It's not my place to speak to her personally narrated reasons, or whatever justifications she's used for her own self. But, I think when feminists are discussing what they mean by conformity to femininity, this is a good illustration. It's not so much that it's extreme, it's that it's an extremely obvious example of an otherwise pervasive, but less obvious set of phenomena.
In a not unrelated pique of literary melange, a quote from Elizabeth Bear's deliciously excellent Sci-Fi novel, Carnival:
"...'The only significant natural predator that human women have is heterosexual men...Traditionally, the responsibility for safety falls on the victim. Women are expected to defend themselves from predators. To act like responsible prey. Limit risks, not take chances. Not to go out alone at night. Not talk to strange men. Rely on their own, presumably domesticated men for protection from other feral men - in exchange for granting them property rights over the women in question.''..."
I don't know if this is Bear's personal opinion, and I don't think it matters. She's using two (not randomly homosexual) characters' discussion to lay out the logic of a matriarchy they've been sent to undermine.
I can't help but see that the picture above, and Bear's character's observation below are intimately, intricately related.
117 comments:
what is feminine about glowing hair ?
You are not familiar with shampoo commercials targeted at women, anne?
shampoo ?
and my question was " what is .. . feminine .. . about glowing hair ?"
Yep, Anne. Shampoo. Advertised as effective at making hair glow, shine, radiate.
It's part of the package of learned femininity.
that is not what i meant by glowing .. .
Your rape fantasies are going to be deleted every time, Oxtrot/Sean/Anne O'Dyan/Hymen/Ochstradt/Sockpuppet/Corporate Lawyer/Sad Sack.
I see it as a process of dehumanization rather than a gender issue, because men have their own models for altering themselves to some nonhuman standard. Is it possible that this is a natural outgrowth of a society in which people are being steadily depersonalized in the name of profit? We're consumers, not citizens, and the consumption of fantasies that seem real and can be made real is a logical step.
c. , yes it is about dehumanizing , and not of the gender tie in that pen j seems to need to make here , / and in that dehumanizing moving away from what we all know instinctively ,that femininity is of the core of one's character born and flows out in all behaving in that , and is not painted on (and again this glowing is not femininity ,it is something of a circus play )
Anne,
I find it difficult to accept that "well know instinctively" that femininity is essential, or a "core of character."
It's so much bunk.
Catana,
Isn't femininity dehumanizing - turning females of the species into something less than human, something to be captured and possessed, to be preserved, and therefore, more like property?
" femininity dehumanizing " i am now looking at this screen with utter disbelieve , what are you ?, what hit you in the head .. and in what way ..to make you so fucked up ,said the girl who rarely swears , you have now made it to the top of the list of wom'n haters ,brav o
yes .. . disbelieve .. my en glish is old
for anyone looking in , of he pens jack's 'manizing , femininity defined is not of turning fe ribbing of the species in to something less than .. . , and not of something to be captured .. . . .. of bunk er
Good call, Jack. I have to agree with you. I think it was during or after WWII when the French used to say regarding the American GIs stationed in France that the GIs were oversexed, overpaid, and over here. Some years ago I read a news article about this South American husband who shot his wife and her lover after catching them in bed. He was acquitted of any wrong doing by a South American Judge, an example of how women are considered to be the property of males.
i clicked some links and checked out a couple facebook pages and all this shit looks like to me is: girls (and guys, saw some guy doll pictures too) trying to be 'different' - set themselves sideline from all the other kids coming up trying to be fashion forward or whatever ..different from past fashion rebellion. you know how everybody down to sara jessica parker gives their kid a mohawk now but back in the day, people thought that shit had truly hit the manic panic fan..
body modification is what it is and lots of it (not all) is carried out by people who have yet to grasp their own self awareness. i don't think you can really play up the 'needing man to protect in exchange for' because while female anime characters can be completely sexualized - tons of the feminine characters beat the shit out of their enemies. some of the feminine characters are complete ditzes and never get anywhere (mostly because they're too self absorbed). sure, anime is primarily soft porn but shit, what isn't.
i seriously doubt this girl is that into anime, i think she was looking for a niche (see her before 'goth' inspired pictures) and she found it. meh. good for her i guess.
Hair is the color of borscht.
"Isn't femininity dehumanizing - turning females of the species into something less than human, something to be captured and possessed, to be preserved, and therefore, more like property?"
I didn't want to get into that, but . . . Is femininity the problem or the enshrining, ritualizing, commodification, etc. of what's it's supposed to mean to be female? I'm a female, and I really have no idea what femininity is, other than what other variously claim it to be. Unlike Anne, I do not believe "that femininity is of the core of one's character born and flows out in all behaving in that." To me, that's just mystical handwaving. In Anne's world, I suppose that makes me a woman/self hater.
c., you are not understanding what i was meaning in the part of my comment that you are quoting if you are leaving out the most important part in how it relates to this post .. that femininity can not be painted on ..in that it is of how one moves and is of character .. that is not painted on, that this glowing is not femininity ,it is something of a circus play
Jack, you ethno-centrist!
The woman there has done herself up to look like a character out of Japanese art (think "comics" [manga] or "cartoons" [anime films]). Both Asian and western men and women costume themselves, get tattoos, buy or make ridiculously expensive costumes and props, dress up and self-design in various ways to look like favored characters, or to come up with ones of their own. They draw and create beyond the traditional human spectrum of available color (shades of brown and biege) and shape. The style of the art involved here goes back hundreds of years, through woodblock print-making and kanji calligraphy.
If that woman is being repressed for making her self-design choice, then so is a big, fat-armed male biker with a tattoo.
When you see something like that only through the lens of a westerner who's taken a gender-studies class or two, you're at risk of drawing thoroughly wrong, incredibly callous conclusions that demean an entire swathe of a foreign culture. For shame.
@High Arka
""Aren’t people’s ears all full enough already of wicked noises?” says the sceptic, as a friend of peace, almost as a sort of security police: “This subterranean No is terrifying! Be quiet at last, you pessimistic moles!” For the sceptic, this tender creature, is frightened all too easily. His conscience has been trained to twitch with every No, even with every hard, decisive Yes—to respond as if it had been bitten. Yes! And No!—that contradicts his morality. Conversely, he loves to celebrate his virtue with a noble abstinence, by saying with Montaigne, “What do I know?” Or with Socrates, “I know that I know nothing.” Or “Here I don’t trust myself. There is no door open to me here.” Or “Suppose the door was open, why go in right away?” Or “What use are all rash hypotheses? Not to make any hypotheses at all could easily be part of good taste. [...]" In this way a sceptic consoles himself, and he certainly needs some consolation. For scepticism is the spiritual expression of a certain multifaceted physiological condition which in everyday language is called weak nerves and infirmity."
The Barka of Arka
There once was a gal named Arka,
who loved the sound of her own barka.
Then one day she went off on a larka,
and in a rubber room they did parka,
poor widdle arka.
The western progressives get together in a group to mock Asian culture. They ignorantly lump these foreign cultural expressions in with expressions from their own cultures that they already understand.
When someone points out that mocking other cultures is wrong, they laugh at her.
When all you hipster progressive guys were taking your Gender Studies 101 courses, didn't you also take an Asian Studies, or at least a Cultural Appreciation 101?
...no? Or were you too busy vigorously advocating for women's rights to even give a shit about what kinds of art other cultures produce?
All of the things that you mock in your choice enemy groups--clannishness, ignorance, prepackaged judgments--you are yourselves guilty of right here. And when someone points it out to you, you sneer and snicker and circle the wagons.
Consider not employing the methods of the enemy. Ask yourselves if it is possible that another culture might view something in a different light than your own.
Nietzsche, thank you--unless you were using that in the opposite direction, in which case, see above.
It's American exceptionalism once again, Arka. Our savvy white boys should take a stroll in the Harajuku quarter of Tokyo.
this girl is not doing this to her body to pay homage to asian culture. that is a real stretch.
Sigh.
1. I don't know her reasons. I state this rather plainly in the original post.
2. I don't link this photo and Bear's quote because I'm white. I'm not Caucasian. It's not "exceptionalism" or "ethnocentrism" to see the commodification of femininity as an outgrowth of a pervasive, planet wide treatment of women as property.
3. I reject the simplistic gender essentialism implied in a number o f the responses.
4. The idea that this is just some sort of Asian self expression literally fucking infantilizes Asians not only as a stereotype, a racial type and a homogeneity, but also as some sort of neotenous totemic whole. Yes, neotenous. It reduces the woman in question's self-sculpting to play. This is hardly the case. She has transformed herself into a cartoon designed by men, sexualized by men, and marketed to men. She is, not incidentally, a European.
5. The notion that Japan is somehow free from the stranglehold of patriarchal relations, such that this is merely a cultural expression of anime is so laughable it's sad. Japan is a hidebound patriarchy.
pen jack , who is talking about " .. gender essential'.. " ?
So, what's the beef Jack? You know this girl? Have you explored her every motive? Maybe her costume is designed to attract her own sex. Maybe she's just having fun. Maybe you're crowding this girl's fantasy with your incredibly narrow-minded parameters of female emancipation. Do you ever wear a jacket and tie Jack?
Anonymous,
I don't know or pretend to know a stranger's motives.
To quote: "It's not my place to speak to her personally narrated reasons, or whatever justifications she's used for her own self. But, I think when feminists are discussing what they mean by conformity to femininity, this is a good illustration."
Project much?
Anne,
You spelled out gender essentialism.
pen jack , i did not spell out .. . , i said that femininity can not be painted on ,in that .. if you are very you are .. ,of femininity ... feminine , if you are not you are not , people are varying in many ways ..male or fe , .. my wording is awkward because it is in some way exacting
That's an essentialist argument, Anne.
Jack, it's not my place to speak to your personally narrated reasons, or whatever justifications you've used for your own self. But, I think when we're discussing Orientalist notions of cultural domination and ignorance, your reaction is a good illustration. It's not so much that it's extreme, it's that it's an extremely obvious example of an otherwise pervasive, but less obvious set of phenomena.
Japanese art uses features of exaggerated size to allow for dynamic expression of emotions. Large eyes--on women, men, elders and children--make it easier, in simple animation, to convey powerful facial expressions in a surrealist way, following the tradition of bunraku (Japanese puppet theater).
"Unnatural" colors can convey a person's temperment and emotion; for example, the inexperienced student may start out with green hair, like springtime grass, and change as he matures. The arrangement of symbolic features and puppet positioning can communicate hidden meanings to the audience; even ones a lord does not approve of.
As an English speaking person with little to no exposure to Japanese culture, you can look at something like that and say, "Oh, it's a barbie doll; it's sexist!" That's as bigoted, arrogant, and demeaning as looking at a Native American Kachina figurine and making crude assumptions about the modern artist based on the type of animal chosen for the anthropomorphic rendition.
gamefaced, she's probably just trying to dress up like a character from some comic, TV show, or movie she liked [or better yet, maybe a character she created herself in that style]. That's as much "paying homage to" as dressing up like the Terminator is "paying homage" to Arnie.
If someone dresses up like a stormtrooper from Star Wars or a student wizard from Harry Potter, there are many terrible problems with it, but that's because of the specific problems with those respective commercial franchises--not because "movies that use real human actors" or "wearing non-traditional clothing" are actions to be wholly condemned.
Heh. You use explicit orientalism to accuse of orientalism, Arka. It's funny.
And this isn't dress up.
She had surgery.
Ever clipped your fingernails?
You're getting into Gish territory, now, Arka.
And false equivalency. But, the defensiveness about body modding towards idealizations of the cartoonishly feminine is enlightening.
Whose property should those bodies be?
Should women get permission from you, or from another sensitive feminist man, before they're allowed to alter their appearances?
Yep, a full gish gallop at this point. Something's gotta stick, right, Arka?
Why are you afraid of answering those questions?
back in ,the next day , adjust your wording above ,.. of "femininity" being "dehum'nizing " ..so that it doesn't leave open the suggest.. that wom' born very feminine like myself , not painted on , are some how .. . / note again to the man that is hard .., of not hearing my voice , " so that it doesn't leave open the suggest " leave open .. the suggest .. / and that does not suggest , that being born .. . " something to be captured and possessed, to be preserved, and therefore, more like property"
Heh. No fear, Arka. You're doing a Gish Gallop. The point isn't to get me to answer questions (because you'll never be satisfied). The point is for you keep throwing "queries" and facts and opinions against the wall until your opponent makes what you can call an error, grows impatient (triggering the concern troll), or makes it personal, so you can feign moral injury -all to score an intertubewebs ego win.
You've already started off attacking a position I didn't take, against a theory which isn't mine, using examples I haven't employed, aiming questions at points which aren't my own.
The "mistakes" you're worried that you'll make would be moments of cognitive dissonance, where you'll find yourself simultaneously advocating two contradictory positions. You perceive that it's coming, so you don't want to explore your feelings any further. It's easier to simply rally your friends in defense of fragile femininity, and agree that no further discussion need be had on the tenets you already share.
You needn't fear that woman's self-expression, nor worry that it might be sexual. Whether or not it is--and there's a fair chance that it isn't--her sexuality is not yours to control. However valid some of your anger at what you see as your own culture's patriarchy, your judgments of how she fits into the same mold are inaccurate.
Thankfully, once enough men have completed their courses in Gender Studies, women won't have any more thinking to do. They will be able to check with these men to determine how to safely express themselves without conforming to the wrong, no-no kind of femininity.
What is the wrong kind of femininity? What is the correct way for that woman to express herself? What about her appearance is wrong?
If only she would stay covered beneath rolls of cloth, and not use any of that sinful makeup that women in the Great Satan are always forced to use by their godless husbands, it wouldn't have to upset decent men, who are only looking out for her own good.
Thank you for illustrating the point so vividly, Arka.
Jesus Christ Jack!!! You're such a pussy!
Anon, you're such a dick!
My sweet LORD, why is it that whenever I come here, there's always the very same person in comments saying the very same thing, over, and over, and over---arguing just for the sake of arguing, no matter the subject. You described it succinctly, Jack.
Every single time, this is what the comment thread looks like. It would be funny if it weren't so damn fucking annoying.
ANYway, I've heard about some women who take measures, some of them permanent, to make themselves look like anime figures. I blame the patriarchy for almost everything, myself.
This is so cool--it's like a mini version of IOZ, which was a mini version of a local-media personality contest.
Jack says something, is questioned on it, refuses to answer questions, the press conference is over, and afterward, a comparatively-sized body of admirers hosts a roundup show about how very right Jack is, and how ridiculous those dissenters are.
Is that how life should work, Jack? When people with different viewpoints meet, should the one with the most friends on his side shut things down and declare victory without discussing the issue any further?
Consider [recent news item]. As powerful as Obama and Romney are, they and their handlers are still terrified by the idea of having a fair, uncensored debate with Jill Stein, because she would take them apart and expose them as hypocrites, liars, thieves and butchers, if given the chance. Even many average TV watchers, despite not deciding to change their vote, might come away from the beating with the deep sense that something was a little wrong with their choice. You, like them, know that you can't maintain your positions and image if you explore them thoroughly. That's one of the easiest signs that you have fallen into shadow: you're afraid to study the way you feel.
You have a blog; you come to the internet to write about things. Explain to me why what that woman did was so wrong. Tell me what it really meant, and tell me in what ways she's allowed to physically express herself without incurring your indignation.
If I dress up as Princess Leia for a convention, am I being repressed? What if I dress up like Elizabeth Bennett for a costume supper with friends? Is it all female choices that are wrong, or just ones that draw from Japanese culture?
What if my boyfriend dresses up as Bridget? Is he being repressed?
And Arka becomes the instant center of attention just like the girl in the picture. Both want to be the center of attention. Perhaps what is upsetting Arka is that she and the girl in the picture do the same thing but in a different manner.
"What if my boyfriend dresses up as Bridget? Is he being repressed?"
No, he is being a transvestite.
Arka,
It's not that you're asking questions. It's that you're doing a Gish Gallop, none of it (in keeping with the Gallop) germane to the arguments or objections raised by the people you've identified as adversaries, for the topic at hand.
It doesn't matter to you that the original essay asserts in plain English that I don't propose to explain this woman's motives.
It doesn't matter to you that I've not identified her body alteration in moral terms, characterizing it as right and/or wrong.
It doesn't matter to you that I haven't condemned her conduct any more than I'd condemn the Olsen [sic?] twins for having a clothing line.
It doesn't matter to you that the woman in question is European. It doesn't matter to you that nothing in the post above suggests the very same Orientalism you require for your paternalist argument about the poor woobies in need of your paladin defenses.
It doesn't matter to you that I see a connection between a sci-fi author's quote, from a work of fiction, and a woman who has taken patriarchically generated fictions and had her body altered surgically to conform to them. It doesn't matter to you that I haven't suggested that the behavior in question should be banned, curtailed, prohibited, censored or castigated in the public domain.
It doesn't matter to you one bit that each of your objections to the original, and subsequent replies, are invented from arguments which weren't made.
You aren't engaged in good faith discussion, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
You are, it seems to me, doing the Gish Gallop (like the original Mr. Gish) because you feel that a treasured notion is perhaps under the sort of scrutiny which makes you uncomfortable.
As for the various anonymii, or tsi - I don't read them as fans. They just seem less than patient with your (predictable) intention to mischaracterize in order to pontificate.
Jack: "I think when feminists are discussing what they mean by conformity to femininity, this is a good illustration."
Jack, again: "[this expression is] intimately, intricately related [to Bear's rape fiction."
You've correlated someone's dress to rape. That's little different than suggesting that a woman in a short skirt "deserved" it because she wore the short skirt. I feel that women can alter their appearance without necessarily being patriarchal tools, so I ask why this particular woman's actions are related to Bear's own awful sexual fantasies.
Ironically, this one recalls a different discussion this past year where you, IOZ, and a host of other super-feminist men jeered at this one for asking about whether fear of rape was valid prior to the fact the act had actually occurred. It's nice to see that now you're appreciating that such a fear can exist.
Fears of one's own sexuality, and lack of confidence in one's own worth, leads to worry that women should not decorate themselves freely. Men fear desiring women whose hearts they cannot win, and other women feel being undesired in the face of beautiful women, and so both sexes can unite and use different banners to demean women who do attempt to express themselves physically. Repressive religions, like Judeo-Christianity and western feminism, try to protect women from sex and beauty by insisting that Bad Expressions be Prevented. If you truly value free women, you should demean actual rapists, rather than women dressing up.
There's certainly some room in there to criticize elites' fashion industry and media culture for exalting artificial looks at the expense of real women, but as far as anime and manga cosplayers, your arrow has strayed quite far. In those realms, you'll tend to find an appreciation for a free, genuine femininity that transcends the phony, character-less "die, bitch" Hunger-Games-style crap that is the best westerners have managed to come up with after decades squealing about how well they've conquered the Patriarchy (TM).
Ignore the damn trolls, how is that so hard?
All this appropriation of unfamiliar terms Arka's displaying (like a particularly savvy spambot), this scare-quoting and scare-capitalizing, has left her in an awful jumble. Normally she just poses ridiculous rhetorical questions. Now she's writing ludicrous things like "western feminism," "patriarchal tools" and "free, genuine femininity."
Oh, and "fear of rape was valid prior to the fact the act had actually occurred." What does that even mean, Arka? How can one fear something but before it's been accomplished?
(Well, let's cut Arka some slack about the strange phrasings, shall we? After all, English is not their first language.
But, in the end, The Mathmos must have the final word, in my most humble opinion.)
Jack, you do have a way with words. You may consider me a fan.:o)
I really don't mind the go-around with Arka. There's excellent illustration, here, of how to cook a rhetorical recipe without using any of the ingredients provided.
How nice for you, Jack, that you don't mind. This is your site, after all.
The robot test is a bit much. But
Is that how life should work, Jack? When people with different viewpoints meet, should the one with the most friends on his side shut things down and declare victory without discussing the issue any further?
3:22 anonymous asks, "How can one fear something but before it's been accomplished?"
Previously--as you may have seen this one mention above--Jack and IOZ and various of the White Western University Women's Studies Adherents (WWUWSA) had made the argument that one could not legitimately be afraid of something until after that something had happened. Ergo now this one congratulates Jack on acknowledging the potential for such a concern.
Sadly, this tool is only being used in furtherance of clannish agreement. It is awful, and the death of understanding and development, that Jack and Mathmos proudly support the strategy of ignoring the unwanted in favor of group cohesion.
You should use this, Jack. Your audience shows up to read you describing things they already know, and it gives them pleasure to see you saying what they're already thinking. As we saw together on IOZ, when divergent entities--call them "trolls"--exhibit badthought and don't fall into line gushing over you, it riles up a few of your readers to comment angrily in your defense.
How could someone question our tenets?
Isn't it obvious that what we believe is true?
It's simply dangerous, irresponsible and plain rude to suggest that [blank] isn't right!
This will up your traffic and reader retention, and provide you with the fun of mocking those so stupid that they actually ask questions. Questions are only tricks designed to make you feel stupid, and you can never possibly learn anything about yourself or your beliefs by answering them. Don't fall into the trap of trying to justify yourself to yourself.
Slow it right down, Arka. Where'd they say that and in what context? Linkage, please.
Jack, this thing Arka's on about. Schrodinger's Rapist, or what?
Months ago, on IOZ. They were suggesting that someone who joined the military out of fear of ending up on the street and starving was not really "afraid" of ending up on the street and starving, because 1) it hadn't happened yet, and 2) lazy people can always tough up and get a job at Walmart if they really, really need to.
Since the example was covering women and men who joined the military, there's a lot of room there for you to insult this one for comparing that kind of fear to a person's fear of being raped, and whether one even deserves consideration at all.
Not too far thereafter, this one was banned from David Brin's board after a discussion on racism and cultural supremacy led to this one using the "woman's fear of rape" example in the direct context, as it applied specifically to a woman fearing to go outside.
Brin mass-deleted all this one's posts, then spurred his readers into a frenzy of agreement as to why answering High Arka's questions was badthought. The similarity of a group that wants to share the togetherness of mocking a different-thinker was, as ever, profound.
Instead of considering how stupid this one is for disagreeing, why don't we discuss why female physical displays make some people upset and nervous, and if that nervousness is justified, unfair, or even dangerous. Let us come here to share and explore, rather than merely to find those who already agree with us and discuss how right we are for agreeing.
I've been told that I am a very feminine man. Am I repressed?
justin, you're not " very feminine ", that's something else . / what are the people like that are telling you that you are very feminine ? and what is it about you that they see as very feminine ?
So, in other words, you just made that whole thing up, then. Good to know it's business as usual, Arka
of some of ..varying ,on io z's pgs .. to arka , ... " did you note my comment to pen karl last week about a person (pen k said her name was jenny ) suggesting femininity of gay men, i said to this - " being a gay man isn't about femininity , it's of all the varying that goes with men being attracted to other men , of all the gay men that i have known only one was what i would call feminine , they were never comfortable with being born a boy , the most feminine girls do not like make up or heels , neither did he " / i also said to someone else .. that wom'n are not men in drag ,of all of most feminine born , that i know ,including myself , don't like make up or heels . .. in our more feminine,of a gentle " \ i've always looked at something of heels, body painting and a mane of hair as male from this very feminine that i am , of born,felt
That's an interesting reconnection, anne--maybe you're the prophet we've all been waiting for.
It's certainly in the independent desires of many humans, whether they identify as women or men, to want to costume themselves--they're drawn to physical expressions of self, such as tattoos, costume parties, business/formal wear, or just targeted exercise. Mental health professionals, or just close friends or observers, may be able to identify a reason "why" someone made a choice to self-modify or not to self-modify, but doing it based on someone's over-hyped picture--particularly in ignorance of any massive cultural associations--could lead to judging groups of people just as poorly and incorrectly as any other stereotype.
arka, why have you suggested in a few places here that pen jack's readers are agreeing with him here when none have.. ?
Please speak for yourself, anne.
i do ,nobody .. .
Then kindly stop mischaracterizing the conversation below post.
i don't know what you are referring to .. . ?
Anne, this may not be what that nameless voice means, but most of Jack's readers are thoroughly behind him.
arka, what do you see in the comments that supports what he wrote in his post at the top ?
Does "[y]ou described it succinctly, Jack" count?
You're unlikely, in the situation of radical and educated westerners, to see specific quotes like "I support what [Leader] said."
Instead, it's refined into:
1) Liberally insulting anyone deviant, and
2) Stating that deviant thoughts are so stupid and so wrong that they don't even merit discussion.
(2), above, may be done in essay format. For example, 300 words may be devoted to explaining why it isn't worth 50 words to address the point [Thoughtcriminal] made.
You see agreement here not in the honest wearing of team jackets, but more toward the subtle sneering style of Connecticut undergrads at their first wine and cheese tasting. Who needs to insult the freaky dyke when you can simply close the shoulders of the group, not meet eyes, and snicker self-importantly?
...and on yet another side note, the healthiness of "alternate" self-expression in much of Japanese anime culture, including lesbian, is so thoroughly advanced as compared to current "western" cultural forms that it's the height of arrogance for Jack, or anyone else, to assume that this woman's designing necessarily had anything to do with patriarchies or men.
At all.
How it would blow the protective masculine fuses around here if that woman really just wanted to be share her expression with her female friends, and didn't give a crow's feather about men noticing at all?
Then, what would sensitive gender-studies male patriarchy-blaming women-defenders have to do with themselves, anyway?
Jack, and adherents, there is value in you, and it doesn't need to depend upon protecting women from perceived slights. Again, there is certainly a place in the world for criticizing certain aspects of the fashion industry, but in this particular realm, your worried conclusion that this exemplified feminine conformity were off the mark.
morning , no that doesn't count because they don't say what he is describing succinctly
yes they are not dealing well with their not liking the way you .. talk around topics ,they should focus on the post with their comments, and not on bullying others , but your wandering ways of talking can throw the post off track more than it creates room for discussion on , the room for discussing is lost in something of that wander
i laughed a few nights ago on seeing this wander of your talking on because i wanted to put your names together somehow in to a naming of high c ow ,high cow , thoughts of animals high on what is in the feed given.. stiller , of what the conformity was , your ideas could flow in to a coming together like you were conspiring .. ,of the not of living gentle feminine , but of something of the ancient orient of suggest yes , of the stifling ,stilling.. of trying to live ..of the hours spent being TOO still in hours spent applying the layering caking of make up ,and the quiet violence of mutilating a body , yes some even take some pleasure in the physical acts of this mutilating themselves , but is it femininity .. no / what i don't like of pen jack's post is his wording of , of femininity, ..of femininity being dehum'nizing , it is the conforming that is taking the life out of femininity , there is nothing .. not hum'n about being feminine / from my years of living and seeing , talking with ,and more , - she's not doing what she is doing to herself to please any man/men ,or to please anyone but herself ..of trying to in some way . is this the effect of all that is pushed on/at these young minds with no away from , more to females than male ..yes .. in bringing something of this discussion back around to something of what pen jack should have been telling ,but more than his wording of wasn't right / of something positive of a still, not stifling ..of the orient, and of many other places away , .. to be still in a place of being able to have some thoughtful pleasure in living and of something of clarity
Two dudes playing at being girls are circle jerking all over your comment section, Crow. Mop buckets are in order.
I am delighted to have learned a new term. Gish gallop, Gish gallop, Gish gallop. lol In the process of finding out about that, I discovered the term, fractal wrongness. What a great day to be alive!
no body 12,29, no ,no suck up ,so not a dude / as long as pen jack doesn't try to talk about femininity again and fail .. i won't be here again , not to worry
Ya here that Jack? If you are a good little boy and don't talk about femininity you are safe from anne. Anne is a Nazi that tells you what you can write and what you cannot, and Arka is a psychopath who oscillates between agression and self pity.
No, no, nony! He can talk about femininity, he just can't fail if he does try to talk about it. If he fails, something terrible will happen. (Is this why they call them "feminazies"?) I think she said that, if he tries to talk about femininity and fails, she will turn into a dude, or something. Or else, leave? I can't tell but I sure hope it's leave.
My apologies if this comment feeds the trolls.
We are aware of ALL internet traditions!!!
YOU WILL NOW BE ASSIMILATED!!!
lol
t., you are the trolls
I wonder who is in charge of this household? It sure is not me.
next day , my comment just now on he is back of io z - of .. footing "oH, he's been seeing my comments here and there while he's been away , and now opening a shoe shop for men and bringing back the early 70s neu,now fennesz heavy heels.. . "
Wife had surgery today. Don't have inclination to sweep up mess. Thanks for comments.
Certain exigencies regrettably make it impossible for one of our representatives to currently distribute to you one of our most commonly requested pamphlets explaining why the particular opinions you have expressed are unfortunately erroneous. Thank you for your comments, and have a great day! We appreciate your business and look forward to the opportunity to continue to serve you.
tsisageya, anne and Arka don't identify as feminist, so please stop sullying the ebil feminist conspiracy's good name.
http://img.wikinut.com/img/239a-vqkjchi1km./jpeg/0/Femininity-is-...-instinct.jpeg
(Jack, did you dump the entity "Krogh Barr" and his posts down the memory hole? Or is this one having a problem with her e-mail account?)
Karl's rape fantasies won't ever remain. His projections can be posted in his own sewer hole, if he needs to fantasize about raping women.
Thank you Jack. I'm sorry. I am a dumbass. I pray that everything is awesome.
Later for YOU, Anonymouses. I hate meeces to peeces!
For the record, the veracity of Jack's argument stands apart from whether or not Krogh Barr is accurate that Jack is a reformed rapist.
Oh, sure. Asshole gets the last word. Okay. Whatevs.
It's funny how Arka resents misogynists being labeled as such because it's UNFAIR and JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, but in an attempt to forever move goalposts she's always the first to label a feminist a nazi, an ethnocentrist, a white supremacist, or The REAL Sexist in the Conversation.
You're so predictably obsessed, Arka.
Jack, if you're willing to take responsibility for this little social experiment here and ban content accordingly, might I suggest clearing the less obvious sociopathic trolling as well?
Adrian Chen puts it aptly : "A troll exploits social dynamics like computer hackers exploit security loopholes".
He's right--if you're inclined to censorship at all, go whole hog. Delete everything that your preferred readers don't like, in order to create the sense of order and conformity they crave.
If you only delete stuff that hits close to home, it makes the reason behind each given choice obvious, so it's better to adopt a standardized policy.
Back on subject, there's an interesting side issue there about repressors becoming "heroes" of the repressed. We've certainly heard enough here, and other places, about Jack's behavior toward women, and it's not unheard of for a person to vigorously take up a cause about which she or he has strong personal reasons for interest in.
We see, for example, decades of Catholic clergy railing against homosexuality, with obvious concomitant repressions and outpourings of violence and abuse. We've certainly seen sexism in various forms masquerading as equality movements, where the worst sort of bigots use the language of a movement to justify their own repressions of this or that minority group.
And, of course, the U.S.--home of the most strident diversity programs and equality dialogues on the planet--is the leading exporter of culturally biased violence.
There seems to be an unavoidably strong correlation between those who want to violently segregate and oppress any given caste of people, and those who are drawn to the easiest ways of manifesting how much they're "equal"--such as dramatic "causes" and impassioned speeches about oppression itself.
People free of the desires to violently repress subgroups seem to be far less (if not totally non-) vocal about any given pro-group cause.
Just the kind of searing insight, completely devoid of asinine cliches and imprecise projection, we come to expect, Arka. Now prove your case. Again: make with the linkage, or stop lying so shamelessly.
...Catholic clergy sexual abuse scandals? Jack deleting allegations of his own sexual past? U.S. doing violence? U.S. schools and corporations spawning the "diversity" policy wave?
Where are we not connecting?
Arka likes the mud throwing theory, throw enough of it and some of it is bound to stick. Accusing Jack of being a rapist is about as low as you can go but then Arka thinks the trooper whoopers would starve if they didn’t murder brown people while enjoying it immensely. Perhaps all those hard young dudes get Arka all hot and bothered.
Math, T,
Karl is posting explicit rape fantasies. I warned him that these would be deleted because they're not just offensive, they're harmful to people who've actually been raped.
As someone who was sexually assaulted as a child, and as an adult, and repeatedly beaten (to the point where I was taken from my home) - I understand perhaps too well that the world's Karls (this one, a white corporate lawyer, no less) think they're expressing their "rugged individuality" and freedom by being brazenly malicious to the "femmes" (Karl's own word) and other victims who don't know how to be manly (in his formula).
It's a service to deprive him of the venue for his cruelty.
I don't feel the same way about Arka's drivel. It's boring, predictable, reductionist, poorly thought out, ill conceived, badly expressed, passive aggressive and expressive of the sort of privileged fantasies of aggrievement one only really finds among the tediously self-involved ruling class.
In that, it's instructive.
As a rule, I don't delete comments, or posts. Arka likes to try to monopolize and self-aggrandize, I understand. But, Arka hasn't crossed my personal line, yet.
If that keeps other commentators or respondents away, doing so is more than reasonable. It makes sense to refrain from dipping toes in toxic waters.
That being written, Arka, I'm not deleting Karl's rape fantasies because they threaten my sense of self or reveal some obscured truth.
They're rape fantasies. They don't merit an audience where I can prevent them from gaining one.
If Karl wants to post rape fantasies, he's free to do so where others won't delete them, or where he is the warden of his own little prison of vanity.
This one didn't find anything in his posts that seemed at all designed or effective to satisfy any kind of prurient interest, even one most loathsome. Could you just bleep out certain words, and explain why any given sentence from him, even out of context, was something that would harm a rape survivor?
There weren't any details or imagery, as far as this one recalls. It was more along the lines of "Jack was once a rapist, therefore his motivation for discussing gender roles is suspect." Maybe you deleted something before it was seen...?
Also, how do we know which IDs are Karl and which are not?
It's terribly sad to see you using censorship. It's such a relief to find other people who recognize that, say, Obama is a mass murderer, and who don't buy into the full political charade. But censorship and shutting-off is how those repressive castes get built in the first place. What you're doing on a small scale, for whatever noble reasons, sows the seeds for the horrors of the next century. Obamas don't just pop up like movie villains, deciding "I will be evil." They grow and develop over centuries on the backs of fears and repressions. Let's not be a messenger to those nascent demons as we try to stay free of their elder kin.
As long as you continue to fantasize about women being raped, in this comment section, those fantasies will be deleted Karl/Oxtrot/Sockpuppet/Anne O'Dyan/Sean/etc.
Arka,
Concern troll elsewhere. It's not "censorship" to delete Oxtrot's rape fantasies. I'm not the state, or the church. I'm one person borrowing google's bandwidth.
In the same way that it's not "censorship" to refuse to give audience to a white nationalist who just wants a venue for his boring, stupid little hatreds, it's not "censorship" to deny a woman-hating rape fantasizing corporate lawyer a single comment section's audience. He has the whole wide internet in which to complain about the perfidy of women, homosexuals, Marxists, people who mistrust the Koch brothers and leftists who think that perhaps arch-conservatives don't make the best allies of convenience, just because they hate Obama.
I'm not "sowing the seeds" of tyranny, you noxious, self-righteous twerp. I'm telling a single misogynist that he can't use one comment section of one blog among hundreds of millions of them to get his grimy little penis hard dreaming of women raped.
And of course I can tell when Karl posts. His posts are place and timestamped as the same time and location as any of his more approving ones in the past.
Karl/Sean/Anne O/Hymen/Oxtrot,
Every single attempt to foist off your rape fantasies on others, every attempt to blame others for your need to see women as rape objects, every comment where you project your belittlement of women and "femmes," every attempt to equate a man's interest in feminism with a desire to rape women - will be deleted and replaced with a comment outlining that you are a rape fantasist who has had his comment deleted.
Yes. Let's leave all the Fractal Wrongness and argue with it and reason with it.
#vulgarities deleted#
Fractal Wrongness: If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet - in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums - your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.
Yeah, rational wiki. Pretty cool.
Sound advice, tsi.
"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates."
"The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges."
"At no time during the October 3 First Presidential debate shall either candidate move from his designated area behing the respective podium."
For the October 16 town-hall-style debate, "the moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate...."
"The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience member's microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions."
"[T]he Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut-off the microphone of any...audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement different than that previously posed to the moderator for review."
Fair enough Jack.
I don't know Ann,
Every woman I've had sex with has been raped. Its funny that I used to think I didn't know any rapists, but I also didn't know any gay men, closeted gay men or sociopathic drug addicts and rapists.
Funny what knowing thyself will do to perspective. Its a good thing I was psychotically dissociated from basic human contact, it wasn't ever a sexual thing, or who knows what lse I may have done or with to who I came into contact when I didn't know any.
Fortunately I have annswer to keep things in perspective.
Looking for a name by the face of Joe Sinchecks, or Sintex, Sintech or Syntec, something like that. He's a good doctor, and thorough. Big deal in the field of biomedical research, but don't ask me. You were on that book cover, thought you might want to have heard of him.
Later,
has someone taken over justin's ..whatever it is that one takes over on line .. this person sounds very high , and ann is the name of justin's wife
if that ann was meant to be anne , i don't understand why it is directed at me,i've never used the r word , i'm only addressing the misuse of the word femininity
Yes, well I often find myself preaching to myself...in public.
thnks
to the t.. . s..is ..a , at this late date .., who are you talking at/to / or whatever that is .. of a comment .. ? ar ka ? ?? ?
Oh, please, allow me to feed the trolls.
anne, you are a douchebag. Wherever you go=you're a douchebag.
So, stop talking, K?
my comments relate to this post , you are feeding yourself, you are the troll
Post a Comment