andrewducker: (Portal!)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2008-04-27 09:12 pm

Aaand this is how my day's been


The bit about arguments...
nameandnature: Giles from Buffy (serious business)

[personal profile] nameandnature 2008-04-27 09:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah, [livejournal.com profile] ginmar, LJ's leading feminist.
nameandnature: Giles from Buffy (Default)

[personal profile] nameandnature 2008-04-27 10:56 pm (UTC)(link)
I've been reading the Boob stuff on and off on my friends-of-friends list.

The renewed discussion of [livejournal.com profile] theferrett's old "I'd do ya" posts is quote-mining from an extended thread where he does actually listen to some women when they explain stuff. Some (though not all) women fear male violence even in situations where it's not being explicitly threatened, and that's why his suggestions about what should happen to women who give in to persistent nagging is spectacularly inappropriate even though it's obviously hyperbole. [livejournal.com profile] odanu does a good job of correcting him. [livejournal.com profile] ginmar and her fangirls do a terrible one, as usual.

There's an argument that feminists aren't there to keep explaining "Feminism 101" to the ignorant. I think that's a problem of register: it's fine for [livejournal.com profile] ginmar to expect people to know about feminism if they're commenting on her journal even though it's open to the public, but AFAICT there are no signs up on the other journal (which I'm not linking because you didn't) saying "you are expected to know what privilege is to comment here" or anything. If you're sick of explaining stuff to the ignorant, the right thing is not to reply at all, not to chew them out for their ignorance, I think. This requires considerable restraint though. I have a hard time holding back when I read some stuff on [livejournal.com profile] challenging_god.