Fetch me my axe: oy

Monday, February 19, 2007

oy

the sheer density in the universe is getting me down

116 comments:

Courtney said...: sing it, sister!; February 19, 2007 9:58 PM
Alon Levy said...: It's not that dense... a galaxy, which is of far above average density, averages a molecule per cubic centimeter.; February 19, 2007 10:07 PM
R. Mildred said...: You just try to imagine how I feel; I only discovered that I'd been using fucking british notations for billions and trillions on saturday.

Seriously, I though a million millions was a billion, because a thousand thousands is a million so there was a sort of pattern to the whole thing.

Nope, apparently the universe and the global economy is smaller than I had thought it was by a factor of 10 to the 6th power. Good thing I never got round to finishing that doomsday device of mine really, it would have been overkill.

I take it you've heard of the geocentric anti-semitic creationists from the fixed earth society right?

Yes they're dense, but that only makes them funnier!; February 19, 2007 10:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Hope its just the dark matter and not your fraught debates over at "feminist critics", BD.

There's a guy over there, perhaps you can guess who I mean, who seems to be the exact anti-feminist counterpart of Sam-the-porn-slayer.

Either way, I hope you'll be back.; February 19, 2007 10:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Seriously, I though a million millions was a billion - R. Mildred

That's correct: a million millions is an imperial billion.

Why do colonials have to innovate? It's bound to end in tears.; February 19, 2007 10:14 PM
J. Goff said...: True alon, though, I think we need to go more abstract than the physical universe.; February 19, 2007 10:14 PM
J. Goff said...: Why do colonials have to innovate? It's bound to end in tears.

Damn dropped u's. Have they no honor?

Uh, wait....; February 19, 2007 10:15 PM
ballgame said...: I was going to leave a NICE comment but your word verification was RUDE!

word verification: ufatt; February 19, 2007 10:48 PM
Anonymous said...: hmm. I'm marginally cheered that most of the density I'm currently encountering is online, so I can cease thinking about it on occasion.; February 19, 2007 10:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Density!

It's almost totally empty space, and getting emptier every minute, right?; February 19, 2007 11:26 PM
Anonymous said...: The option of secluding oneself, muttering obscenity-laced incantations to the Archetypes Of Common Sense, bringing down hailstorms of hard knocks on the minions of "I Get It, So Listen Up!" (cursed be hir name to the aeons) does seem an attractive option at times.

Sigh.

If only there weren't so many of them.

There's a part of me that longs for the days when I was far less aware of these things.; February 19, 2007 11:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Denses With Wolves. Or maybe Dirty Densing. Or Flashdense...; February 20, 2007 12:26 AM
Elizabeth McClung said...: I blame the quarks - and the Daleks - all those millions of Daleks clogging up infinate space - and ewoks - just knowing that somewhere ewoks are frolicing with thier little spears turns me into an immediate goth - I want to lie listless with my air trailing in the water as my rowboat sinks while quoting Ophelia and thinking about George Lucas building a new house based on the infinate probablility of Ewoks.

Have a nice day!; February 20, 2007 2:37 AM
clash said...: Me too :); February 20, 2007 6:48 AM
meva said...: I know, love.; February 20, 2007 7:13 AM
J. Goff said...: I blame the quarks

Oh sure. Always go after the little guy.; February 20, 2007 8:08 AM
Alon Levy said...: Is there a heated argument around that I don't know about?; February 20, 2007 8:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Daleks v. Ewoks

Just think of it: billions (imperial) of doe-eyed ewoks with their cute little eunuch war cries getting ex-ter-min-at-ed.

"This-is-no-war. This-is-pest-control!"

Then they could go after the Space Family Robinson.; February 20, 2007 8:53 AM
belledame222 said...: TN: we'll see. it takes me a long time to replace my eyeballs after a claw hammer session. only so many times i can do it in a week, you know.

Alon: party's over here. Have fun...; February 20, 2007 10:21 AM
Alon Levy said...: What a maroon.; February 20, 2007 11:51 AM
belledame222 said...: exactly.; February 20, 2007 1:02 PM
Alon Levy said...: I only read the first 20 comments or so, so I don't know about any gems further downthread. I have better things to do with my free time than read stupid comment threads (unfortunately, I just don't do them; instead, I blog).; February 20, 2007 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...: What a maroon. - Alon

Exactly. - BD

If Alon only read twenty comments into the thread, then he and Belle are unlikely to be referring to the same person.

So who *is* the maroon?; February 20, 2007 1:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like the world will explode sometime soon and take everyone by surprise? Or perhaps its simply becuase Im having one of those days where your head feels several sizes bigger than usual, trapped in a box several times smaller than your normal head that isnt several sizes bigger than usual...

I feel sick.; February 20, 2007 1:36 PM
Amber Rhea said...: I hear you.

This is part of the reason that I've had to take another self-imposed blogging break. You will notice that my blog posts have been fewer in number, and much less substantive when they're there at all. This is intentional. My comments have also been fewer and shorter. I just... need time to recuperate, or something.

ANd, of course, eventually I will blog about this.; February 20, 2007 1:42 PM
R. Mildred said...: I only read the first 20 comments or so, so I don't know about any gems further downthread. I have better things to do with my free time than read stupid comment threads (unfortunately, I just don't do them; instead, I blog).

It's funny though if you parse that thread by their thread complaining about how marcotte was libelling those poor defenseless upper class rich duke rapists and their quirky hannibal style stripper-flaying sense of humor - but of course marcotte is also a bad feminist becaus she didn't go for the token tickets.

It's incredible how concerned these trolls are for the integrity of feminism.

Meanwhile, I'm not gonna link to the post amanda put up at pandagon where she berates rightwingers for putting up token rightwing black/female/michelle malkin mouth peices to try to sell their racist and misogynistic agenda.

Sing it with me folks:

o~ Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you... ~o; February 20, 2007 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I only read the first 20 comments or so, so I don't know about any gems further downthread. I have better things to do with my free time than read stupid comment threads (unfortunately, I just don't do them; instead, I blog).

I didn't even get that far - the stupid was just too painful.

So, if I'm understanding the post correctly, a *real* feminist has to be a member of the She-Woman Man-Haters Club, and refuse to ever work for anyone who could conceivably be described as a member of "The Patriarchy"? And furthermore, that Identity must trump Ideology, so it's better to work for a centrist, near-Republican woman than it is to work for a progressive male?

I guess by the same logic, people of color should never work for white people, and LGBT people should never work for straight people, because that's just enabling their repression.

Oy. It's like a noxious, mendacious mix of concern troll and purity troll, with the added bonus of discrediting actual feminists by association. It's a psy-ops triumph!

Um, unless you think ballgame's the moron, in which case I probably shouldn't be here...; February 20, 2007 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: "This is part of the reason that I've had to take another self-imposed blogging break."

I'm beginning to feel the same way. My brain is being to feel like it might implode from all the freaking debates and blogwars...; February 20, 2007 2:14 PM
belledame222 said...: ballgame is not the maroon. the maroon is the assclown who's been banned from like half a dozen forums, "he can't think why."; February 20, 2007 2:17 PM
belledame222 said...: oh, Daran started that thread, that's right. i hadn't thought of him as a maroon. he's not a DB level maroon, certainly. but that was a very silly premise for a thread, yes.; February 20, 2007 2:19 PM
belledame222 said...: phlegmatic: that doesn't sound like much fun.

i was going to make a tasteless joke based on the post and your login and my general experience of allergies but i decided against it. sorry, man.; February 20, 2007 2:21 PM
belledame222 said...: "Well, I don't know why I came here tonight..."; February 20, 2007 2:25 PM
Anonymous said...: oh, Daran started that thread, that's right. i hadn't thought of him as a maroon. he's not a DB level maroon, certainly. but that was a very silly premise for a thread, yes.

God damn it, belle. Now I have the Drain Bamage.

Let me sum up the prevailing wisdom of the thread as a public service: How come feminists won't talk about Amanda and Melissa's decision to work for a man instead of a woman? Ha! In your FACE, feminists! I run rings 'round you logically!

Is anyone else wishing that evolution could, y'know, pick up the pace a bit?; February 20, 2007 3:37 PM
ArrogantWorm said...: Oh, I dunno. Watching blatant stupidity is such a nice distraction from being declared unemployable. Does get boring, though. I almost want to ask why he's taking Marcotte and McEwan to task when he considers Edwards one of the big fish in the little bitty pond instead of the rest of us guppies, though. You'd think he'd be going after someone else instead of someone more easily stompable. Dismissing others' intents, that's the American Way. (Sarcasm); February 20, 2007 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Dismissing others' intents, that's the American Way- arrogant worm

Daran isn't American, he's an Englishman living in Scotland.; February 20, 2007 4:37 PM
belledame222 said...: eli: nicely distilled, yes.

well, and i think he also said he wasn't interested in "book feminism," did Daran; i did ask him, y'know, um why not, and doesn't that make a substantial "feminist criticism" kind of difficult; i can't remember which thread it was, i'd like to see the answer.

Toy Soldier, i am interested in what he has to say, in that his focus is mostly on abuse of males, and of the various subjects that--well those aren't MRA's, but let's say MR-tinged, that they're talking about there anyway, that is the one i take most seriously, and agree that there's a blind spot within even a lot of mainstream feminism(s). at minimum i think it's worth seriously talking about. well, and i'm looking to go into counselling, so that is also a personal interest of mine in general.

so far--i dunno. i'm just not terribly interested in, "hey, she said women suffer and men don't! well, nuh UH! men TOTALLY suffer as much as women, if not more! all 3.4 billion of 'em, especially the one with the goiter!"

not saying i haven't seen equally silly crap flying on feminist boards and elsewhere from the other direction; but y'know there's a REASON why i don't go to those places so often...; February 20, 2007 4:54 PM
belledame222 said...: AW: I'm sorry to hear that, that totally sucks.; February 20, 2007 4:57 PM
Plain(s)feminist said...: OK, Belle, here's a success story that will maybe cheer you up - I got trashed in one forum on Friday - my very first anonymous online trashing, thank you very much - and by yesterday, I had not only gotten an apology from one member of that forum but a thank you from another. And now some of us are having pleasant conversation. So I don't know how or why it happened, but it's renewed my faith that talking through problems is possible.

And now, of course, I have to go see what the brouhaha you're speaking of is all about...; February 20, 2007 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...: goiter - verb: to hang around with gentiles; February 20, 2007 5:05 PM
Anonymous said...: At least for me, the discussion did have a positive effect. There's something to be said for seeing where a viewpoint leads, especially when our experience of particular stance is primarily through the squeaky wheels of war chariots; finding the more radical consequences of our own thoughts reflected back to us can be illuminating in its own way. It reminds me of swimming in the Mississippi as a child, which was glorious fun... until I experienced the meaning of "undertow" first-hand.

I have to thank DB for providing a pointed example, although I'm sure that wasn't his intent; and BD for getting my eyes to open the additional degrees to see it with the necessary clarity. Perhaps the resultant change hasn't been sufficient; not quite sure on that, and I suppose that only time and further thought will tell. But it's an example of something that I think is quite true, if undervalued: that seeing what we do not want to become, but are inclined toward, is as valuable as the apprehension of a positive ideal. Experience of the ugly has its benefits, although the density carries a weight often difficult to bear.; February 20, 2007 5:15 PM
belledame222 said...: PF: awesome. can i ask where, or does it matter? what was the subject/vibe, anyway?; February 20, 2007 5:54 PM
belledame222 said...: anyway, i do actually have a great deal of faith, am not burned out at all.

it's just, sometimes, you know, the stupid: it burns, it BURRNNNNSSS...; February 20, 2007 5:56 PM
belledame222 said...: the typhonblue person is doing my head in.; February 20, 2007 5:57 PM
belledame222 said...: p.s. anyone who's got good Bible game is invited to join me in attempting to explain to Person that yes, actually, there is a fair amount of misogyny and/or discrimination against women in the Bible as well as the history of Christianity as practiced, no, really, it's true.; February 20, 2007 5:59 PM
antiprincess said...: you are my density, belle.; February 20, 2007 6:41 PM
Anonymous said...: You're a much stronger person than I am for going in there, belle. That "feminist central dogma" shit is such bullshit. I can't think of a more de-centralized movement than feminism.

To DavidByron, my word verification:
fhiqfjlu.

(It seems like an elegant "fuck you" with some syllables added.); February 20, 2007 8:42 PM
belledame222 said...: well, at first i was intrigued. then i was entertained, mildly. now, well...sheer incredulity keeps me going. for a while.

but seriously, i -wanted- to find more substance there than i'm finding; i do think there's a place for -some- of the stuff being brought up. too bad it's getting lost in an ocean of incoherent, ignorant smugness.; February 20, 2007 8:47 PM
Anonymous said...: You're a much stronger person than I am for going in there, belle. - Emily

Well, to be fair, she isn't alone: there are quite a few feminists in there with her, and nobody, really nobody at all, likes David. Have you not noticed that he hasn't been able to get a pile-on going?

I'd suggest debating with someone a little saner, with Daran for example, or Hugh.

truly astonishing word verification, I kid you not:

gizyjckp

Jizzyjackup!

Jizzyjackup!; February 20, 2007 9:10 PM
ArrogantWorm said...: p.s. anyone who's got good Bible game is invited to join me in attempting to explain to Person that yes, actually, there is a fair amount of misogyny and/or discrimination against women in the Bible as well as the history of Christianity as practiced, no, really, it's true.

Oh, what sweet words these are...sure, why not. For the new testament check out Paul. Can't stand Paul. Chock full of sexism, brimming over. Hell, you could open to Paul, close your eyes, and pretty much any page you pick will have the subjugation of others dripping off it. Encouragement of slavery, beatings, sexism? Paul has it all! (I Hate Paul); February 20, 2007 10:05 PM
Alon Levy said...: So who *is* the maroon?

DB most of all. I think he's the only person in the history of Majikthise who got banned without sexually harassing Lindsay. He got in by calling everyone who quoted the Lancet study an imperialist apologist because the sanctions were bad, too. It was right around when the burqa thread on Majikthise died, and none of the regulars actually supported the sanctions, so we tried patiently explaining to him that he was wrong instead of treating him as an irredeemable troll. Then he started defending FGM and trotting out MRA arguments that Trish Wilson's trolls are too embarrassed to repeat, and he was out.

A while before, I realized later, he trolled my former blog home, UTI. He kept saying NOW was engaging in Bush-style lies because it talked about the gender gap. Fortunately, he left UTI after two threads, after people stopped paying any attention to him.

But Daran's "Voting for white men is oppressive" argument isn't that far behind, I must say.; February 20, 2007 10:05 PM
Plain(s)feminist said...: BD: Start here, and follow the link to - and the links at - Stuff Daddy:
http://plainsfeminist.blogspot.com/2007/02/update-on-yesterdays-post.html; February 20, 2007 10:27 PM
ArrogantWorm said...: I'd forgotten to ask BD, which post number(s)? I'm not particularly good at politics, but I'm fairly certain I can handle sexism and the Christian bible. (Not counting the Mormon bible, haven't studied that yet); February 20, 2007 10:48 PM
belledame222 said...: TN: i dunno who the other feminists are at the mo'; Faith gave up in disgust, and ballgame hasn't been in for a while. you've been posting--i dunno how you identify, but sympathetic, okay;

who else?

NYMOM? aiyieeeeeeeeeee; February 20, 2007 11:42 PM
belledame222 said...: AW: here. the typhonblue person, mostly.

also you may note the "need for a gender transition" topic in the sidebar. it doesn't mean what you think it means.; February 20, 2007 11:47 PM
belledame222 said...: AL: oh yeah, i think i saw that Majikthise thread in passing. classic troll. i really don't get what goes through some peoples' tiny minds.

somewhere there was an old website where he seemed to be making yer basic MRA claims without the "mangina" and a more nominally leftie slant in other regards than they often tend to. among other things, women would've never gotten the vote if men hadn't voted for it! AND a lot of women DIDN'T WANT THE VOTE. QED, in your FACE.; February 20, 2007 11:50 PM
belledame222 said...: TN: I am trying to talk to the others--Jams is quite a bit saner and more thoughtful, infra's here now, too, i've blogrolled him (waves)-- but somehow it seems like DB keeps popping up and well. perhaps i've intimidated the rest; or maybe they're y'know busy.

lan or whoever it is is a real genius, too.

and well, what AL and eli and others said wrt the Edwards thread; and, again, i'm not real impressed if someone means it when he says he's "not interested in book feminism." i mean, that covers kind of a lot, there...; February 20, 2007 11:57 PM
belledame222 said...: TN, what d'you make of typhonblue?; February 21, 2007 12:11 AM
Faith said...: "the typhonblue person is doing my head in."

I'm wondering if she's really a she. I have my doubts. Her arguments and questions just didn't sound female to me.; February 21, 2007 4:49 PM
belledame222 said...: Does it matter? I mean, assholes come in various genders. they're still assholes.

whoever it is is definitely weaselly, though. and sounds very Christian Right.

it could be an Eagle Forum type of woman, all family values, hearth and home; they're out there. it doesn't matter. i take people online at face value, for better or for worse, (unless they're doing something gross like using the false identity to garner real world gains). it doesn't matter if this one's male or female gonaded to me; whoever it is is a right wanker, and leaves me with a very slimy feeling.; February 21, 2007 4:56 PM
belledame222 said...: but yeah, i did ask, didn't i. well.

what i was driving at was: i think sie's not playing honestly, even if the dishonesty doesn't extend to who sie says sie is.

and DavidByron...christ, what an -epic- asshat.; February 21, 2007 4:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry for being slow to reply, BD, I actually *did* reply this morning before heading of to class but for some reason the post didn't take.

Typhonblue: well, great handle at least. Can boast, apparently, a long blogging history as (quoting Daran here) a female misogynist. Hard to see where she's coming from. A lot of old-timers turning up at Daran's place at the moment. Like a lot of contributors to FCS she debates to WIN, not to change other people's minds or to have her own changed.

As for David, the truth is that annoying the ladies on line is probably the only contact he has with any. And he is actually quite chivalrous to the fair sex - NYMOM had to tell him to keep his distance, he was coming on so familiar. It's Daran he hates. Me he merely dislikes.; February 21, 2007 5:20 PM
belledame222 said...: Yeah, I noticed the odd sort of chivalry early on, at least. then came the very strange third grade taunt with the womens' desks being germier than mens' desks article, or whatever. and a few other little moments that showed where he's really at. pathetic, really.

oh, he mentions a "wife." you think?

anyway: ecch. sorry, ballgame, TN, infra. there just isn't enough tinfoil in the world.; February 21, 2007 5:37 PM
ArrogantWorm said...: I think I'm either lost or not getting engaged with. It was suggested to go upthread, and I did. But all I found was one idea of what a passage meant. The other about slavery (Timothy, I b'lieve) was ignored, and the post upthread didn't list passages or verses where they said women were equal to men or vice versa. Benevolence does not mean equality, unless I'm, again, missing something.
Am I missing something?

I also checked out the 'need for a gender transition' thread, skimming and dipping in. I ...don't understand that, either. It looks like a pissing contest of who's got it worse and who did what to who for how many jellybeans. That's not transitioning gender. That's going "Me me me first, I'm the true victim!" Nothing about that means change. I don't think there is a true victim, for what it's worth. Everyone gets screwed and few feel the need to look beyond their own nose. I think the title was chosen to denote a need for a men's rights movement instead of a women's rights movement, signifying the 'change.' Odd title for a thread when it doesn't signify change. Why can't there be two movements? When women get the same deal as men there still won't be 'equality' as the word should mean. I thought ways to help men were supposed to be discussed there? That seems to be the second concern, (The first being mememe) but I don't see it being done. If someone can point me somewhere in that thread where it's being discussed, I'd be much obliged.; February 21, 2007 6:32 PM
belledame222 said...: don't look at me.

so she didn't answer you, huh. surprise. i believe she also didn't answer me after i called her on her quoting Eve Sedgwick (!) and totally having her say the opposite of what she actually says (TB was trying to demonstrate that one cannot be simultaneously homosocial and homophobic); or, as i noted, oh, here i was thinking i needed to go brush up on my Sedgwick to properly respond, .5 seconds of being impressed that you even--oh, right, i see, you just read the same damn Wiki article on "homosocial." Well, here's the rest of the quote even from right there, in which it is demonstrated that she is saying the -opposite- of what you are trying to make her say; p.s. you don't really know Sedgwick from a glory hole, do you?

oh yeh and i probably wear T-shirts advertising my gayitude to get discounts on the bus or something sez NYMOM.

and yeah, on the whole, my impressions were your impressions. it seems to boil down to, men don't get no respect, women have power because they have all these special rights and we so totally don't, and did you know that war is bad for men? No, really, it's true.

"and what did YOU do in the War, DavidByron?" ech, whatEVer.

like i say, i think that discussions about socialization as well as craptastic dismissals of mens' abuse experience from people, including (sadly), but not limited to, a number of feminists, esp. online, those are legit and worth talking about. and i'm willing to look at policies and so on that i'm not familiar with. but otherwise--jesus. a little cheese, there, to go along?

oh yeah: typhonblue trots out the "my pocketbook, my choice" in response to y'know reproductive rights being sort of basic.

"equal rights for abortion" was about where i tipped over from politely snide to oh fuck YOU motherfuckers.

and, did you know that the KKK is only a metaphor? a dead meaningless symbol? it's okay to compare feminists to the KKK, lynchings and all (METAPHORICAL lynchings), because, well, dammit, bigotry is bigotry, yanno? and anyway the KKK are so totally Of The Past, just some guys with funny hats.

and, watching people picket abortion clinics is a quaint and amusing way for the wife & he to pass the time--

yeah, seriously. if that shit is for real, then fuck that bullshit, and any pretense to "left wing;" if he's purely chain yanking, well, again, fuck that bullshit.

"egalitarian." right-o.

"Let's share a banana, Ernie! I'll take the inside, and you take the outside. Share and share alike!"

o YEAH! AND! i am (drumroll please) SELFISH.

it is fascinating how people like this -always- trot this out.

and my reply is always, as it was there, "Yep. That's me. Selfish. For true. I care about my own interests. Not limited to, but by god it's for my own sake, you betcha. Now, tell me: exactly -why- am I supposed to drop -all- of that and turn all my focus over to -your- pain your *pain* your PAIN YOUR PAIN PAIN PAIN? Five, four, three, two, one--bzzzt. AND here is your years' supply of Rice a Roni, so sorry, thanks and buh-bye."; February 21, 2007 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: List in order of probability:

David has a wife.

Belledame has a husband.

I have a solid-gold spaceship.

Sorry you won't be back, BD, but it's more than understandable. You really livened things up while you were around, though.

And it's taught me something. You don't have to be rude to make sensible discussion impossible. You just have to be really, really stupid.; February 21, 2007 7:27 PM
belledame222 said...: oh yeah, and i don't know if you caught it, but i asked what you asked, AW, of some other genius, something like, okay, fine, i'm supposed to be "helping men." Suggestions as to what you want would be peachy right about now. No, I mean it! You mention the war, and the -novel- idea which apparently no feminist supports that it ends up killing a shitload of men, conscription sucks an' all, who knew: fine. Are we then, what? Talking about pacifism? Draft for women, fair is fair? Yellow ribbons on the car and "Soldier Boy" on the radio? "I feel your pain?" Substantive discussion about how the male gender role(s) as currently constructed ends up making (as one of the hosts there does call himself) "toy soldiers?" because THAT, now, that -does- interest me. No, really: -what?-

so it turns out thingie wants "I feel your pain," just an acknowledgment from the meen feminists that men suffer too.

And I go: well, okay. I can do that. "Men suffer too." Yeah? I'll even say: there are certain kinds of suffering that tend to be more gender-specific for men, in the currently constructed System, and are no doubt worth discussing in their own right. Okay?

so then i post something else about how i'm still a feminist, what that means to me, and the same guy goes,

"feminism doesn't mean anything anymore anyway."

and i'm all--wait, no, WAIT! you're saying this, -now-? I just -gave- you what -you said- you wanted--validation, some sympathy, and your response is "feminism doesn't -mean- anything anymore?" What, i didn't fit the "script" you had for me (as DB -actually said-, in so many words), i'm calling myself a feminist and i'm not playing the Compleat Enemy, actually -trying- to listen even in spite of my severe annoyance by this point--and THAT'S your response. so, like the whole point of this is for feminism to HOLD STILL and be the Enemy...

jesus, i thought this was bad enough with certain Patriarchy Blamers; ffs i don't have time for reactionaries -to- the reactionaries. particularly when they're being total assholes. well, good luck with that there, then...

jesus.

i don't know. some people.; February 21, 2007 7:32 PM
belledame222 said...: And it's taught me something. You don't have to be rude to make sensible discussion impossible. You just have to be really, really stupid.

But -both together- is BEST OF ALL!; February 21, 2007 7:32 PM
belledame222 said...: so, TN, what's your take on the place? or the whole notion of "feminist critics," styled as such?; February 21, 2007 7:33 PM
belledame222 said...: the hosts, i note, seem to have been oddly quiet this past day or so...; February 21, 2007 7:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Belle,

I just went back and read through most of teh gender transition thread...

You poor, poor thing.; February 21, 2007 7:48 PM
belledame222 said...: you know my favorite part?

how the Usual Suspects, you know, the kind of um -intense- online feminists who've been meen to these dudes (and to no one else, apparently) have said the same. damn. thing. well, almost:

"You FRAUD, you! You're no FEMINIST. You don't -really care- about Class Woman. All -you- care about is pandering to the MENZ. you SELFISH, SELFISH..."

oh and there was that whole other argument for about two minutes there, with wossname, when i suggested that perhaps comparing white people wearing (yes okay "appropriating," no doubt) to -rape- was a bit de trop perhaps,

"SELFISH! Selfish, selfish, typical..."

I'm gonna start me a Selfish-Americans club, I am. You can only come in if you amuse -me.-

because,

"Yep. Given a choice between you and me, I'm gonna take me. Because, I don't like even know you, except you're shouting in my face, and you seem like a real asshole, and -I like me better than you,- so--off you go!"; February 21, 2007 7:50 PM
Anonymous said...: I thought the idea was excellent: a place where sceptical feminists and people dubious about feminism but not in principle hostile to it could meet in civil discussion with convinced feminists and thrash out their differences and clarify their points of view. Somebody might have even changed his/her mind, who knows?

Daran, Toy Soldier and Hugh, the bloggers, are all incisive authors and not given to rote-argumentation or verbal unpleasantness. But I get the feeling that the blog itself is becoming a magnet for dyed-in-the-wool "that's my argument and I'm sticking to it" people. That can make for some spectacular bust-ups, but too frequently there's next to no intellectual content. On the other hand, personal vilification does not seem to be a feature of the blog as a whole, DB's nastiness being the obvious exception.

I'm not sure where it's going to go from here. The head-butting is probably driving up the viewing figures, but I, personally, think David ought to be given a one-way ticket back to his dogs' home.; February 21, 2007 7:51 PM
belledame222 said...: Faith: oh, no worries, really. i'll just send my brain out to the laundromat a few more times and i'll be fine...; February 21, 2007 7:51 PM
belledame222 said...: TN: yup, pretty much my impression, with the addition that once again, even without DB, i'd kind of hope for a level of discourse a bit more sophisticated than whether or not AM is a "hypocrite" for signing on to work for a may-un, for President.; February 21, 2007 7:53 PM
belledame222 said...: dogs' home?; February 21, 2007 7:55 PM
belledame222 said...: well, and this: it really REALLY needs more perspectives than a bunch of straight white dudes and a couple straight white chicks. that right there (in reverse) is a good chunk of the problem with the feminist blogosphere.

but i mean, okay, if you're gonna talk about war n shit but you -don't- know about postcolonial theory, you don't really want to talk activism, you're not really bringing race or class per se into it, and oh yeah you aren't really interested in history;

well, that kind of doesn't make for a real interesting discussion already, you know?

i mean, if the whole point is "godDAM Amanda can be kind of an arrogant jerk," well, so be it; but then i don't think you're really -criticizing- so much as -sniping.- Which is a time honored tradition, too, don't get me wrong, but, well, i've been to that rodeo already, thanks. it's not that interesting really.; February 21, 2007 7:59 PM
belledame222 said...: and, i was going to say, queer theory. it looked like that might be a bit of a starter for a minute or so there.

it just seems -awfully- myopic, you know. which is a legit criticism to make of much of online feminism as well, but...shouldn't you like try to do -better-, then?; February 21, 2007 8:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Daran has just put up a post. To judge by its content, he clearly sees that there's a problem and will try to put it right.

David told NYMOM during a competitive exchange about whether female or male dogs were the more agressive in a fight (yes, I know, isn't it pathetic?) that he had the daily care of hundreds of dogs. So he's in charge of a kennel or a pound. He probably debates feminism with the bitches when he's off-line. No wonder they get agressive. I mean, he's even managed to set you on edge and you're famed for your equanimity.; February 21, 2007 8:03 PM
J. Goff said...: Sorry, not gonna do it this time. I prefer to clutch my sanity closer and closer these days, lest it walk out on me.; February 21, 2007 8:03 PM
belledame222 said...: and you're famed for your equanimity.

I am?!; February 21, 2007 8:07 PM
belledame222 said...: David told NYMOM during a competitive exchange about whether female or male dogs were the more agressive in a fight (yes, I know, isn't it pathetic?)

Oh, no, not at all pathetic, I think that's a really important point, really; now if you'll excuse me i need to go write my thesis on who would win in a fight, Wonder Woman or Superman...

oh, wait; Twisty already did that once, i think.; February 21, 2007 8:10 PM
J. Goff said...: You're far more balanced than I could ever hope to be, BD. I tend to go apeshit in situations where you will try to reason things out. I have always said that one of my failings is that I'm too much of a spoiled, opinionated jerk, and I don't listen enough.

You? Seriously, sometimes I think Job may have some competition from you.; February 21, 2007 8:13 PM
belledame222 said...: okay, now for some bizarre reason i am thinking of DavidByron as Willie the Groundskeeper. although i am sure the Comic Book Guy is much closer to it...; February 21, 2007 8:15 PM
J. Goff said...: Hey, even Job complained when he got shat upon, when the sit finally became too much! To God, nonetheless.; February 21, 2007 8:21 PM
belledame222 said...: speaking of off-balance, well sort of: my poor cat. he had to go get his teeth cleaned today, under anaesthesia of course; and i brought him home a couple hours ago, but he's still a bit, well...

"dude. duuuuuuude. what the*...whoa. no, wait...whoa. *whoa.* that was totally, not, uhhhhhhhh

uhhh

here, here. where is here? no, uh, whoa, uh, whoa, uh...damn. -damn!- i mean...whoa. damn! no, wait. -damn!- no, wait. no, wait. no, i gotta just, i gotta, i gotta, i gotta, ummm...

you got any, y'know, ummm...

yeahyeahyeah i'm good, it's all good, i'm cool, it's cool, i'm cool, just...

whoa.

-whoa.-"; February 21, 2007 8:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Your cat sounds like I do when I've been reading Heidegger. Only less confused.

By the way, I reposted my last comment but one over at FCs (minus last paragraph).; February 21, 2007 8:27 PM
ArrogantWorm said...: a little cheese, there, to go along?

There isn't enough cheese in the world to go with that whine.

Your poor cat. Must be cute to watch, though.; February 21, 2007 8:27 PM
J. Goff said...: AWWWZ! A bit like this?; February 21, 2007 8:29 PM
ballgame said...: the hosts, i note, seem to have been oddly quiet this past day or so...

I'm not sure if I would call myself a 'host' given the brevity of my tenure there (which may or may not continue), but migraine + work = insufficient blog attentiveness. There is a lot of feminist critics I need to catch up on.

But just a few quick points: bd, your willingness to get in there and tangle with the g*n*byr*n was admirable and your display of rhetorical panache was, in places, truly impressive. The fact that some of your opponents in the comment threads didn't metaphorically keel over illustrates to me the futility of debating with someone who is not arguing in good faith.

As to the hosts, though, I do want to say that, for whatever Daran's faults — and certainly I vehemently disagreed with him on his approach to the Amanda situation, and I disagree with his moderating policy — I have found many of his posts (as well as Hugh's and toy soldier's) to be exceptionally insightful.

I completely agree with the frustration expressed at the idiocy of trying to browbeat someone into agreeing with you. But I don't agree with the notion that there's "no there, there." I hope people don't write off the feminist critics blog — or at least the egalitarian feminist-critical concept behind the blog — based on the swampy troll encounters of the last couple of days.; February 21, 2007 8:40 PM
belledame222 said...: heh. no, JG, he's been kind of wide eyed and walking around and around in these odd tight little figure-eights, stumbling occasionally. i go to pet him or try t get him to y'know settle down and he gives this confused little "mrrp?" and keeps going.

he just now managed to jump up to the windowsill, and is staring quietly out the window, so i think it may be wearing off.; February 21, 2007 8:45 PM
J. Goff said...: Poor baby. He'll need a good snuggle when it's all over, I think. My Spatzy always, without fail, wanted a five minute hug/petting/loving at the end of the day, and then he could go back to clawing the stairs going down into our living room. He also shed a lot, but then, I'm a vacuum freak.; February 21, 2007 8:51 PM
R. Mildred said...: Job! goddam. did Job ever tell anyone to suck his tampon? if so, i'm totally down, then.

basically, after his famliy had all died, and he'd been covered in boils, he basically turned to god and went "WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM ASSHOLE!?"

And God then replies by waffling for several dozen pages to basically say "I made you, and I can un-make you boy!" (it also explains that God can totally take the leviathan and ninjas in a manly wrestling match. So while the bible never explicitly says that god is chuck norris, it's heavily implied in job).

And Job then goes "K'then". So God, being a fuckin moody crack fiend, gives him a new wife, undoes the boils, and Job promptly turn his new wife's vagina into a clown car and he ends up with twice as many children as he had before.

Heinlein's take on it was far far better. It also had 100% more zepplins.

g*n*byr*n

Who? Gina Byron? Wouldn't see be 200 and full of consumption?

he just now managed to jump up to the windowsill, and is staring quietly out the window, so i think it may be wearing off.

No, that means he's found a pose he can maintain without making a fool of himself while playing Cat Go (that game where cats are forever trying to see as many other cats as possible at once without themselves being seen, pratchett and thingie call this game "cat chess", but it's really more Go-like in nature).

A cat's life is 30% cat go, 70% randomised mayhem.; February 21, 2007 8:52 PM
belledame222 said...: BG: well, i'm having a rather nice talk with infra, over at his blog. i still have Daran's blog 'rolled, i think; and i will go back and look at Toy Soldier's place more often. i just...yeah. i mean, look, it's DB, but also typhonwhosis and NYMOM are impossible;

but more centrally relevant, i think: well, what i said. i'm not finding it thus far very in-depth, you know. i mean, some of us are already having rather involved and high-level talks about where feminism does and doesn't work from other perspectives; thing is, it's like...i'm not seeing those other perspectives in there either, thus far.

i mean, okay, when people are saying stuff like, "feminism is like the KKK," i mean, that's offensive from more than one perspective, yanno? mostly because it bespeaks a certain mm myopia. DB's appeal to "black masculism" notwithstanding.

yeah. there was a bunch of stuff, actually.

i just read Daran's latest thread, though. bless his heart.

i am wondering what he means when he says Amp "defends the indefensible," though.

i mean, there's being sceptical of feminism or having "critiques;" and then there's having a hate-on for feminism, which by the way there isn't a serious attempt to engage the various branches or where they come from, that i've seen thus far at least; frankly, you need to know where your opponent is coming from if you're gonna make a serious critique...; February 21, 2007 8:52 PM
J. Goff said...: And wow, that comment maketh no sense. I'd try to elucidate but will it help? Nah.

I need some rest...; February 21, 2007 8:53 PM
belledame222 said...: The fact that some of your opponents in the comment threads didn't metaphorically keel over illustrates to me the futility of debating with someone who is not arguing in good faith.

yes, well, shorter DavidByron:

"Come back here! I'll bite your legs off!"

which, mm, no.

--o christ, he's rediscovered the swingy doors under the sink...; February 21, 2007 8:57 PM
belledame222 said...: ...honestly? you know, that last crap NYMOM had about how i was talking about being gay to win points or whatnot and how very unimportant it was compared to -whatever- her not "gender neutral" ass was fapping about, that actually pissed me off more than anything DB said. i mean, they're both "consider the source," but...well, them's my sentiments at the moment.

*spits*; February 21, 2007 9:00 PM
ballgame said...: Don't blame you.

As to db, you know if you were a little more effective he might have conceded a draw!; February 21, 2007 9:03 PM
J. Goff said...: And yeah, NYMOM, I've had dealings with before. She once said something to the effect that one of the real problems with women these days is all the lesbians going around dressing in men's clothing. That is, if it is the same NYMOM.; February 21, 2007 9:07 PM
belledame222 said...: what the hell is NYMOM's saga anyway?; February 21, 2007 9:08 PM
belledame222 said...: slip!! well, there you go then. yeah, okay, i think she missed the last 40 years or so, there...; February 21, 2007 9:08 PM
belledame222 said...: so, basically NYMOM is Heart taken one step further, is what you're saying.

hey, all's you have to do is pop the dude back into the picture and hey presto! it's Beverly LaHaye!

or, actually, i am thinking, typhonblue.

if she has any consistency at all, that is...; February 21, 2007 9:11 PM
R. Mildred said...: That is, if it is the same NYMOM.

Two too stupid NYMOMs would be stretching credulity somewhat.

Unless one of the NYMOMs is a sock puppet of the other one... They're stupid, but are they stupid enough...

hey, all's you have to do is pop the dude back into the picture and hey presto! it's Beverly LaHaye!

or, actually, i am thinking, typhonblue.

if she has any consistency at all, that is...

LaHaye is a working woman who lives several hundred miles from her husband who advocates that all women should stop working, go back to their husbands and be SAHMs.

Consistency?; February 21, 2007 9:19 PM
Clampett said...: I think NYMOM and Byron have *too many similarities* if my (attempted?) chastisement of the pair as seen in the comment thread is any evidence; February 21, 2007 10:56 PM
queen emily said...: >>>Oh, no, not at all pathetic, I think that's a really important point, really; now if you'll excuse me i need to go write my thesis on who would win in a fight, Wonder Woman or Superman...

The level of discussion on that thread (why did I read the bloody thing, whyyy?) was more on the level of irrelevant comparisons--what's better, Woman Woman or a ham sandwich?

Mmmyep.; February 22, 2007 2:13 AM
queen emily said...: oh, and yah, that was some *killer* reading of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick that typhonblue did.

Homophobia and misogyny are mutually exclusive? Wtf?

Sedgwick's point is basically that unacknowledged male homoeroticism is expressed THROUGH the mediation of the woman. This can be literal--two men fighting over the same woman, the gang rape expressed--or metaphorical, in the form of a shared male gaze at a female sexual object.

So the homophobic prohibition against same-sex desire---thou shalt NOT fuck another man--is upheld in such way through the heterosexualising mediation of the woman so as to *also* enact queer desires the participants most likely can't even acknowledge to themselves, let alone anyone else.

We'd all be better if men so deeply ingrained in homosociality all could just cop to their shit and give each other blowjobs.

Furthermore, the double-bind of het masculinity is to desire women, but to see actually *being* a woman as in some way demeaning. Hence the violence directed at transwomen, for transgressing that fairly basic precept of het-gender. Not to mention the disgust at *men* being penetrated, rather than penetrating, as all good phallic menz should do. That notion that there's some wrong/disgusting about being penetrated (OMG LIKE A WOMAN) informs an awful amount of homophobia.

Oh wow look, deep disgust directed at women and gay men, all at once.; February 22, 2007 2:58 AM
Clampett said...: Emily,

"unacknowledged male homoeroticism is expressed THROUGH the mediation of the woman" ..."Oh wow look, deep disgust directed at women and gay men, all at once"

Ok that just blew me away.

Perhaps i'm simply uneducated, but that is profound to me..

Also, I confess to holding those views on penetration...although by sheer disire I've 'copped to my shit'..I thought he was really prett' (although who needs blowjobs when that ass is so..um i digress, it's just *so naughty*).

ok, I'm still dumbfounded by why I hold the views you outlined in light of the fact i know better.

There is a social force there enforcing those harmful/counterproductive views.

Do you know what it's called?

(keeping in mind that you talking to me is much like Einstein talking to a 4th grader); February 22, 2007 3:41 AM
Alon Levy said...: NYMOM doesn't come off as a radfem. She has some ideas that would appeal to radfems, but on The Countess she was always characterized as a fairly conservative type, mostly because of the combination of her support for joint custody for reasons that mimic arguments for flat taxes and her complaints about gender-neutrality.

Based on how she argues, I'd say she's a conservative rather than a radical. That she shares a few beliefs with radicals isn't surprising; I share enough beliefs with radicals that I felt comfortable commenting on Reclusive Leftist before the blowjob blowup, even though I'm a progressive.; February 22, 2007 3:51 AM
belledame222 said...: clampett: i think it's totally fine to not get Sedgwick or have thought about this shit; what was bolleaux was that the typhonblue (i keep thinking of her as a cross between "typhoid Mary" and "Prussian Blue," now) person clearly ganked a few lines off the Wiki entry and flung them out in the hopes that i'd be too awestruck by her theoretical chops to be able to answer, much less notice that she's utterly full of crap.

from there, she moved onto the -brilliant- question of,

If a homophobic man is on the road and there's an unconscious man lying in the road about to be hit by -one- car, and an unconscious -woman- about to be hit by -another- car, what time does the train get into the station? no, wait, what she -actually- asked: which one does he rescue?

and yeah, my response to that and to many of her offerings -were- argument from incredulity, but come. on. IS there any other response to that kind of sheer genius? IS there?

"Well, IF you had a brother, would HE like herring?"

blinded. I'm blinded.; February 22, 2007 10:40 AM
belledame222 said...: NYMOM is off her head, is what she is. there, I said it.

but, yeah. she seems to have taken the magical mystical womb thing one step further than Heart, who is herself not "radical" in any real sense but rather deeply reactionary. so.

but yeah, Heart keeps pining for the fjords i mean the days of second wave glory, you know, the ones she was in for about fifteen minutes before she ran off with some dude and then became a fundamentalist with some other dude; NYMOM keeps harkening back to the first wave, i think.

yeah, i don't know. i'm not sure that marriage can be saved, there. i mean the website. once you've established a tone that thoroughly, it's really hard to reinvent it. perhaps better to pull up stakes with a new address and name and maybe rules and start over. but then, it's not up to me.; February 22, 2007 10:46 AM
belledame222 said...: and Emily: see, that is the kind of analysis I would expect from a site that was serious about critique of the male role. okay, a bunch of straight men aren't necessarily gonna go, say! you're right! there's the back room; but, I -do- think there's something really key there which keeps getting missed by these sorts of attempts:

this is largely about MEN'S issues with MEN.

not -feminism.-

maybe not even women, although sure, there's a place for that, too.

But this is the nut of it. Of course classical feminism doesn't have much analysis about the man's POV, much less male-male relations (erotic or otherwise); that's not what it's about.

so, take what you need from it, look at other sources, look at your own shit and start your own thing.

there are some men out there doing exactly that, but--oops--most of 'em tend to ID as feminists or pro-feminists.

I mean, this is assuming that one is in fact ID'ing as left wing/progressive, which i understand the authors of that site more or less are. If you want your classic right wing or at best right-libertarian approach to this shit, basically what you have is MRA's, but (ideally) more polite. Which is fine if that's what they want to do, but it ain't any interest of mine.; February 22, 2007 10:55 AM
belledame222 said...: well, and the rest of it, I gather, which is less my territory, but is stuff that -is- covered by MRA's, but doesn't necessarily have to be done from their POV, namely, specific legislation like VAWA or funding for abuse shelters or, other stuff related to hetero domestic arrangements and rape and other abuse of males (from women -or- men) and divorce and custody (thankfully i wasn't seeing much FRA stuff in there) and so on.

but, again, if you're -not- -really- using all this to shore up a call for reactionary, "family values," Promise Keepers or PUA sort of talk, then you really need to bring in -some- kind of -other- analysis. Don't want to use classical feminist analysis, or agree with it, fine and dandy; but, like, okay, last i was in there, jams was talking about what looked to -me- like class stuff. "contained" neighborhoods, how most of the men in shelters and most of the ones being arrested for abuse, sometimes apparently not justifiably, he is saying, are poor or working class. Okay! Well, -that's- something to talk about, isn't it? And yes, many feminisms turn a blind eye to class, which is problematic in many ways;

but to BLAME feminism for this state of affairs, rather than just this failing or this place where yep some powerful (white, often middle-to-upper class) feminists collude with the Powers That Be-- which jams does, which others do in there, to call it a "hate movement" --then you don't have feminist "critics," okay; then you have "I Blame The Femiarchy." and, it's -really boring.- and, weak.

i mean, you can even make your case for, feminism as we know it, maybe at all, isn't working; we need a new movement and a new framework that's more inclusive of the ways The System affects men, -too- (among others). Great! Make your case! maybe I might even agree with you! So far, it's not very good, though, I'm afraid.; February 22, 2007 11:09 AM
Clampett said...: Belledame:

Yeah, what you said on Typhonblue.

ok to clear things up (heh):

I misread; 'homoeroticism' as 'homophobic' in the first line of my quote from emily.

What I find profound about Emily's comment is that she demonstrates how difficult it is to hide the fact that American masculinity is based on a "deep disgust directed at women and gay men".

I'm very interested in that topic in so far as my notions of masculinity are based on harmful views.

For example, I am miffed that all girls don't look like supermodels, deep down ya know...I'd like to change that.

(note: I'm niether a nice guy nor a feminist..for example the term 'American Empire' doesn't really bother me and I'm glad the ERA didn't get passed..sry); February 22, 2007 12:16 PM
queen emily said...: >>>There is a social force there enforcing those harmful/counterproductive views.

Do you know what it's called?

In general I would say the term "heteronormativity" covers most of it. Heteronormativity is firstly, the cultural processes that make heterosexuality seem natural, inevitable and natural.

But it's not merely that, heteronormativity *also* produces the notion that there are two AND ONLY two genders, and polices the boundaries between the two (via violence, the way genders are divided into two in institutional settings, pop psychology, tv shows and so on).

The idea that there are "opposite" sexes only works if you presume that there are two, mutually complimentary sexes and a heterosexual relationship between the two. So in order to produce the heterosexual relationship as natural and inevitable, you have to have two coherent models of gender--masculine men and feminine women. Heteronormativity works to produce SIMULTANEOUSLY compulsory heterosexuality and gender norms, the two go hand in hand.

It's here heteronormativity intersects with a feminist analysis of the phallic nature of patriarchy. In general the tendency of some feminists to lump a whole bunch of things together The notion that men penetrate and women are penetrated is most definitely a feminist insight, for instance. So the disgust at penetrated is founded in heteronormative and phallic ways of thinking.

Disgust is generally founded in a judgement of what counts as normal, right? It's not just a natural bodily reaction, but a way of producing power relations. To quote Sara Ahmed:

"When thinking about how bodies become objects of disgust, we can see that disgust is crucial to power relations. … Disgust at “that which is below” functions to maintain the power relations between above and below, through which “aboveness” and “belowness” become properties of particular bodies, objects and spaces (Sara Ahmed, The Cultural Politics of Emotion, p 89)"

so disgust at being penetrated is a way of organising heterosexual masculinity "on top" (literally, metaphorically).

P.S I am so no Einstein, merely quite well read in feminist and queer theory. I hope that's not too jargony, it ends up being a hazard of the academic trade.; February 22, 2007 11:50 PM
queen emily said...: woops, incomplete sentence.

*in general the tendency of feminists to lump together a wholebunch of things...

together under the term "patriarchy" gets on my nerves, it's not very helpful in analysing what can be very different contexts (American porn production vs the hijah or whatever); February 22, 2007 11:53 PM
belledame222 said...: btw she started another thread in there. it's a bit more lucid. thus far.

here, if you've any interest. also, they banned wossname. now if only they'd chuck NYMOM we might actually have a nice tea party, at least...; February 23, 2007 12:33 AM
Clampett said...: Okay thanks for that Emily,

"Heteronormativity is firstly, the cultural processes that make heterosexuality seem natural, inevitable and natural. But it's not merely that, heteronormativity *also* produces the notion that there are two AND ONLY two genders, and polices the boundaries between the two (via violence, the way genders are divided into two in institutional settings, pop psychology, tv shows and so on)."

"The idea that there are "opposite" sexes only works if you presume that there are two, mutually complimentary sexes and a heterosexual relationship between the two. So in order to produce the heterosexual relationship as natural and inevitable, you have to have two coherent models of gender--masculine men and feminine women. Heteronormativity works to produce SIMULTANEOUSLY compulsory heterosexuality and gender norms, the two go hand in hand. It's here heteronormativity intersects with a feminist analysis of the phallic nature of patriarchy."

(scratches head)

Don’t want to misundertstand you..please correct this if its wrong:

Heteronormitivity is a result of the play between (heh) 2 interlocking false dichotomies{gender and sex }(both dichotomies having two poles and one being based on the other;gender is based on sex)That considered, Heteronormativity is an interlocking series of illusions that is both a result and an engine of an oppressive/inegalitarian social condition (one condition among many…class race, etc that produce an inegalitarian social arrangement [ex: western liberal capitalism]).

Sex: a pair of labels used for classifing individuals on the basis on an overly simplistic/propagandistic two dimensional approach to anatomy

Gender: a set of behaviors and attitudes we expect from people of the two different sexes, male and female

Folk who fall inbetween ‘male’ and ‘female’ disprove the labels as indiscriptive, but b/c of the sparse numbers of those who fall inbetween andor because the bipolar arrangement of sex is a bedrock concept of gender; (as such, sex is a critical factor in individual and group identity),or for other reasons unseen by this student, those who fall inbetween the indiscriptive labels are simply tossed aside and classified between them as ‘trans’;or some other label(s) related to their proximity to two variables; a situation that demonstrates a classic hallmark of propaganda: methodological inconstianticy.

…in/correct?

Also, guessing that the phallic thing has a lot to do with scriptures of the religious insitiution, namly the torah/old testament of the bible isn’t completely ridiiculous, is it?

"In general the tendency of some feminists to lump a whole bunch of things together under the term "patriarchy" gets on my nerves, it's not very helpful in analysing what can be very different contexts (American porn production vs the hijah or whatever)."

The difference between “feminists to lump a whole bunch of things together under the term "patriarchy" and those who know better is correlated to their education, age and intelligence, more simply put: that looks like a result of the difference/interactions between the Feminism of the rank and file and the Feminism of the intelligensia, no?

Furthermore emily, In this case there’s reasonable suspicion to suspect that the intelligensia are marketing gender theory as a grand theory of western political science and in rare cases as a grand theory of geopolitics, although that squalid manuver( hypothetically squalid manuver…we can’t prove anything there about marketing without evidence) is mosly made in the persuance of just goals (ending oppression, justice, peace).

“So I should add that here I'm talking America, Australia, Canada, the UK, there's a great deal more similarity than difference in this case.”

Agreed. Also, why should’t we add the ‘white’ elements of the entire commonwealth(British not cis) to your list?

Sure, hetero-normativity is a subtheory of gender-queer theory which is arguably a branch/subtheory of feminism, but out of curiousity, is feminist theory *by necessity* a sub theory of another, broader theory?

If so, how many theories can feminism actually operate within without contradicting the basic tenets of said broader theory? Like, would for example NOW be an example of the result of feminism as a square peg in the round hole of a broader politics contradictive to the basic tenets of feminism and vice versa?

“Anyway, the notion that men penetrate and women are penetrated is most definitely a feminist insight, for instance. So the disgust at penetrated is founded in heteronormative and phallic ways of thinking. Disgust is generally founded in a judgement of what counts as normal, right? It's not just a natural bodily reaction, but a way of producing power relations. To quote Sara Ahmed: "When thinking about how bodies become objects of disgust, we can see that disgust is crucial to power relations. … Disgust at “that which is below” functions to maintain the power relations between above and below, through which “aboveness” and “belowness” become properties of particular bodies, objects and spaces (Sara Ahmed, The Cultural Politics of Emotion, p 89)"."

Yes, agreed 100% on power relations. On disgust…Hmm…I also see demonization…er….status reduction on a scale where totally normal is human and anything else is less human; the degree of humanity is caused by the degree of normalcy(a nigh impossible one as the late carolina Reston would attest to) …….whatever that’s mere semantics, I think we ‘re discribing the same situation

agreed on how normalcy er…’normativity’ serves to make the oppressed view and treat each other in a way that is beneficial to the ruling classes/ruling social arrangement.

“So, disgust at being penetrated is a way of organising heterosexual masculinity "on top" (literally, metaphorically)”

again, Agreed. we are encouraged/badgered into feeling ashamed of having harmless and healthy fun while being encouraged into holding harmful, nasty, evil and presumptuous attitudes against the vast majority of each other.

"P.S I am so no Einstein, merely quite well read in feminist and queer theory. I hope that's not too jargony, it ends up being a hazard of the academic trade."

There’s no reason to put your light under a bushelbasket…er, in all fairness comparisons to Einstein can be weapons when used as such, so consider it retracted. But I’m open to counter-proposals…does gramsci sound ok?

Also, necessary jargon is ok; the type that conveys an idea that other language cannot, not to mention the fact you’re up here schooling the normative, which is a most laudabe community service, in all reality and as so negates any and all sematic scruples from the audience.

Like, how much is feminist-gender theory inter/overlapping with class theory here? Not that many of these things are now becoming class issues…plastic surgery lyposuctionetc are giving nearly anyone willing to pay the money and pain the looks of a supermodel just like straight and white teeth were once an issue of beauty/sexiness but are now an issue of class b/c of technological advances in the field of dentistry.; February 24, 2007 3:35 PM