Delicious LiveJournal Links for 6-22-2010

[andrewducker]

• Playing The Ugly Card
  (tags: feminism women)
• Gay Walmart Employee Forced To Wear Identifying Clothes
  Huzzah for Utah!
  (tags: gay usa EpicFail)
• The Toshiba AC100 Android laptop. If they can iron out the niggles then I want one...
  (tags: android laptop technology)

Comments

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I don't thi-

Nevermind. This is so not an interesting road to go down.

*wanders off muttering to self* Avoid semantics, avoid semantics, avoid semantics.

[andrewducker]

But semantics are important. They affect people's understanding of what you're saying.

If you're saying "The Patriarchy set our societal standards!" then a reasonable sized chunk of the population are going to look at you as if you were saying "The Communists are in charge of the Media!" or "The Lizard People eat our children!".

If you say "The patriarchal slant of society affects our standards" then you've got a more nuanced statement which doesn't push people away so much.

IMHO, of course.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

But I'm not discussing this with a reasonable sized chunk of the population. I'm discussing it with people I expect to understand that I'm not a crazy conspiracy theorist, and that I only need to say once "When I say 'the patriarchy' I'm not talking about the mythical cigar-smoking boardroom." I then expect to be able to use shorthand and have people remember that.

[andrewducker]

I'm not actually 100% clear what you do mean by it though, because we've never discussed it, and I've picked up my (vague) understanding of what people mean by it by being involved in internet "discussions". Do you mean "the slanted way in which society tends to provide better outcomes for men"? Or something else?

[marrog.livejournal.com]

You know, I've never done this before, but I'm getting bored with tolerating derailing behaviour and have decided not to bother. The longer this goes on the more sarcastic and less interested I'm going to be, and so it's better I don't continue. This was not the argument I became involved in - not every discussion that takes place, even on your own journal, is a reason for you to chase around expecting people to clarify and qualify and define everything they say for your benefit.

When I say The Patriarchy, I mean The Patriarchy. I'm not using some mysterious personal definition. Go look it up yourself. One last time, I've done it for you:

Within feminist theory, patriarchy refers to the structure of modern cultural and political systems, which are ruled by men. Such systems are said to be detrimental to the rights of women.

[andrewducker]

And I'm not derailing, I'm discussing. If you don't want to take part in this discussion then that's fine, but don't expect me to stick to whatever guidelines you want put in place for a discussion on my journal. Discussions _wander_. It's one of the great things about them. We can start of talking about elephants and end up talking about South-African politics, via how much we like kittens. If somone dislikes the term patriarchy then they are absolutely within their rights to discuss that when the term is used in a way they dislike. That doesn't mean that they can't discuss the other points that are going on as well - that's one of the great things about threaded discussion forums.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Picking on a semantic point as a reason not to take an argument seriously is derailing, Andy.

[andrewducker]

Of course it is.

Which is why I didn't do that.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

*Sigh* Whatever you say.