also, according to the logic, the only correct thing that can be done by anyone. Fuck. a. bunch. of. that.

People have “identity politics�

Everybody has IDP. Some of us just try to see beyond it.

because shit matters to them,

As opposed to we nihilists who don’t give a shit about anything.

and if they are in a small group, then their concerns will get marginalized.

It doesn;t have to be that way and a common and less sectarian Left — one less harried by OIIDP — used to be that way. But then came the atomization extentions out of originally excellent intramovements. And instead of common ground and a belief that gains would be evenly dispersed, it got splintered and narcissistic. And the tactics of those splintered groups worked so well that many wingnuts copied them. Now there are a thousand groupuscles of a thousand different interests.

yet the people I’m talking to feel like their lives are being discussed, so they bring a little bit more emotion to the table.

Gahhhh. As opposed to the Progressive White Male, who though possessed of “Dude entitlement” and whiteness can still be and is fucked and fucked hard by the entities that really do the fucking in this culture, whose lives are never discussed. Class? forget class! Class is too inclusive, people of all genders, colors, conditions can join in that cause! So, fuck that cause! What about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee and my tribe?

There are of course ideas that ARE dangerous and need to be destroyed, but we can’t (as much as we’d like) destroy the people that have those ideas, we need to convince them to think differently.

C’mon PP. You can’t honestly believe this. That no person or position is a lost cause? There’s nothing that can’t be redeemed? Should I go over to Renew America and try to convince them of the error of their ways? I mean, it’s sweet that you believe that, but with respect it’s also naive. I mean, it’s not like I want to shitcan everyone I disagree with — fuck, look at the top of this thread — but some people have fucked up so much or so badly that I don’t give a fucking shit about them at all, don’t want to meet them halfway, don’t care if they have some smidgen of humanity in them on some other subject. Fuck them.

And if you want to convince someone who might be on the fence that thinks similarly to Ilyka, you don’t do it by destroying her and flame war games.

That’s your strategy. Fine. Here’s mine. I have determined that Ilyka’s type of OIIDP is dangerous and awful. Beyond redemption. So I try to show why I believe it, show others that they ought to believe it (or at least think about my point). I don’t give a shit about convincing Ilyka or people like her — in fact, I assume they can’t be convinced by any argument because I assume that they are irrational in the first place for taking the offending position they hold.

Ok, this is too harsh:

Everybody has IDP. Some of us just try to see beyond it.

What I mean is, some of us try not to over-invest in our IDP.

IDP per se is not bad. OIIDP is.

It depends what you mean by privileged, but that’s a fair point, RO. And I’m guilty of overstating the degree of equality I’ve experienced, perhaps. I don’t mean to be blind to the societal pressures that led to so many of my classmates having serious issues with food, for example.

That’s your strategy. Fine. Here’s mine. I have determined that Ilyka’s type of OIIDP is dangerous and awful. Beyond redemption. So I try to show why I believe it, show others that they ought to believe it (or at least think about my point). I don’t give a shit about convincing Ilyka or people like her — in fact, I assume they can’t be convinced by any argument because I assume that they are irrational in the first place for taking the offending position they hold.

This is an unfortunate turn – it is the exact same logic that Ilyka and those like her repeat. The “bad guys” are just so bad that there is no need to convince, or to advocate – only to attack.

Don’t emulate dumbasses.

H- that’s great, but then why play games with ’em?

Just say that right out. You go through the form of actually talking the them, who looks silly if you actually believe this:

I have determined that Ilyka’s type of OIIDP is dangerous and awful. Beyond redemption. So I try to show why I believe it, show others that they ought to believe it (or at least think about my point). I don’t give a shit about convincing Ilyka or people like her — in fact, I assume they can’t be convinced by any argument because I assume that they are irrational in the first place for taking the offending position they hold.

I don’t want to fight. Let’s go get wasted, OK?
I don’t think ID is a lost cause because I see lots of little steps to get to where she is, without having to defend of it. You see a big plunge off a cliff, I see a series of connectable positions.

I never said people should ignore class, the only point I have made is that you can take an identical dude and woman, from the same circumstances and the woman will, on average, get more hosed that the dude. This is not an argument that class or race isn’t a problem, it is an argument that you can take allthe stuff away and still have a problem. It doesn’t mean what you are left with is THE BIGGEST part of the problem, perhaps it is just the most fundamental. Thus race and class could be much more operative problems for huge chunks of society, but sex is more deeply ingrained or pernicious. I don’t even know if this is true, but it certainly isn’t an argument to ignore class/race as a problem, but it is enough of a problem to justify “hey, this is what I want to talk about on my very own personal blog” (not talking about ID here).

More later, or not-

adp – it seems like your response to my post about rape culture is that I am saying you don’t care about gang rape. That kind of proves my whole point, and the whole “it’s not always about you” response.

RO,

It’s EMUlate.

I take your point, R.O., and it’s a good one. I’ll dwell on it for a while. All I can say right now is, it’s not my schtick to attack Ilyka.

I like to make fun of — and humiliate — wingnuts. That’s *my* schtick. Sometimes I like to blog on a variety of issues. But that’s not really my schtick.

Basically, when I or my friends/comrades are directly attacked/smeared, I will respond. And this time Ilyka did it — again — and I can see what made her do it. So to attack mode I went — remain.

This is not the same as Ilyka’s schtick.

But as I said, I’ll ponder your point. Maybe I’ll drink some bongwater. (Yes, and maybe Ilyka will eat a Sammich.)

if I could try again, here is a true story:

jsut when I started grad school was when Affirmative action was banned in California. Ergo, we had one black person in our whole class. When it came time to graduate, some people thought that it would be cool for this black man to be selected by our class to speak at the graduation. However, how they affected this was by pressuring and intimidating anyone who also wants to run for the role to drop out, by accusing them of being racist, by saying it was for the greater good, by trying to turn their friends against them. It was an ugly scene. So this man ended up being the only one who ran for the position, and thus was selected by default.

Based on the above, it seems like ADB/HTML/Jillian et al have a problem with the initial premise – i.e. that it is de facto wrong to want to select someone to speak at our graduation based solely on his race. Whereas I think it is a fine idea, and where things broke down was where it went from a real election into a horrible pressure-fest and annoitnment.

That is to me the difference between rejecting “identity politics” wholesale, and rejecting bad actions/actors that happen to be tied to IP but aren’t necessarily so.

The “bad guysâ€? are just so bad that there is no need to convince, or to advocate – only to attack.

Bit of a ‘false dilemma’ there. There’s a great big airless empty space between persuading and attacking: — ignore them.

Let them go back-packing through the wilderness, consoled only by their conviction that they, and they alone, are right.

Kathleen — No, I have no problem with that. I’m totally for Affirmative Action.

Kathleen, what irked was you saying “‘dudes’ don’t acknowledge ‘rape culture'”, as I made relatively clear by quoting. That would strong seem to imply part of dude entitlement is at the very least turning a blind eye to rape culture, which, ummm, suggests that I don’t care about rape, if one accepts the premise that as a white dude of relative privilege I am, at least in part, enabled in my doings by this catch-all dude entitlement.
Me, I think I have the courage of my convictions, sometimes with too much emphasis on the former over the latter, but regardless, I resist the concept of dude entitlement because I don’t believe all the behaviors lumped into it are negative or born from the same places.