Not me. Can’t stand 'em.
Nobody cares about your explanation of why you misinterpreted anyone. Not even your mom cares.
You mean your detailed response to my Dibble quotes?
No, you’re not unread, you’re definitely read – read, and appreciated. You’re making the point that there were other interpretations to the quotes than those that I made. I have no particular argument with those perspectives; they’re just different than my initial interpretations.
Can you please stop mansplaining how wolfpup’s mother feels?
Hey, I’m just telling you what she told me.
I don’t expect anyone to care. I do expect, however, that the Dibble-fueled shitstorm should be evaluated in a context that does not pit my “misinterpretation” against an omniscient “clarification”, as if it were a correction of a mathematical error. I would expect, instead, that the Dibble-fueled shitstorm might consider the possibility of subjectivity and of multiple points of view, perhaps stemming from different subjective values – in fact, precisely in the spirit of accommodation that Dibble seems to favour when it’s fashionably convenient.
Take some responsibility. Own your shitstorm. Your calling for “multiple points of view” in interpreting Dibble’s own posts is bonkers.
It was a weirdo fringe movement with some visibility in the 1960’s but I think it really crested in the 70’s and 80’s and then began its decline. The idea that feminism is about debasing men and is shrill and hateful and women sure don’t want to be shrill and hateful is very much with a lot of women who grew up in that era.
Great, Roland Barthes is crying now, nice one
Yeah, I thought what he said was pretty clear, honestly. That’s why I wasted a ton of time spelling that out for you. I think you may be letting prior annoyance with him color your reading of his posts or something.
I obviously have a bit of a disagreement with MrDibble over some of this (and it’s not the first time that has happened) but I thought he was clear too. And I didn’t at all take things the way wolfpup did. I didn’t see MrDibble saying that men are directly controlling language. Rather, language has been shaped by the overwhelming disparity of power that men have held for the vast majority of history just about everywhere. No matter what improvements are made in bringing equality (which I think most reasonable people agree is still a work in progress), that legacy is going to linger in language for generations.
You’ve repeated this idiocy twice now.
Is this because I said (elsewhere, BTW) that more people are evil than not? That doesn’t make me a misanthrope, Mr “Words mustn’t change meaning by fiat”.
I love good people, and eagerly participate in society. Cynical misanthropes don’t like throwing parties for friends, working with social NGOs, or reading to kids in the library.
But realists don’t lie to themselves about how a lot of humans act, either. That’s for the people in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
But you are right about one thing - don’t start a “debate” with me where you’re just going to be a counterfactual asshole who needs to put “patriarchy” in scare quotes. It won’t go well for you.
All because you wanted to wave your stupid “conservative linguist” e-peen around.
And hey, about that - how come you get to “restate” things and that’s supposed to be acceptable, but I (and others) correct your multiple misunderstandings and suddenly “clarifications can’t be retroactive”?
Of course you were here to be argumentative - you came for me, dipshit. Clearly this was personal for you. Well, how did that work out for you?
How about we dispassionately look at the record. My first post to you was #122, a perfectly civil post in which I suggested that that the gender-neutral sense of “dude” and “guys” was just a natural evolution of language. There followed a series of still relatively civil exchanges, right up until your post #143, dripping with sarcasm and hostility, and accusing me of not giving a shit if people with disabilities are offended by my preferred language. By post #189 you’ve escalated yourself into a frenzy, doubling down on accusations about my alleged disdain for the disadvantaged and now characterizing my statement that some large advocacy NGOs can become self serving bureaucracies as the “vivid imagination” of a “grudgy asshole who’s been turfed from more than one”.
Look, pal, as much as you’d like to believe it, there’s nothing “personal” here. We’ve had a few arguments before but I made an effort to end them amicably. Sure, I’ve eventually been hostile in this thread, too, but your sensitivity to being attacked is matched only by the astonishing obliviousness to how you’ve provoked it.
I “came” for you? You sound like a schoolyard bully who’s been dragged into the principal’s office. Be better.
Yes, lets…
You’re characterising posts where you called this a “silly digression”, unilaterally declared who cared about language, and as a sideline indicated you were laughing at me, to be “civil”?
Yeah, fuck that noise too, guy.
Well, you’re the one who called their feelings of offense “absurd”, buddy. Own your own damn words.
Sure, it’s not the one writing reams about literally something wrong on the internet and who can’t stick their flounces who’s frenzied.
I’m not your pal, friend.
Oh, it’s fucking personal -you think referencing your feverishly-imagined very wrong version of my personality is an impersonal act?
Now who sounds like a schoolyard bully? I made you? Grow the fuck up and own your own incivility.
How about “Fuck you”, instead?
Did you follow my link and read the wiki?
If not, here are some Cliff’s notes:
The movement is usually believed to have begun in 1963, when Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique, and President John F. Kennedy’s Presidential Commission on the Status of Women released its report on gender inequality.
The administration of President Kennedy made women’s rights a key issue of the New Fronti), and named women (such as Esther Peterson to many high-ranking posts in his administration.
In 1963, Betty Friedan, influenced by Simone de Beauvoir’s ground-breaking, feminist The Second Sex , wrote the bestselling book The Feminine Mystique .
The report from the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women, along with Friedan’s book, spoke to the discontent of many women (especially housewives) and led to the formation of local, state, and federal government women’s groups along with many independent feminist organizations. Friedan was referencing a “movement” as early as 1964
In 1963, freelance journalist Gloria Steinem gained widespread popularity among feminists after a diary she authored while working undercover as a Playboy Bunny. [snip]
By 1968, Steinem had become arguably the most influential figure in the movement and support for legalized abortion and federally funded day-cares had become the two leading objectives for feminists.
Do you actually believe that Roe vs. Wade - in 1973 - was the result of a movement that gained traction in the 70’a?
I accept your timeline.
I don’t frequent The Pit, but sometimes I do love its bracing air! Thank you to everyone who already eloquently expressed all the things about the patriarchy and feminism that I was raring to say while reading this very long and, dare I say, substantial thread.
[ MULTIPLE QUOTES REDACTED ]
I guess I don’t need cites to point out the fact that this board (not just the Pit) is no place for someone with a thin skin.
I’ve learned the hard way that you can take a stand here (if the facts back you up), but you canNOT take people’s responses personally.
And if someone insults you (or worse, in my opinion, repeatedly “stalks” you, posting after every one of your posts) you need to rise above it and stop responding to every slight.
.
So, everyone, let’s grow up… and grow a thicker skin.