![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
I read Dale Carnegie too. That totally makes me smarter than you. Yes, you!
Do you know why asinine crap like this doesn't annoy me anymore?
Because I know that I can count on brilliant responses like this and this.
Oh, comics blogosphere, there are times when I love you so much.
Also, as an additional response to Vince's article: Whaddya mean, nothing's changing? Believe it or not, comic books are correcting past mistakes, or at least taking baby steps in that direction. Artists are getting it (even if their bosses still don't). Heck, even the MJ statue bruhaha was a victory of sorts, if at least it got Sideshow Collectibles to stop deleting dissenting comments on their website and to openly allow the debate to happen on their doorstep. That's something. That's a big something. Maybe they're not listening yet, but at least they know that they can't silence us anymore either.
Vince pointed out that Greg Land is still employed, and that this somehow constitutes a massive failing of the Hive Vagina Agenda, whatever that's supposed to be. Well, let me say this: Greg Land may be employed, but he's a joke. He's a freakin' joke among those of us who actually buy and read comics, regardless of whether his bosses continue to give him money to trace porn or not. Because fangirls have been posting the side-by-side comparisons, complaining, snarking, and venting all over the internet, Land has been exposed as the tracing hack that he is. It's getting harder and harder for Land's shrinking cadre of fans to defend their taste in the face of all of that. Now there's a great deal of public pressure on Land to either step up his game (STOP TRACING, you can DO IT, MAN!) or GTFO. Granted, because the comics industry is highly insular, Land could continue to be employed for decades to come. (See: Leifeld, Rob.) But now he at least has the reputation that he deserves.
Small victories, people. Small victories.
ETA: Ragnell always says it better. ;)
Because I know that I can count on brilliant responses like this and this.
Oh, comics blogosphere, there are times when I love you so much.
Also, as an additional response to Vince's article: Whaddya mean, nothing's changing? Believe it or not, comic books are correcting past mistakes, or at least taking baby steps in that direction. Artists are getting it (even if their bosses still don't). Heck, even the MJ statue bruhaha was a victory of sorts, if at least it got Sideshow Collectibles to stop deleting dissenting comments on their website and to openly allow the debate to happen on their doorstep. That's something. That's a big something. Maybe they're not listening yet, but at least they know that they can't silence us anymore either.
Vince pointed out that Greg Land is still employed, and that this somehow constitutes a massive failing of the Hive Vagina Agenda, whatever that's supposed to be. Well, let me say this: Greg Land may be employed, but he's a joke. He's a freakin' joke among those of us who actually buy and read comics, regardless of whether his bosses continue to give him money to trace porn or not. Because fangirls have been posting the side-by-side comparisons, complaining, snarking, and venting all over the internet, Land has been exposed as the tracing hack that he is. It's getting harder and harder for Land's shrinking cadre of fans to defend their taste in the face of all of that. Now there's a great deal of public pressure on Land to either step up his game (STOP TRACING, you can DO IT, MAN!) or GTFO. Granted, because the comics industry is highly insular, Land could continue to be employed for decades to come. (See: Leifeld, Rob.) But now he at least has the reputation that he deserves.
Small victories, people. Small victories.
ETA: Ragnell always says it better. ;)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Which isn't true at all. Same with the whole "nothing's changing". Ppl do no research just make some broad assumptions from their standpoint and then declare it as fact.
no subject
Right, exactly. Also the same with Vince's "advice" for fangirls: each and every single thing that he suggests (buy good comics, make better comics, point people to helpful resources, and talk to creators), we're already doing. It's like he was so eager to wag his finger that he didn't even bother to look to see what people were actually doing and saying already.
But he did look....
He already said, in both his columns, that he reads Girl-Wonder and WFA (as well as some other places). And the vast majority of what he sees is simply the rage. The agner. The insults and screaming. In his own words, "the Bad Cop." Yet, you see very little of "the Good Cop."
If all these things he suggested are being done so much, why don't people ever talk about them? Why don't they talk about how they wokrked out an idea with their LCS for a "girls nite" type of event, where female fans get their friends to come to the store with them, where they come in after hours and shop for stuff and get nice discounts, to help encourage new female readers? Or that they started a "women readers club" that meets once a month at their LCS or Library and discuss a specific comic trade collection, like a book of the month club deal? Or how they went to a comic show and had a long discussion with some creators and editors on what might be done to get more female friendly comics into the marketplace and what information they learned from these insdiers on what might be slowing down the process, from the business side. Or maybe some critical analysis of some comics, that doesn't result in the female writer using personal insults and accusations against the creators involved, but sticks to a technical discussion of why the work failed in some way, which could be of some actual use to the creators, more than a belly full of "this proves what a misogynistic and sexist pig this idoit must be."
Was his research flawless? Probably not, but then, neither is it ever from people on your side of the aisle. He obviously didn't just wake up and say, "Gee, think I'll stick it to comic feminism today." There is a LOT of truth is the things he's said, which, IMO, is why the reaction from comic feminist has been so harsh towards him. No one likes being called out on their bad behavior, even if it IS true. And doing things like this, only reinforces in his mind and the minds of many others, that what he's saying is true. You defeat your own purpose and strengthen the tide against you. Just like he said you would.
Maybe instead of seeing every voice that doesn't see your every raging utterence as the "gospel truth" as "the enemy," you might try the tactic of "benefit of doubt" before you verbally castigate them publicly. Don't assume a questioning of something is always an attempt to silence people. Some people want to actually help you. They just don't want to be seen as some raging lunatic, because they do. The biggest problem with comics feminism is one of perception. You have link farms and websites that show so much of the rage, but very little else. Perhaps it's time to stop thinking you can force someone into submission of your desires, and give them cause to want to be a part of them. People generally don't respond well to intimidation and treatening tactics. Nor do they likely listen to someone who verbally insults them. Vince didn't do any of that in his first column and yet that was what he got in return. Do you see now how you might be CREATING your future enemies right now? People who are truly good people, but through the tactics you choose to "communicate" are being turned AWAY from the things you want to do, not turned on TO them.
Re: But he did look....
I'm sure that Vince reads WFA, but like you, he seems unable to get past the fact that some people are angry. Well, duh, we're getting the shit end of the stick, why shouldn't more people be angry? But when you say things like The biggest problem with comics feminism is one of perception. You have link farms and websites that show so much of the rage, but very little else, you're demonstrating a massive failing of reading comprehension.
And, furthermore, there's nothing wrong with the "rage." Except that a lot of what you see as "rage" is probably just the usual professional criticism, maybe mixed with some snark or two. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS INSULTING THE CREATOR. If creators can't handle criticism of their work in a professional manner, then that's their problem, not the problem of the critics. (See here (http://girl-wonder.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3008) for a recent example.)
In a year of reading WFA, I have only ever seen one blogger actually "intimidate," "threaten," or "insult" a comics writer - which, even though it was done as a joke, was roundly condemned in the feminist blogosphere. (I'd dig up the link but it was months ago. Remember Pervyficgirl versus Ragnell? That little blogwar? Yeah.)
Oh, and didn't you insist at some point that you weren't going to bother me here, Mouse?
Re: But he did look....
First, thanks for trying to provide links to places you thought show more of a "Good Cop" feeling. I appreciate that (although, I knew about P.O.W.E.R. in Comics already). In fact, I emailed Vince a link to P.O.W.E.R., and suggested he check them out to see that some comic feminists are actually trying to make change with positive means. Of course, there are two things I feel should be noted:
1) The link to WFA, while having some positive links within that list, it started off with negative stuff, like attacks (yes, that's what they are) towards Vince as the first couple of links. And i know if we did comparisons of "postive" links there, to the attacking ones, we'd hardly see anything close to a balanced representation. And while the people who run WFA can't control the content of those they link, the fact you have way more rage and negativity attacks linked, than "positive" stuff, sort of just speaks to Vince's point that the "Bad Cop" routine is the perferred choice of many comic feminists.
2) Again, while I appreciate you giving me some links to positive stuff, there remains one very big question: Why didn't you write your post here using those. See, instead of attacking Vince (albeit more passive-aggressive than others did) by linking to posts which put he words in the worst possible context and publicly castigates him, why didn't you like this pieces and say that while you know there is a lot of rage going on, there are some places trying to be better than that? That these are places Vince might want to see, if he hasn't. Why didn't you email these to him, rather then just join in the verbal game of "dogpile on the rabbit?" This goes back to what I told you about how it seems anyone who doesn't fall to their knees and believes the feminist theories as 'gospel truth", are automactically seen as 'the enemy", even if they aren't. The way you handled Vince's piece, when your reply to me showsthere was a better way, would seem to prove out that in the minds of many feminists, there is no room for discussion or compromise of any kind. That it it "your way or the highway." And how often have those who've had that type of mentality, while espousing they want a change, ever gotten what they want? Such a mentality actaully works AGAINST such things.
As for the perception I (and Vince and others) have of the "rage," agains, just looking at this here, you can see how easily that you reinforce those perceptions with your own tactics and behavior. You insulted me ("massive failing of reading comprehension"), even when in my reply to you there were no personal insults or flames aimed at you. You see, it's not that people are angry that I (and Vince) don't get, but the totally mystifed way in which that angry is being used.
You claim there is nothing wrong with rage, but you are wrong, slightly. There is nothing wrong with feeling ANGER, but rage is wrong. Rage is letting anger run uncontrolled and usually ends up creating havoc and detruction in it's wake. An article at the site the Pink Raygun ( here: http://www.pinkraygun.com/2007/07/28/the-real-result-of-virtual-rage/#comment-3142 ) shows how the rage that runs amok online and in the direction of comic insiders (like creators and editors) is starting to cause rifts in the REAL world. The rage you claim there's "nothing wrong with" is causing walls to go up between fans and creators. They are shutting down and not talking to them. And while I'm sure you'd think it's "obvious" that is it due to them feeling "guilty", isn't it just POSSIBLE that it's not feelings of guilt at the attacks they've suffered which is causing that, but feelings of fear of seeing their name, once again, run through the mud, using very harmful terms like sexist and misogynist, when making a supposed "critical analysis" of the work? Words that carry a connotation and moral judgement of the person's character, that goes well beyond "criticizing the work?"
Re: But he did look....
And you know what? These words overuse comes from only one of two possibilities, as I see it:
1) Feminists have a limited vocabulary and can't think of better or more appropriate words to use
2) These words are being used as a tactic of fear and intimidation, to get creators, fans and publishers to capitulate with the demands of comic feminists.
And personally, I don't hold very much stock in #1. So, what does that leave?
I saw the flame war you noted as the "only" time fear and intimidation was used. But I've seen others. I saw someone at a place called the Hacken blog openly 9and seriosuly) wish for "all the fanboys to die quickly", so the rest of the comic industry could move forward. And how often does the verbal "dogpile on the rabbit" game get played by you and others, when a criticism or questioning of feminists tactics and actions comes up, rather then an attempt at rational discourse with the person? You might not see what what you do as "intimidation." You might not even be fully aware that you are doing it. But ask those on the recieiving end how THEY feel? You say it's only a little "snark or two." But do you know what "snark" is? Snark is what someone who has nothing cogent or valid to add to the discussion or topic, so they instead inject a wise-ass attitude or comment, usually in an attempt to make the person they snark look wrong/foolish. Snark is an anti-thesis to all a true discussion and dialogue is about.The fact you seem to think it's perfectly okay to use, when dealing with attempts at discussion, shows a part of why so little has changed, despite everything that's been done up to this point. Despite even all the rage.
Maybe the things Vince and I have said are "old hat" to you. Maybe you've heard it a million times before. But you know what? That's the buredn someone with a cause has to bear. Just like a comic creators, who has to answer the same question over and over, while at a show. Because while he told fan #279 the answer, fan #693 wasn't standing there when he gave it, so it has to give it again. And if the creator can't keep a fair temperment each and every time he has to answer that same question, then it would be noted he probably shouldn't go to comic shows. It's no different for you. Maybe you are tired of trying to answer these criticisms and questions that seem to keep coming up. But they will. And how you react will decide how that person is going to regard you and the movement. If you haven't the temperment to answer with calm rational logic, then it would be better for you to not answer it at all. because to do otherwise will only do what Vince and I have suggested, which is to turn those people into your new enemies.
Re: But he did look....
And you know why? It goes back to what Vince said about kadymae's "better attempt" at discussion. Look at what Vince said he took from her piece, but even moreso, look at what he said he DIDN'T get from it. Logical business reasonings for doing things her way. In all the stuff I've seen said by comic feminists, I've rarely, if ever, seen any of them approach things from a business/money making standpoint. You want the publishers to listen to you, then do like Cuba Gooding Jr. suggests an "show them the money." Show them how doing what you want will increase sales and profits. Not with hollow promises of "if you want more femaile readers, make comes their way" tripe. That's too easy a way out. It's always easy to tell someone else what they "better do", when it isn't YOUR money that's on the line. And that's what I see too much of from your side of this: a lot of demands and expectations on others. What a publisher should do, what a retailer should do, what a creator should do. What about what YOU should do?
While there is hardly an overflow of product that one might call 'female-friendly" in superhero comics, there IS some. What not work with retailers to help make those sell better. Then, when publishers see that, they'll strive to make more. You'll have given them a business-minded incentive to do more, not just empty bluster about what they ought to do. Some of this can be done with suggestions that Vince gave and I'm sure there's plenty of others that no one has even thought of yet. And all of this is a lot more POSITIVE use of your anger, than ranting and raging online will ever be. You'll be helping make the industry stronger and proving your points all at the same time. And THAT is what will get you taken seriously.
I don't know if anything I've said here will register with you. I would hope so. I would also hope that I've come to show you that, just because someone questions your tactics, doesn't mean they are your "enemy" or that they don't care about the issues. There are those of us who do want to help, but we don't take kind to being insulted, intimidated or dictated to, simply because we don't unquestioningly fall into line with what your movement procliams is the "truth." Truth, as I've often found, is somewhere between the extremes, just like compromise is. Let us work more towards finding common ground and solutions everyone can live with, rather then continue to build walk between people with endless amounts of rage and snark. Despite what you might think, people like Vince and myself DO think it can be done. But not at the tip of someone's sword (be it verabl or otherwise).
Shoot, looks like I couldn't keep it to one post. Sorry, but I felt it was important to lay my feelings out for you.
Re: But he did look....
And you know what? These words overuse comes from only one of two possibilities, as I see it:
1) Feminists have a limited vocabulary and can't think of better or more appropriate words to use
2) These words are being used as a tactic of fear and intimidation, to get creators, fans and publishers to capitulate with the demands of comic feminists.
No, actually. The third option IS snark, and although you sigh and shake your head and talk about how that prevents things from changing, the fact is, that's total bullshit. There's definitely a time and place for snark, and if someone's personal blog on the internet isn't that time and place, then I don't know what is.
When people say stupid things on the internet (and yes, Vince's post was stupid, despite your opinion otherwise), people are going to poke fun in response. You can go on about the tyranny of the "gospel truth" all you want, but the point is, some opinions are stupid. I'll make fun of you if you think that the Earth is flat or that money grows on trees, and I'll make fun of you if you go around saying things like "I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist!" If this appears to be (heaven forbid) persecution to you, then I envy you, because you obviously have an extremely privileged idea of what persecution looks like.
The entire thrust of your arguments here and on your blog tends to be "Feminists are mean to anyone who disagrees with them, OMG!!!" Well, no, actually. There's a lot of disagreement among feminists and between feminists and non-feminists, and quite a lot of it is civil. (See: The Pink Raygun piece that you linked yourself.) But when people like Vince post things that are unabashadley sexist and rude, we do tend to break out the snark, yes. I've seen you do the same on your blog. Is this oppression? No. It's the internet.
Also, it would help if you got your history straight: The Hackenblog comment was aimed at a blogger who made a racist post, not at a comics creator. And if you'll remember, the Hackenblog post got lambasted by feminists in the comments section to the point where the author apologized.
I've rarely, if ever, seen any of them approach things from a business/money making standpoint.
There you go again, just not reading things. Try Stephen Dann's blog (http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/), particularly these (http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/05/18/money-talks-ii-the-mary-jane-statue-sells-all-900-copies-boromir-sold-2000-copies-without-a-g-string-in-sight/) posts (http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/05/16/chiming-in-on-the-mary-jane-statuette-saga-stfu-about-the-money-boys/), or here (http://www.websnark.com/archives/2007/05/on_the_other_ha_22.html) or here (http://stars-and-garters.blogspot.com/2007/05/heroes-for-hire13-cover-epiphany.html), or ask your friends Scott and Colin which of my own posts they've wanked over (hey, they were linked in the comments on your blog!), which were all about marketing. Most of Ragnell's "Just Past the Horizon" features on Newsarama are about marketing, too. I read marketing-oriented posts linked on WFA in nearly every batch. What are you reading?
And please, stop making blanket statements about what feminists do or don't say until you're willing to actually read what's being written. Yes, that is a failure of reading comprehension on your part. No, I'm not going to nice about pointing that out to you, because you're being massively rude by wagging your finger without even bothering to read the people that you're finger-wagging at in the first place.
Mouse, it all boils down to this: You just spent all those words basically rehashing Vince's argument, that we should just be nicer. But there's a time and a place for diplomacy, there's a time and place for rage, and there's a time and place for humorous snark. As long as feminists are doing all of that at the appropriate time and place, I see no problem.
Re: But he did look....
Is there a time and place for snark? Yeah, I'd agree. Is that time and place when you are trying to gain support for a cause or movement, in which some of those you want to have on your side are also the ones you are certain to snark? I don't think so. I guess the lessons learned by H.E.A.T. and Hal Jordan fans has been quickly forgotten. They, too, came on with the rage and snark towards the GL editor, writer, DC's PTB and fans of Jordan's replacement (Kyle Rayner). They made enemies of these people, whom you'd think they'd want more as allies. They chose the same ways so many comic feminists are using now and what did it get them? Laughed at, flamed on, and seen as a comic geek punchline (which some still see them as to this day). Did they also do good works? Sure, but by then the damage was done. Had they been smarter about things and not allowed their anger to rule their responses, they might have had an easier time of getting what they wanted, instead over almost 12 YEARS to fighting and flaming at the hands of people they themselves made into enemies. That is their ultimate leagacy from the use of rage and snark to getting peropl to take their casue seriously. Sound a little familiar?
If someone is saying something stupid, guess what? Most of us will figure that out. We don't need you to point it out to us. That is insulting to others. We don't need you playing the role of our mother or teacher. Instead of trying to pick apart some stupid comment with snark, maybe just address the main point with logic and intelligence (not rage and snark). Put yourself above that petty-minded tripe. Show you are better than that, because you know you are.
As for your links, again, I thank you. I had not seen some of those. And again, why then not link them in your entry here or email them to Vince? While both he and I obviously try to stay abreast (no pun intended), we can't read everything (just like a comic reatailer con't read every comic that comes out every week). Wouldn't a better way to refute something be with linking stuff like this, rather then linking snark "dogpile on the rabbit" games? Wouldn't this help make your case for you better? And just to be fair, some of those links (as well as Ragnell's stuff) often starts with the rage and then gets into the meat. But here's the catch: How many people don't get past the raging part to reach the meat of the point? Is it their fault that you 9or anyone else) can't keep the anger in check long enough to make a thoughtful and rational entry? If you are turning off the reader with snark, before they get to your point, then that is a failing in YOUR abilities to communicate, not their's to understand. As for WFA, some days, I'll read the first four or five links, see nothing but rage and give up. Sometimes you can just turn a person off with such tripe. Maybe this is why some of these other posts you link don't get viewed. Maybe someone might sgguest to the WFA gals that they put the more rational and business-minded pieces at the TOP, rather then letting the snark lead so often.
And I hold others to this, too. I felt Vince's follow-up piece will be nowhere near as effective in getting his points across, because of the snark he let loose at those who berated his earleir piece (and told him so in my email).
Maybe you need to stop seeing suggestion on how to get your points across better to people as 'finger-wagging" and merely as the suggestive course of action it is. If you don't want to do it, that's up to you, but there is no need to insult someone for questioning something or making suggestions to you. You have free will to not take it.
And lastly, I don't know who this "Mouse" person is, but they aren't me. I don't even have a blog. Of course, this is just another part of how wrong you can sometimes go, when you just assume you know the person whom you are discussing things with. I might make the same points as this "Mosue", but that doesn't make me them.
Re: But he did look....
Okay, you seem to be laboring under a misconception. I am NOT playing the role of your mother or your teacher. Nobody here is. I am making fun of something stupid that somebody said on my personal blog. And my blog doesn't revolve around you. You are not my audience. My post here wasn't meant to help you learn. It was meant for me to vent my frustrations. And I believe that I did so in an intelligent and rational way, thank you very much, despite the use of humor! They're not mutually exclusive, you know. Just because I'm angry and/or snarky, it doesn't mean that I'm not also being intelligent or logical.
This is a personal blog, and I'm writing it for myself and my friends. I do not present my blog as an "industry blog," I'm not hosted on Newsarama or Girl-Wonder.org and I'm not approaching my blog as a journalistic endeavor. It is a purely personal endeavor. As I don't friends-lock anything, I'm aware that total strangers are reading my blog, and may comment to disagree with me, and I don't mind. But I'm not writing for the total strangers, I'm writing for me. If you read something on my blog that you disagree with, that's fine. If you comment to disagree with me, that's also fine. BUT if you complain about how I'm running amock across the internet shoving my opinions down your throat, then you're full of it. (Also, you'd be displaying a shockingly egocentric worldview.) This is the internet, and people are going to write their opinions on their blogs. If somebody has an opinion different from yours, you can't read that as a personal insult against you. You'll go crazy.
If you did have a blog (on the slim chance that you aren't actually Mouse), I'm sure that you would be writing your own opinions in your blog too. You'd be venting and ranting and cheering just like the rest of us. You might even use humor in your posts! Now suppose that a total stranger showed up in the comments of one of your posts and wrote "YOU'RE NOT MY MOTHER, how dare you tell me what to think!" Now wouldn't that person look stupid?
Maybe you need to stop seeing suggestion on how to get your points across better to people as 'finger-wagging" and merely as the suggestive course of action it is. If you don't want to do it, that's up to you, but there is no need to insult someone for questioning something or making suggestions to you.
It is insulting for a person to suggest doing something that I am already doing. It shows that they don't care enough about me or my cause to actually listen to me or pay attention to my cause; it shows that they are only interested in "correcting" me because I'm clearly not smart enough to handle myself. That's the type of classic sexist bullshit that I deal with every day, and I'm sick of it. Furthermore, it is insulting for a person to suggest that an entire group of people do something that they are already doing, especially when framed in a "Here's why your movement fails and here's why I'm smarter than you" post. Yes, that IS finger-wagging.
And lastly, I don't know who this "Mouse" person is, but they aren't me.
Granted, I may be mistaken about your identity, but the fact that you waited until the convenient moment to gloat about it makes me suspicious. ;)~ You have the exact same handle as Mouse, you make the exact same arguments, and you write in the exact same style. Also, you apparently registered a livejournal account just to comment here, while ignoring the many other posts made in response to Vince's article, which would be consistent with Mouse's bizarro obsession with me. So forgive me for being suspicious, because if this happens to be a coincidence, it is one hell of a coincidence.
Re: But he did look....
About your posting here bing "private", sorry that doesn't wash. If this was only for your own "venting" (or for you and your friends), then you would have public viewing blocked. The fact you don't, merely suggests that you want other people to see what you say and hear you. Which only makes sense. People post because they want to be heard. Otherwise, what would be the point to posting publicly?
But by leaving yourself open to the public, you are creating the impression that this meant as a "journalistic endeavor," even if you say that it isn't. It is an impression you relish, when you get linked around by others and people come in to praise your efforts. But when you are faced with criticism, of any kind, you suddenly have a distatste for the public taking issue with your "private venting." Despite what you want to believe, you can't have it both ways.
If I had a blog myself, which I knew would be accessable to the public, I would tailor my responses to fit what I want the public to know. I would provide criticial analysis, not ranting and raving. I would point out things to my critics (like your links to me you've done here), not snark them and add more fuel to the fire (or even start the flame war myself). I would do this, because if I'm posting where the public can see me, I want them to have no false illusions about what my points are. I'd make my criticism constructive, not destructive.
All which brings us right back around to what Vince did in his first column. He offered constructive criticism to all who actively (and publicly) take part in the comics feminism movement. He wasn't "finger-wagging" or "insulting you." He was offering up ideas and suggestions on how you might have better success at getting your goals acheived. You claim that you have already done them. That's fine, but how many of those raging HAVEN'T? You can't say EVERYONE who's raging and slinging insults has done so.
You see, your own feelings on this, which you betray with stuff like "That's the type of classic sexist bullshit that I deal with every day, and I'm sick of it," shows that you have already closed your mind to anyone who says anything some sexist fool has said. Never mind if that person isn't trying to be a sexist tool, or they aren't out to harm you. You've already made up in your own mind if someone says "X-Y-Z", they are automatically a sexist tool. Yet, isn't such attitudes that have been taken by people, like "Oh, that's only because your a woman," some of the very things feminism is fighting against? And yet, here you are, indulging in the same attitude you claim is the sickening birthright for the privileged males you so revile.
You see, this is what Vince is talking about; what I have been talking about: Viewing people as "the enemy", simply because they say something you don't want to hear. But that's not always the case. Shouldn't it be better to take an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, instead of draging out the hanging noose with the first bit of flimsy circumstancial evidence you see? Could this not be a part of the reason the goals you strive for seem so far away? Why people see the ranting and raging as "sound and fury, signfying nothing"? Why you have such resistance to the changes you'd like to see?
Re: But he did look.... continued
As for this coincidence of appearence, I'm here to tell you that is all it is. I have posted on other LJs before. I recently started this account to comment on someone's who decided to lock out the anonymous option. You still have it, but since I have this account now I figured I'd use it. That's all this is. No grand conspiracy or evil plot against you. And I ignored others posts about Vince's piece, because, well, just looking at them, you can tell they are basically zealots about what they believe. And you can't change a zealot's feelings, no matter how much logic and rationality you use. I saw your post as a little more open-minded (at least, I thought it was), so I commented. I'm hoping that wasn't an incorrect assumption on my part. If it was, then I'm sorry to have wasted your time (and my own) on this. Also, I'm sorry I couldn't keep this down to just one comment. Oh well, such is my curse, I guess. :)
Regardless of anything else, I hope I've provided you (and whoever else might view this) some things to think about. That's all I (and Vince, I'm sure) are really trying to do.
Peace out.
Re: But he did look.... continued
Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for the case of mistaken identity, but like I said, you were using an *identical nickname* and making identical arguments like another blogger, so pardon my confusion. ^^;;
Clearly we still disagree about Vince's post. I maintain that he was rude, insulting, condescending, and sexist from the get-go, and I've offered you my reasons why. I do not label somebody's post as "sexist" without a damn good reason, and believe it or not, I do very much hold to the innocent until proven guilty standard. However, Vince's first post made it abundantly clear that he wasn't actually interested in helping anyone, and his follow-up post has made that even clearer. You disagree, and I'm not going to change your mind about that, so we'll end it here.
Something further that I feel necessary to clarify:
But by leaving yourself open to the public, you are creating the
impression that this meant as a "journalistic endeavor," even if you say
that it isn't. It is an impression you relish, when you get linked around
by others and people come in to praise your efforts. But when you are
faced with criticism, of any kind, you suddenly have a distatste for the
public taking issue with your "private venting." Despite what you want to
believe, you can't have it both ways.
1. Clearly we have a different opinion about how blogs work.
2. Um, I "relish" the attention? Please don't speak for me like that. Of course I like getting linked, who doesn't like getting linked? But I'm not writing posts specifically for the purpose of getting linked. And really, that sort of invasive random psychoanalysis is not appreciated. Seriously.
3. I do not have a distaste for criticism, or else I would have deleted your comments and banned you already. The point about my "private venting" was in response to your complaints that I wasn't loading my off-the-cuff venting with enough educational links to allow any passing stranger to get completely up to speed on the state of the feminist comics blogosphere. Basically, the point was that I'm not here to educate a hypothetical you, I'm here to express myself. I realize that doesn't make me immune to criticism.
As for your comments about your own (hypothetical) blogging style, that's great. But I'm not you. I have my blogging style, and you have yours. I have my own motivations for blogging, and you have yours. To be honest, you really don't have the right to waltz in here and tell me why and how I should be writing my personal blog. The point of a "blogosphere" is that you have a diversity of bloggers who each have a unique voice. This is the voice that I use on this blog. I'm not going to censor or change myself just because pointing at sexism makes some people uncomfortable.
Thanks for the discussion, and likewise, I hope I've given you something to think about too.