I’ve always sucked at math, so division of any kind hurts my head
Posted by Will Entrekin on March 28, 2008
I’ve read a bit over the past week about the Orange Prize, which is a literary prize awarded to a woman and judged by a panel comprised exclusively of women, as a response to the literary subjugation of women in the literary world. There’s been a bit of a kerfuffle; A.S. Byatt (author of Possession) denounced it as a sexist prize, with which Tim Lott agrees. So one side of the camp (and the award’s organization) claims that it needs a prize because women have not received their proper due, whereas the other side of the camp argues it’s unnecessary. Various heated arguments have ensued, if by ‘heated’ we mean ‘various bloggers have contributed their free two cents.’
Lott makes a few good points, opening with:
Here is a selection of groups that have been consistently under-represented among the winners of the UK’s two major book prizes, the Booker and the Costa/Whitbread: the white working class (0); West Indians (1); black Africans (0); disabled writers (0).
No one has funded a prize for these groups. However the Orange Prize was set up in 1996 to give women their own prize - because of perceived under-representation in the Booker. Despite 12 years of consciousness-raising by the Orange, the Booker still doesn’t give women their just mathematical due - a 3:10 ratio remains. But given that women have won five out of the last six Whitbread/Costas, does the level of injustice remain enough to justify the Orange?
Although the idea of applying ‘mathematical dues’ and ‘ratios’ to anything concerning writing hurts my head.
It’s a post both The Girl Detective and We are in debt took umbrage with and argued with, to various degrees of efficacy. My students would be quick to point out that calling anyone “Neanderthals” outside of an anthropoligical/taxonomical context is immediately ad hominem (a phrase meaning “against the man,” which may be particularly appropriate in this context).
Which also probably describes my own thoughts on this, as well as the probable argument that I am not entitled to them. I should not think about such issues because, as an average white male, I have no right. That Debt blog notes that “there’s no such thing as a reverse -ism,” but I’d disagree with that, especially in consideration of a phrase later used: “Leave it to a man.” Right. Because all we white males believe precisely the same thing and act precisely the same way, and we’ve all subjugated and oppressed every woman we’ve ever met because to do otherwise threatens our alpha-supremacy in the world.
The author later notes “The author of this silly piece seems to think that women are a “dominant” group, like “whites” (wrong)” but I wonder if that’s truly the case. First, a quibble: technically, women are more numerous, as a gender, than men–isn’t the population split still, like, 52% to 55% (versus, wait, I can do this–48% and 45%, respectively) in favor of women? I get that the trouble spot is in the definition of “dominant,” and that to be more populous does not necessarily equate to dominance, but still it isn’t technically wrong to state that women are a dominant group, for most definitions of the term. Not to mention that simply calling an argument ’silly,’ or ‘wrong-headed’ or whatever doesn’t actually forward any real argument, and, indeed, if nothing else, brings the debate down.
The argument seems to be whether the Orange prize is necessary, but I have to admit I have trouble believing any literary prize is actually necessary. I don’t really get them, any more than I really get the whole Oscars thing; what, exactly, is a best picture, and on what level was No Country for Old Men better than Zodiac (I can think of many ways it was worse, but few better)? Given a real ballot with nominees (of any medium or genre) of any actual merit, terms like “better” actually cease to exist, I think. And does it really denote anything? Looking over Wikipedia’s list of nominees and winners, the only book on it I’ve ever read is Yann Martel’s Life of Pi, which I thought was overrated. I’ve picked up books by the usual suspects (Zadie Smith, Margaret Atwood, Ian McEwan, etc.), but have felt the same way toward theirs; nothing to inspire me to read beyond the first ten pages.
Maybe bad writers need awards to get recognition in a marketplace of books by people who know how to tell stories? Who’s Booker, and why does their list matter so much? There was a recent blogbate over Zadie’s Smith’s decision, as judge and jury for the Willesden (sp?) Herald’s award, to not award anything because it wasn’t good enough; who, besides WH, decided Zadie Smith is some arbiter of quality? More important, one of the members of the Orange jury is Lily Allen. Of MySpace fame.
Has Lily Allen ever even read a book? Her comments on Radiohead’s ‘devaluation of art’ seem to demonstrate she is perfectly content to argue based on superficial preconception with neither basis nor experience to bear them up.
One of Girl Detective’s arguments is:
I’d love to see a society in which women’s needs are catered to in the marketplace - where, say, every billboard has a picture of a naked man on it - and products for men just don’t exist. I wouldn’t want to live there - I’d just like to poke around a bit.
Does this mean that products for women, in the current marketplace, “just don’t exist,” whereas men’s every need is catered to? Also, I wonder where GD lives; I live in Hollywood, and there are plenty of naked men on billboards. Plenty of giant images of sharply chiseled jaws like none of us really have, washboard abs like none of us will ever really manage to get… etc. What female needs aren’t catered to, exactly?
No, really, I’d love to know, because as I’ve learned in my marketing class, built-in need-based target markets are a fucking gold mine, and I’d love to not be a broke-ass grad student anymore.
Speaking of mines, I’m sure this is probably one, and I expect debate/discussion (though not all together much, because who really reads this blog yet?), but if we can refrain from calling me a whiny Neanderthal, that’d be awesome.
Because, I mean, come on, it’s kind of the obvious strategy, isn’t it?
March 28, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I personally think the pictures of the half naked women really aren’t catering to men, they shout: “Hey ladies, if you wear my perfume or eat my yogurt you’ll look like me; a size one beauty queen with airbrushed skin and perky breasts.”
The shitty/awesome part about marketing is that it really focuses on image. This picturesque vision of perfect beauty.
On the flip side, I have noticed a trend in more full figured women as opposed to super thin in the media.
Dominance? I think we all know who “really” wears the pants. (And I kid.)
If you can make the customer/client feel like they need whatever you’re trying to sell them, uh-huh, ch-ching, sold. Also, whatever you’re marketing is of better quality, comparably priced, better service, more diverse/timeless product etc. Works every time.
Gold mine? Yep. And I own one.
March 28, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I consider myself a feminist…well, I consider myself someone who believes in equality across the board. I suppose that’s a better way of saying it.
What kills me, though, is how women try to demonize men for things that women do. Don’t get me wrong…sexism *is* alive and well–just like racism. And, yes, women *have* been oppressed. But, I wonder, how much of that oppression–both then and now–has come from women themselves.
While the acts of individuals certainly have import and the ability to do real damage, more often than not, it’s the establishment and support of patriarchy that has served to disenfranchise women and minorities across the board. Problem is–we *all* play a part in its creation, its ongoing existence, and ultimately its future.
There are women in the world who think it’s okay–right, even–to bash men and take revenge on men by reversing the stereotypes and subjugating men in the same way as women. They often also tend to be the ones who judge other women for being mothers/wives. The thing is–condoning inequality and sexism of any kind is upholding patriarchy–the very thing that promotes sexism.
Men have usually been extremely respectful to me, as a woman. Some, I’m sure, have unclear motives for being that way. But, by and large, men have supported me as a person. On the other hand, women have been far more judgmental. I’ve had women act like tyrants just to prove themselves to some imaginary someone. I’ve been belittled far more often by women for my looks, my intelligence, my everything.
In publishing, I don’t think an Orange prize is necessary. If there is sexism in publishing, most certainly it comes from women choosing to write things that aren’t interesting or are beneath them. The market bears it out, I think. If you are an excellent writer, and tenacious enough to market your book, the market will embrace you as such.
March 28, 2008 at 10:24 pm
When was the last time you won a literay award or entered something? Besides a cash prize, prestige, and something good to put on your transcript they are a fun thing to do. Some people train all their lives to be in the olympics and others train to play professionally. So, please don’t knock literary awards. I have one.
As for the orange prize, I can’t definatively say whether I agree or disagree. On the one hand women in literature don’t play as big a role as they should be and that may be partly do predudice against women. The company that published Harry Potter feared boys wouldn’t by a fantasy book written by a women enough so that they asked her to use initials instead of her name. On the other hand, having a literary award just for women seems more like giving women special treatment instead of trying to make things equall.
March 29, 2008 at 9:08 am
@Lisa: you own a mine? That’s pretty rad. And interesting note: we men don’t generally prefer thin– we like full figures. Most of us, anyway, I think.
@Alma: I’m in agreement with you. On many of your points, some of which I’ll address in another post, before this comment becomes a mini-blog.
@Gotham: I’ve gotten honorable mention in a couple. I don’t think I was knocking them so much as didn’t see the point, myself. Cash prizes, prestige, and transcript-y things are all good, certainly. My transcript lacks any prizes, but I don’t think it suffers for it. And I think the crux of the argument is in your last sentence–”seems more like giving women special treatment instead of trying to make things equal.”
Which makes it the literary equivalent of patting a woman on the head and giving her a prize to placate her desire for equality, rather than actually making her equal in any way.
As for Rowling–I don’t think that’s either equality or feminism so much as marketing.
March 29, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Right. So you can knock that particular prize but not all of them.
In marketing you do the best you can to make a product look it’s best right. Why was the company worried that a woman’s name wouldn’t make it look it’s best?
March 29, 2008 at 5:47 pm
That’s what I was doing.
And no, you do the best to sell the product to its target audience. Rowling’s target audience was readers of fantasy. Who are used to authors who use initials. Like R.A. Salvatore, R.L. Stine, J.R.R. Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis. All of whom, by the way, were men, so what reason would they have had to use their initials? T.S. Eliot and J.D. Salinger used theirs, too, and it’s not like either had effimate names (Thomas and Jerome, respectively).
March 29, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Hi, Will,
I wanted to thank you for stopping by and commenting on my recent post. I have read the ones you reference, and while I can’t agree w/ you on all points, well, many, they are at least thought provoking.
I will back up what Gothamgirl has said, however, that the publishing company for Rowling would not allow her to use her full name, fearing that the target audience of young boys would not read a fantasy book penned by a woman author.
From Wikipedia, after only a quick search:
Before publishing her first book, her publisher Bloomsbury feared that the target audience of young boys might be reluctant to buy books written by a female author. It requested that Rowling use two initials, rather than reveal her first name.
I have a few commentaries on the HP series, packed away in storage or I would quote from them as well, which make this same claim. The fact that most Sci Fi/Fantasy writers use initials is exactly why they wanted her to use initials. This way they could not reveal that she was a woman, but they didn’t have to pretend that she wouldn’t. The assumption was left up to the buyer, a clever marketing ploy, since, as you mentioned, the target of the fantasy novel world would assume that she was a man, like most of the others. It’s because the men use their initials, for whatever reason they do I can’t say, that Rowling was “strongly encouraged” to use the same. She doesn’t even have a middle name! She had to make up a second initial.
The fact that you do the best to sell to a target audience doesn’t negate that the best way to sell to that target audience is in fact sexist. It actually makes both you and GG correct, but for different reasons. You are just overlooking the sexism. She doesn’t have that privilege.
I do, however, enjoy your blog here, even if I don’t agree w/ your points (fully).
March 29, 2008 at 8:27 pm
And Michael J. Fox’s middle name begins with ‘A,’ but he didn’t use “Michael A. Fox,” because he worried that TeenBeat or Tigerbeat or whoever would use “Michael: A Fox” as its headline.
Sexism: It ain’t just for women anymore.
But anyway, thanks for stoppin’ by. Hope you’ll stick around. I wouldn’t worry about (fully) agreeing; world would be kinda boring if we all agreed with each other all the time, no?
To bear it fully to the point, you hit something key; I’m less interested in being right than I am in provoking thought. That latter is way cooler.
April 15, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I think your semantic quibbles don’t do much for the debate either. I guess we’re even?
I don’t write my blog as some sort of authoritative treatise on the nature of modern feminism; it’s a “brain dump” as mentioned in the sidebar. I’m not sure why a stranger on the internet would choose it, over more thought out pieces, other than the fact it’s probably pretty easy pickings for an opposing view point. And pick you do.
By the way, my “leave it to a man” wasn’t a reverse -ism, but rather a comment on male privilege. It’s easy to reduce patriarchy to a joke, when you’re one that benefits from it.
April 15, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I thought your whole point was that we’re not even? And I didn’t really quibble with semantics except in the case of the word “dominant,” I don’t think.
As for your second paragraph: you know, the problem with posting links to your blog in the comments section of other blogs, solely in order to divert traffic from the one blog to yours, is that sometimes it works. Just as you found GD’s blog via Bookslut (as I did, as well), I found yours via your link in GD’s blog.
And ah, yes, the privilege I keep hearing about. On which I probably can’t comment, because I’m a white boy. But I’ll ask this: what privilege? What right have I had that’s been beyond anyone else’s advantage? You know what I think of an idea like this ‘privilege’ you made up? I think I got a full scholarship to college, but your idea of ‘privilege’ reduces it to a function of my cock, rather than the sheer amount of hard work I performed beginning before I ever started school in the first place. And finally, I wasn’t the one to reduce patriarchy to a joke–that was you.
April 16, 2008 at 5:29 am
Oh, I see you’ve got “poor little white boy” syndrome. I haven’t the cure for that, sorry.
April 16, 2008 at 7:49 am
@Panic: If you want to be treated equally, the first step would be to stop whining about how you’ve been treated unequally. Try coming out from behind your moniker and producing some sort of evidence for your claims. Being snide certainly doesn’t win you any bonus points, nor does it extend your argument. Grow up.
April 16, 2008 at 8:40 am
@Panic: thank you for reminding me I need to put up a comments policy. That one there was pretty close to the sort I would delete. If you continue in that vein, they’ll stop showing up.
If, however, you’d like to engage in real discussion, you may continue unabated. Choice is yours.
April 16, 2008 at 1:19 pm
@Will: A real discussion involves statistics, which you argued about how they were gathered. A real disscusion involves real world examples, which you chose to attack or didn’t acknowledge. A real disccusion requires a open mind that what we “know to be true” is not true or at least not as true as we hold it to be. A real discussion requires respect for the person, topic, and beleifs. That’s lacking on both sides. However, Panic didn’t out say “your sexist jerk” or “your ass hole” so you should only delete a coment like that if people can only say what you want to hear on your blog and not disagree with you. If you didn’t want somone to say you have “white boy syndrome” you probably shouldn’t mention your a boy that happends to be white. when you make something so un-noticible like that availible information your bound to have it thrown back in your face. Do your parents know your a white boy? What about the people you’ve dated? Also, if your gonna threten Panic with deletionthen I don’t see why you wouldn’t threten Alma.
@Panic: If a serious disscussion on the sexes is what you want you will never get it. The people who beleive their is a gap of respect, rights, and born priveleg will just find your preaching to the choir when you talk. The people who don’t beleive one exists won’t acknowledge evidence and without evidence you can’t really prove a point. However, starting off angressive won’t help you either. The best thing you can really do is work towards a better future via voting for the right politians, getting invooved at your local public schools, and exposing injustices to people who will care and do something them selves.
@Alma: Their was alot of anger but not really any whinning. Moniker’s are fun and also a force of habit. No one asked what panic’s name was so I don’t really think it’s fare to say she’s hiding behind it. As I have tried, evidence won’t work here so that may be one reason Panic didn’t post any. As for growing that is something EVERYONE on this little corner of the internet needs to do. Me, Will, Panic, and even your self Alma. Saying it dosn’t make you more of a adult and her less.
April 16, 2008 at 1:49 pm
@Gotham: I wasn’t threatening Panic. I merely said that if her comments continued to be both condescending and uncivil, they would be deleted. Alma was being neither. I mentioned I was a white boy because Panic mentioned “privilege.” That she views being male as both privilege and syndrome says far more about her worldview than it does about mine (and most “feminists’”, for that matter [boy, that possessive was hard to punctuate]). If ‘a real discussion requires an open mind that what we ‘know to be true’ is not,” I’d argue I’m not the one with the closed mind; I’m merely the one unconvinced. My lack of being convinced, however, is dismissed away as ‘privilege.’ And to be perfectly candid, I think “Oh, I see you’ve got “poor little white boy” syndrome. I haven’t the cure for that, sorry.” translates to “You’re a sexist jerk.” Perhaps with more syllables, but not without the meaning.
As for monikers, people have a tendency on the Internet to act differently than they might if their real names were associated with their words. For example, I know who you are, but I respect your privacy to always refer to you as “Gotham”; someone who didn’t know you might easily dismiss your quasi-anonymous comments. Lisa goes by her real name. Alma goes by her real name. This simple thing lends more credibility to their comments. Basically, it comes down to: how do people who don’t feel comfortable standing behind their words expect other people to listen to them?
April 16, 2008 at 3:17 pm
@Gotham: Will didn’t “threaten” me because I was not using ad hominem attacks. Panic–whoever she is–never once advanced any evidence for her argument. All she resorted to was a personal attack on Will that was both racist and sexist. Contrary to some people’s beliefs, attacking someone–man or woman–on the basis of their gender is not helping anyone be equal.
For the record, I do believe there is inequality in this world. I’ve been on the receiving end of such inequality over the course of my lifetime. I don’t need statistics or anything else to convince me of that. But not everything is about sexism–or whatever ism you decide to embrace today. Sometimes, it comes down to sheer mediocrity–or just shitty people. If you’re quick to attack a man and tell him he doesn’t live in reality because he has a penis, you are advancing the cause of sexism as quickly as any man ever could.
Whining/anger–it’s all subjective. Same thing with monikers. It’s all too easy for some random person to hide behind some facade and make personal attacks without any sort of accountability. Most people seem to use their monikers as masks that give them courage to say shit that they’d never say to someone’s face. You know why? Because if they did so, they’d be linked to their words. Why hide behind a fake name when you’re supposedly speaking about controversial issues? Because maybe you don’t have the “balls” to stand behind them?
As for the evidence you say you’ve provided, I found it unconvincing. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m wrong or close-minded. It means I didn’t find your evidence convincing or true based on my perspective. Last time I checked, it’s okay to disagree.
Honestly, I don’t care who Panic is. She didn’t offer her name or offer anything else that would make her accountable. She’s just some anonymous person on the Internet who doesn’t have the integrity to actually stand behind her personal attacks. Nor did she ever advance any sort of substantial argument that would do anything more than make me think she’s an intolerant sexist herself. She is doing the exact thing she says she’s against. I told her to “grow up” because adults don’t resort to name-calling or personal attacks while having discussions about things they care about. They speak to each other as human beings, and they offer substantial arguments.
I’m an adult because I conduct myself in an adult manner. I’ve put in the hard work to know what the hell I’m talking about, and I do have an open mind. I have respect for differing points of view, but I still think critically about what I say in public and private forums. I’d say all of this to your face, and I certainly wouldn’t resort to namecalling just because I couldn’t advance a convincing argument.
Honestly, Gotham–or whoever you are this week, you seem less concerned about learning and growing as a person than you are about being proved right. See how far that gets you in life.
April 16, 2008 at 4:49 pm
@Will The internet killed my comment. so, I’m gonna be lazy and keep this short. If you don’t think you thretend to delete panic’s comment then just so you know thats how I took it. But alma was being just as condesending. You say you have a open mind and just aren’t convinced. rather then show you more boring statistics and tell you more fine boring examples I have a idea that will save me time and you might find interesting. Go to ask.com and ask women what predudice they expeirence. Your gonna get crap like “I just know I didn’t get that job because I have a uterus” but your gonna find women that complain of not being able to find a doctor that will tie their toobs but eagerly gave their old boyfreinds hysterectumies. Your gonna see good exaples and bad. I’m not saying it’s as bad as it was in the past but there is still work to be done here and other parts of the world.
I have never said their aren’t women that don’t abuse the system and try to get special treatment instead of equall. That dosn’t mean their isn’t, as my dad put it, “lingering predudice in the work place” or in the doctors office or other areas where women are. Are you a white male the cause of it? No. Your harmless. I never meant to insult you if you feel I did. I agreed on my own to disagree with you and discontiue this untill Panic showed up and commented.
@Alma 520. According to Microsoft word that’s how many words you felt was nessary. You felt the need to write them so I guess I’ll read them.
My name is Helen. Just Helen. I know it’s very hard for you to beleive that another women all on her own found Will’s blog and was just as mad as I was but it’s true. I don’t know why her name is Panic and not her real name but I’ll bet it’s good reason, unlike my self who didn’t realise the user name was a display name and didn’t feel like making another profile. I belive Will didn’t threaten you because your comments were aimed at Panic not him. As “grown up” as you belive your self to be you could have been much more civil then you chose to be and that’s all I’m gonna say here.
April 16, 2008 at 5:13 pm
@Gotham: I find it troubling a doctor will agree to give women’s old boyfriends hysterectomies. But as you note, there are both good examples and bad. But there’s always work to be done, and I never argued otherwise. In fact, I think the whole extent of my argument was that the Orange prize is silly, but then, so are most literary prizes. But your example brings up a valid point: just as one sparrow does not a spring make (or whatever the quote is), one refusing doctor does not make a healthcare system sexist. It’s just one of those bad examples.
Also, just because you don’t understand why I judge one person’s comments uncivil over another’s doesn’t mean that I didn’t have reasons. Ultimately, it’s a judgement call, and as this is my blog, it relies on my judgement. Panic was snide and condescending; Alma was not (and still has not been, so far as I can tell). She raises several good points, and I think you’d do well to read them, regardless of how many words she used (though I’m not sure what wordcount has to do with anything. I’m glad your office programs function, though).
Finally, while misunderstanding of technology is, I suppose, as good a reason as any for anonymity, that’s the first time you’ve used your name here. Otherwise, you’ve been an anonymous commenter with an alias.
April 16, 2008 at 5:57 pm
It’s not one doctor. She’s been to bunches and they all refuse to tie her tubes and she’s not the only woman with this problem. Articles have been written on it. I’m surprised you never heard about, really. Does this mean you won’t be going to Ask.com or doing any kind of independent research your self?
Alma was unnessarily rude and mean. In your oppinion if she was not try pretending she said those things to you. I’m not saying play ref or take sides, but please don’t tell me Panic calling you a white boy as a joke was “condesending”, “snide”, and “uncivil” and alama wasn’t just a little to me in 520 word reply.
As for the name, you knew who I was and I felt no reason to make another profile just so that other people would.
April 16, 2008 at 6:15 pm
That’s just it; I don’t think Alma was either. In my opinion, she wouldn’t say those things to me because I’m not those things; were I, I’d expect to be called on it, and not just by Alma. And why is calling me a white boy a joke? Why doesn’t it carry the serious socio-sexual implications that dismissing Panic as, say, a silly little girl would have? And I didn’t think she was mean to you, either; I thought she treated you precisely as you’d earned.
As for your name, and my knowing, and other people; you can’t just expect to be taken seriously, Gotham–you’ve got to earn it. The same is true for everyone.
April 16, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I saw the tone of white boy syndrom as being a joke, at your expence but a joke. I’ve been called a white girl as a joke both at my expence and not.
You know. Despite what I thought was one disagreement I have held alot of respect for you but I always velieved that was mutual. alma was doing over kill at least and overly aggresive with her insults at worst. But I deserve it because I disagredd with you and stuck up for some one that insulted you. she put words in my mouth and accused me of things but that okay because i had it comin.
April 16, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Panic wasn’t making a joke. She was commenting on my gender and perspective.
And that second paragraph is just putting words in my mouth.
April 16, 2008 at 8:11 pm
“And I didn’t think she was mean to you, either; I thought she treated you precisely as you’d earned.”
She did everything short of calling me bitch. You were hurt by 17 words I was hurt by 260. You interpreted it as being called a sexisit ass and I interpreted it as being called a bitch. Your right. If you argue correctly you can never win. I’ll never win an argument with you which is fine. Accept, the above statemtn was by alma was unneccesarily mean. I don’t know her so it didn’t bother me. But I earned it, apparently, according to some one I did know. I put words in your mouth apparently which implies I didn’t earn it by sticking up for someone who disagreed with you or disagreeing with you my self.
April 17, 2008 at 6:55 am
@Gotham: Look Gotham/Helen/whoever you are–I wasn’t being mean. I was having a conversation and setting the record straight. I never personally attacked you in any way. If you don’t want to engage in conversation or listen to viewpoints other than your own, why are you here? Why do you comment when you’re not adding anything to the conversation? You don’t have to read my comments. The fact that you actually counted the words I used speaks to something I won’t comment on. Perhaps, I should take umbrage with your “mean” comments toward me. Isn’t that a personal attack in and of itself? Just because I respond passionately about a topic I care about does not make me any of the things you called me. All I did was disagree with you. All I did was raise a question about monikers and those who hide behind them. Maybe, it hit too close to home? I dunno. I never tried to be any of the things you said I was being because, frankly, I don’t care enough about you to attack you. If I did, believe me, you’d have a reason to call me mean.
I’m all for free speech, but let it be known that–from now on–I will not address you in this or any other forum. So, don’t use my name in this or any other forum. I’m tired of having “conversations” with you. It’s exhausting.
April 17, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Panic wasn’t making a joke. She was commenting on my gender and perspective.
Correct.
As for putting my “real” name online? Yeah, that’s always a smart move. As I said to Will on my own blog, I actually do go by Panic among my friends, but I don’t see how putting my (very common) first name on anything would grant more “accountability” to my comments. And putting my very uncommon last name up would be very, very stupid indeed.
Calling me racist and sexist is going for the reverse -ism, and again, I don’t buy that, so sorry, no cookies for you.
Do I even want to engage in OMG SRS DEBATE here? Not especially. I don’t take this blog too seriously, because I have no idea who this person is. I just know they linked me. I see their opinions, don’t like ‘em, throw a couple words out, and leave. It’s the sort of drive-by he did by linking my blog, without knowing anything about me above that post.
It’s not my job to teach people on the internet Feminism 101. If Will is interested, he’ll begin the research himself. I suspect he won’t.
It seems I totally resurrected the comments here. Ha!
April 17, 2008 at 4:49 pm
So telling me I have “poor little white boy syndrome,” which you confirm as a comment on my gender and perspective, is not both racist and sexist?
My ‘about me’ pretty well sums up who I am. I know you’ve read it.
I don’t need to be taught Internet Feminism 101. The feminists I’ve encountered on the Internet aren’t nearly so educated and intelligent as the brilliant women I’ve already had the pleasure of studying with. I started research in grade school, when I questioned the roles of Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Even in Christianity.
I’ve put up my fairly common first name and my very uncommon last name.
For not taking this blog too seriously, you certainly have much to say on it.
April 17, 2008 at 5:04 pm
@Panic: Use whatever excuse you like. Bottom line is that you didn’t provide any real identifier for yourself–in the form of a real name, a link, or anything else. There’s a label for that: troll.
And the next time anyone needs schooling on Feminism 101, I highly doubt they’ll seek out your advice. My education comes from people who have the integrity to risk something in the name for equality–people who fought for the rights of all people–who know better than to attack one group in defense of another. If anyone needs schooling, it’s you. Take a course on crafting a respectful argument–one that doesn’t involve personal attacks.
April 17, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Will:
I’ve put up my fairly common first name and my very uncommon last name.
That’s cool. I’m simply not willing to deal with the security risks that entails.
For not taking this blog too seriously, you certainly have much to say on it.
And you have a lot to say on mine, but you certainly don’t seem to take me seriously.
Alma:
There’s a label for that: troll.
That would apply if I hadn’t been summoned by the gods of Technorati. Still no cookie, sorry.
Take a course on crafting a respectful argument–one that doesn’t involve personal attacks.
But if I do that, I won’t have as much time to spend with you on the internet having thoughtful, serious debates!
Oh jesus, Will, you should probably ban my IP now or something. The snark is flowing far too freely at this point.
April 21, 2008 at 10:37 am
I take most everyone seriously, Panic, yourself included. That you feel I don’t, I think, says more of your perspective than mine. “No one can make you feel inferior without your permission”; I haven’t tried to make you feel inferior–just pointed out issues in your “argument”.
And actually, a troll is someone who posts deliberately provocative messages in the hope of causing argument. I’d say that’s precisely what you did, especially given your glee (”I totally resurrected the comments here. Ha!”).
And finally, being that this is my blog, I’ll be the one handing out cookies, thank you very much.