Hey guys, I am home for the weekend (my sister is graduating from high school on Sunday), so that means that I won't be able to check here that often. I just wanted to leave some notes for all the readers/commenters/contributors.
First of all, I would like to remind all commenters that anonymous commenting is a privilege. I started this blog for the purpose of generating productive discussion. I understood that in order to do that, I would need to allow as many people as possible to participate in discussions here, and the best way to do that was to allow for anonymous commenting. But lately, there has been a lot of bullying by anonymous commenters which has provoked tangents in the comment threads that focus more on semantics than the actual issues.
We have been experiencing a lot of trolling on this blog lately. The use of the word "troll" for me means a person who leaves comments (usually, but not always, anonymously) that are meant to provoke a negative reaction among those who support the authors/ideas of this blog. General tactics used on this blog include: generalizing about all feminists ("feminists hate men!"), assumptions about particular authors ("you wrote about x so you must be like this"), name calling ("conceited," and"vain" were alluded to in a recent thread), and others.
Many of the people that I would consider to be trolls on this blog come here, make intentionally aggravating statements, and then try to use the human reactions of other commenters to make a bad name for feminism. It is interesting that they claim to just be presenting an opposing viewpoint. Problem is that there intent obviously does not fit with this. They want to make feminists look bad.
My policy for all commenters is to allow them to comment, and if they make a generalization about something, or say something mean, or just plain wrong, I correct them. If they continue that also makes them a troll in my eyes, I try to urge other commenters to not engage in debate with them, as it is often futile because the troll has not come here for debating purposes.
I have deleted comments in the past when they have been insulting to particular people, or so full of malice that they offered nothing to the discussion. I have been accused of doing this to silence those who do not agree. That is wrong. Very wrong. You can look through some of the more recent threads to see that I have allowed a diversity of comments to be displayed. But if a troll continuously makes generalizations and covers the authors of this blog with false blanket statements like "You think women are superior," and "You just want everyone to agree," and they continue to do so even after being told that they are incorrect, their comments become no longer appreciated.
I receive every comment that is submitted to this blog via e-mail. I read every comment that is submitted to this site. This is my responsibility as I started this blog and wanted to allow people to comment anonymously, and I have to say that I do not appreciate the disrespect that comes from many people who make it obvious that their point in coming here is to disagree. I could start a more strict deletion strategy, but that would only garner more cries of "She's silencing the opposition!"
So I will not, but I would like all the commenters on this site to realize that debating with a troll is futile. You may try for a while, but you need to know when to stop. You only give them more reason to post nonsense if you respond to them.
I do not want to silence discussion. If there are people productively participating in a comment thread, engage with them and ignore those who continue to be blind to their own argumentative weaknesses. Doing so will make this a better experience for all those involved.
Thanks, everyone.
And now I will wait for someone to comment, exclaiming, "I am not a troll!" and "You think you're psychic, don't you?"
EDIT 5/18/08: The purpose of this post was not necessarily to entertain any sort of debate. It was to point out why I allowed anonymous comments in the first place, and how I personally try to deal with those I find distasteful, along with a suggestion for how I felt that people on this blog should deal with them. But I am cutting off the comments now because it is distracting. Back to the other posts!
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
92 comments:
. The use of the word "troll" for me means a person who leaves comments (usually, but not always, anonymously) that are meant to provoke a negative reaction among those who support the authors/ideas of this blog.
The problem with that is, I could classify YOU as a "troll", because you're posting things meant to provoke a negative reaction among people who disagree with you.
Disagreeing with someone will tend to cause them to view you negatively. If I post a dissenting opinion, it's going to provoke a negative reaction from you, as I am not toeing your line, or thinking in a manner that you think I should.
You need to just go ahead and decide if you want only comments that agree with you, and tell you what you want to hear, or if you want actual honest discussion.
Because if you invite discussion, you invite dissent. If you think all dissent = trolling, then just say you only want people who share your views to comment, and have a circle of chatter with no outside input.
generalizing about all feminists ("feminists hate men!"), assumptions about particular authors ("you wrote about x so you must be like this"), name calling ("conceited," and"vain" were alluded to in a recent thread), and others.
When feminists generalize, I will generalize right back.
As for the assumptions, when the bloggers here make assumptions about me (Your intent was obviously this, despite what you say otherwise!"), I will give them the same in return.
As for the conceited and vain comments, it was in response to someone, not once, but twice in the space of a couple sentences, talking about how "hot" she thinks she is.
If you talk about yourself as hot, and refer to yourself as good looking, I'm going to call a spade a spade, and call it conceit. That's what it is, when someone repeatedly talks about their looks in such a way.
I never said that dissent = trolling. I said that when a commenter (I never even used names, btw) says something that is wrong or uses poor argumentative tactics and does not acknowledge/change it, they become a troll.
There are ways to state disagreement that are respectful and logical that make people un-troll-like.
Certain people on this blog repeatedly used tactics, for example, calling Ryan "a lesser man" because he writes for a feminist blog. That is just insulting, and it really did not have anything to do with the post. That would be considered trolling because it became quite a big part of the comment thread and was not very well related to the topic at hand.
Just to clarify.
I said that when a commenter (I never even used names, btw) says something that is wrong or uses poor argumentative tactics and does not acknowledge/change it, they become a troll.
I never said you gave names. I was just giving my own personal account of this.
Also, some of your bloggers, (I won't name names) use poor argumentative tactics, as well. Will there be a dressing-down of them, as well?
Also, like I said, about the conceited and vain comments, how else would you classify someone who repeatedly refers to themselves as attractive or hot?
I'm all for debate - that's part of the reason why I wanted to write here. Engaging in debate helps to clarify my own thoughts; I feel my own arguments becomes stronger when called upon to defend and restate my position.
I've stated in several posts that discussion and debate are good things and should be encouraged. In order for me to be able to say the things I want to, others have to be able to say what they want to.
That being said, you can say what you want but still be respectful. In my opinion, the strongest discussions are one fueled on facts that don't depend on generalizations or name-calling. I refuse to debate with people who take the low road and go for cheap, unfounded shots. An argument may infuriate and frustrate me, but I'd much rather be frustrated by a good rebuttal than by weak statements based more on intent to aggravate than continuing discussion.
Unfortunately, 9 times out of 10 when a man posts something against feminism, it's deleted as "flaming" or "trolling"- even if the arguments and facts are presented in a mature and non-inflammatory way.
Deleting dissenting opinions as "flaming" and "trolling" is just a convenient cop-out for nazi-feminists (feminists who hate the idea of "free speech") to silence the opposition.
Such statements as "well, it's my blog" are just moralistic trump cards, and convenient excuses for censorship.
Coyote Skinhead--
Guess what--at the end of the day, it is the blog owners choice to delete a comment because (gasp!) it is THEIR BLOG. If you don't like it, go talk about it on your own space. It's not that hard.
And finally, plenty of men comment on my blog, both agreeing or disagreeing and I don't delete it because a lot of times, the comments are useful. Hell, half the time I can't even tell if a commenter is male or female because of an ambiguous handle.
So don't try and dole out bullshit that "teh menz are silenced!" Guess what? Women, people of color, homosexuals, and people of lower socioeconomic status have been silenced through the vast majority of America's history, and now we won't be!
"teh menz are silenced!" Guess what? Women, people of color, homosexuals, and people of lower socioeconomic status have been silenced through the vast majority of America's history, and now we won't be!
Bzzt! Sorry, you've been hit with the buzzer.
You're making a large mistake with that statement.
"Some people other than you personally, of your gender, have silenced people other than me, of my gender, and were really bad about it 50 or so years ago, so that justifies me repeating that treatment on you!".
No.
Doesn't give you the right.
It's like saying that because white people held slaves 150+ years ago, that I should be held responsible for that, despite me never having held a slave, and none of my family or ancestors ever having had slaves.
Just because some men in general have discriminated against some women in general, does not authorize or justify you purposely taking out your aggression on blameless males.
Also, attempting to insult and make feel lesser by saying things like "teh menz" is flat out ridiculous.
Next time a woman brings up a problem, such as you said that women are silenced, should I say "oh noez, teh wimmenz are silenced!" and then act flippant as though I do not care, and find your problems lacking importance?
I think if you'll look through the comments here, you'll see that very rarely do anti-feminist comments get deleted. Sometimes ignored, but rarely deleted. Amelia's done a pretty good job of allowing other viewpoints and in the times she does delete a comment, it's usually because of name-calling or other disrespectful behavior.
"Coyote Skinhead--
Guess what--at the end of the day, it is the blog owners choice to delete a comment because (gasp!) it is THEIR BLOG. If you don't like it, go talk about it on your own space. It's not that hard."
Yes, well, like I just said: that's a convenient cop out. :) I'm not disagreeing with the rights of the blog owner. I'm just pointing out that it's a trump card.
"And finally, plenty of men comment on my blog, both agreeing or disagreeing and I don't delete it because a lot of times, the comments are useful."
Yes, well, this is the common error that many women make of taking anecdotal experience/choices and extrapolating it onto the rest of society. Congratulations; you are the 1 out of 10 who don't do it. Doesn't mean the other 9 are just like you.
"So don't try and dole out bullshit that "teh menz are silenced!" Guess what? Women, people of color, homosexuals, and people of lower socioeconomic status have been silenced through the vast majority of America's history, and now we won't be!"
So basically you're reversing discrimination?
Kudos on that.
This blog does not delete comments to silence our readers. We delete comments when they are insulting to the writers of this blog or are filled with hateful generalizations or irrelevence. This type of comments derail comment threads, therefore silencing the author of the post.
I think that is what dirtyrottenfeminist was saying. When comments distract from or ignore the topic of the post, than the author is being silenced. Which we won't have.
So what dirtyrottenfeminist meant by saying this:
"So don't try and dole out bullshit that "teh menz are silenced!" Guess what? Women, people of color, homosexuals, and people of lower socioeconomic status have been silenced through the vast majority of America's history, and now we won't be."
(which was insulting and inflammatory towards myself)
was really this:
"This blog does not delete comments to silence our readers. We delete comments when they are insulting to the writers of this blog or are filled with hateful generalizations or irrelevence. This type of comments derail comment threads, therefore silencing the author of the post."
Will her post be moderated for being inflammatory and insulting?
This thread is getting out of hand. Someone needs to take the pruning shears out.
"lower socioeconomic status"
Hey, I work at McDonald's.
That means you have to listen to everything I say, because I have a lower socioeconomic status than all the University students on here.
"So don't try and dole out bullshit that "teh menz are silenced!" Guess what? Women, people of color, homosexuals, and people of lower socioeconomic status have been silenced through the vast majority of America's history, and now we won't be!"
So basically you're reversing discrimination?
Not being silenced isn't reversing discrimination... It's making sure all voices are heard. I don't consider that reverse discrimination as much as leveling the playing field.
That means you have to listen to everything I say, because I have a lower socioeconomic status than all the University students on here.
I'll listen to everything you have to say anyway, as long as you do so respectfully.
Seriously, all we're asking for is to engage in debate in a respectful manner. And for the record, dirtyrottenfeminist doesn't write here. She has her own blog she writes at which she runs in whatever manner she sees fit. If you'll note Kate, Jen, Amelia and I have all said that we encourage debate and only delete comments that are insulting.
There is a vast difference between refusing to be silent and silencing other voices.
I never advocated silencing men.
I am essentially agreeing with Jen and Amelia that you aren't be silenced because you are a man or even disagreeing, but because you are being disrespectful or distracting or just plain ignorant.
And Ennui, you think that saying "Bzz! You've been hit with the buzzer!" isn't patronizing or dismissive? I dismiss male problems because very few men have problems that STEM FROM SOLELY THEIR SEX. Now, plenty of men have problems if they are a person of color, or poor, or gay, so on and so on. And yes, there a few problems in the construction of masculinity. But men are not oppressed based on their sex. I never want to silence men solely for being men. I want to silence PEOPLE (male and female) on MY BLOG spouting hatred and ignorance. If you got a problem with it, tough shit. Start your own blog, then.
But I can keep screaming this until I'm blue in the face and you won't listen, so I really should just give up.
ps: My blog would be
www.dirtyrottenfeminist.wordpress.com as to not confuse it with the blog here. I am not a contributor here...just a passionate supporter! :D
"Next time a woman brings up a problem, such as you said that women are silenced, should I say "oh noez, teh wimmenz are silenced!" and then act flippant as though I do not care, and find your problems lacking importance?"
I think you already do that, as you have proven time and again by commenting on this blog, just not in so many words.
And Ennui, you think that saying "Bzz! You've been hit with the buzzer!" isn't patronizing or dismissive?
Naturally, I shall be dismissive to people that I feel deserve it, or to those that give it out to others.
I enjoy making sure people get what they give.
I dismiss male problems because very few men have problems that STEM FROM SOLELY THEIR SEX.
Well, then I suppose I'll have to dismiss female problems. Problems are problems, regardless of where they come from. But, if we can pick and choose what problems are more important...then I'll find problems men face more important, as you obviously find the ones females face more important.
I never want to silence men solely for being men.
Except you do, especially by saying you dismiss male problems, and making certain to make it sound like the problems men face are trivial and unimportant.
I want to silence PEOPLE (male and female) on MY BLOG spouting hatred and ignorance.
And therein lies the problem. If someone disagrees with you, even vehemently, it doesn't mean they hate you. Nor does holding an opposing viewpoint mean someone is ignorant.
Except the problem is, too often feminists believe they sit on a moral high ground, and that naturally, dissent = ignorance, because their opinions are enlightened and progressive, and disagreement MUST stem from ignorance and conservatism.
Also, the reaction of saying "You hate (insert group here)" to disagreement is flawed. It's far too reactionary, not logical, and not constructive.
Feminists often get angry when men take their statements and debates to mean they hate men, so keeping that in mind, and how annoying you find that, realize how annoying it is when you tell people that hold different views, that they obviously hate (insert group here).
If you got a problem with it, tough shit. Start your own blog, then.
Again, I could easily say "If you got a problem with my views, tough shit."
But I can keep screaming this until I'm blue in the face and you won't listen, so I really should just give up.
Now, are you just wanting me to listen? Somehow, I don't think so. Based on what you say, you don't want just to be heard, you want to be obeyed.
Look you're all missing the point. I'll re-iterate and clarify.
I didn't say *this blog* deletes dissenting posts. I said that *in general*, many feminists blogs tend to do that, and that it's not fair.
Dirtyrottenprincess decided to become inflammatory towards me, saying "don't try to doll that "bullshit" that "teh menz are silenced". Basically she's saying "oh shut up about it."
Telling someone to shut up is not an attempt to silence them?
Right-o then.
"I never advocated silencing men."
Except when you told me to shut up.
And also when you said something along the lines of "Oh whatever, who cares if you, a man, are silenced, other people have been silenced in the past it's OUR TURN now."
Basically you're saying my frustration at being censored and silenced because I disagree "doesn't matter" because other people have experienced it before.
It's eye for an eye, except, I never poked anyone in the eye, but my eye is being poked because my Great Great Great Great Grandfather may or may not have poked someone's eye.
Right-o then.
Ennui:
I would appreciate it if you emailed me: feral_freedom1027@yahoo.com. I think you could teach me a lot about presenting myself in a mature and rational manner. I look forward to talking with you.
I don't think she's trying to silence men with this statement:
So don't try and dole out bullshit that "teh menz are silenced!" Guess what? Women, people of color, homosexuals, and people of lower socioeconomic status have been silenced through the vast majority of America's history, and now we won't be!
I don't think this says "shut up" as much as "we will use our voices." It's a statement of empowering women, people of color, homosexuals, and people of lower socioeconomic status.
Empowerment isn't like a see-saw where when one person is up, another is down.
It's unfortunate you feel silenced; it was never the goal to silence one group of people in favor of another, but more to engage lots of people in debating.
So basically what you're saying is that this:
"So don't try and dole out bullshit that "teh menz are silenced!""
does not equate to:
shut up
your feelings are not as important as these other people's feelings
you're being melodramatic
??
All of which are shaming tactics to persuade a person to be quiet about something.
I've been having a huge troll problem this week also - maybe it's something in the water...?
Whatever it is, it takes the focus off the real issues.
Nice post Amelia, i think it was really well put.
Yes, the "real" issues, because only *your* issues count!
Coyote Skin Head:
First of all, my name is DirtyRottenFEMINIST not princess, and I would appreciate if you dropped the patronizing language.
Secondly, you obviously missed my point. I was trying to silence you and all of what you were saying, I was simply stating that "what about teh menz!" arguments are in useless. I have never silenced (re: deleted a comment) of a male poster BECAUSE HE WAS MALE or even if said poster DISAGREED WITH ME. There is a BIG difference between trolling and disagreeing. And readers who can get that through their skulls are NOT trolls, because it never becomes a question with them.
Ennui: Did it ever occur to you that "Naturally, I shall be dismissive to people that I feel deserve it, or to those that give it out to others" is what I was doing? I have read plenty of your comments on here and everything you have said has been patronizing, dismissive, bigoted, and unintelligent. Really, so I have decided to dismiss your viewpoint long ago.
Ladies (and gent) of this blog: You guys are awesome! Keep up the amazing work!!!!
"Coyote Skin Head:
First of all, my name is DirtyRottenFEMINIST not princess, and I would appreciate if you dropped the patronizing language."
Right, because "So don't try and dole out bullshit that "teh menz are silenced!" is not at all patronizing.
[If there were emoticons available on comments, this is where the face rolling it's eyes would be.]
In this particular sphere, you could not prove that men are silenced.
And Cyote, I am watching you, because that "princess" move was very well calculated and meant to be a personal, low blow. Name calling is not allowed.
Final warning.
And by the way, Coyote, I didn't delete the "princess" comment when I first saw it precisely because I was giving you a chance to redeem yourself (maybe it was a slip up), but you proved that that was not the case with your last comment.
Like I stated before: Final warning.
"In this particular sphere, you could not prove that men are silenced."
AHEM. I'LL TYPE IT IN CAPS THIS TIME SO MAYBE YOU GET IT.
TWICE NOW I HAVE RE-ITERATED THE FACT THAT I AM NOT ACCUSING THIS PARTICULAR BLOG OF CENSORSHIP.
Thank you.
"And Cyote, I am watching you, because that "princess" move was very well calculated and meant to be a personal, low blow. Name calling is not allowed."
"And by the way, Coyote, I didn't delete the "princess" comment when I first saw it precisely because I was giving you a chance to redeem yourself (maybe it was a slip up), but you proved that that was not the case with your last comment."
It was a slip-up, and I fail to see how I have "proven otherwise".
Typing entire sentences in capital letters is bad internet edicate, Coyote.
You had proven otherwise because instead of acknowledging your mistake, you tried to place the blame on dirtyrottenfeminist for being patronizing.
If I was wrong, pardon me, but you didn't do much to make me think otherwise.
It's not hard to say you're sorry.
Comment deleted because you blatantly ignored my request to be more respectful by not typing in call capitals.
Like I said, final warning, Coyote.
I notice how now, after I ask a question you can't answer, you start deleting my posts with some silly excuse.
Interesting.
Disregarding the wishes of one of the admins on this site is extremely disrespectful.
If you cannot re-write your comment without caps, then expect it to be deleted.
Why should I give respect if people aren't giving it to me, by:
ignoring my statements
saying things like "omg shaddup aboot teh menz r silenced"
??
How incredibly rude.
I repeat, incredibly rude.
All I asked was for you to not use caps because it is bad internet edicate.
Wow.
And all I asked for was:
1) Not to be accused of saying something I haven't said, when I've pointed out twice that I never said it
2) For people not to make patronizing remarks towards me such as "So don't try and dole out bullshit that "teh menz are silenced!" towards me when I speak about my experiences in other blogs (my fourth reiteration of number 1)
You have two choices: You can be fair and listen to what I'm saying right now, and admit how dirtyrottenfeminists comments were in fact patronizing, and do something about it, or you can keep pushing this in the direction it's going, and I can repost my deleted comment all night long.
It's sad when a man has to threaten a feminist just to have his rights as a human being respected.
Very illustrating. :(
Not illustrating at all, actually.
Your second to last comment was exactly what I was looking for, so it will stand.
I agree that there have been several instances where people have said things that have come off as patronizing/hurtful/what have you.
The problem, I think, comes from the atmosphere that was created by some of the early comments on this post.
If people come to the discussion cool headed and open minded, it would not have devolved to name calling and patronization.
I believe that everyone who has commented here has the capacity to make intelligent and even varied comments, and to engage in productive debate without resorting to lowly tactics, but it has to be a goal that they come in with.
If any commenter decides they want to stir things up, cause trouble, or pick on other commenters, it will only go downhill.
So I ask that everyone step back, cool down, and perhaps come back to this discussion with the goal of being respectful and productive, even when there is disagreement.
an "omg, what about teh menz!" is a patronizing response to an attitude many feminists find patronizing and offensive: that is, to dismiss the grievances of women/people of color/homosexual people/ect by the rebuttle that men/white people/straight people have xyz problems. Maybe it does come off as patronizing, and if you were truly offended, I apologize. But really, when you thik about it, assuming that male commentes are silenced on a feminist blog based on their SEX, that is illogical and probably wrong. Instead, comments made by people (both male and female) that are offenisive and harrassing in nature are the ones that ultimately become silenced. And, at the end of the day, if people want to silence commenters on their blog for any arbitrary reasons, it is their blog and they make the rules, no matter how unfair. Luckily, the internet is a big place and I am sure you can find folks who share your exact same viewpoints.
like i said... all trolls do is take the focus off real issues. the time that the administrators of this blog spent explaining and reiterating the rules of their site could have been spent on actual issues.
lots of stuff is going on in the world. Coyote, if you don't like the rules of this blog or you disagree with the way the administrators moderate their own space, then leave. Talk about it on your own space. You made a whole fun new blog dedicated to "critical thinking about feminism" (when in fact you plagiarized my tag line) so take your issues there.
Coyote, seriously, it's flattering that we (feminist bloggers) have inspired so much passion in you but at this point you are a distraction and a pretty annoying one at that.
I know your instinct will be to call me dismissive and say i am silencing men but the truth is i have listened to you, gave you the privilege of posting comments on my space, read your comments on this space, and still you don't seem to get it. So if you need to discuss this further, do it on your own blog. The administrators of this blog have a right to their own rules, regardless what you think about those rules.
(Female Impersonator admins, sorry if this was a bit harsh, and esp if it was overstepping my boundaries as a reader but coyote has been super annoying and distracting over the past few days...as trolls often are)
"Your second to last comment was exactly what I was looking for, so it will stand."
Which one were you looking for?
You restated your greivances in a more respectful manner.
Thank you.
"like i said... all trolls do is take the focus off real issues. the time that the administrators of this blog spent explaining and reiterating the rules of their site could have been spent on actual issues."
Like I said, saying things like the "real" issues is not only immature but a childish *diversionary* tactic. Who are you to decide what the "real" issues you? You seem to like saying "the *real* issues" whenever someone disagrees with you.
Do you like to discredit, dismiss, and devalue other people's opinions and feelings as something "less than *real*"?
Also, I could have spent the last few minutes of my life doing something productive, not having to re-iterate *myself*.
"when in fact you plagiarized my tag line"
I did no such thing. I changed more than 15% of it, therefore, it is not plagiarization.
"you are a distraction and a pretty annoying one at that."
You're breaking the rules by insulting me.
"but coyote has been super annoying and distracting over the past few days"
Like when I got you so riled up that you threatened to drive down here and punch me?
dirtyrottenfeminist:
I'm glad you were able to see the error of your ways and admit and apologize for the fact that your comment was not only offensive, but patronizing.
What particularly pompous patronising asses ennui & coyote_skinhead are.
Anyone who can learn about the atrocity that is slavery and react as ennui does with "wah! don't blame me I had nothing to do with it" is a self-absorbed asshole of the first degree. Of course dealing with racism and the legacy of slavery is all about being careful not to be unfair to ennui. Now, a lot of people upon learning about the very real violence and oppression produced by racism, misogyny and homophobia, whether or not they're directly affected, will react by feeling angry and upset that these injustices were ever perpetrated, and feel spurred to action to prevent them happening again, to understand how they happened, to listen to the voices of people who are being hurt and oppressed (being stood up to by the authors of a blog you're trolling doesn't count as being oppressed btw), to support and believe them, to act in solidarity with them. Shocking, eh?
Your trolls are not arguing in good faith. They have no interest in critiquing gender or in advocating for women's rights. It's been very entertaining watching them run on at length but they've clearly demonstrated that their only purpose it to stomp all over minority spaces on the internet that aren't male-dominated and male-centric.
"If you have a weblog or live journal, or you administer a website that has comment threads, stand up for yourself and your readers. The jerks are never going to like you, or praise you, or admit that you’re doing the right thing. And if you’re waiting for someone to give you permission to suppress and thereafter ignore malfeasants, you have it right now"
At least now you know that your writing is powerful enough to unnerve these guys into trying to shout you down and shut you up. :)
I just started reading, pretty much the same time as I started reading Dirty Rotten Feminist, and you all rock.
Oh please Maria. Your post is so reactionary and you have to exaggerate and make things up (straw man fallacy) to make a point (your point: to sling mud at me)
"What particularly pompous patronising asses ennui & coyote_skinhead are. "
Why because we have minds of our own and don't swallow what you tell us? That gives you the righ tot insult us? (And BTW, by insulting us in the very first line of your post, you give yourself away: your only purpose is to troll and harass Ennui and myself).
I'm not racist, nor misogynist (funny how that word didn't come about until feminism... maybe feminism caused misogyny? ever think of that?), nor am I a homophobe. Nor do I believe that there's a risk of slavery being reinstated in America ("spurred to action to prevent it happening again" lol?)
"Your trolls are not arguing in good faith. They have no interest in critiquing gender or in advocating for women's rights. It's been very entertaining watching them run on at length but they've clearly demonstrated that their only purpose it to stomp all over minority spaces on the internet that aren't male-dominated and male-centric."
Oh yes, of course! Because I hate minorities. I have posted so much hateful, racist, homophobic and jew-hating material, it's obvious that my only purpose is to "stomp over all the minorities" on the Internet.
Right.
Can you please calm down? You're taking an inch (a disagreement over feminism) and stretching it out over all the miles of racism, homophobia, etc.
"At least now you know that your writing is powerful enough to unnerve these guys into trying to shout you down and shut you up. :)"
If I posted anti-semitism, the very idea alone would be "powerful enough" to "unnerve" jews into trying to "shout me up and down". Would that make my ideas valid?
I guess by your logic, it would.
At any rate I'm done for now.
If one day I see a feminist write a blog about how men are under-represented and discriminated against in Family Court, have unfair child support payments to make (come on, does it cost 600 bucks a week to take care of a baby?) and stuff like that, then I'll take it more seriously.
It's sad when a man has to threaten a feminist just to have his rights as a human being respected.
I find it really interesting you used that phrasing... In the other post about Jen's family stuff, ennui says his respect is an earned privilege and not assumed right. Not that I'm conflating either of you, but I just noticed they were similar. I'm of the opinion that respect should be given to all automatically... anyway, I just thought it was interesting.
Yes.
A woman made some offensive and patronizing remarks to me.
I, a man, made some patronizing remarks back.
Only my remarks were subject to criticism.
It is very interesting. Of course this will all be denied.
Well, any inulting remarks thrown yoru way, Coyote Skinhead, were reactionary to your intial comment, which was inuslting and misguided at best, trolling and sexist at worst.
And yes, it does cost $600 a week (or more) to raise a baby--when you factor in diapers and childcare and housing and formula and medical bills and clothing and every other thing they need. I think that courts ALWAYS favoring the mother in custody cases IS wrong, many times. Especially when abuse or neglect is involved. Not all women are better equipped than all men to raise kids. That said, I also think a lot of men are treated unfairly in custody cases BEACAUSE of gender stereotypes. Huh.
Finally, your response: "I'm glad you were able to see the error of your ways..." is very high and mighty of you, ain't it? Really, I am tempted to tell you to take that apology and shove it, because you had to patronize and lord over me right back. A gracious "thank you" would have sufficed.
And Maria-- You rock. These guys are just gonna blast anyone that disagrees with THEM and try to turn around on us. As long as we are united, we are strong.
everything you have said has been patronizing, dismissive, bigoted, and unintelligent. Really, so I have decided to dismiss your viewpoint long ago.
Prove it. Based on unbiased standards. Not based on your personal belief that "diagreement=unintelligent and bigoted".
I'll wait.
h "wah! don't blame me I had nothing to do with it" is a self-absorbed asshole of the first degree. Of course dealing with racism and the legacy of slavery is all about being careful not to be unfair to ennui.
It doesn't make me self absorbed to say that blaming someone for something they had no part in, and aren't even part of a family line that had anything to do with it, is ridiculous.
Your trolls are not arguing in good faith. They have no interest in critiquing gender or in advocating for women's rights.
Well, how often are you advocating for men's rights?
*waits*
but they've clearly demonstrated that their only purpose it to stomp all over minority spaces on the internet that aren't male-dominated and male-centric.
Women are not a minority. At all. There are more women than men in the US, and in the world at large. :) Technically, men are the "minority", if you really want to put a fine point on it.
At least now you know that your writing is powerful enough to unnerve these guys into trying to shout you down and shut you up. :)
I can only say it so many times: STOP. Do not tell me what my intent is, or what I'm doing, or what you think I'm trying to do. You aren't the first one to try, and you're definitely not the first one to be wrong about it.
Can you please calm down? You're taking an inch (a disagreement over feminism) and stretching it out over all the miles of racism, homophobia, etc.
She is. Which would be a slippery slope fallacy.
"Well, any inulting remarks thrown yoru way, Coyote Skinhead, were reactionary to your intial comment, which was inuslting and misguided at best, trolling and sexist at worst."
Nice excuse.
"And yes, it does cost $600 a week (or more) to raise a baby--when you factor in diapers and childcare and housing and formula and medical bills and clothing and every other thing they need."
No, it does not cost $600 dollars a week to care for a baby, unless mom buys the most ridiculously expensive of everything.
My friend is raising her baby up entirely on her child support paycheck of $150 a week. She never runs out of diapers, or formula. She uses the entire check on some weeks, but other weeks she has some left over. And being a proper lady, she never spends this money on herself; she puts it in a bank account she has set up for a college fund.
Unfortunately, she is one of very few unmarried mothers who has such ethics. The other moms I know use the leftovers to save up for new shoes or to go out to lunch. :(
One thing is glaring: housing costs? Now that just reeks of "entitlement Feminism". A man should pay for mom's housing simply because she has a child? Is the man taking care of HER, or the child? She should be able to take care of herself. And if she is able to take care of herself, she should. Pay her own rent, buy her own food, put her own fuel in her vehicle. If she can't do all that on her own, then I'm sorry: she's a pathetic person who has no bussiness having a child in the first place.
If she can't even afford her own housing, maybe she should leave the child with the man!
There is no reason a man should pay HER rent simply because she has a child.
If you want a man to pay your rent and all your costs, there was a simple system designed to take care of that: It was called marriage. But feminism has destroyed marriage almost entirely.
Oops.
Well Ennui, for starters you called one of the posters here conceited for saying she wasn't ugly, you stereotyped women as shallow golddiggers: "The majority of your gender has the depth of a rain puddle, and wants lots of terribly expensive gifts"; you used "feminine" as an insult, you said "hetero IS normal," you said women have no real value except to reproduce, an the list goes on. You have made clear in the past you hate women and think they are worthless.
Abnd don't start shouting about your intent. It is NATURAL for a READER to try and understand an author's INTENT unless its spelled out for them.
Here we go with the anecdotal evidence. And since you had to whip out the "single mothers are immoral" card, I'll bite. (Damn it all!)
First of all, there are always people that will abuse the system, For every woman using child support money inappropriately, there is man not paying support at all.
Second off, housing, gas, and all other support to the mother also contributes support to the BABY. You generally need um, housing and a well fed adult and vehicle to take care of said baby. Believe it or not, women aren't superhuman. Now I am ALL FOR women being able to fully support themselves, after divorce and otherwise. However, in a sexist society (ours lots of women have started off on an unlevel playing field. Many stay-at-home moms facing divorce have no support system, no back up plan, little education or job experience. Maybe this is their fault, maybe not.Either way, why should a child suffer for its parent's mistakes. And by all means, if the dad is more equipped to care for the child, then he should asume responsibiliy. Unfortuantely, in these types of cases where we have a stay at home mom with no finacial autonomy, we usually have a working dad with little child-rearing experience. So Dad paying child support + mom giving actual care = similar situation when the pair was married. Of course, if this were reversed and we had a stay-at-home dad and a woking mother, the mom should pay child support, yada yada yah.
And feminists ruined marriage? HA! Yeah, if all of us pesky feminists didn't get women the vote, kept wives in the kitchen and their mouths shut about marital rape and domestic abuse, marriage would stil be PERFECT!!!
"Well Ennui, for starters you called one of the posters here conceited for saying she wasn't ugly,"
Hey that's a nice way to twist words around.
The poster said she was "hot" several times in a single paragraph.
She did NOT simply say "I'm not ugly", as you put it.
Call a spade a spade and please don't twist words. :P
"you stereotyped women as shallow golddiggers: "The majority of your gender has the depth of a rain puddle, and wants lots of terribly expensive gifts";"
Hell, you want $600 a week for child support when it realistically only costs $150... you want a man to pay your rent... etc...
"you said "hetero IS normal,""
Heterosexual isn't normal? Wait, is that the type of mindset we're up against here?
"Abnd don't start shouting about your intent. It is NATURAL for a READER to try and understand an author's INTENT unless its spelled out for them."
Hold on a second. Feminists don't care about things being "natural". In the "natural" world, most animals are male-dominant, not female-dominant. What gives here?
Well Ennui, for starters you called one of the posters here conceited for saying she wasn't ugly,
No, I called her conceited for repeatedly saying she was hot.
Touting the virtue of your own looks tends to be considered conceit.
you stereotyped women as shallow golddiggers: "The majority of your gender has the depth of a rain puddle, and wants lots of terribly expensive gifts";
Prove me wrong, then.
you used "feminine" as an insult
No, I didn't. Pointing out that a male engaging in feminine behaviour looks feminine is not an insult.
you said "hetero IS normal,"
Prove me wrong, show me that it isn't.
you said women have no real value except to reproduce
No, I didn't. You can pretend otherwise, or misconstrue my statements to say what you want them to, but I never once said that.
You can try all day long to find where I said exactly that, but you'll fail. All you'll do is force yourself to read a statement that shows that when you read something, you see what you want to see, not what is actually there.
I said, and I repeat this now for the nth time, that I do not date, because I see no point in dating unless you want to reproduce, because women have nothing to offer me within the context of dating. If I wanted to reproduce, they'd have something to offer me, and that would be a reason to date/sleep with them.
Outside of that, everything else they bring to the table, I can get somewhere else, without the time consuming strain and financial burden of a romance.
. You have made clear in the past you hate women and think they are worthless.
No, I have not. Show me where I did. And show me honestly. By this, I mean if you read a statement, and the literal reading of it doesn't agree with your assumption, you must then realize that your assumption was incorrect and move on. You cannot rethink my statement to mean what you want it to.
Abnd don't start shouting about your intent. It is NATURAL for a READER to try and understand an author's INTENT unless its spelled out for them.
My intent is the literal reading of my statements. It is not your responsibility as a reader to attempt to redefine what I say, or read into it, and find the "secret meaning" of a statement.
.Either way, why should a child suffer for its parent's mistakes.
Well, why should one of the child's parents suffer for the mistakes of it's mother?
Of course, if this were reversed and we had a stay-at-home dad and a woking mother, the mom should pay child support, yada yada yah.
Except, thanks to biased courts, this almost never happens, and when it does, the payment the mother is required to make is usually less than what the father would be required to pay.
And feminists ruined marriage? HA! Yeah, if all of us pesky feminists didn't get women the vote, kept wives in the kitchen and their mouths shut about marital rape and domestic abuse, marriage would stil be PERFECT!!!
Well, no one ever said it was perfect before, but you certainly haven't done anything to improve it.
You've made it easier to end it. You haven't improved it's conditions, made it more equitable, made it something women want to stay in. You've made it easier to get out of, and made women feel a lot less guilty about being unfaithful, but you haven't actually improved it any.
The poster said she was "hot" several times in a single paragraph.
When did thinking you're hot be a bad thing? I think I'm hot - what's so wrong about that?
If you want a man to pay your rent and all your costs, there was a simple system designed to take care of that: It was called marriage.
Marriage is about love (not being the opposite gender, so yes, I do think hetero isn't the default sexual preference), not about paying bills. Or, at least, it should be. Convincing people to get married based on monetary reasons isn't healthy for relationships. Getting married for the wrong reasons will just lead to unhappy marriages (for everyone involved) and more separations and divorces.
She called herself hot. Big deal. She was under attack for hating attactive women. Heaven forbid a woman have cofidence in her looks.
And where did *I* say *I* wanted a man to pay for *my* housing? I was simply saying that in some instances, child support should cover housing. And why don't you go take care of a baby alone on $150 a week and tell me how that goes. I bet if your friend was offered $600 a week, her life would be much easier.
And just because heterosexuality is the major sexual orietaion does not mean it is NORMAL. Then, homosexual = abnormal. That's how we get homophobia.
By natural I meant "an automatic part of reading." Of course, I realize you were just trying to dismiss my argument.
"And since you had to whip out the "single mothers are immoral" card, I'll bite. (Damn it all!)"
*looks for the "single mothers are immoral" card. can't find it.*
Could you please quote where I said "immoral"? Or that single mothers are bad?
Bad for children, yes, but not bad as persons. Just... misguided.
"First of all, there are always people that will abuse the system, For every woman using child support money inappropriately, there is man not paying support at all."
Untrue. I would posit that most men pay their child support, and my research has confirmed this. If you would like to question this, you can look up the Federal Census on it.
"Second off, housing, gas, and all other support to the mother also contributes support to the BABY."
Sorry, don't buy it.
If she can't even support herself she has no business having a child. End of story. Stop using a child as a human credit card.
"You generally need um, housing and a well fed adult and vehicle to take care of said baby."
Yep. And a working man usually has housing, is well fed, and a vehicle. So why not leave the baby with him where it would have a better chance?
Your entire argument, believe it or not, is just supporting the concept of leaving baby with dad.
:)
I don't even have to argue; you're doing it for me!
"Many stay-at-home moms facing divorce have no support system, no back up plan, little education or job experience."
That sounds like a line you're regurgitating.
"Facing divorce"? Um are you aware that 70-80% of divorces are INITIATED by the woman? She's not facing divorce. She's choosing it. The man is facing divorce.
"Maybe this is their fault, maybe not.Either way, why should a child suffer for its parent's mistakes."
It shouldn't- it also shouldn't be left in the care of a human being incapable of supporting themselves.
"And by all means, if the dad is more equipped to care for the child, then he should asume responsibiliy."
Now you're trying to peg men is irresponsible. Here we go again. *rolls eyes* Most men fight for custody and visitation of their child. Most men are also denied, and if granted visitation, many times women themselves deny it (against court order).
"Unfortuantely, in these types of cases where we have a stay at home mom with no finacial autonomy, we usually have a working dad with little child-rearing experience. So Dad paying child support + mom giving actual care = similar situation when the pair was married."
EXCEEEEEEEEEEEEEPT... *smiles sweetly* The man has no control over how the money is spent. He also, in many cases, rarely if ever gets to see his child.
"Of course, if this were reversed and we had a stay-at-home dad and a woking mother, the mom should pay child support, yada yada yah."
It's easy to say "it should be this way", but it's another thing entirely to accept a dynamic like that.
"And feminists ruined marriage? HA! Yeah, if all of us pesky feminists didn't get women the vote, kept wives in the kitchen and their mouths shut about marital rape and domestic abuse, marriage would stil be PERFECT!!!"
Now you're just grandstanding.
I really doubt that 80% of married women are abused or raped. Why do I say "80%"? because that's approximately (give or take) how many divorces are initiated by women.
And second, it's rather selfish thinking. It's about the child. Not whether mommy and daddy are happy.
How selfish.
When did thinking you're hot be a bad thing? I think I'm hot - what's so wrong about that?
No one said it was a bad thing, per se. I simply pointed out that it was vain, and I'm being yelled at for "namecalling".
It IS vain, to talk about how good you think you look.
Marriage is about love
Only recently. Marriage for love is a generally "new" concept, as far as history goes.
so yes, I do think hetero isn't the default sexual preference
Uh, what? Unless that was a typo, are you then inferring that homosexual is default?
Because if you are, I can't take you seriously. In a species evolved to reproduce sexually, I'm fairly certain the default sexual preference is heterosexual.
Otherwise the species would, you know, die.
I'm assuming it was a typo, though. I'm wary, because I've encountered feminists that believe all women are naturally lesbians, and "the patriarchy" simply attacks and brainwashes them to want sex from men, and says that it's unnatural for women to have sex with men.
I don't figure you're THAT crazy.
Convincing people to get married based on monetary reasons isn't healthy for relationships. Getting married for the wrong reasons will just lead to unhappy marriages (for everyone involved) and more separations and divorces.
Actually, marriage for emotional reasons causes a lot of divorces. It's often partially attributed as the reason for the incredibly climbing divorce rate. That we've moved away from marriages of convenience and mutual benefit, and into purely emotional ones.
Emotions fade. People are fickle. It's not exactly a rare occurance anymore (women are reported in doing this nearly as much, or just as much as men) for people to cheat.
While men are more prone to physical affairs, women are more prone to emotional ones. When you base everything on emotion, many people mistakenly think that the "butterflies" are how it should always be, and they get restless when those stop, and begin looking elsewhere.
Heaven forbid a woman have cofidence in her looks.
Confidence is one thing, and vanity is another. There's a terribly fine line between the two, and from where I'm standing, she crossed it.
And just because heterosexuality is the major sexual orietaion does not mean it is NORMAL. Then, homosexual = abnormal. That's how we get homophobia.
Abnormal means deviating from a standard, or being something that isn't typical.
Homosexuality isn't typical, statistically.
Abnormal doesn't mean "bad".
I have Tourette's, and OCD. Those are abnormal. Does it mean I am "bad", or "broken", or "wrong"? No. When someone says those are abnormal mental states, do I take it as an insult? No.
The only thing I take as an insult, are people that think Tourette's is a bunch of wild swearing at public occasions.
Point being, heterosexuality IS normal. It's the default position for a binary gender species. Doesn't mean it is wrong, bad, or disordered.
Moving on, the word "homophobia" is insulting to people with actual phobias. Yes, I'm aware of what it's being used FOR, but it's incorrect. A homophobic would be paralyzed with fear around homosexuals, and be unable to function due to this fear.
You're using it to imply hatred, or dislike, and that's very much incorrect. I know it's a convenient term to use, but feminists, often cited as talking about the power of words, should really look into a better one.
By natural I meant "an automatic part of reading." Of course, I realize you were just trying to dismiss my argument.
Yes, at this point, I am dismissing it. Because instead of responding to my statements, you're TELLING me what I am thinking. You aren't honestly reading what I say, and understanding it, you're reading what I say, and attaching your own meaning, and preparing a position in your mind, and assuming I am speaking from that position.
You don't ask if that was my intent, you're telling me it was.
"I was simply saying that in some instances, child support should cover housing."
No you most certainly did *not*. Your *exact* words were:
"And yes, it does cost $600 a week (or more) to raise a baby--when you factor in diapers and childcare and housing and formula and medical bills and clothing and every other thing they need." and "Second off, housing, gas, and all other support to the mother also contributes support to the BABY. You generally need um, housing and a well fed adult and vehicle to take care of said baby."
No *not* backpedal with me. I will scroll back, no matter how long it takes me, and directly quote you when you backpedal. I have *no* tolerance for intellectual dishonesty. Do *not* try to requote your statements and sneakily sneak in other words, like "some", which was missing from your original statement.
"I bet if your friend was offered $600 a week, her life would be much easier."
I'm sure if she was offered $1,500,000,000 a week her life would be even easier than with $600. What's your point? That a man should pay $1,500,000,000 a week? Because that is the logic behind your statement.
"And just because heterosexuality is the major sexual orietaion does not mean it is NORMAL. Then, homosexual = abnormal. That's how we get homophobia."
BINGO! You are correct. If heterosexual is normal, then homosexual is ABNORMAL. But abnormal need not = bad, immoral, inferior.
And BTW, hetero IS normal. "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural." Homo is not standard, nor common, nor usual. It's the minority. And abnormal. Again, doesn't make it bad. Just makes it abnormal. Sorry.
"I realize you were just trying to dismiss my argument."
Ennui: I would appreciate it if you emailed me sometime. feral_freedom1027@yahoo.com. I admire your critical thinking skills and quick-fire logic.
"Marriage is about love"
Marriage is no more about "love" than sex is. Marriage is about forming an economic unit in order to produce and grow a child. Lofty ideas like "love-unions" are in fact relatively recent ideas.
Love fades. Thus, a love-union will dissolve. Children deserve better.
Women these days are so selfish. Once you have a child, your LIFE is that child. If your husband is boring, or lazy, or smells bad, who cares: deal with it until the kids is 18 and can take care of his/herself and then leave and go fall in love with someone else.
Until then, you only hurt your child by breaking up a marriage.
The only reason to break up a marriage that has produced a child is: 1) *REAL* spousal abuse, not the imaginary "he called me a bad name, he is so abusive" type, 2) *REAL* sexual abuse, not the imaginary "he wants to have sex once a week, omg, that pig".
Ennui and Coyote Skinhead--
You are both horribly offensive, insensitive, impossible to argue with. Unlike you, I expect my readers to have some semblance of reading comprehension so when I say something like "...it does cost $600 a week (or more) to raise a baby--when you factor in diapers and childcare and housing and formula and medical bills and clothing and every other thing they need." and "Second off, housing, gas, and all other support to the mother also contributes support to the BABY. You generally need um, housing and a well fed adult and vehicle to take care of said baby." to mean "some" even though I did not place it in there. I didn't say "every" now did I?
I never did say that dads shouldn't and couldn't take care of their kids in a divorce. But when you start handing out blame to solely the women, well, then I stop listening. In most divorces, both parties have some blame. I agree that the courts are biased in favor of the women because of unfair gender stereotypes.
By assuming heterosexually as the norm, and homosexually as the abnormal, it marginalizes and erases them and makes it easier for hate-fueled attitudes to prevail. And just because you two don't use the word "abnormal" to have negative connotations doesn't mean the rest of the world won't.
And finally...I have a huge issue with this: "1) *REAL* spousal abuse, not the imaginary "he called me a bad name, he is so abusive" type, 2) *REAL* sexual abuse, not the imaginary "he wants to have sex once a week, omg, that pig"."
No one should be subjected to verbal abuse in a relationship. No one should have sex when they don't want to. Ever. Male or female.
And that's that.
I'm done with you two. I will continue to read this blog while you go off and have your email pow-wow on how much you hate us crazy feminazis. Really, if you care so much, start your own blog. And since I respect your space, I won't be trolling it no matter how much I disagree with your sentiments.
"By assuming heterosexually as the norm, and homosexually as the abnormal, it marginalizes and erases them and makes it easier for hate-fueled attitudes to prevail. And just because you two don't use the word "abnormal" to have negative connotations doesn't mean the rest of the world won't."
I like how you use words incorrectly.
Like the word "assuming".
It's a fact. A "publicly observable repeated phenomena". Most men and women are heterosexual. That makes them "normal".
This makes homosexuals "abnormal".
Sorry.
It's unfortunate that you think this "marginalizes" homosexuals. It doesn't.
Prejudice marginalizes homosexuals.
Bye now.
Most men and women are heterosexual. That makes them "normal".
This makes homosexuals "abnormal".
The majority of the population is female. That makes females "normal," and males "abnormal."
Your logic, not mine. Not to mention the concept of what is normal and what isn't relies on individual subjectivity and varies greatly.
By assuming heterosexually as the norm, and homosexually as the abnormal, it marginalizes and erases them and makes it easier for hate-fueled attitudes to prevail.
Regardless, in a binary gender species that reproduces sexually, heterosexuality IS the norm. If it weren't, the species wouldn't be able to reproduce in enough numbers to sustain itself.
This is standard biology, and observable in any and every species that reproduces sexually.
It's why males have parts what go into females, and ejaculate things that work with what females have internally, to produce offspring. Obviously, we evolved to function like that, ergo, heterosexuality is the end result of that.
It's just like saying "It's normal to sleep at night, and sleeping in the day is abnormal". Does that mean third shift workers are all bad and weird? No.
Also, assuming that anyone that dislikes or otherwise doesn't acknowledge homosexuals must hate them is incorrect. I've seen many a feminist rail against the religious. Does that mean feminists hate religious people?
No one should be subjected to verbal abuse in a relationship. No one should have sex when they don't want to. Ever. Male or female.
And that's that.
Problem is, people, especially women, and especially feminists, are all too willing to attack males that do those things...while letting females slide, and get away with it, or justify it by saying that if they did it, they MUST have been provoked, and the male MUST have deserved it somehow.
Really, if you care so much, start your own blog. And since I respect your space, I won't be trolling it no matter how much I disagree with your sentiments.
I've previously illustrated here, my lack of interest in starting a blog. Again, posting dissenting opinions is not trolling, sorry.
The only reason you wouldn't show up to any blog I'd create, is you would lack a sufficient argument there.
Or perhaps you'd be afraid of getting the same treatment you give?
Not to mention the concept of what is normal and what isn't relies on individual subjectivity and varies greatly.
No, in this case, it relies on biology.
Though, I should add:
One thing I've noticed about dirtyrottenfeminist is this:
She will often make accusations, some wilder than others, and when those are refuted, proven wrong, or otherwise trumped, instead of correcting herself, apologizing, or admitting making an incorrect assumption...she simply ignores that you've said anything.
I addressed each and every thing she accused me of, showing her to be wrong. Rather than admit that, she said nothing.
This thread has proven the post.
Arguing with trolls is futile.
"The majority of the population is female. That makes females "normal," and males "abnormal.""
Incorrect. As I posted before, normal: "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural."
The standard is that men make up a little under half of the population. That is the standard, and any trip out into public will confirm this. It is also natural, and regular to encounter an amount of me equal to about a little less than half of all the people you encounter in any given day. Also, making up a little less than half of the population does indeed make men common and usual. Homosexuals, being at an estimated 1% of the population, are neither natural, and regular, neither standard, or common.
Therefore, men are normal, and homosexuals are abnormal.
Fact.
"Your logic, not mine. Not to mention the concept of what is normal and what isn't relies on individual subjectivity and varies greatly."
Ahh yes. Feminists love to take something that they're wrong about and reduce it to the subjective. Reducing something to the subjective does a few things for feminists:
1) they don't have to worry about peksy "logic"
2) they don't have to worry about doing that silly thing called "making sense"
3) they reduce everything to the anecdotal and "opinion space".
You can see it happening right here. A feminist stood up and said homosexuals were "normal", or at least, "not abnormal". This was proven wrong. Then, another feminist stands up, and says "Oh, well, it's all subjective anyway."
Feminists always retreat into the "subjective".
Your opinion may well in fact be "homosexuals are normal." but this is just your opinion. Stepping outside of your own miopic existence, and looking at the Big Picture, we see that you are, indeed, wrong. Your are entitled to your own opinion, true, and you are also entitled to disagree and be wrong even in the face of incontrovertable logic.
But don't expect to be taken seriously.
Perhaps in your life, you deal with many homosexuals on a daily basis. Perhaps many many of your friends are homosexual. This would, in your *subjective* experience, make homosexuality the norm.
However, that is only you.
There are 6.4 billion more people on the planet we have to contend with.
And for 6.4 billion people, the minority of which are feminist (thank God), homosexuality is abnormal.
"This thread has proven the post.
Arguing with trolls is futile."
No, it's proven that trying to make us believe things that make 0 sense when scrutinized is futile.
I realize that the purpose of this post may have partly been to entertain this sort of discussion, but I really hope the authors of this blog will stop interacting with deliberately and repeatedly hostile and stubborn individuals who (for some unknown reason) continue to comment.
I know it's your blog and you can respond or not respond as you like, but seriously. This isn't getting anyone anywhere.
This thread has proven the post.
Arguing with trolls is futile.
Translation: "You proved me wrong, badly so, so I'm going to pretend that I'm "better" than this conversation, and take the cowardly route out."
Sorry for posting such a long second comment, but this is everything else I want to say in this thread, (which I think should be preserved as a useful and fascinating case study in trollish behaviour).
Coyote_skinhead said: Why because we have minds of our own and don't swallow what you tell us? That gives you the righ tot insult us? (And BTW, by insulting us in the very first line of your post, you give yourself away: your only purpose is to troll and harass Ennui and myself).
Oh no, the feminist brainwashing is not working on you. Then go away and have minds of your own elsewhere on the internet then. Pompous and patronising is just how you come across on this comment thread. You still do. Asses, that was a little harsh I'll grant, but by that point in the thread you had been extended a lot of patience by the blog authors and your continuing disrespectful behaviour showed that you weren't here in good faith, so it doesn't actually bother me that you feel insulted. Why do people receiving criticism think it is an effective comeback to flip it around and claim that they too are victims of the behaviour they have been called out on. Get called out on trolling (or whatever), realise "ah these people see trolling as a bad and unfair thing", and start saying "help, help somebody is trolling me! now you must be on my side, now you can't criticise me". Perhaps you believe it gives you some kind of moral high ground, but from here it just looks like a silly tactic to evade responsibility. "Your only purpose is ... " - er, who's trying to mind-read now?
And I'm not racist, nor misogynist (funny how that word didn't come about until feminism... maybe feminism caused misogyny? ever think of that?), nor am I a homophobe. Nor do I believe that there's a risk of slavery being reinstated in America ("spurred to action to prevent it happening again" lol?)
I didn't say you were any of those things. I said it was self-absorbed to react to feminism or anti-racism as a personal criticism and to believe that men or white people individually are expected to take on personal blame for slavery or for the historical oppression of women. It's not a unique response of course, but a more constructive alternative would be to realise that it's not all about you, and to want to listen to and be an ally of those who are directly affected by racism, misogyny and homophobia and other oppressions.
And Because I hate minorities. I have posted so much hateful, racist, homophobic and jew-hating material, it's obvious that my only purpose is to "stomp over all the minorities" on the Internet.
I said "over minority spaces on the internet" not "over minorities". Ok, I was a little unclear in that "minority" is often meant as being to do with "ethnic minorities", and what I meant but did not specify was that feminist/women-centred spaces on the internet are in a minority. (Women are approximately half the planet's population, but is half the world's population feminist?). Yes, you are stomping around in this space, this blog and other feminist blogs, mouthing off, telling the blog authors and commenters that they are in the wrong for writing things you disagree with, demanding apologies for this left right and centre, it's extraordinarily boorish and rude.
But anyway, either your reading comprehension is just poor or your misrepresentation of my words deliberately serves to encourage a casual observer to believe that you have been wronged and that I have called you a racist / a misogynist / a homophobe and am therefore extremist and unreasonable. For someone who quibbles so lengthily about meaning and accuracy and forms of argument, this is rather sloppy.
And Can you please calm down? You're taking an inch (a disagreement over feminism) and stretching it out over all the miles of racism, homophobia, etc.
I'm very calm, thank you. (hmm, ostentatiously telling me to "calm down" again serves to foster the idea that I am not calm and therefore "unreasonable"). It was Ennui who brought up the parallel of discussions about slavery by the way.
Ennui said:Well, how often are you advocating for men's rights?. No, not falling for that one either. Someone else already articulated the answer to this better than I can: "What this is really about is men accusing feminists of sexism and hypocrisy unless they can prove that they spend exactly half of their time, energy, and resources on campaigning on behalf of men. What this is really about is that if feminism only improves the lives of women, it has no value or importance. What this is really about is that feminism only has value if it works on behalf of men and improves the lives of men. What this is really about is anti-feminist men being threatened by women working for women. What they’re really saying is that to talk about women, to focus on women, to point out that something affects women badly; all of this is of no importance or value."
Ennui said some hilarious things: I said, and I repeat this now for the nth time, that I do not date, because I see no point in dating unless you want to reproduce, because women have nothing to offer me within the context of dating. If I wanted to reproduce, they'd have something to offer me, and that would be a reason to date/sleep with them.
(I'm glad he repeated that, I would hate to have missed reading it. Priceless! I love it.)
And Moving on, the word "homophobia" is insulting to people with actual phobias. This killed me when he said it in the other thread too: "you don't even know what "homophobia" means. Get a dictionary. Using that statement is highly insulting to people with ACTUAL phobias.". So now I understand it better: homophobia means an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals and this is not simple prejudice (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience) against gay people, it is an actual affliction, and there are people out there who need therapeutic assistance to start feeling comfortable being around gay people and accepting of same-sex attraction and relationships. That sounds good actually, homphobic individuals being helped to overcome their homophobia.
Anyway, here, the anti-feminist has grasped that feminists and their allies are often concerned with use of language and also with fostering respectful attitudes. This is why he believes it to be such a trump card to wag his finger and say that you are "insulting ... people with ACTUAL phobias", he thinks that we have no choice but to roll over in defeat and agonise over the fact that we have apparently ignorantly insulted people with disabling psychological afflictions. Our actual reaction is, what the fuck are you on?
Dirty Rotten Feminist said And Maria-- You rock. These guys are just gonna blast anyone that disagrees with THEM and try to turn around on us. As long as we are united, we are strong.
Aw, thanks, no problem. :) I just read a lot of blogs, have done for a long while, and seen some awesome troll-handling by bloggers and commenters alike. Anti-feminist trolls don't say anything new, that's why we have them to thank for inspiring great resources like anti-feminist bingo cards and Feminism 101s.
What trolls do is strive to make their voices more important than your voice. They think they get to define things, not you (like whether their words are trolling or dissent, or whether a woman saying she thinks she's attractive is confidence or vanity). They want you to be silent so that they can define what feminism is or isn't, what feminists are, what women are. Don't let them tie you up knots arguing with them, making you spell out and defend the basic tenets of your feminist convictions. They consume your time and energy. Sometimes a questioning non-feminist commenter is genuinely interested and is going to be open to listening to you, but when they are repetitive and full of themselves like these two are, it's important to recognise that they are positively invested in not giving any ground on their twisted view of gender issues. Ban them, and speak your truths fearlessly. You've probably already read this piece of awesomeness from Shakesville, but it bears repeating: "Because women's stories aren't told, it's incumbent upon female feminists to tell their own stories, to fill that void, to be unrepentant and loquacious raconteurs every chance we get, to talk about our bodies, our struggles, our triumphs, our needs, our lives in every aspect. It's our obligation to create a cacophony with our personal narratives, until there is a constant din that translates into equality, into balance."
showed that you weren't here in good faith
By this, you mean: "Weren't here prepared to allow us to re-educate you into a "better" male (that is, one that does what we want him to.)."
Yes, you are stomping around in this space, this blog and other feminist blogs, mouthing off, telling the blog authors and commenters that they are in the wrong for writing things you disagree with, demanding apologies for this left right and centre, it's extraordinarily boorish and rude.
And in this space, men are the minority. Funny, that. And the blog owners are stomping around, telling us we're wrong for writing things they disagree with, demanding apologize for this left right and center, and it's extraordinarily boorish and rude.
No, not falling for that one either.
Blah blah blah blah.
Except you tell us that unless we focus 100% on feminist goals, as men, we're unimportant, useless, and misogynist.
So, in this case, the door swings both ways. You can't call someone that doesn't work tirelessly for your goals "sexist", unless you expend energy on theirs.
I hate "feminists psychics", that sit around and pretend to know why men do everything, despite not being men, and only having limited experience with them, based on resentment and sometimes outright hate FOR them.
(I'm glad he repeated that, I would hate to have missed reading it. Priceless! I love it.)
How is it "priceless"? It's logical. Every. Single. Thing. That a woman could offer me in a romantic context, I can get elsewhere, easier, cheaper, and with less stress.
Ergo, the only reason I would have to endure such a situation, would be reproduction. Which I am not interested in.
That's why you're acting so flippant towards the statement. You're aware of it's veracity, and that women aren't expressly "needed" by men.
Our actual reaction is, what the fuck are you on?
Of course, because in your minds, any disagreement with feminists is obviously wrong, and silly.
Besides which, many people apply "homophobia" to everything. If someone says "A gay man hit on me, and I was grossed out", he's called a "homophobe".
Now, I know people so claustrophobic that they can't even look at elevators, let alone get into one. They aren't mildly bothered by them.
Dirty Rotten Feminist said And Maria-- You rock. These guys are just gonna blast anyone that disagrees with THEM and try to turn around on us. As long as we are united, we are strong.
Which is funny, since you're, you know, blasting anyone that disagrees with you.
What trolls do is strive to make their voices more important than your voice. They think they get to define things, not you (like whether their words are trolling or dissent, or whether a woman saying she thinks she's attractive is confidence or vanity).
What feminists do is strive to make their voices more important than everyone else's voice. They think they get to define things, not you, (like what you're thinking, what your intent with statements are, and that if you don't find fat women attractive, you must hate women AND fat people).
For the record, going around repeatedly saying "I'm so hot" is vanity. Period.
They want you to be silent so that they can define what feminism is or isn't, what feminists are, what women are.
They want you (men) to be silent, so that they can define what masculinity is or isn't, what misogyny is or isn't, and what men are (and what they're for).
Sometimes a questioning non-feminist commenter is genuinely interested and is going to be open to listening to you, but when they are repetitive and full of themselves like these two are, it's important to recognise that they are positively invested in not giving any ground on their twisted view of gender issues.
Sometimes a feminist is genuinely interested in learning about things other than her own viewpoint and is going to be open to listening to you, but when they are repetitive and full of themselves like these are, it's important to recognise that they are positively invested in not giving any ground on their twisted view of gender issues.
Also, see, funny thing:
You go at this with the attitude, again, that anyone that disagrees with you is OBVIOUSLY wrong, and needs to be "reeducated" in order to be properly controlled, and brought to YOUR viewpoint, which is of course, the ONLY right view.
You sound a lot like a fundamentalist Christian.
Ban them, and speak your truths fearlessly.
Again, you sound like a fundie Christian.
Saying "I HAVE THE TRUTH" doesn't make it, you know, the truth.
Nor does "I am right, you are wrong! Why? Because I have ovaries, and you have a penis, that means everything you do is wrong, unless you do EXACTLY what I tell you, and follow orders clearly!"
It's our obligation to create a cacophony with our personal narratives, until there is a constant din that translates into equality, into balance."
Because equality and balance are, of course, "Silence men. Silence men. Browbeat men. Insult men. Marginalize men. Hate men. Force men to comply. Change the world to be incredibly beneficial to women, and awful for men. Make men suffer. Then we will have balance."
Right?
The reason feminism fails these days, is the vast majority of women...well, they like men. They want to marry one. They want to have children with one some day.
They aren't interested in punishing all men because one man raped you 15 years ago.
They don't believe that having children is the ultimate in anti-woman acts. They don't think having sex with men is a great evil.
"Oh no, the feminist brainwashing is not working on you. Then go away and have minds of your own elsewhere on the internet then."
First you call us asses (which should have been deleted by the admins if they followed their own rules). And when I point out that you're only calling me an ass because I have a different opinion and you can't convince me otherwise, you tell me "go away then. Disagree somewhere else."
Nice.
"Pompous and patronising is just how you come across on this comment thread. You still do. Asses, that was a little harsh I'll grant, but by that point in the thread you had been extended a lot of patience by the blog authors and your continuing disrespectful behaviour showed that you weren't here in good faith, so it doesn't actually bother me that you feel insulted."
Don't make excuses for your behavior. Two wrongs do not make a right.
"and to want to listen to and be an ally of those who are directly affected by racism, misogyny and homophobia and other oppressions."
You accused me of racism. I called you on it and refuted you, and now you are backpedaling and just calling me an "ally" of racists, misogynists, and homophobes. Nice.
"Ok, I was a little unclear"
Backpedaling.
"your misrepresentation of my words"
First you beckpedal and admit to being unclear, now you're placing the blame on me "Misrepresenting" your words. Which is it? Make up your mind.
"(I'm glad he repeated that, I would hate to have missed reading it. Priceless! I love it.)"
If you miss something the first time, some people are kind enough to repeat themselves for you. Sarcasm is not a polite way of saying "thank you."
Now calm down.
"Change the world to be incredibly beneficial to women, and awful for men."
Isn't that the way it's always been, though. Y'know, men marching off to die in wars while women are safely kept at home and provided for on the toil and sweat and blood of their husbands?
Oh no. A couple of women get raped.
So what.
Even with rape factored in, men still account for the victims of 75% of all violence.
Ah hell.
Sad.
Comments on the other blog were closed just as I was finding common ground with one of the feminists there.
Maybe they don't want men and women to get along?
And also right after I was pointing out how women were never oppressed to begin with.
Interesting.
Naturally, when a feminist is proven wrong, all proof of the event must be hidden away.
That, and without the ability to accuse men of "hating women" at every turn, feminism runs out of steam, quite often.
Makes it quite nice to come home to a house where the only girls greeting me say "Meow".
I closed comments and hide them because they were patronizing and insulting to me personally, feminists, and women in general.
Women have been oppressed throughout history. There is no debate on that matter.
Yeah.
With all of us "sexually liberated", I can go out and have sex with a woman and not even have to tell her my name, get into a relationship with her, or marry her.
And then they complain about being "sexual objects". Well, with their attitudes, it's no wonder guys get the goods and then run. :(
It's sad too, cuz there are a lot of lonely men out there who desire an emotionally intimate relationship with a woman, but can't find it because of all these walls women put up these days.
"I closed comments and hide them because they were patronizing and insulting to me personally, feminists, and women in general."
Yea yea yea. We know already. Anything that disagrees with your or your idealogy is "patronizing, insulting, dadadada".
Despite the fact that many things were said that were personally insulting to me and Ennui. You know, cuz none of that matters.
"Women have been oppressed throughout history. There is no debate on that matter."
Actually, there is a very hot debate going on about this between feminists and top thinkers and historians of our day. :D
I posted a bit about it in my own blog.
Also I will posit that if women were "oppressed throughout history" by being protected to raise children, then I will posit that men have been MORE oppressed throughout history by the simple fact alone that we are cannon fodder and laborers.
Hey I have a serious question.
Why don't feminists ever empower themselves by taking personal responsibility?
If feminists (and women in general) are so mad that men "just want sex" and not relationships... then... instead of complaining about it... why not foster in yourself qualities that men seek out in relationships?
Such as... "I want to be your girlfriend. I bring to the table my fidelity and assurance to you that I will never cheat on you. I bring to the table my respect and assurance that I will appreciate all that you do for me. I bring to the table my love and assurance that I don't hate you for being a man and wanting to sleep with me."
That would be a good start, y'know, since because of the sexual revolution women cheat on men at least as much as men cheat.
And try dating an "average" guy, y'know, guys that aren't rich or have lexus cars and aren't in college. Y'know, this will lessen the idea that women are "gold diggers" and stuff like that.
Why not take a guy who you would normally not go out with, and try going out with him? You may find that he is probably more loving, respectful, and attentive than the "alpha male badboy" types.
I closed comments and hide them because they were patronizing and insulting to me personally, feminists, and women in general.
Women have been oppressed throughout history. There is no debate on that matter.
Translation: "We are always right, men are always wrong".
If a man made as many generalizations and nasty comments about women as feminists do about men, he'd be labeled a misogynist.
So why is it when a feminist does it, it's not only acceptable, it's applauded?
Judging by the attitudes, though, feminism is the ultimate "have your cake and eat it, too" movement.
You want everything, you don't want to do anything to get it, you want everyone to agree with you, you don't want to have to agree with anyone else, you want to be right all the time, you want women to be more important than men, etcetera.
Don't tell me otherwise, as I won't believe it. It's easy to see, when you see feminists say "If more/all women were in power in government, everything would be better for everyone!".
Assuming that if a woman were in charge of everything, naturally, the world would be better. Why would it be better? Because she's a woman, duh, and women are better than men.
Post a Comment