Rank 'em!
LB for policy, Tia for whimsy, Becks for Unfogginess, Ben for buttsex, Apo for head. Easy peasy.
Could those of you who see Tia in real life please tell her that we miss her. I can understand why she might not want to hang out here so much, e.g., work, school, feminist reasons. I respect her reasons, but I do miss her and hope that she knows that. (I'm pretty sure taht I'm not the only one.)
5: With Santorum out of the Senate, that neologism lost its referent—had to come up with a new one.
Unfogginess?
I meant to capture that peculiar mixture of seriousness and goofiness and the basic caretaking of the site, and can you think of a better word for all that?
As if ogged ever engaged in basic caretaking of the site.
It really has been fun -- I'm surprised by how much I like the ego feeding from writing something that people (literally dozens!) read.
But I have been off my feed a bit for the last couple of months. It's funny, I can comment at an incredible rate while I'm working on other stuff because it's reactive, but interesting posts are actually hard.
I feel both "it's only been a year?" and "it's been a whole year?" in equal measure. Wow.
I want to thank everyone except Apo for never, ever blogging about sports.
I wish to express something perhaps "inarticulate" and "street" by way of approval but lack the vocabulary. You know what I mean, though.
Slol, just give props to your homies and you'll be fine.
Must I also "pour out a forty", or can I raise a snifter with Senator Edwards?
Only if what you mean by "snifter" is "pimp cup."
I noticed you attributed the diminishing of acrimonious argument to the analogy ban. Where was I calling you Uncle Joe? I know I've done it before, but can't find it.
It's not due solely to that, of course--the absence of your bitter snark is probably the most important factor--but I think it helps.
Uncle Joe, like Stalin?
It's gotten less acrimonious? Funny, I've been wracked with guilt about being horrible to people.
Yeah, well, they're doing a better job of taking it.
Excellent. Clearly having the beatings continue until morale improved worked.
Mostly OT: Did you all notice that blogger seems to be down?
24: Never mind. The server error went away.
I'm on board with the analogy ban. It's made me, at least, have to stick to the point more better, even if it has deprived me of the joy of breezy dismissiveness.
Or maybe I'm just less dismissive because w-lfs-n's good lovin' is keeping me satisfied.
20: Because you can't spell "acrimonious" without "ac"?
Allow me to join the general chorus of huzzas for My Unfogged Bloggers, without saying anything substantive of my own. I like you guys and am glad you write here.
Can we please not get all snipey on a thread that is meant to be celebratory?
Uncle Joe, like Stalin?
Yessirree Bob. Or Joe. BG, for one, might appreciate an alternate history in which Tia staged a pitched battle for an end to constant rounds of sexist baiting and feminist reaction, which all sorts of people fought her on and yet which led to a (somewhat)* higher level of discourse, which everyone benefits from in her absence.
Not to mention everyone on one side of the H argument taking a voluntary sojourn in Siberia.
Put that in your moustache, Koba.
*I don't want to go crazy here.
29: Becks, if you don't want acrimony, don't tell us that VM is now worth watching after the show has aired. Kind of dick-ish. Next time, use your precog abilities and let us know beforehand.
Jesus, ac, could you comment here or not, rather than showing up occasionally and sniping? I miss Tia, and I'm sorry she doesn't blog here anymore. Many of the same things that annoyed her annoy me.
And this:
Not to mention everyone on one side of the H argument taking a voluntary sojourn in Siberia.
Is nonsense. Cala was on the anti-Hirshman side, as was Idealist, to name two off the top of my head, and they're both still around.
What on earth are you trying to do, make people up into teams to fight?
To be clear, I was just punning in 27. I'll shut up now.
Ok, who's going to flash some titties and make this all better?
You mentioned the idea. You flash 'em.
35: Anyone who has, and wants to post pics of my boobs is free to do so, just on general principles. I'd do it myself, but all was lost when my hard drive crapped out.
I didn't mean to start a fight. I'm sorry.
A little early in the day to be getting baked, slol.
Yeah, Slol, but you don't love us women.
Sexist.
I'm going to stick my foot into this far enough to say* that BG doesn't really have anything to apologize for; she didn't start a fight. Starting one in her name is crappy.
*Excuse the crappy metaphor, or if you prefer, construct your own metaphor in which I have to take my foot out of my mouth in order to speak. Feel free to include "crappy" in your metaphor, or not, as whim and consistency suggest.
38: It really was a tragic crash, then. Like the burning of the library of Alexandria.
If we're picking teams, keep in mind that I am feisty tho' small, and that I'd bet ogged bites, because Mexicans are unfair tho' clean.
Also, if I'm on ogged's team, I don't want to wear ribbons to match his elliptical trainer.
Sorry. I didn't mean to start a fight. You can redact it if you want.
No need, but thanks for the offer.
44: Nah. I've still got the originals.
Cala, you go to blogspats with the bloggers you have, not the bloggers you wish you had. ∴ ribbons.
I was being honest, as I see it. Trying to clear the air. It seems like it's the gorilla in the corner, isn't it? Especially of this post. Which was the point I thought BG was making, though less bitterly snarkily than me.
Ogged makes a very big point of intellectual honesty. The biggest of anyone I have encountered. So I thought it would be ok to bring it up, in that spirit. With a little joke or snark on top.
ac, I don't actually know what you're trying to say, though I don't think I really want you to explain it to me. I was thanking the people who have blogged here this past year (except for Labs, who's gay). Other issues are other issues, and most of us seem to have gotten over them.
The membership of the British North Americans of Colour Association would like to thank the Unfogged crew for dramatically reducing our office productivity over the past year.
I'm sorry, then. Really, just delete if you want.
Again, really no need -- I don't think anyone's said anything that infringes on anyone's privacy.
53: If you're gonna hang out here, you're going to have to learn to spell "color" correctly.
Yeah, how do you people survive without a proper daily allotment of superfluous vowels? It's mind-boggling.
Anyone who has, and wants to post pics of my boobs is free to do so, just on general principles.
Going up on the Unfogged Flickr pool in 3, 2, 1...
I believe you mean "superflos vowls".
Cala was on the anti-Hirshman side, as was Idealist, to name two off the top of my head
What am I, chopped liver? I actually changed sides due to ac's comments.
I think the corrosive damage to society and morals by Noah Webster's policy of vowel-cleansing has yet to be fully appreciated and attoned-for.
Can I just say that I feel like an asshole for not noticing Tia's absence? I vividly recall her final (?) post, and how intense it was. But, with the comings and goings of busy Becks, distant Alameida, even Unf, plus Ogged's now-common posting, I didn't realize she's been entirely gone for so long.
So I can't say that I missed her before, but I do now.
Crap.
Would Georges Perec please come to the white courtesy phone.
62 to 59.
61: Tia's absence has been pretty glaring to me, as I expect it is to a lot of regular readers.
What bothers me about Webster is what kind of weirdo starts regularizing English spelling and then stops after taking the 'u's out of honor and color and says "That's it. Everything else works for me."
(And yes, IDP -- I was just coming up with a couple of people I'd been locking horns with in the Hirshman threads. You were on that side, but not so much a center of conflict.)
60: Atoned only has the one t in it.
He took the vital second "g" out of "waggon", and changed e's position for r's in "centre", "theatre," and a host of other words. Fortunately, this has been undone by pretension realtors and impressarios.
Hower, "impresario."
All forgivable errors, since you're clearly doing God's work in calling down Webster.
63: Good lord, of course my point was that it should have been obvious to me - I'm at most a semi-regular commenter, but I read just about every post.
Hence, I feel like an asshole not to have noticed.
OTOH, I still don't understand why gaol is pronounced jail.
70: Good lord, of course my point was that it should have been obvious to me
Sorry, I shouldn't have framed my remark as a response to you. It was more just a general "Tia has been missed" comment, not a criticism of you.
I still don't understand why gaol is pronounced jail.
What messes with my head is "Featherstonehaugh," pronounced "Fanshawe."
No need to get magdalene about it.
magdalene
Which of course is pronounced "mag-da-len." It's "Magdalen" that's pronounced "maudlin."
Don'tcha know.
Must I also "pour out a forty",
One of my roommates wanted to have a party (sans m-fun, I think) this Saturday. In composing an eVite for said party, I wanted to come up with a reason for having a party on that particular day, as opposed to just an excuse to drink (because who needs an excuse, anyway?). Checking this day in History, I discovered that Saturday is the so-called Day the Music Died, so the eVite now suggests pouring out a 40 oz. for the Big Bopper.
Nice thoughts about the current crop of bloggers being though now.
pouring out a 40 oz. for the Big Bopper
This seems anachronistic.
Perhaps some Chantilly lace could be found and contemplated.
I wonder if there are any reasonably good Bib Bopper or Buddy Holly mashups out there.
Which was going to be my next question: you're mourning the Big Bopper, but not Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens?
73 and 75: Magdalen College is pronounced Maudlin, but when people refer to the Church of St. Mary Magdalen, they pronounce the 'g.' Some people even say "St. Mary Mags."
Or are you making some subtle point about how "Chantilly Lace" qualifies as proto-rap? Square, square, square proto-rap.
I was let to believe that Magdalen College Oxford is pronounced "Maudlin," but that Magdalene College Cambridge is pronounced "Mag-da-len." Which apparently used to be true, but isn't anymore.
My decision procedure was really just that the Big Bopper is, I think, slightly more obscure, so I figured I'd mention him.
Getting kegs in Manhattan is more difficult than it's worth.
Getting kegs in Manhattan is more difficult than it's worth.
Road trip, with kegs, to w/d's!
I'm totally up to do Smokey and the Bandit, the West-to-East version.
I'm thinking it's things like 90-91 (and this) that catapulted me into that list of prolific posters.
By "totally," I meant "not," of course.
("Won't you be my Sally Field," of course, being one of the least effective country songs of all time.)
Dear Unfogged,
I just thought I would drop in briefly to point out that while my absence is partly related to particular feminism disputes and perhaps subtle value conflicts about how best to communicate and to encourage others to communicate, it has substantially more to do with the difference between how I like to interact with people and how I wound up interacting here (which is as much me as anyone else), an inability to moderate the time I spent here and the amount of emotional and mental energy I devoted to the place* (entirely me and my crazy compulsive over dramatic nature), an at best ambivalent relationship to being a strand in a web of interpersonal drama, and an uneasiness with my former role as cohost when I did get really pissed off, or when the aforementioned value conflicts about how to communicate popped up. However, I obviously value the people I've met through the site a great deal, and am grateful to ogged for starting it for that reason. No matter how much of a castrating bitch I play on the internets, I'm a sweetheart in person! Stop by NYC and visit. Or if you're really hungry to read what else I might be writing on the internets, send me an email.
Love,
Tia
*scary story: a few months after Graham and I broke up, he remarked that he'd sometimes wondered toward the end of our relationship whether I was checking out of our relationship because of the amount of time I spent on Unfogged. I burst into tears when I heard that because I was checking out of nothing and it horrified me that I had given him that impression.
I know I started that conversation in an unfortunate way. I was just frustrated. I'm glad it got that result.
No better way to make an argument than the good old post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I shall strive to be as fair and just as Tia. Is that better?
Ok, fine, I'll say it. ac, your comments in this thread seem to do two things I find a little troubling: (a) they bring up long-forgotten unpleasantness for no apparent reason, and (b) they suggest, falsely, that Tia left because of that nastiness, which, in turn, puts some pressure on Tia to explain her actual reasons; it creates a situation where she has to speak up or let the misperception stand.
"Uh, uh, post, after, after hoc, ergo, therefore, after hoc, therefore, something else hoc."
Beavis and Butthead learn logic?
103: (c) they imply that good faith disagreements over ideological issues are a mark of bad character, intellectual dishonesty and personal disloyalty if one doesn't agree with how you, ac, see them.
ac did apologize, a couple of times in fact.
I should not say this, but to my eye, those apologies were of the "I'm sorry that you're angry" variety.
Look, I'll try to accept that my problems with this place may be down to me and me alone. That's quite possible. But my perception of it for a while has been a general sexist undertone, coupled with a frequently expressed contempt for ordinary women coming from women, which, to me, came to a head in the H threads and some other things more directly connected to Tia. They still operate. And I think of them every time I read. It made the atmosphere very uncomfortable. There was a thread where lots of women admitted to girl-on-girl misogyny in their youth--it seems natural that a place that has a bit of an atmosphere of a boys' club would attract women with such a background--and it made discussing women here a bit like discussing being an Earthling with a bunch of Martians. I don't think it's a coincidence that the two women who had more sympathy for ordinary women ended up leaving.
And I was thinking of it this week because Hirshman's crypto-misogyny was revealed to be not so crypto.
As I say, I accept this may be my preoccupation and mine alone, but it wasn't a one-off issue.
FL, I shouldn't be continuing this conversation, because I want it to end, but I dispute both that 30 implies your b) and that any other ac comment in this thread possibly could. Since I don't agree that it created the impression you say it did about Tia's motives, I clearly doubly disagree that it forced a response in the way you suggest.
...and a pony tail, a hangin down
a wiggle in her walk and a giggle in her talk
ok, I need to tap out of this thread. Goodnight all.
Wait, are B and LB being called sexist now? I fucking love this place.
By "ordinary women," do you mean playing games like this one? Because you're right, I have a fair bit of contempt for this sort of thing. The more-feminist-than-thou game, the stirring up bad feelings then trying to retreat behind "but I'm just being honest," and the appropriating of other people's points of view (BG, Tia). It's manipulative and game-playing.
And if not liking that sort of thing--which admittedly is a fairly standard means of expressing anger or hurt feelings for people, like women, who are uncomfortable doing it directly--makes me a fake feminist, well then, so be it.
But it's probably just necessary for me to stay away, and not read, and not get into it.
No, I think they're martians. Must. Sleep. going now. crap, you people are merciless.
I was being indirect because it's hard to talk about. I was asked to defend and explain my previous indirectness.
115: We've been the false, male-identified feminists for quite some time, Ogged, didn't you get the memo?
114: That's fine. I also wrote 112 before seeing 111, though I don't think it changes anything other than my worries about continuing the conversation being misplaced.
I was being indirect because it's hard to talk about.
I get that. And I'm okay with it. What I'm not okay with are the implications that (1) somehow being indirect is a superior method of communication, and that people who find directness easier than you do, more comfortable than it is for you, or more honest, are bad people; (2) there are somehow "sides" to be drawn here, that Tia (and you) are victims of god only knows what because you've decided not to comment much here any more.
H is at least problematic, as we can perhaps all agree now, after "the last man" statement. You were actually distancing yourself from her, or that kind of reading of women, and that's great. Her tone carried a great deal of contempt before, which you said a) didn't matter, and b)just made her the messenger. But I accept that even if I was correctly reading that tone in her, I was incorrectly assigning it to you. But I didn't grab it out of thin air.
I was pretty direct in previous arguments. I was trying not to think about it anymore. Didn't work.
I thought you sculpted it, and ogged grated it.
Ogged has his Indian manservant grate it.
That's after I collect it, the sculpting. Then the grating. Then the sprinkling. Then the eating. It's unlucky for Hirshman, really, that she keeps buying those pastries.
Can I confess that I never read those Hirshman threads, or anything Hirshman has ever written, in any depth? I just keep thinking of her eating those pastries, and it all goes down in a great fit of giggles.
Woops, I meant to leave this comment a lot earlier in the day. I went away to India a year ago and came back super confused, but actually this is like my number one favorite blog to hang out at now. I know I sometimes comment a little oddly, but I really like hanging out here with y'all.
I have to admit I have serious problems with anyone here claiming they know who "ordinary women" are. No one here is an "ordinary woman," or else we all are.
This is not unrelated to my dissertation, in which I'm trying to trace how the phrase "common sense" came to describe the opinions of whoever's speaking, but in a way that makes you feel that, if you don't share them, you don't "really know" what life is.
Women like my grandmother, who live in trailer parks and never had much education, are real women, just like women who grew up in the Plaza Hotel and went to boarding school are real women. Women who have babies are real women and women who hate babies are real women, as are women who intersect both spheres. Women whose parents taught them to value culturally masculine things are real women and women whose parents taught them to value culturally feminine things are real women.
This all seems very obvious to me, and I'm kind of shocked to see such polemical rhetoric here about who deserves to say what a woman is and who doesn't. My world can include you; why can't yours include me?
That is to say, I can't think of ac, or anyone here, as a figurative martian. I like ac. She's nice and kind and has been really hospitable to me. We get along well, I think. I am surprised that she thinks of women like me as martians just because I don't share her personal history.
Technically speaking, I think the male commenters are figurative Martians and the women are figurative Venusians..
Yes, I was going to say I should have said Venutian. These remarks are perhaps rash and ill thought out, but I have had a sense of alienation here. It's not about who is a real woman or who isn't. Obviously we all are. But in the desire for equality there seems to be a rush to define female-gendered characteristics as pathological. This happens all the time here, on a daily basis, in little remarks and big ones. And I've pointed them out, sometimes, as they happen, for instance when I was objecting to calling women who had princessy elements of a relationship with their father "creepy." It's not that I'm seeking to differentiate people, I'm reacting to a whole bunch of perfectly fine people being put beyond the pale, very casually.
It was just most obvious in the wallowing in baby shit discussions.
Once again, Tia, thanks for 94 - it was a very decent and kind thing to post. In the context of this conversation, I would have been terribly worried that there was more bad feeling than the disagreements I knew about without it.
Ac -- do you have a goal in mind for this conversation? Your sentiments about your belief that I and other women here are uniformly hostile to ordinary feminine women (which, I suppose, we don't qualify as. Neither feminine or ordinary, that's the lot of us. ) have been expressed before, so if you just needed to get them off your chest, you've done that. Again.
You stopped commenting here, presumably because you didn't enjoy the atmosphere. What unfinished business do you need to resolve? Or do you just want to come by and insult all the women who comment here as a bunch of epicene harpies? (Bragging rights to whoever comes up with the book I was thinking of as the source of that last epithet.)
she thinks of women like me as martians
It's probably your big, fuzzy bear testicles.
And I should also have said that I agree entirely with 132.
110: based on 111, the apology was the more the "sorry you're a bunch of assholes" type.
I was answering awb. I'd like to do something more positive with my little narrative of unfogged. I have found it bizarre that things got so polarized, since life in general doesn't seem that way, and I don't think I'd be having these problems with you or anyone else if we just met at the office or something, so I wonder what the mechanism is. I assume it's magnified by it being the internet and saying things one doesn't normally say (on both sides), and by the fact that this particular community has certain common features and ways of talking. (I just thought of Tim joking, "Nurture me, woman" the other day, the accumulation of such comments being the backdrop.)
I often got offended by things, and I'm in the room. And some of those things seem a little political in nature. So it feels wrong to just abandon the thought. Especially since I do care and like a lot of people.
And they really are new to me, the views of women I have encountered in the past couple of years. Maybe I should think of it more positively, to say I haven't met so many people so committed to equality before, rather than being so focused on the negative pathologizing aspects. Maybe I should think about my reaction as just that--reaction. I'm not so rigid as you imagine, I just have for whatever reason felt a little outnumbered.
I think that's a point worth making, that this stuff has been very intense and new and challenging, really surprising to me. And unlike anything I have experienced in any community before, probably because ideas are not totally in the forefront when dealing with people IRL.
I had been associating Tia's departure with these issues, because I thought she ran into some trouble for having a gendered, confessional style. That's what triggered it.
a place that has a bit of an atmosphere of a boys' club
Yay!
Oh.
I've been trying to compose a comment for half an hour, and here's the best summary of it, and it's still probably going to get someone's shorts knotted:
While if you're the sort that goes around tallying misogyny, you'll find plenty of non-textbook feminist comments, I think it would be very hard to line up the female commenters into a pro- or anti- femininity camp, especially if you take into account the context.
Women are complex; we're not stamped out with cookie cutters and serenely nodding with opinions we've vetted for their feminist bonafides, especially in a medium that encourages brutal honesty.
Maybe it surprised you, and you don't have to like it or post here if you don't. And that's cool. I don't post at places I don't like either.
No one here is an "ordinary woman," or else we all are.
I'm not.
I've met Rob. He's not an ordinary woman. Indeed, he's an extraordinary woman.
I hear Rob is extra-ordinarily bright, articulate, clean and nice-looking for a woman.
No one here is an "ordinary woman,"
I think a better word would be "normal". Not in the statistical sense, and not in the everyday sense, but in the cultural sense: embodying or instantiating the norm. Of course, since norms are contested and multiple, there are many different flavors of normal - which, I think, may be one of the underlying issues here: what should be the norms for women?
Rob Helpy-Chalk is the first mainstream extraordinary woman.
Rob Helpy-Chalk: you've come a long way, baby.
I guess, ac, that I'm (a) surprised by how well we all seem to get along in person, given that there are these "huge" differences in the ways we feel marginalized as women, and (b) surprised that you don't see how, just as you are reacting with surprise and pain to not feeling normal here, that all us epicene harpies (thanks LB) are used to being made to feel like less-than-women all the time. Just like you see girls being princessy with daddy to be an incredibly complex coping mechanism about begging for favor and acceptance, my being Cool-Hand-Lukish with daddy was my incredibly complex coping mechanism about begging for favor and acceptance. Neither is any more or less of a pose or a capitulation. The first pose tends to lead to greater social success, and the latter tends to lead to more professional independence. In both cases, women give up a lot to be treated as human, and that sucks.
Yeah, Cala, I know women are complex. I'm totally aware that I'm kind of dealing in a false dichotomy here, what I mean is that I feel a bit backed into it by some of the rhetoric. I was saying is that I don't tend to divide women at all in real life, not at all--I allow them all sorts of directions of self-expression. But those include being a bit girly or princessy sometimes, without being called "creepy". I wouldn't mind if it were an occasional joke; it seems a kind of regimen.
I shouldn't use the words "ordinary women." I'm feel I was just reacting to an implication of Those Other Women Over There, So Different From Us.
The surprise crept up on me, I could deal with it pretty well up until a certain point. I was already pretty involved here when things got very heated. But I'm not invested anymore. I just think it's a legitimate point, that there is this issue of patholigizing what seems to be in the way of equality, but, you know, currently defines a lot of existing women.
As I say, awb, this whole discussion seems like a distortion based on the discourse I'm in. I'm not in it the rest of the time.
I was already pretty involved here when things got very heated. But I'm not invested anymore.
If you're not invested, why are you bothering? Who are you attempting to convince of what?
I don't understand the function of your comments in this thread at all.
As I say, awb, this whole discussion seems like a distortion based on the discourse I'm in.
Can you provide a referent for anything? Anything at all? What about this discussion distorts what as a basis of what discourse you're in? What are you talking about, in any specific sense at all?
The cracks you made about all the women who post here annoyed the crap out of me; now I'm just mystified.
I think 143-150 is the guys' way of looking side to side, whistling nonchalently a little, then mumbling "Awwwwkkkwwwaaarrrddd" under our breaths.
An entirely comprehensible reaction.
I feel a bit backed into it by some of the rhetoric. I was saying is that I don't tend to divide women at all in real life,
By *what* rhetoric? This generalizing, passive voice stuff is infuriating. No one here said that *women* who have a princess relationship with daddy are creepy; some folks said that the *nature* of such a *relationship* is creepy.
It seems to me that, as you say, maybe you should think of your reaction as just that. While I have all the sympathy in the world for your feeling alienated here, I don't have much sympathy for the way you're handling that feeling; it seems to me that rather than owning that feeling--which I believe you're trying to do--that you're ending up explaining it as being caused by something outside of you. Which it probably is, what with being something about gender norms and all. But I don't think it's right to pin the origin or creation of that feeling on people here, or on this blog, as you seem to be doing. Hanging out here, for *you* may well have been a catalyst for a lot of stuff. I've no doubt that hanging out here is a catalyst for all of us in one way or another of something, or we wouldn't do it. The problem is that you're trying to get us to help you work out your own reaction to things (e.g., misreading the "creepy" thing or what people are saying about Hirshman as personal attacks on, or rejections of, a kind of woman you identify with). And you're doing it in an accusatory, passive way: either saying directly, or implying, that those of us who *don't* have that reaction are somehow flawed, or sexist, or oppressing you.
I'm sorry that whatever it is is upsetting to you. Truly. But I don't like being roped in against my will to helping you figure shit out. Especially as you haven't begun by asking for help, but instead by accusing people and demanding that they deal with your stuff.
Just like you see girls being princessy with daddy to be an incredibly complex coping mechanism about begging for favor and acceptance, my being Cool-Hand-Lukish with daddy was my incredibly complex coping mechanism about begging for favor and acceptance.
Personally, I would appreciate it if my daughter used either of these coping mechanisms. Right now her main method for getting favor and acceptance is to fall on the floor kicking and screaming and yelling "I want favor and acceptance!"
Ok, she doesn't actually say "favor and acceptance" but typically what she is demanding amounts to that. A very common one is more space on my lap than her baby brother gets. Another one is to be carried around the way her brother is carried around.
When she does use more sophisticated mechanisms for gaining favor, she mostly switches to Helpful Problem Solving Mode. "I know, you could put Joey in the playpen, and then carry me!"
This is why I haven't yet had a second child.
Seriously, Bitch, there are real drawbacks to the second child. You will never have time to have sex again. I don't understand how third children are ever conceived.
160: Wait until she's 10. Ugly stuff, dude.
Yeah, wait till she says: "I can eat 50 eggs."
162: I don't understand how third children are ever conceived.
Accidentally?
To conceive accidentally, you have to have sex.
I read that in an episode of Whitney Huston's reality show, she and Bobby locked their children in the children's bedroom so they could have sex. Apparently people were outraged by this. I thought it sounded like a good tactic.
"I read that in an episode of Whitney Huston's reality show, she and Bobby locked their children in the children's bedroom so they could have sex."
Who did they have sex with?
"Parking" kids for sex has an ancient and honorable history, but how you do it matters. In front of the tv is fine, locked in a room/closet is not.
I never would have sat down and thought, while watching an episode of Being Bobby Brown, "I am taking notes on this!"
That said, sexual relations should be maintained at any cost.
typically what she is demanding amounts to that. A very common one is more space on my lap than her baby brother gets. Another one is to be carried around the way her brother is carried around
Thank God other people have this issue. No, I don't know what to do about it.
I apologize about the edge to my remarks, and the accusatory tone. As I say, I've felt embattled. And that at least one other person felt the same way. That edge has come off, for me, in discussing what was bothering me--I tried to change the tone as I went along, possibly not successfully. I'm sorry to make you deal with my stuff, but I guess I see it as larger than just me, it's a bigger problem or trade-off or issue in feminism, which I never confronted so directly before, equality vs. pathology or however you want to frame it. And I'll own that my own inability to express this better or without getting worked up is part of the problem. However, rightly or wrongly, I felt like I was suddenly in the midst of a consensus how all women should be (pursuing power, not for heaven's sake nurturing, athletic if possible, &c. &c.), and these were stated far more strongly than I've ever seen them stated before. I'm used to a formulation of be that way if you want to, nothing should stand in your way; the whole discourse here seems more extreme, and far more critical of other ways of being. I've tried to point to some examples of how I thought that was created, if I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken. But I have thought some people referred to this state of affairs positively, as a given; maybe Tim would back me up there. I didn't mean to impose a completely idiosyncratic take.
Yeah, wait till she says: "I can eat 50 eggs."
That's just a warm-up. Wait until she says "Can I have the car keys?"
Yeah, wait till she says: "I can eat 50 eggs."
?
Holy Christ Junior Mint, you haven't seen Cool Hand Luke?
Or do you just want to come by and insult all the women who comment here as a bunch of epicene harpies?
This seems unduly harsh, even mean-spirited to me, LB.
The problem is that you're trying to get us to help you work out your own reaction to things (e.g., misreading the "creepy" thing or what people are saying about Hirshman as personal attacks on, or rejections of, a kind of woman you identify with).
I don't know ac all that well, but I don't know what you're basing this on, B. It seems to me that you might be misreading ac's comments. I'm not entirely sure that ac did misread the "creepy" thing.
I didn't mean to start a huge brouhaha.
I liked a lot of Tia's posts and appreciated aspects of her confessional style. I disagreed with a lot of her points, but I felt that my thinking was challenged and refined by both her and ac's perspective. I miss that.
ac may have been appropriating my views somewhat, but she wasn't totally off the mark either.
I really just wanted to say that I miss Tia. Perhaps I should have done that with an e-mail. I may, in fact, send her one anyway.
162: You're one of the few people I've ever known who's been honest about this. Everyone always says, "oh, the second one is much easier." Kind of like the way people like Roberta lie and say that pregnancy is just fabulous.
Everyone always says, "oh, the second one is much easier."
Two kids of the same sex, relatively close together, are easier down the road. My daughters are a bit under two years apart. Spend their time running around and playing with each other instead of constantly harassing us. Good times.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
You're kidding right? Playing with the way "honest" might be taken to mean "agrees with my prejudices" in the context of this thread?
Because for me the only way the second kid did that was by extending the period of helplessness, the time when breast-feeding and the hyper-alertness of both parents intruded. Issues involving interactions between the kids, or competition for attention, have not had that impact.
So ymmv, honest.
172: While I don't remember the exact details, there wasn't a consensus on the Hirshman thing, unless by consensus you mean "LB and B agreeing and everyone else disagreeing with them."
180: That's what having friends over to play is for--they entertain each other, but when they turn to squabbling or needing attention, you can send one of them away.
166: To conceive accidentally, you have to have sex.
What, you mean no stork? Damn. My mom always told me she'd accidentally summoned the stork.
172: Just to dip my toe in here for sec, I think you'll find "equality vs. pathology" is not how you want to frame it if you're trying to get past the accusatory tone. And even after having looked back at the Hirshman threads, I'm a bit mystified that you think they exemplify some kind of pathological anti-nurturing ideology that's been reinforced propagated by a boy's club joking about the word "nurture" (this is more or less what I'm able to extract from your comments on this thread).
'reinforced propagated by a boy's club joking about the word "nurture"'
s/b
'reinforced or propagated by a boys' club doing things like joking about the word "nurture"'
B, IDP
The standard line I always heard is that two children are harder at first, because of the extended period of helplessness, but easier later on, because they entertain each other.
I'm just worried because I see no signs that my children will entertain each other, unless you count jealous sniping as a form of entertainment.
You have a four-year-old and a baby, right? The baby will eventually morph from a limpet into a person and then they'll entertain each other (perhaps by fighting, but no one said that couldn't be entertaining.)
183: It was the anti-priss blog before we ever got to H. But you're right, I'm conceiving of it too narrowly.
Cool Hand Luke is an awesome movie, and not at all constitutive of a boys' club ethic.
they'll entertain each other (perhaps by fighting
But the fighting is so evidently theatrical and intended to draw the parents in. Kind of like the belligerent posturing of world leaders.
188: On this blog it seems to be a major passtime.
187: I don't remember the 2YO as being helpless and he was getting to be interesting, while the baby was just doing basic input->output. The second was easier from the start mainly because we were much more relaxed about the whole deal.
Cool Hand Luke is an awesome movie, and not at all constitutive of a boys' club ethic
As Luke's reaction to the "Lucille" episode demonstrates.
I think you'll find "equality vs. pathology" is not how you want to frame it
It's more a feminist theory word than my word. I've run across this framing before, just hadn't been quite so riveted by it on previous occasions. Most recently I saw it used by a feminist philosopher, Susan Mendus, who takes the equality view. That is, she thinks that it's dangerous to think too much about gender difference, for fear that it will lead to different spheres and outcomes. But she gives a nod to the idea that concentrating too much on equality does run the risk of, yes, pathologizing those gender differences.
1. My mom said that it didn't get worse after four.
2. I've seen several cases where two children (only) ended up in lifelong feuds. With three there are shifting alliances.
192, 193: Think of it as training for the future.
178: BG -- It was meant unpleasantly, as a response to this:
coupled with a frequently expressed contempt for ordinary women coming from women, which, to me, came to a head in the H threads and some other things more directly connected to Tia. They still operate. And I think of them every time I read. It made the atmosphere very uncomfortable. There was a thread where lots of women admitted to girl-on-girl misogyny in their youth--it seems natural that a place that has a bit of an atmosphere of a boys' club would attract women with such a background--and it made discussing women here a bit like discussing being an Earthling with a bunch of Martians. I don't think it's a coincidence that the two women who had more sympathy for ordinary women ended up leaving.
Note that you, for example, are apparently not one of the two women who had more sympathy for ordinary women in AC's eyes. While I was intentionally hostile, I don't think I brought the tone of the conversation down.
I'm sure you miss Tia -- while I differed with her about some stuff, I do too. You should email her and tell her how much she's missed. Being annoyed with ac does not put me in any Tia-haters club, strongly as ac attempts to imply it.
AC:
I'm tempted to state a previously unneeded law of Internet communication -- Nothing productive will come out of a conversation commenced by one party's comparing another to Stalin. Regardless of the apologies -- you retracted 'ordinary women', so I'm not sure who I have contempt for now -- I have no interest in trying to figure out what your point about feminism is. Whether it is that named people here have attitudes you disapprove of; or something more global that you really haven't successfully communicated at all, the ditheringly nasty way you've approached the topic has killed any interest I had in it (and I'm usually up for a good argument.)
If you get your thoughts straight, I suggest putting them up on your own blog. If you've changed your mind about your decision to stop commenting here, I suggest that you'll get more productive engagement if you work on clarity and kindness.
197.2: not always -- my brother and I usually gang up on my sister. Our alliance is strong and unwavering. A coalition of the willing, if you will. Two siblings, ready to roll (son)!
With three there are shifting alliances
Is this The Lion in Winter?
Maybe each kid having always had his/her own room makes this less likely, not everyone can do this.
185: I think ac is saying that in pursuit of equality, a certain type of feminist ends up pathologizing many aspects of tradition "femininity".
And that's all very well, but it doesn't hurt to remember that some aspects of traditional femininity are, in fact, pathological. If I recall, and perhaps I am wrong but I'm not going to check because I'm too lazy to google, the "creepy princess" thing was a response to a post on Purity Balls, and personally I find the idea of celebrating teenage girls in the role of Daddy's Little Virgin quite creepy.
202: That does make more sense. Thanks.
My point was that basically all other women were being lumped into the incestuousness of the purity ball phenomenon. All but the small percentage of "third way" families. I just think one should be a bit careful about, um, charges of incest. That can pretty powerfully put someone in the category of Other. Again, as a one-off, I wouldn't have remarked on it. But we were already pretty loose and free with the Other category, as I saw it.
Wait, give me a minute; I need to the stone tablets on which those archives are stored.
LB, I was totally and completely wrong to bring it up that way. My perspective has clearly been a little warped by how I was viewing Tia's absence, wrapped up as it was in the intensity of some issues last year, which remain vivid to me, while everyone else has clearly moved on. I was out of line, and I apologize to you and to Ogged.
But I'll take your advice and be off now.
Right. Regardless of that apology, continuing this discussion in your current wandering manner, free of any identifiable specifics that would allow those of us to whom you appear to be referring to point out that your reading of our positions is at least arguable, will, I think, continue to shed more heat than light over the issue.
Earlier, you referred to all women who continue to post here as having less "sympathy for ordinary women" than you and Tia. You've apologized for that, but in light of that remark, I'd strongly appreciate if you'd identify who, exactly, you're talking about here, rather than blithering vaguely about 'We'. This is a blog with a number of commenters rather than a hive mind, and admonishments directed at the blog generally are going to hit targets you don't mean them to.
If you're unprepared to talk about whatever issues you have with specificity, I suggest that you drop the subject until you've arrived at some clarity in your thoughts.
210, obviously, before I'd seen 209.
Someone just told me last night that I seem more east-coast than west-coast owing to my combination of prissiness and repression.
I thought that was just b/c you're Jewish.
I think you are the best-looking blog. Good front page, good archives, good comments. Great white space, good font balance, very little crap if any.
Please misinterpret this to refer to the physical attributes of the posters. In my mind, you are Adonises through and through, dames too.
Good front page, good archives, good comments. Great white space, good font balance, very little crap if any.
You have no idea how happy this makes me.
215: This is true. The site is quite easy on the eyes. Putting aside for the moment the (very fine!) content, this is a big reason I keep returning here -- the tidiness of the font and layout make it so pleasant to read.
Which is to say, you guys are really clean and articulate, if you know what I mean.
Hooray! Note that I swiped the basic design from these guys (now back online here, by the way). But I did futz with the line and even letter spacing quite a bit, so it warms my heart that you think it's readable.
It is an attractive blog, and I can say that as having had no input whatsoever into its design and maintenance.
I do really judge blogs for being ugly -- there's a point at which they look respectable enough that I stop judging, but the ones that look like no thought went into the design, I find hard to make myself read.
I realize now, having gone back and skimmed the two hundred comments prior, that I made about as OT a comment as I could make. Still, I think it is as good on a blog's anniversary to call it handsome as it is to unsew the stitches of its wounds.
Let me know if you want to get back to the femi-dozens, I can lead in with "I'm not a feminist, but ..." and close with how I could read Linda Hirshman's articles if you put a bag over her lede.
You know, LB, if you weren't so male-identified, you wouldn't be such a lookist.
215: Great white space . . . Please misinterpret this to refer to the physical attributes of the posters
RACIST.
Looker, B. Looker.
And thank you.
(Wrongshore -- 'as good' s/b 'far, far better'.)
216: Yeah, it's pretty much OK. But the picture is just a placeholder, right? Until something sufficiently unlike the masthead of Crooked Timber suggests itself.
Went back and read the Hirshman thread, and thought the commentary there was pretty good: came out thinking somewhat differently than when I went in. The only suggestion I'd make in the context of that thread is that are all kinds of anxieties involved in a career: concerns over male | female equality are inevitably going to be part of a mix. There are men who choose not to have children so that they can concentrate on a career. And various flavours of elitism seem to be fairly strong in US culture at present: this surely can't help.
The collective at my day job have a specific worry; the stock of women is dropping year on year and - to the men - the reasons are mysterious. The issue was raised in an office meeting (by a woman) and got a frankly crappy response from the most senior man. I canvassed a few opinions over beers and was surprised to find a junior colleague - an ambitious (and capable) man - betraying serious insecurity by comparing himself to a woman with fewer qualifications on a different career 'track'. He didn't want her to be advanced before him, and was worried that 'positive' discrimination might kick in before he had his foot up the ladder. I could only suggest to him that, in an office where competence is promoted, competent women will do well, and so will he. If he's competent. In a clubbish culture (and to the uninitiated, the code of any club is somewhat cryptic) competence is only one of a number of criteria for advancement. But to my mind, men who groom each other come over as monkeys. I can't understand why anyone would want to be like them.
The collective at my day job have a specific worry; the stock of women is dropping year on year and - to the men - the reasons are mysterious.
This is most law firms I know of -- women go in at the bottom, and are much less likely to come out on top. And it is mysterious: in any situation where success is dependent on a thousand decisions made about a subjective assessment of work quality, it's maddeningly hard to pin down what's causing it.
I don't think it's pindownable b/c it's almost surely not one thing, nor simple. Stuff like men who fear that women will get promoted before them because of "positive discrimination," people of both sexes who don't care or don't notice, the myth of pure choice, the reality of kids and the standard workday and the cost and inconvenience of shuttling them around for daycare, even the public discourse around the topic, with women who stay at work being told they don't care about their kids or having their difficulties reinforced or magnified and women who take time off being perceived as unserious. I still think that what Hirshman was putting her finger on, i.e. the idea that women, more than men, are taught that taking our work less seriously, treating it as a hobby for personal fulfillment and so on, is part of it too.
And I worry further, in a second-guessing-myself kind of way, that women may sometimes perceive obstacles that aren't there, and be dissuaded by them.
Oh, absolutely--that's part of what I meant by the way that popular discussion of the issue magnifies things.
228: Put slightly differently, a sense of entitlement helps.
OTOH there's value in not being an asshole, even if it detracts from professional success (for some definitions of "success"). Or at least I keep telling myself that.
Good front page, good archives, good comments. Great white space, good font balance, very little crap if any.
This definitely ought to be the new mouseover text on the front page.
"I suggest that you drop the subject until you've arrived at some clarity in your thoughts."
This is actually worse than we treat trolls around here. And by "we" I mean "the people here that I like and myself." LB, ac was referring to you upthread, and a person of your considerable interpretive skills ought to have gotten that.
I don't know why you guys hate each other, but you should have the decency to just try to insult ac back, instead of telling her she has to leave.
But I did futz with the line and even letter spacing quite a bit, so it warms my heart that you think it's readable.
Quite. (Readable, that is.)
Also, I can't decide if I want Ogged the Decider to follow up his analogy ban with an executive order directing his co-bloggers to follow o-style in the capitalization of the post headlines.
I think yes.
234:
I didn't ban her, or tell her she had to leave. I suggested that she work on clarity and kindness, and further suggested that she drop the subject until her clarity improved. I think that that's in fact a step up from the treatment the last troll got, having the pictures of everyone at his lawfirm reviewed to figure out who looked like a big enough dick to be him. So I'd contest that ac was treated worse than we treat trolls.
LB, ac was referring to you upthread, and a person of your considerable interpretive skills ought to have gotten that.
And yet never mentioned my name or anything I'd said. I, too, agree with your interpretation of her intent, but it's awfully difficult to engage with someone who's making sweeping claims aimed partially at you, without specifying them. If ac had objections to my behavior in the past or the present, she was free to make them in a fashion that made disagreement possible, and I would have argued with her with regard to her specific objections. She might even have had a point -- I'm certainly not above criticism, nor am I incapable of doing wrong things. But the sweepingly indefinite hostility was, in my opinion, crappy because unanswerable, and made me very angry.
BG: Again, note that most of ac's condemnations were aimed at all women who comment here and didn't leave when she and Tia did, which would include you. I'm sure you didn't take them personally, at least you don't seem to have, but don't you think that was kind of a lousy thing to do, rather than engaging with the people she had a problem with?
I'd like to drop this, because ac isn't posting here anymore, and I don't like talking about her in her absence. She's not banned, and is free to come back whenever she wants to -- while her conduct in this thread made me very angry, that, in itself, is not grounds for banning. If you want to continue the discussion, I'd appreciate consideration of whether you think it is kind to ac to engage in extended discussion of what about her conduct made me angry. While I'll keep talking about it in comments if you do, I think a better solution would be to take further argument to email.
I think a better solution would be to take further argument to email.
I agree.
having the pictures of everyone at his lawfirm reviewed to figure out who looked like a big enough dick to be him.
Oh man, when did that happen?
It was Charlie, who reappeared calling himself Jake. Apo traced his IP back to his firm, and in a moment of pique posted a link, which he took down pretty fast because that is still too harsh. But there was much clickage through to the site, and discussion of the apparent comparative dickishness of the lawyers thereon.
