So I’m ending it.

And for myself, I’d consider it quite a bit less offensive, in fact.

Also, I don’t recall Fourthworlder claiming any “moral high ground” over T. — don’t recall him ever using or referencing this term. He’s said T.’s wrong, not that he is better than T. I see the imputation that he has claimed to be morally “better” as an attempt to shame him out of his position — a dirty tactic, since there is nothing shameful about his position, and no reason at all apparent to me, that he should recede from it for reasons of propriety. He can object to T.’s remarks. It’s a free country.

T. has also said that these are his views, and I question whether anyone else has the right to take his own words out of his own mouth.

I have carefully reviewed what T.’s said on this thread, and am happy to stand by my responses to them. I don’t know what anyone thinks I am “acting like” he said, because this has not been revealed — what is it, one wonders, that he did not say, that I am allegedly responding to as if he did? Unless that question were answered, the objection could have no force — it’s just smoke.

It seems to me that Funky is trying to shut people up, on bogus pretences.

If he is…then that is bullshit.

Now, I’m just here to point out T.’s not an authority on feminism. I am not here to point out that Funky isn’t an authority on feminism, because I don’t think he’s making much in the way of concrete statements about feminism, the content of T.’s remarks, or even the content of my remarks. But I find his attempted browbeating of Fourthworlder pretty disgusting, so I’m saying so.

And that’s what I’ve got to say.

Hell nobody’s here but us three now and it’s getting a little tedious.

But if a future post along the lines of “I Agree That It’s More About Low Sales Than Menstruation” should come up, and I rush in with a comment, I think it would be fair game for you to refer back to this thread and my joke.
Which of course I will be able to say that I have fully accounted for and even apologized for.
Like a man, dammit, like a man.

Oh crap, that sounded rather sexist…….here, let me apologize…

Not sure, honestly I probably will say more over the top stuff if provoked (and sometimes even if not), but sure, I’m a sport, and I’ll apologize to Funky if it really offended Funky.

I’m not offended, just pointing out that what you have said is as bad, if not worse, than anything T has said, and as such, you don’t have this imagined moral high ground over him.

.
If you knew who I was and what I do you’d know that the crass joke certainly didn’t reflect my views on feminism. It reflected my view on T. And the blood on his face. And OK, probably ten years of South Park had some sort of influence.

But if we are to accept the fact that you’re posts don’t reflect you’re views on feminism, then why can’t you accept T’s protestations of the same?

And honestly, read what he has said in THIS thread.
It’s nothing like you guys are acting like he said,

If you knew who I was and what I do you’d know that the crass joke certainly didn’t reflect my views on feminism. It reflected my view on T. And the blood on his face. And OK, probably ten years of South Park had some sort of influence.

You know, you said that “pack the punch” blah blah blah thing before. Whatever, “champ”, “sport”, “scout”…

Yawn. By all means do go on “putting it all in perspective”.

Some articles about the “new wave of feminism” are comparable to some other articles about the “new faces of unionism”, whose point is basically that unions are obsolete because management now cares more about the well-being of their workers than the union bosses do — which is perhaps a valid perspective (I don’t say it is, and I don’t say it isn’t), but it’s hard to classify it as a pro-union one, and indeed the audience for such articles is usually the members of the managerial class themselves. So too, articles about the new wave of feminism are often regressive — but it’s always struck me as a stretch to go to the most reactionary of the gender-politics activists and claim them as evidence of diversity in what’s basically a progressive movement! The real trick here is that “feminism” is a term so hotly-contested that it’s possible for <anti-feminist thinkers to re-brand themselves as “new” feminists, and put up arguments for them being taken as such…

But what gives the game away is that they re-brand themselves not just as “new” but as “moderate” — just as though “one” were the most moderate number on the number line because it’s the closest to zero. So, feminists who are for as little social change as possible, this surely counts as an extreme view even if you grant that it’s within the scope of the term “feminism”, instead of outside it and opposed to it. Sarah Palin wouldn’t be a “moderate” if she were located in the world of feminism, she would be a marginalized whacko, somewhere towards the bitter end of (what would have to be) a long, long, LONG tail on the Bell curve.

All of which says nothing about what T. claimed to have proved, of course, but then I wasn’t responding to him here, just to the idea that all articles about “new waves” are all evidence of the same thing. Because any kind of textual analysis reveals at least some of them to be wolves in sheep’s clothing, inevitably. And that’s not “diversity”.

And that was more than I ever intended to write on this, actually, but oh well.

I may be done.

And it sucks.

And yet there are many who consider themselves feminists who think it’s great, and therefore, T isn’t being as outrageous as many seem to want him to be.

And like I said previously, T.’s comments in the watchmen thread will of course affect how he’s preceived here when another feminist-related discussion occurs.

He never made a comment about feminism here, until people started bringing up his comments in an old thread – and it really got started when he seemed to have misread what a poster was saying.
There hasn’t really been a feminist discussion here – someone mentioned how T’s comments here are seperate from his previous comments, he disagreed with the phrasing he had said ina previous thread, and then a whole bunch of people started piling on him.
It’s not a discussion, it’s closer to verbal bullying.

Should others not remember what he said and still hold him to account?

If the two relate – his views on feminism in no way relate to a generalisation, which can’t easily be ruled out.

Otherwise, it’s just people bringing up an old argument because they want to argue more.

And also, when you’re first post in the thread is about blood on a face being blood from menstruation, you really shouldn’t be holding others views on feminism in contempt – you’re comment was not only crass, but much more likely to cause offense than T’s views, even the one ‘The only women who really complain about objectification of women are the ugly feminists who can’t use sexuality to sell themselves’.
Neither is true, but I still wouldn’t throw a rock when standing in a glass house.

It’s so painfully obvious that Funky’s here just to bullshit and to take swipes at me, isn’t it?

Sorry champ, but your posts don’t quite pack the punch you assume they do.

And it sucks.

And like I said previously, T.’s comments in the watchmen thread will of course affect how he’s preceived here when another feminist-related discussion occurs.
How could it not, Mr. greenjerusalem? Honestly, imagine if we were discussing the sales of Luke Cage and somebody wrote about lousy niggers not selling (and T’s prior comment about ugly feminists was almost as offensive), and then would not retract the statement. And then a week or two later on a new thread about Samual Jackson playing Nick Fury this same guy started talking about blacks again, without using the slur. Should others not remember what he said and still hold him to account?

Suddenly I don’t feel like I’ve been mean at all.

And I think the majority of women’s magazines are mind control shit bombs designed to screw up young women’s minds just like Maxim and Manswers etc screw up the boys.

Oh shit yeah they are, but they are ran by women, and those women would consider themselves feminists, or neo-feminists or some such, and they say this sort of shit and try make it positive for women, and then other bored journalists or uni students desperate for something to write about lend them legitimacy by talking about ‘the new feminism’ or ‘feminism in the 21st century’…
Like any political or social movement, once it’s lost it’s initial steam, and the original feminist movement has, it starts to drift in all sorts of different directions. It may not be the one’s we want, or the original feminists wanted, but that’s how it goes.
Which is just my way of saying, T is just applying a label he’s heard bandied about, rightly or wrongly, possible unchallenged, and everyone’s jumping on him like he’s the one thing holding women back.
I also think his comments in the Watchmen posts comment section have very little relation to do with his comments here.
(I also think it’s hard to read the original post that set everyone off in the Watchmen section as anything but a flippant remark, one he possibly only continued to justify due to the amount of people calling him out and getting all smug over their keyboards).
You can all jump up and down on him about his comments on which gender prefers which sort of hero, but sales figures tend to back it up, and publishers definitely take it into account.

Ahhhh, maybe I’m being too mean.

Or egotistical – never crossed your mind my life isn’t devoted to answering your comments, and might well have just logged off and gone and done something else?
Sorry sport, but your posts don’t quite pack the punch you assume they do.

Me, I wonder what Funky thinks. Does he agree with T.? Or not?

Simple question.

Wonder if there’s even an answer to it!

Dance, Funky, dance.

Ow.. stings….

And I think the majority of women’s magazines are mind control shit bombs designed to screw up young women’s minds just like Maxim and Manswers etc screw up the boys.

If you want to read something about the issues I’d start with The Beauty Myth.

And T. you’ll NEVER convince me that Sex and the City and its ilk has anything to do with “sex-positive feminism,” or with ANTHING remotely positive at all, for that matter. Stripper pole aerobics as a new face of feminism? Annie Sprinkles? Seriously? I’m SO curious to ask about your history of relationships…

Don’t ever read a women’s magazine then… or any of the countless articles about ‘the new wave of feminism’.

T really is just parroting what has been written by others – google any of those things you listed and disagree with – and I’m not saying you are wrong to do so – and add the word ‘feminism’ to it, and you’ll find articles and such written about how it is feminism in action, so it’s a bit odd everyone’s jumping up and down on him.