A perfect illustration of an oft-repeating pattern:
1. Incendiary post written.
2. Correction: Incendiary post written by a woman. Commence sex-based villification immediately. All synonyms of "bitch" report for duty.
3. That goes double for you shop-worn dismissives. "Sweetheart," "honey," "ladies," ON DECK.
4. Foul-mouthed bitch fails to respond positively to dismissive form of address, but come on, that's just because she's a lonely, bitter, feminazi, rape-obsessed slut.
5. Stealth bitch engages, lingers undetected, is actually responded to halfway civilly.
6. As is everyone else in the thread with a gender-neutral handle.
7. Thrilled to have finally run off those irritating bitches, the gentlemen combatants on both sides soldier on in heated, manly dialogue before parting amicably for the evening, pleased to have had a jolly little argument sans bitches, and all but exchanging phone numbers with each other.
Don't worry if you didn't quite follow all that, because, believe me, it'll happen all over again the next time a bitch talks smack on the internet. I honestly, no joke, once participated in a lengthy thread in which the issue of whether or not a particular pundit was in fact a feminist was eventually decided by two men--but only after a hundred or so comments directed mainly at getting the mouthy bitches to quit volunteering opinions on the matter already, because, geez, why would a chick even care about something like that? Doesn't she have laundry to do?
As for the subject under discussion at the post linked above, I'm not getting into that because I'm not interested. I'm interested right now in the pattern. I'm interested in what makes a guy think it's perfectly okay to storm over to some woman's site, sneer at her femaleness, settle into a cordial debate with the male commenters that includes such pompous jolly-goodisms as "my good man" being exchanged, and insist that the woman has really gotta get over her obsession with inequality and oppression. How does a dude do that without collapsing under the weight of the irony?
Don't even start me on the faux civility guys so freely grant each other and how irritating that is, especially when you know they'll rip the mask off in a nanosecond in order to snarl at even the mildest rejoinder from a woman. That's not "civility," that's "I accept the possibility that my male opponent may well be capable of kicking my ass; to guard against that outcome, I must at least pretend to be nice to him. If I am not sure of the sex of my opponent, I will assume it to be male, because that's the default. But you, slutface, you really need to take the 2 x 4 outta your ass."
Then it's right back to "I say, my good chap--wherever might a bitch obtain such quaint notions as these? Right-o! Well, I've so enjoyed our little back-and-forth this evening, truly I have. Indeed, perchance we should meet again at the pub for a pint and a good row, what say you? Oh, jolly good then!"
Thank goodness there are no double standards so we can finally get rid of feminism forever. That's what I say. Oh, quite so!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
*SWOON*
My first time on your blog Illyka. I don't think I've ever seen a better depiction of this phenomenon. As someone with an obviously gendered nym, I have experienced this myself. Thank you!
Awesome post :)
Thank. You. Ilyka.
And I happen to BE a man (well, a progressive man, at least).
Maybe it's just the overapplication of the Y chormosome, or a bit too much testoserone in the bloodstream...or simply the fact that these chickenhawk losers who invaded and defiled Amanda's blog are a bit jealous that they really can't get into her panties like they want to....but that is mostly par for the course for such wanks. Especially considering how not so well things are going in I-rack at this time.
There's nothing wrong with men engaging in a genuine conversation with women as equals...but that requires actually treating the woman AS an equal worthy of respect. Just because you have a blog doesn't neccessarily give you the right to invade others against their will.
On behalf of all genuine progressive men, Ilyka, I thank you for that much needed rap to the knuckle....heads.
Anthony
Considering the other comments JackGoff made in that thread, I'd assume the "my good man" didn't actually indicate gentlemanly respect. Other than that, right fucking on.
I'd assume the "my good man" didn't actually indicate gentlemanly respect
I do have to give him points for being the first commenter I've seen to admit he linked the wrong article because he was really drunk.
GC, I'm not even sure that made much sense, and you have to make *sense* before you can take a stab at "witty".
I think GC's implying that commenter Wimp Lo is a sockpuppet of Vercingetorix. I didn't get that impression myself, though.
You have sweet tits?
Don't find your argument very compelling. Following the thread, I see males trashing females, males trashing males, females trashing males. And from this you extract the first category and whine about it, in the old sterotypical victimization tone. Kinda like a process of cherry-picking complex evidence in order to justify a restatement of a position that you hold a priori. Lots of that goin' round these days.
I have to concur with Anonymous. Sorry, but if you write an incendiary post, you can't expect to be treated all nice and gentle just because you're a girl. Especially when, I assume, you would find such deference condescending.
Flame on. :-/
Sorry, but if you write an incendiary post, you can't expect to be treated all nice and gentle just because you're a girl.
What a lucky thing that expectation is NOWHERE EXPRESSED IN THIS POST, then.
Nah.. There ain't no such thing. Unless you try being a drag king for a day and realize how different men really are treated.
Per one of my FTM friends btw. Which might also explain why MFT surgery has such a high rate of failure and FTM has a high success rate. [FTM is Female to male and MTF is Male to Female]
Everyone should try passing as the other sex for just a day.
You are often treated dismissively because you really don't have any clue about the way that men operate. Women are prone to making politics and other things very personal. Men don't. I'm a rabid libertarian and despise both socialism and political social conservatism. Yet I have had many a good conversation with men of a socialist or social conservative persuasion.
The difference between us and most of you is that we are just active in our aggression. We don't try to hide it. I've seen a lot of women get passive aggressive then try to "sweetly deny it."
I've seen a lot of women get very nasty and aggressive for a long time with one another. Men resolve that through the possibility of getting your ass kicked. That's the difference. Men resolve it, women don't. My girlfriend bears the scars of having women get so extremely passively aggressive that they tried to systematically ruin her life. If a man did that to another man, eventually he might find himself in a dark alley getting nearly killed by the other guy and his buddies.
That threat of getting torn up in a fight is what actually blunts a lot of the damage. Call it barbaric, but it works. I've seen it work. I've grabbed a bully and slammed him against a wall and told him in no uncertain terms that if he ever came near me again that I'd beat the $hit out of him. Guess what? No more bullying. But since women limit themselves to the emotional passive aggressive crap, it's just tit for tat until the end.
Both men and women are in fact extremely aggressive. It is naive or just flat out dishonest to suggest that women are anymore civilized than men.
The problem wouldn't have anything to do with the assumption that any commentary that points out the poor behavior of rude anti-feminists is automatically taking the extreme attitude of "Women are always good" and "men are always bad."
You know, instead of simply seeing the actual argument, which is "I've seen this pattern among antifeminists, it is generally male, and it is obnoxious."
I see the only oppression going on is you removing posts that do not toe the party, commie, line.
verlch, see the post update here:
http://ilykadamen.blogspot.com/2006/07/off-rails.html
. . . for an explanation as to why I've enabled comments moderation.
Unsurprisingly, it has nothing to do with you, men, feminism, Vox, etc.
Have a nice day, dickless.
You see, that's precisely the sort of comment that gets you feminists in trouble. "Dickless." How about we call you "titless" or "twatless?" Insulting your opponent (of either gender)'s genetalia is the last resort of people who cannot otherwise defend their position.
There are two corollaries that should be added to Godwin's Law. One is that every single time you bring up a subject related to Israel or Jews, you will inevitably draw out the neo-Nazis and Jew-haters.
The other is that whenever a subject is discussed by both men and women in a comments thread, men will inevitably start throwing gender insults at the women, and, in the vast majority of cases, they will be unprovoked.
The incidence of such occurrences increases when the subject is feminism, and the left is not immune to its effects.
You see, that's precisely the sort of comment that gets you feminists in trouble. "Dickless." How about we call you "titless" or "twatless?"
Busted on a technicality!
But you're right, Mike. I shouldn't have called him "dickless."
As for "not defending my position," that's on account of I already wrote the post once. I'm not going to restate it, especially not to people who make it clear that they're not going to concede a single point I make no matter what I say. All y'all Vox Day readers have your opinions, and I have mine. The sun's going to rise and set like it always does regardless.
Maybe it's just me, but I've never thought Pandagon's incendiary stupidity had any relation at all to her being XX rather than XY in the chromosomes.
PS, Anthony: "Chickenhawk" is a morally and logically bankrupt argument for a military dictatorship, or at best some sort of weird military autonomy from the rest of the State.
The inescapable consequence of "only those who are or have been in the military may offer opinions on military matters" is not, amazingly, civilian control of the military.
Nor is such a position friendly to non-military speech against military action, or indeed, civilian comment at all.
(This is not, of course, a defense of people attacking Pandagon for reasons apart from the logical or factual idiocy of her position, such as her sex.)
PPS. Tits!
And a fine Friday evening to you, too, sir! You get any tonight? Just taking a break from turning her out to pay me a visit, then? Good, good. Well, you and your lady friend carry on, then. Have a great weekend!
Post a Comment