Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Donate
Archive
-
▼
2009
(63)
-
▼
September
(17)
- Ophelia Benson and the Atheist Alliance Internatio...
- Book Bits #2: There is No Novelist of History
- VIDEO - WOMEN'S RESISTANCE IN HONDURAS
- VIDEO AND AUDIO FROM HONDURAS
- HONDURAS - URGENT: Constitutional guarantees suspe...
- Puritan Monster
- HONDURAS UPDATE 9-27-09
- Geoffrey Megargee on Nazi camps and ghettos
- Pittsburgh LRAD video removed from WooTube
- Greta Christina on race and gender in the atheist ...
- HONDURAS UPDATE 9-26-09
- "THERE IS NOTHING TO 'NEGOTIATE' WITH THE HONDURAN...
- HONDURAS UPDATE 9-24-09
- I heart PZ Myers and Greg Laden
- Hurts like brand new shoes
- Pie hole? Are you kidding me?
- Zelaya's back, and so am I!
-
▼
September
(17)
Wait, real bloggers take requests? News to me
ReplyDeleteConsidering the fact Isis-the-Crisis is an illiterate twat, I cant imagine why you want to take any sort of advice, blogging or otherwise, from her.
ReplyDeleteOkay. I'm still confused. Probably, I'm going to remain that way. It goes with my chromosomes, I think...
ReplyDeleteSo I guess all I have a hope of getting here, and so all I really wanna know is: now that you're a d00d, are you like, an alpha d00d I'm supposed to compete with or anything...
And do u like football? And which kind of beer can do u like to crush on yer forhead?
This stuff is important. To us d00ds.
I think Isis has pioneered a whole other parallel epistemology: "Getting it."
ReplyDeleteWe've just received word that the government is raising the International SaltyCurrent Sexchange Alert level from pink to beige.
ReplyDeletePresent SaltyCurrent status: Still a woman.
Forecast predicts 90% chance of SC remaining female. We will continue monitoring pronoun use and will report on any future changes to the alert status. We now return you to your regularly scheduled drama.
Well, Abbie, it might be worth it to get her opinion to make sure one does the exact opposite.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I've never been much a fan of the whole "d00d" thing. I don't know if it's genuine netspeak that I just missed out on, but I've never seen it as anything more than shorthand for "guys who are really, really, really, reallyreallyreally clueless. By which we mean 'all guys.'"
ReplyDeleteAm I reading too much in to that?
Also, after today I feel much less bad about my blanket "avoid Isis" policy. I assumed it was some sign of my latent, unacknowledged sexism or something. Now I know that it's just because whatever "it" is that she's got I neither want nor need to "get."
SC, this is a great blog, so I am selfishly glad there was a kerfluffle, so I could find it.
ReplyDeleteThe usual about how you can't please everyone, and no point staying up late because someone is wrong on the internets.
ERV:
You're very often correct, but what's the source of your chosen expressive style, again?
'...I've never seen it as anything more than shorthand for "guys who are really, really, really, reallyreallyreally clueless. By which we mean 'all guys.'"...'
ReplyDeleted000000d...
But seriously, this whole thing is just messing me up, screwing with my fragile d00d's sense of self, y'know...
See, I always sorta liked SC, y'know... I mean, in that theoretical/platonic yes we're both virtual and I'm married but you're still pretty cool sorta way, anyway...
And now, geez, this whole her being a d00d thing, I dunno what this means, about *me*, see?
It's.... disturbing... I may have to go out in the back yard, barbecue something in a manly way for a while, and reflect...
Or, as was once posed by the philospher Tarlek: 'if a guy digs a girl who used to be a guy, but isn't anymore, what does that make the guy who digs the girl who used to be a guy?...'
(/Toughie...)
Geds-- 'd00d' is authentic 1337, however 1337 'd00d'='DUDE!'.
ReplyDeleteA group of self-proclaimed 'feminists' have hijacked the term in an attempt to appear culturally relevant (eg, FOX newscasters saying 'fo shizzle'). Their definition of the term is precisely what you stated: "guys who are really, really, really, reallyreallyreally clueless. By which we mean 'all guys.'"
From my interactions with these individuals, it is impossible for a socially conscious male to escape 'd00d'-ism. It literally does not matter what the 'd00d' does, its never good enough. Except ironically, if they become 'white knights'. Thus any male with a hint of self respect will always be a 'd00d'.
Marion-- lol, wut?
Sorry for the extraneous comments clogging up your blog, SC! I'm a dork what couldn't figure out that my google worlds all have different settings, even though it's the same login.
ReplyDelete1. posted dumb comment in typepad
2. typepad error (repeat 1 and 2 a few times)
3. reposted dumb comment in google
4. crap, that has my picture on it
5. go remove picture
6. repost again
7. crap, picture still there
8. finally realize it's the blogger page pic, not the other one, remove blogger page pic
if isis has done anything noteworthy (in a positive way) it was helping me find you. for that, i guess i can thank her.
ReplyDeleteplease keep writing and sharing your own story, and the stories of others that the world needs to listen to.
-luna1580
It came from teh PZ, now proud to be a new lurker here.
ReplyDeleteI bagged Isis because of the lack of tolerance and humor (yeah, that's what I said). Some folks go much too quickly from "I disagree" to "DIAF". Distressing.
Wow. This is pretty ugly comment land. I'm not even sure how to interpret PZ's trans comment in his blog, because, you know, it could be 'funny' or it could be 'transpeople are funny', or the comments here along those lines. I see a lot of comments here that could use 'explanation' if Salty Current's comment to Isis was accurate, maybe they should spend more time educating me? (Yes, minor sarcasm to reflect the problems with the demand of education on all points.)
ReplyDeleteIt's weird. I can see the core 'I disagree with the purpose of blog posts' in your post, which is part of why I don't blog (I'm not really a fan of ranty posts either) and the disagreement in rant vs educating... but to my reading, it was pretty clear you'd stepped in it by using what is one of the most common tropes used against any rights activist, which is 'You must spend all the time I deem necessary teaching me, or else you are insufficient, no matter what statement you are making, or how you are making it, or whether you only have 5 seconds to let out a quick rant before going to do something else.' Your reply to her bringing that up was... to laugh mockingly at the concept you could make a mistake, or act like a 'd00d' (which is, to my eyes, the shorthand for someone displaying the cluelessness of male privilege, sexism, etc. Obviously, you do not have to be male to do so in Isis' mind. This is not a new idea.) This doesn't seem like the right response at all.
And then, apparently... a rant on your blog followed up by a bunch of mocking comments is the height of... something? Civility? Analysis? I really wish I knew. Maybe I should also make a post asking you to explain, in depth, every way you are thinking. It's what you apparently expected of her.
Part of what I like about most feminists/gay rights/racial issues bloggers I know that they both exhort us to examine what we do wrong with respect to privilege, and do the same for themselves. That they have exhorted me to be less defensive. That is what ultimately bothers me, personally, about your second response.
Isis had a relevant point (several possible, actually, since it collapses a lot of things together), if ranty, and her reply to you was both angry and pointed out a few things one would hope you take to heart, even if you disagree with her style, as I sometimes do. I think allies and activists are supposed to swallow defensiveness and step up to the plate when they step in it on an issue of race/class/sex/gender/sexuality issues. Am I wrong?
-Mecha
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteWow. This is pretty ugly comment land.
Are you reading another blog? (PS to ERV: I posted your comment, but it’s the last containing that word that will appear here.)
I'm not even sure how to interpret PZ's trans comment in his blog, because, you know, it could be 'funny' or it could be 'transpeople are funny', or the comments here along those lines.
Um, what? You appear to have some issues with reading comprehension.
I see a lot of comments here that could use 'explanation' if Salty Current's comment to Isis was accurate, maybe they should spend more time educating me? (Yes, minor sarcasm to reflect the problems with the demand of education on all points.)
Or maybe you could learn how to read. Why don’t you explain the specific comments you’re talking about and what you don’t understand (noting that they are comments on someone else’s blog post, rather than blog posts).
It's weird. I can see the core 'I disagree with the purpose of blog posts' in your post, which is part of why I don't blog (I'm not really a fan of ranty posts either) and the disagreement in rant vs educating... but to my reading, it was pretty clear you'd stepped in it by using what is one of the most common tropes used against any rights activist, which is 'You must spend all the time I deem necessary teaching me, or else you are insufficient, no matter what statement you are making, or how you are making it, or whether you only have 5 seconds to let out a quick rant before going to do something else.'
Have you read Carlie’s post @ #62 on Isis’ thread? Why don’t you respond to that? My point wasn’t that people should never simply post rants, but that if you post something sloppy and which will take work for some people to get (particularly given the slapdash, misleading parts), then you shouldn’t be complaining about people not getting it. If you care about people beyond those you’re interested in commiserating with getting it (which she evidently did, given that she did in fact elaborate later in the comments), then make some effort to explain it. It’s not an unreasonable suggestion, and really the least that should be expected. If you’re annoyed by a practice, presumably you want it to stop. Making the problem with it clear to – raising the consciousness of - those more likely to engage in it seems the most logical way to do this. These are presumably issues she cares about. (To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I should have criticized her on these grounds; she may well just not be bright enough to construct a substantive argument.)
But I do think that vague (not lucid, specific) rants in general are fairly dumb when you have an opportunity as a blogger to educate others about a matter important to you. When I rant about media coverage of Honduras, I expect that some people will already know what I’m talking about, and for them I could just link to an AP report and say “Ugh.” But a blog post is an opportunity to share information. Further, it saves me the time the time of not having to go back later to respond to a bunch of comments claiming Zelaya was trying to extend his term in office or some other ignorant rubbish because I’ve covered that in the OP.
Mecha, it looks like you're trying to believe that Isis's blogging is sincere. Would you like some help?
ReplyDeletePart 2:
ReplyDeleteYour reply to her bringing that up
Again, you’re missing the point.
was... to laugh mockingly at the concept you could make a mistake,
I offered a detailed criticism of her post. A reasonable response would be “Yeah, in this case I was just sort of ranting for a selection of my readers, but I take your point, even though I don't care for your tone.” She went nuts.
or act like a 'd00d' (which is, to my eyes, the shorthand for someone displaying the cluelessness of male privilege, sexism, etc. Obviously, you do not have to be male to do so in Isis' mind. This is not a new idea.)
What are you talking about? She jumped wildly to conclusions about me and my experience, including that I was male, and then attacked me on that basis. It was stupid and hilarious, and that’s what’s being mocked here and elsewhere. And I didn't act like a 'dOOd', whatever the hell that means. This "I've been marginalized and therefore have no responsibility to articulate my views" business is lunacy, and helps the cause of feminism not at all.
And then, apparently... a rant on your blog
Can you point me to that? I asked for suggestions for blog activism other than “Shut your damned pie hole,” and linked to a song.
followed up by a bunch of mocking comments is the height of... something? Civility? Analysis?
I don’t care about civility. Analysis, yes, it is. You could also read the comment threads at PZ’s and Greg Laden’s blogs. I participated for some time in the discussion at Isis’ blog as well, until it reached the point at which people like you were ignoring arguments that had been made more than once.
I really wish I knew. Maybe I should also make a post asking you to explain, in depth, every way you are thinking. It's what you apparently expected of her.
I explained it in my critical post on her blog. And to suggest that I apparently expected her to explain, in depth, every way she was thinking is silly. She didn’t explain anything, and included in her post a sentence that was simply wrong as it stood.
Part of what I like about most feminists/gay rights/racial issues bloggers I know that they both exhort us to examine what we do wrong with respect to privilege, and do the same for themselves. That they have exhorted me to be less defensive. That is what ultimately bothers me, personally, about your second response.
What response? The video? Speaks for itself.
Isis had a relevant point (several possible, actually, since it collapses a lot of things together), if ranty, and her reply to you was both angry and pointed out a few things one would hope you take to heart,
Look, fool, as I pointed out on that thread (you might want to read the Pharyngula comment thread I linked to there), I have been posting on sexism (racism as well) at Pharyngula for almost two years. Indeed, I have engaged in extensive discussions of privilege there. At no time have I expected people simply to intuit what I’m talking about. If asked follow-up questions or presented with counterarguments, I link to blogs/sites, research, and previous threads in which the topic was discussed in depth, often spending days on these subjects. And that’s just as a commenter.
even if you disagree with her style, as I sometimes do.
I don’t "disagree with her style." I think she’s an egotistical loon.
I think allies and activists are supposed to swallow defensiveness and step up to the plate when they step in it on an issue of race/class/sex/gender/sexuality issues. Am I wrong?
No, you’re right. You’re just addressing your comments to the wrong party. Isis is the one who’s behaved like a defensive ass here.
Obviously, you do not have to be male to do so in Isis' mind. This is not a new idea.
ReplyDeleteThis is frankly bizarre. That she did in fact assume I was male is the (hilarious) point. Your attempt at a save here doesn't even pass the laugh test. Read the comment thread. She continued to refer to me with male pronouns even after I had explicitly stated that I was not male. She acted like an insane doofus. Face facts.
Hey, SC. Some personalized bits on the Honduras situation would be great!
ReplyDeleteI can sift through newspaper reports in La Prensa or The Tribune or whatever, but it's not the same, y'know?
Cheers!
Whoops, I should have said *more* personalized bits on what's going on in Honduras would be great.
ReplyDeleteMy point wasn’t that people should never simply post rants, but that if you post something sloppy and which will take work for some people to get (particularly given the slapdash, misleading parts), then you shouldn’t be complaining about people not getting it.
ReplyDeleteThat would have been fine if that were your point, but that's not what you said. You criticized her (unfairly) for not explaining her rant, instead of criticizing her for unfairly expecting readers to "get" her rather oblique post.
That would have been fine if that were your point, but that's not what you said. You criticized her (unfairly) [sic] for not explaining her rant, instead of criticizing her for unfairly expecting readers to "get" her rather oblique post.
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell? They're the same thing. I wrote:
OK, I've not read through the comment threads here or there fully. ...However, I think she has a point, and it's a worthwhile one.* Unfortunately, the line about brown people not being able to do that was so vague as to be meaningless. She got to the heart of the matter @ #16 in the comment thread, but that all should have been in the original post.
"Thank fucking [inexistent mythical deity] Juniper and yolio showed up. I knew they would get it" was actually a bit annoying. Does she teach at all? I mean, the point of writing a post, as I see it, is to communicate your thoughts to people - not to transmit code to those who already know exactly what you're talking about.** I don't see the point of posting something as some sort of test of who "gets it." Explain the basis of your annoyance, in such a way that those who wouldn't immediately understand will. Your arguments can still be debated, but at least if you do it like that - rather than expecting your reasoning to be obvious - you'll avoid simplistic readings.
*This differs from the post about footwear at commencement ceremonies. I still have no idea what she was on about in that one...
**Of course, this depends on the community the blog addresses. In another context, it would be appropriate to share your annoyance without an in-depth explanation and start talking about ways to a) deal with this as individuals and b) discuss how to make broader changes.
I was criticizing her for being sloppy and lazy if she legitimately expected anyone outside of a select few to get the point. I may have been mistaken in thinking that she was hoping for that, despite what appeared to be complaints that others weren't getting it; in the end, she does really seem to want a blog where a very small marginalized elect "hear" and congratulate one another on their enlightened status. This is lame and unproductive, and certainly worthy of criticism. Really, my criticism wasn't at all extreme (much less angry), and certainly nothing warranting that insane response.* And it was insane. Even if my criticism had been unfair, which it wasn't, she could have responded "I think that criticism was unfair, and here's why..." A rational exchange could have followed. Will you acknowledge that what she did post in response was loony? If not, then I don't think you're honest or reasonable enough to engage with.
I'm also coming to the conclusion that the only people still around to defend her demented raving are those who share her inability to decipher meaning from text, and that her claim to caring about these issues beyond how she can use them to promote herself and beat others up is insincere.
*Especially since it followed a post in which I, despite suspecting that the question might not be entirely serious, simply answered someone who asked how to avoid doing it, noting also that his use of "perceived privilege" was mistaken.
Isis also still hasn't posted a single word about the whole thing. That might mean she's working on a big post about it, but it in the meantime her silence certainly makes it look like she doesn't care that she misunderstood, mischaracterized, and wrote an entire slur post unfairly attacking another person. She hasn't addressed it even at the level of a not-pology or a further, more targeted rant at what she thinks SC did wrong (as in "this is what I really meant to complain about"), which makes it look like she's hoping it will all just blow over and no one will notice.
ReplyDeleteIsis disappearing and never commenting again on a thread where a majority of people have started to disagree with her, is pretty standard practice.
ReplyDeleteMy favourite part was where she said "Normally shit like SC's comment would roll right off my back".
Yeah. Sure. Really great history of taking criticism well.