Friday, April 9, 2010

they don't call it the beatdown for nothing

I do have to hand it to her.

She is reacting to this, which she doesn't link to. Ordinarily, people are shy about letting their animal insecurity out, on the Internet. I mean, this post from her-- it is literally saying, "I am good, and people like me, and I am smart and funny." We all have that need. I do, you do, we all do. We all want to be known that way. Sometimes, we have to express it by equally expressing that someone else is bad, or below us. I try to avoid it, but who am I to stand on pretense? If it empowers Sady to question my sexual prowess, then perhaps it's better that she say so. It leaves me little poorer. And if her commenters really get their kicks by saying I should rot in hell, then, you know, progress!

Now, on the subject of traffic, and such-- I am glad for Sady. I am glad that she is successful. As she implies, at this, I am not successful. Not in the traffic sense. Not in the attention sense. Certainly not in the monetary sense, but then, I am not a professional blogger, pundit, commentator, or journalist. It's just me. I'm glad that she gives praise to the men she admires. I don't know, exactly, what that has to do against my post. Really, I think she is doing exactly what I suggested she not do. I think she is reading my post in short-hand, as many do, and I don't think it says nearly anything that she is arguing against. That's just my take, but then, I am arguing, and her post and comments insists that she does not want to be held to the standards of argument.

Here is this reality: the world is not friendly to women, and it is not friendly to feminism, and so the fight is difficult. Now, if that post of Sady's were to find attention outside of the little world it occupies-- 100,000 hits a day, now, don't get me wrong! Sady is a big fucking deal, as she will tell you-- if it went out into the Out There, I think she would find it uncomfortable. Because many would not be kind. Why? Because Out There, they believe that ideas must be defended with rigor, that there is, actually, something like a rational argument, and that advancing your cause is dependent on that argument. And some of the people who would read her post are most assuredly and most explicitly not feminists. Sady insists that I am no feminist, because she says so, and she has the power to dole that appellation out to whomever she chooses. Fair enough. But surely even if my feminism is illegitimate or fake,  that's superior to the reactionary anti-feminism that is all around her. Posts like the one she wrote contribute to many, many noxious stereotypes about feminists, and I wish she would have waited, a bit, and thought it through just a bit more.

The sad truth is that inertia alone is enough to leave the world in the condition that Sady doesn't want it to be, and for this reason she will have to work harder and better, and from my limited, low-traffic, (apparently) not getting laid perspective, a post like the one she has posted can't help her. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I? I am the one being put on blast, after all.

Look, this is the thing: here I am. Here I am. That is my whole point to the enterprise. You want to chat? Here I am. I don't have an institutional affiliation to protect me; I don't have a lot of traffic to protect me, I don't have anonymity to protect me, I don't have the benefit of putting on the mantle of some great movement against oppression to protect me. I am willing to talk, and willing to listen. So: what do you want to talk about?

Update: Per the update on that post-- it's true that I did used to occasionally email Megan Carpentier about Jezebel posts back when she wrote for them. The point wasn't to tell her she was mean, although I'm sure I often did do that. The point was that I thought from her writing that she was smart and funny and for that reason I felt I should email her to let her know when I thought Jezebel was being unfair. And, you know, it's true-- I did and do often think that Jezebel is being unfair.

Maybe that's wrong of me. I don't know. And it could easily be the case that my emails to Megan, like my comment to Sady, weren't sufficiently constructive. But whatever is true, it was true that I was emailing her because I cared about what she thought. And it is true that I engaged with Tiger Beatdown because I value it. I am committed to the proposition that I am wrong about all of this. I am trying. I am trying hard. But it is difficult to read that I should be derided for opinions that I don't hold, that I should be attacked for what I don't think. And, of course, on a human level, it's tough to be made fun of.

44 comments:

Evan Harper said...

I shouldn't need to tell you that you came out of this one looking rather better.

amy said...

"But surely even my illegitimate, fake feminism that Sady derides is superior to the reactionary anti-feminism that is all around her."

I was open to what you were saying until that part.

Look, I'm not comfortable making a declaration about your feminist status. If you call yourself a feminist, good for you; I can't comment on your "credentials."

But, in my humble opinion, "fake feminism" is just as bad as open misogyny. By "fake feminism" I'm going to ascribe "thoughtless feminism," "name-drop feminism," meaning that philosophy which is not actively seeking the freedom and equality for all people but is instead focused on promoting the well-being of the name-dropper. This can be a privileged "feminist" who only cares about her own choices and freedom, or (as probably more relevant to the other comment thread) perhaps a man who wants validation from empowered women to assure himself that he is not sexist.

Your original comment, in my opinion, was kind of thoughtless. I do think Sady should be able to use comedy to make points about activism, especially since it defies the myriad stereotypes that feminists are humorless. If your intention was instead to say, "I think you're being mean-spirited here, and that reduces the significance of discourse," then that is entirely different. But your exact meaning has yet to be clarified in that way.

Freddie said...

OK, if I'm reading you correctly, you're misreading me, I'm sure because of my own inability to articulate. When I say my feminism is fake, I mean that according to Sady, it is fake. I don't think it's fake; I think it's very real. I'll amend the post to make it more clear.

As for my comment, it wasn't constructive. I'm sorry for that. But it was an honest reaction to what I thought was a very mean post. And that's what you get on the Internet: your own attitude reflected back at you.

wolf-alice said...

I don't understand how these women can hold up irrationality, emotionalism, fear, disgust, anger, and (frankly) shrillness as some sort of impenetrable feminist stance. Oh, and boner jokes. Can't forget a nice smattering of boner jokes, it's just the thing to make a feminist stance dignified.

I think you are giving these people too much time. Sady's roused hatred out of thin air for things you never even said, and you're getting a shit ton of flak for being right (as per usual). Tiger Beatdown is a terrible blog and Sady is a terrible writer. Everyone worthwhile would get their internet feminisms elsewhere.

amy said...

I think my only point is only that it's important for men (self-proclaimed feminist or otherwise) to understand the gravity of their statements when they even appear to be critiquing a woman's feminism, because that is supposed to be a sphere in which their voices are allowed to be heard, undiluted.

That said, I do want to thank you for being open to criticism and discourse despite the current situation. I'd also like to encourage you not to delete your blog but instead continue to grow and share.

hantavirus said...

Sady is pretty full of herself a lot of the time. Now, people who are full of themselves are pretty cool when they're right, but when they're wrong, as is obviously the case here, they suddenly become insufferable.

Erlend said...

What she -and her commenters- wrote was entirely below the belt (excuse the double meaning), and I hope you are not depressed or discouraged by such vileness.

bcg said...

Your grace under fire here is exceptionally admirable and greatly recommends your character.

Mary said...

Freddie,
Let me preface by saying that I really, truly, am not trying to feed the flames. I'm not particularly invested in either your or Sady's blogs. I am mostly interested in this because the dynamics mirror conversations that happen in my grad program on a daily basis.
What I find really interesting about today's kerfluffle is the contrast between your blog posts and your comments on Tiger Beatdown. To the casual (but interested) reader, your own blog posts come across as thoughtful, sincere, and (it must be said) a bit pompous. I tend toward pomposity myself, so I can't fault you for that. But yeah, you seem to care about this stuff and to want to do the right thing.

Your comments on Sady's blog, on the other hand, are frankly insulting on a number of levels.

1) Your original complaint--in the comment, not the blog post to which you link--is, if I understand it rightly, that packaging serious conversation within a discourse of humor robs it of intellectual vigor. I take strong objection to that, actually, and for what it's worth, I make my living trafficking in academic dialogue. It's called satire, it's been around forever, and it's in no way at odds with intellectual rigor--there are other genres than the philosophical treatise.

2) Sady chose to respond to you, not in your preferred mode of discourse, but in hers. Yes, she was more openly insulting than you were. But to my mind, the logical implications of your comment are deeply insulting. Essentially, you were telling her--on her own space, as you acknowledged--that her entire enterprise was useless and unworthy of the time of thoughtful people. By responding in the manner she did, she made explicit the nature of the hostilities that you had implicitly begun.

3)You responded to her comment with the following: "you aren't capable of defending your ideas," "you are...incapable of engaging rationally," and "you post with such obvious insecurity, emotionalism, and spite..." For one thing, resorting to name-calling was a tactical error. Whatever high road you may have had was gone right there. For another, I think you again misunderstood the nature of the argument. Essentially, you were saying, "I get to choose the terms and mode of discourse," and she was saying, "um, no. You don't."

4)Your criticisms were not constructive. I'm sorry, they just weren't. The blog post to which you linked did seem to me to have some interesting and thought-provoking comments; but what you put on Tiger Beatdown was condescending and dismissive.

That's how I saw it going down, anyway.

Anonymous said...

I had a whole thing up here but there's a character limit.

In short, everything you say is overly-defensive, and you are obviously hurting because of the (valid, IMO) accusation that you are not a good feminist ally yet.

You hide behind what you think is sophisticated-sounding grammar, and "polite" sentences. You are pretentious. You are telling the oppressed to be more polite (which is equivalent to saying "play by my rules or I won't listen to you"). I've read your post over 3 times, and as a member of the vagina-enabled section of the population who identifies as female, I must say, you are a terrible feminist ally.

If you'd like a whole break down give me a higher character limit.

-First time Sady reader, long time feminist blog reader.

Freddie said...

Essentially, you were telling her--on her own space, as you acknowledged--that her entire enterprise was useless and unworthy of the time of thoughtful people

But that isn't true, of course. I'm not saying essentially that, or that at all. I've laid out what I think in some detail. All of the strawmanning really just causes me to tune you out.

Yes, it's true, I was not very constructive in my original comment. For that I'm sorry. And in my first response comment to that long piece, I was being defensive. Wouldn't you be? There's a real contradiction going on here; people keep saying that I have to let Sady interact in her own way, through emotionalism, mean-spiritedness and personal insults, but then tell me that I am insufficiently constructive. Is that really fair? Or am I really to take it that I have to comport myself with a completely different level of discussion than she does? Then all the negative commenters do?

Now I'm sorry if the logic of my response was insulting. I tried to apologize repeatedly. And you know what? She changed those apologies and attempts at engagement to "BONERS". All of them. Are you really defending that? Really? Is this discussion really meant to operate under those conditions?

Freddie said...

In short, everything you say is overly-defensive, and you are obviously hurting because of the (valid, IMO) accusation that you are not a good feminist ally yet.

I am hurting, it's true. But is that what I am being told, that I am a bad feminist ally? I'm very willing to entertain that notion, but I don't know how when it is surrounded by jokes about my sex life, or commenters literally telling me to rot in hell. I mean that-- I literally don't know how to have the constructive conversation you would like me to have under those conditions.

You hide behind what you think is sophisticated-sounding grammar, and "polite" sentences. You are pretentious. You are telling the oppressed to be more polite (which is equivalent to saying "play by my rules or I won't listen to you"). I've read your post over 3 times, and as a member of the vagina-enabled section of the population who identifies as female, I must say, you are a terrible feminist ally.

I'm sure I'm pretentious. I don't think I sound sophisticated; I write how I write, that's all. I thought the whole point of Sady's post attacking me, and the comments attached to it-- besides all the boner talk-- was that Sady has the right to write the way she wants to. Do I not have that right myself?

Anonymous said...

"We all want to be known that way. Sometimes, we have to express it by equally expressing that someone else is bad, or below us. I try to avoid it, but who am I to stand on pretense?"

Holy hypocrisy, Batman. If you tried to avoid it, this post wouldn't exist.

"I don't understand how these women can hold up irrationality, emotionalism, fear, disgust, anger, and (frankly) shrillness as some sort of impenetrable feminist stance."

Every single one of those things is PERPETUALLY used to discredit women for anything they have to say. If you can't come up with a new critique, let the sexists with more creativity take over.

Danton said...

Amy wrote: it's important for men... to understand the gravity of their statements when they even appear to be critiquing a woman's feminism, because that is supposed to be a sphere in which their voices are allowed to be heard, undiluted.

Mary wrote: Essentially, you were saying, "I get to choose the terms and mode of discourse," and she was saying, "um, no. You don't."

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding these comments. The point is not, presumably, just that it's her blog and she has the right to say and censor whatever she likes. Everyone can agree with that and it has nothing to with feminism. The point seems to be rather that, as a woman, she is normatively entitled to decide what does and does not count as a valid contribution when it comes to discussing feminist concerns; an entitlement which men lack.

If that's a fair way of putting the issue, then I think Freddie is right to suggest that restricting the notion of what counts as a valid contribution in this way is ultimately counter-productive. The discourse of feminism would then become an exclusive activity for women, with no normative implications beyond that closed circle. It certainly wouldn't have anything to offer those people "who pursue equity and liberation" (as Freddie puts it), because questions of truth, sincerity, and moral justification - i.e. the standards of rational discourse - would be subordinated to the demands of the speaker whose utterances may simply be false, insincere and morally objectionable.

It may be that there is a dimension to rational discourse which goes missing in the standard definition I invoke above, and which feminism seeks to capture via the experience of those who are not men. I think Freddie makes it clear that he is open this possibility. But surely this doesn't involve the arbitrary restriction of what counts as a valid contribution. By simply dismissing Freddie's point without reasons, Sady is not invoking some higher rationality. She is abandoning rationality altogether - which might be fun for her and her readers, but who would want to identify such an exercise with feminism?

wolf-alice said...

"Every single one of those things is PERPETUALLY used to discredit women for anything they have to say. If you can't come up with a new critique, let the sexists with more creativity take over."
Yes, I am fully aware of that. The sad part is, these people are acting a horrible stereotype. They are piling on the strawfeminism. They are ignoring everything that is being said and making fucking boner jokes. I don't need creativity here, and I don't need a new critique. They do.

amy said...

Actually, that definitely was not my intention with my comment. It's not that men cannot participate in feminist discourse or that they cannot criticize constructively---it's that men need to be aware of the silencing techniques used against women that are apparently ingrained in debate rhetoric. For instance, the "your humor is ruining your credibility as a feminist" implication of his original comment (sorry to keep bringing that up, Freddie, as I'm aware that you've apologized and asked for constructive criticism; just using it as an example). Another example is "You're emotional, so you're not a good feminist." someone telling a woman that she doesn't understand feminist discourse is kinda ironic when the speaker is using sexist ideas. That's the point. Not that men can't comment. Simply that, like the women they're criticizing, the implications of what they're saying should be considered.

In actuality, my comment about the sphere of feminism allowing a safe space for female voices really wasn't meant to directly defend Sady's follow-up post, which is inappropriately personal and cruel. Sorry if that message was conveyed. Do I further think that feminism should allow a safe space for male voices, as well? Yes, because feminism=equality. But, keep in mind--a cis man's voice is given credibility in the rest of the world. A feminist sphere is just about the only place a woman is given the same treatment. That's why it's important for men to not silence women when it comes to feminism.

Freddie said...

Holy hypocrisy, Batman. If you tried to avoid it, this post wouldn't exist.

Am I really expected not to defend myself at all, or try to make my position understood?


Every single one of those things is PERPETUALLY used to discredit women for anything they have to say. If you can't come up with a new critique, let the sexists with more creativity take over.

But sometimes, it can be true that women are these things, right? And telling someone to rot in hell, or making repeated jokes about his sex life, or deleting his comments and replacing them with an epithet-- that fits the bill, wouldn't you say?

Girl About (Oak) Town said...

Freddie and his supporters are kind of missing the point here.

I am new to Sadie (and Freddie), and so far what I've read of her seems extremely self-obsessed even for a blogger, which is saying something. I think she makes good points and is very funny and but my enjoyment of such things is mitigated by the "look at how awesome i am/not like those other awful white cis etc feminists" which really just seems to be building herself up at the expense of the marginalized women that she is allied with.

THAT SAID, dude, you are clearly being a douche here. In the most basic way a feminist-identified guy can be a douche, and it's something every single feminist has encountered a gazillion times while dealing with guys, which is why the reaction to your extremely privileged and shockingly un-self-aware blog entries and comments has been so swift, mocking, and dismissive. We've heard it all a thousand times before.

If you're really interested in hearing, from a feminist perspective, how you fucked up here, from someone with no horse in this race, I'm bored and don't mind engaging at this particular time. If you're not, please don't pretend that you are.

Anonymous said...

The problem here lies in one man's gross sense of entitlement, and an obnoxious blogger's, er, *obnoxious* response to the expression of that entitlement.

The excessively drawn out post that sparked this internet nonsense can be boiled down to a simple "Hey, I'm a feminist (sorta) too, and I deserve to be an equal part of this discussion! Let me speak too!" line of reasoning. What should have been a introspective look at why Freddie feels so goddamn entitled to make his voice heard in feminist circles was dwarfed by his rampant selfishness--a true expression, and embrace, of his own privilege.

What I mean is that Freddie uses his original post to deride feminist circles that don't actively seek his input--which is basically an expression of a pompous sense of entitlement. This whole situation would have been more interesting if Freddie interrogated why he feels so entitled to make his voice heard on issues of feminism, instead of relying on what appears to be a pervasive narcism. Think carefully about why you think women should be listening to you on issues of feminism before you blast them for not embracing your profound input.

Evan Harper said...

It's as if they heard Freddie to say, "I, a man, am exactly as qualified in every respect to understand issues of gender discrimination as any woman, and no aspect of the issue could ever be less-than-fully-graspable to me for lack of direct experience."

This would of course be wrong, but Freddie did not say this. Freddie did not say anything resembling this. Freddie very deliberately went out of his way to disavow this. Nothing about Freddie's argument implies that he thinks this, or necessarily rests upon this proposition.

I read Freddie saying something like, "While my maleness is certainly relevant here, and it is absolutely possible that my positioning has led me to fail to grasp the issue here, the mere fact of my being a man cannot be used as some sort of magic conversation-stopper; the arguments that lead us to conclude that gender hierarchies should be abolished are rational arguments, and that means that they are accessible to every rational subject, even ones with penises attached to them."

Now, if someone seriously disagrees with this second point, I am surprised, and I would like to hear what they have to say. But a lot of people in this thread seem to be attacking the first point, which is irrelevant.

hekatesgal said...

As an ancient wizened feminist I must point out that in regards to point 2 of Evan's this is always what "feminist" men say they are saying even when they have demonstrated no interest in actually listening to women. That is the first line of defensiveness. (word choice intentional.) If Sady's blog is as worthless as you think it is why bother to engage with her? I find her amusing but certainly not Simone de Beauvoir. And you seem to be veiling aggression with polite tones. "Of course I could be wrong (but I'm not.)" In short I think this sums it all nicely "And that's what you get on the Internet: your own attitude reflected back at you."

I apologize for the lack of commas - my keyboard has decided I no longer need commas.

Evan Harper said...

Hekatesgal:

You imply that self-proclaimedly feminist men may be ignored, because they always say the same thing, even when they have demonstrated no interest in listening to women.

Let us say, for argument's sake, that an antifeminist right-winger were to say, "feminist women may be ignored, because they always say the same thing, even when they have demonstrated no interest in listening to men."

Now, would you accept that as a knock-down argument against feminism? Would you sneer at the hapless ignorant feminist women who presumed to natter on about "oppression" and "patriarchy" and "discrimination," even after your learned interlocutor had cunningly observed that "feminist women may be ignored, because they always say the same thing, even when they have demonstrated no interest in listening to men?"

If your answer is no, as it should be, then I assert: you have a responsibility to explain why your answer is no, in a manner that is accessible not just to yourself and to your little circle of e-friends, but to everyone who might give a damn.

And this leads me to assert that your mere broadside denunciation of Freddie isn't good enough; you can't merely insist that he is a "typical man" making some fallacious argument that you've long since refuted -- you have to actually fucking explain yourself.

I don't want to hear your complaints about his tone. I don't want to hear your insinuations about his motives. I want to hear your refutation of his actual argument.

I'm waiting.

Tiana said...

This is how I interpreted Freddie's orginial comment at Tiger Beatdown:
1. The style of your blog is ineffective in my opinion. I think you would be better served to write in another manner [implicitly, one that I find acceptable].
2. But it's your blog.
3. Any feminist that wouldn't date a man because he doesn't ascribe to her idea of feminism is SELFISH and ARROGANT.

Useless and NOT something an ally says. Who gets to be the whistle-blower of feminism? No one, officially. But it's generally understood that good allies 1. don't insert themselves into a conversation in which they are part of the group of oppressors rather than the oppressed, and 2. don't suggest that they should be congratulated for being an ally (ESPECIALLY when they're not that oppressed groups'd idea of a good ally).

This applies to any group. I could not go to a race-issues blog or a queer-issues blog (and the list goes on) and say, "Hey, I don't find your chosen mode of discourse legitimate, and because I have a sense of authority regarding what is and isn't acceptable, you should listen to me! Plus, I SAY I'm an ally, so you can't tell me I'm not doing a good job!" It just doesn't work like that. And whether or not that's how you meant it, that's how it sounded.

Danton said...

Amy,

Thanks for clarifying. I can appreciate what you're saying. Any discussion or debate has to be conducted in the spirit of mutual respect. And so I agree that anyone incapable of showing due respect to the concerns of their feminist interlocutors does not have a right to be taken seriously by feminists. I'm not sure that entirely explains what is going on here, though. I suspect Sady at least expects men like Freddie to show respect for her feminist views by refraining from criticism. In which case, it's no wonder that Sady & co. have nothing but contempt for a man who expresses solidarity with feminism: either it is a sincere but empty gesture, because in their view it entails agreeing with their stated positions, or else it is insincere and condescending.

Anonymous said...

Evan, you can miss me with your tailor-made-for-the-Internet "Can't you just be rational!" line of argument. The sense of intellectual superiority is dauntingly arrogant. Assuming you are the lone arbiter and judge on "rationality" is ridiculous, especially when it comes to social issues, which rarely follow some nonsensical philosophical conception of rationality.

Anonymous said...

"The sad part is, these people are acting a horrible stereotype."

That's not the question, is it? It's like when you call a black person "angry." It's irrelevant whether or not they are - because all humans can express a full-range of emotions - it's that throwing that up as your defense is a silencing technique. Get over yourself. You're not all cool because you've chosen a side in an internet shitshow.

"Holy hypocrisy, Batman. If you tried to avoid it, this post wouldn't exist.

Am I really expected not to defend myself at all, or try to make my position understood?" ...That's not the question, is it? You took my comment out of context. You've established now two posts where you actively place her "beneath" you. That is hypocritical, when you contend that she shouldn't have devoted a post to your ignorance.

Freddie said...

You took my comment out of context. You've established now two posts where you actively place her "beneath" you. That is hypocritical, when you contend that she shouldn't have devoted a post to your ignorance.

I'm sorry, but this is just untrue from top to bottom. I am not saying that she is beneath me. I have said no such thing. I am explicitly, openly and passionately denying that here. Secondly, I have never said that she shouldn't have devoted a post to my ignorance. I am very, very happy to have a post devoted to my ignorance. A post that questions my sexual desirability and talks about how I am a nothing and a nobody is not a post that is going to provoke much education. And you know that. You do. I'm sorry that you are so stuck in opposition, but it's not fair to attack me for things that I am not saying.

As an aside, is it wrong to say that someone is beneath you? Or is it only wrong when I supposedly do it to her? I am saying, again, that I am not above her. She is most certainly and explicitly saying that about me. So why aren't you criticizing her for doing that to me, explicitly? Where are your criticisms of her?

Jennifer said...

You seem like a decent enough guy. Even though your comments themselves weren't really as offensive as all that, they did come off as a potent mix of concern trolling and mansplaining. I know a lot of smart dudes, and I've noticed that even for the nice and well-meaning ones this stuff is really easy to do. But, feminist women have to deal with it a LOT, both on and off the internet, so they ended up being the straw that made the camel's back explode.

Anyway, it would probably do well to examine your privilege more before you post a critique in a feminist (or any other oppressed group's) space. A lot of the things you've said are common silencing techniques - women are already discouraged from using humor or anger in discourse, and then pulling out the "irrationality" argument doesn't help. When women recognize the tactics that have been used to discredit their thoughts so many times before, the move to anger is very fast. What's more, as someone who's followed Sady's writing for a while I've noticed that she's actually pretty good about being called out when she's showing actual privilege (an example that comes to mind is the comment thread of this recent post) so that made your comment look kind of ignorant.

Internet pile-ons make me wince, so I guess what I'm saying is, even though I do think the anger being directed your way right now is pretty disproportional, there's a lot of context for it. Don't take it personally, but trying to make that anger seem illegitimate will not make things any better.

Anonymous said...

" but trying to make that anger seem illegitimate will not make things any better."

Exactly. Everything about Jennifer's comment is a really good summary of the situation.

Anonymous said...

Sweetheart, if you're saying that Sady is empowered by mocking your sexual prowess and in nearly the same breath say that you are above such tactics, that's pretty straightforwardly indicating that you think you're better than her.

This entire post is your proselytization for why you're better than Sady. Are you kidding? Do you think just because you choose wordy prose over conciseness that this is lost upon your readers?

Here's what's completely lost on you: Sady is not the face of feminism. She is a feminist. She is not responsible to you or to other feminists or to anyone other than herself. When she discusses her experiences dating so-called male feminists, you have no right to question it. Why? The arrogance that you have to suggest that your perceptions are more important than her lived experience is a giant roadblock to discourse. That's why.

Sady's blog is HER blog. It is not THE blog of Feminism (TM). Incidentally, any real feminist would recognize that Sady has every right to express herself in any way she so chooses, even if those are the choices you would not have made yourself. This, incidentally, goes for all the women upstream that somehow think their choices need to be Sady's choices for it to count as feminism.

As it is her blog, she is not obligated to indulge anyone but herself. You insulted her. Get over it. She chose to insult you too. You aren't entitled to answers just because you're trying to be an "ally." That's what google is for.

Nick C said...

After condensing down arguments from all sides, I have concluded that the appropriate thing for Freddie to do according to Sady is stop being an apologist and verbally bitch-slap her, thus validating her blogging style. This would also serve to immediately destroy the argument that his purpose for being a self-described feminist is to get laid.

He should do so in the rudest, crudest way possible, such that it cannot be argued that he is pretending to be polite while actually being insulting. References should be made to her genitalia and lack of sexual prowess.

Finally, he should finish up with, "Just kidding."

I forgot to mention that it is best to act as stereotypically MAN as possible, and if called out on such, well, you know.

wolf-alice said...

"it's that throwing that up as your defense is a silencing technique."

One, no it wasn't. I'm just calling it childish and stupid. And two, what the hell do you call making boner jokes in lieu of an actual discussion?

Anonymous said...

wolf-alice, please educate yourself on silencing techniques. Run on out and google "De-railing techniques." You can do it! "...irrationality, emotionalism, fear, disgust, anger..." They're pretty much all up there as ways to shut out women.

She doesn't have to explain why she's doing something in her own space to you. That doesn't make her irrational. She's allowed to be emotional, express disgust and anger. That's not a good enough reason to ignore the point she was making - which you're still conveniently forgetting. And fear? Ha. Get over yourself, kiddo.

And what Sady's doing? I would call it refusing to have a conversation with someone who you've repeatedly told to stop coming into your space and pestering you - which was what Freddie was doing. I don't care if it's not to your liking. See my above post.

Anonymous said...

So, Freddie, do you have any opinion on this new "male studies" permutation of academic gender studies and how it differs from mens studies, which has already existed for years? Because that's what the discussion into which you inserted yourself was actually about.
Protip: Next time you comment on someone's blog, if you don't want them to think you're just there to hijack the discussion and make it all about you, try commenting on the actual post.

Anonymous said...

Femminism is another God that Failed.
See birthrate, The West.

Sady and Sadist are close linguistically speaking...

K said...

"Posts like the one she wrote contribute to many, many noxious stereotypes about feminists, and I wish she would have waited, a bit, and thought it through just a bit more."

GOD you are pathetic. really, honey? you're concern trolling, being condescending, and still claiming to be a feminist? go on and say what you're dancing around. you're calling her a hysterical female.

everyone on this blog who actually thinks you respect women is a sad little dupe. keep on drinking the kool aid, kids. this guy is not on the side of good. he flaunts his Superior Male Rationality, when all he has to offer is pretentious bullshit. not using the word 'fuck' doesn't make anyone superior. i know this is shocking, little one, but passion and logic do go hand in hand. it's what makes for a good feminist, not one who has little to offer but overdone prose that he supposes will trick people into thinking he's deep.

really, you're not. at all. you're horrible transparent, and talking about women as if they're three is not to be commended.

shorter me = you're an idiot.

i'll be curious to see if you actually post this comment.

K said...

also, yes, your 'feminism' is absolutely fake. i guess some women are so used to being talked down to they accept it. that actually is the sad part.

Brennan said...

You didn't like [BONER]? Here's a newsflash: women don't like [IRRATIONAL]. Sady showed you, in the most explicit way possible, exactly what it feels like to construct an argument, present it in the public sphere, and immediately have it labelled inconsequential. Nothing of significance here. You can keep griping or you can close your eyes, think real hard, and try to reach past your privilege for long enough to at least understand what you did to make her so pissed off.

minniethemoocha said...

Hi, Freddie. Instead of getting theoretical, I'm going to tell you about an experience I had yesterday, since it will be illustrative. To offer some background, I happen to be a white, cissexual, bi, gender questioning woman from a major East Coast city, 36 years of age. Although I came out over 20 years ago as bi and subsequently immersed myself in lesbian culture at an Ivy League university, it took me years following that to get to a point of intellectual maturity sufficient to understand the concepts basic to second wave feminist and gender studies. This is because my formal education did not emphasize (actually avoided) that branch of thought. As far as issues affecting other marginalized groups, the discussion of racism missed my examination on any deep level until I found myself a "minority" amongst people of color in graduate school at a HBC in Washington, DC. Issues of transgender? Relatively recently examined. This despite that over the past 15+ years I discovered that trans people not only exist, but that they are my friends. On occasion they have been my lovers. I've taken the time to do a bit of reading on the subject (Julia Serrano etc.). However this doesn't mean that I know it all when it comes to the issues of transfemale feminists, for example. And so much to my surprise, a comment I made yesterday on a (transwoman) friend's blog met with some dismay, disgust, and anger by her fellow transwoman friends. I got called out. The people who called me out were not nice. They were disdainful. They told me to get a fucking clue. They said, "Ew." These were not intellectual debates they were offering. So at first I was confused and felt attacked for no reason. I defended myself, saying I was an ally. Then when one of them elucidated the issue further, I backed up. I understood that regardless of my intent, I had made a comment that marginalized transwomen and devalued their experience. Once I got over my ego reaction, I understood that it was right for me to back up and apologize and promise to listen and learn more, instead of presuming I knew the right way to speak and act and talk about trans inclusive feminism. Yes, those women were mean and angry. But it didn't mean they weren't right. I needed to back off and understand that they knew what the discussion was about in a way that I could not. As an ally, I needed to be humble. And no, they haven't come forward to tell me it's all OK and forgiven, but they don't owe me jack shit. They are more oppressed than I am and know more than I do in this regard and it's not their job to make me feel better after I (however inadvertently!) dropped a shit sandwich on their plate. This is an anecdote, but as mentioned initially, I hope it was illustrative as an analogy to what you experienced on Tiger Beatdown. I got off easy. You didn't. Sorry, man. That happens.

Anonymous said...

Freddie- you are a huge fucking loser. Suck it up.

Alexandra Erin said...

Freddie, it's all very well and good for you to say here on your blog that no one reads that the world isn't very nice or friendly towards women, but the next time you go comment on a feminist woman's blog, make sure you tell her that.

I'm sure this revelation which no woman--least of all feminists--can possibly be as cognizant of as you are will be exactly the piece of evidence needed to make the obvious wisdom of your contributions snap into place.

Really, the poor grace with which Sady received your commentary is even more in evidence when we compare her overblown reaction to the quiet acceptance which John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the heirs of Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain obviously received the advice I know that you sent them about mixing humor with serious social subjects.

After all, your point was about how humor and seriousness shouldn't be mixed, not about how women should shut the fuck up or anything misogynistic like that.

Anonymous said...

Ugh, I just can't bring myself to read the writing of anyone who doesn't know the difference between "then" and "than".

Laura said...

6681, 6682, 7610, N70, N72, N90 Download Game For Nokia S60v3. Collect coins, do flips and avoid crashing as you ride your bike through Super Mario free online Mario Bike game - best bike racing games at Online Free Mario Games Top Best Games - ay Online Dirt Bike Games Top Best Free Bike Racing, Car, Monster Truck, Parking, Mario Games - mes For Boys, Play Online Mario Dirt Bike Kit Mario great motorcycle games to play for free with custom made enduro bikes, bike games for little boys, motor games. play bike games, mountain, stunt, dirt bike games and other hundreds of free online racing car the best dirt bike games online for free at Juicy Dirt Bike Games. Unlock many different bikes to play easy, moderate and complex Dirt Bike online for free.

Anonymous said...

woodworking plans , http://woodworkingplans1.com/#insulmine woodworking projects