Re: Choosiness

1

So the stereotypes are all true! Shockingly counterintuitive work, Slate.


Posted by: stp | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
2

So the only news is that women are racists? All the rest of this stuff is common knowledge.


Posted by: lol | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
3

Did you find this through the Freakonomics blog?


Posted by: Coconut | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
4

I would be getting laid like mad if it weren't for all these racist women.


Posted by: milf | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
5

So the only news is that women are racists?

Doesn't that seem significant? And it turns out that apparent Yellow Fever is actually due to Asian women's lower levels of racism when it comes to white men. Something for Ogged to add to his list of stereotypes.


Posted by: stu | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
6

5: no, I agree that's important to know. I just don't know why ogged bothered to excerpt all the rest.


Posted by: lol | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
7

When women were the ones choosing, the more intelligence and ambition the men had, the better.

Note to self: Stop telling women that "what I really want to do is to stay home and eat dry cereal out of the box while playing Assassin's Creed on the PS3."


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
8

I wonder if the racism is due to a dichotomy in men looking for a date vs. women looking for a life partner.

I realized the other day that 70% of my dates, and 100% of my longer-term relationships, have been with people not of my own ethnicity. It wasn't particularly deliberate on my part, nor do they all come from the same corner of the world.


Posted by: Coconut | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
9

Hasn't most of the controversy in this sort of thing centered on whether the preferences were biological or learned, not whether they existed?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
10

Whether it's biological or learned doesn't matter: you're still a racist.


Posted by: lol | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
11

So the only news is that women are racists?

I bet it's not race, it's culture. "White" culture is the norm, Asian culture is understood, and accepting the rest means accepting bigger risks.

I suspect the ambition thing looks pretty similar for men and women where the women examined are limited to the very ambitious.


Posted by: tgv | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:17 AM
horizontal rule
12

The women thing just seems to track prestige.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
13

Why don't you want to play single blind with us, O Cala?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
14

How the fuck am I supposed to find a dude who is both smarter and has more ambition than me? All the really smart guys I know are total pussies, or have given up any huge goals they might have had.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
15

Up in the ranges where many of us operate, "more intelligent" would be hard to measure. "Interested, knowledgeable, self-confident, able to draw on wide knowledge and fond of wit" would describe what I look for and am unhappy without, and I'm a man, but as I say, above a threshold, it's hard to say who's "more intelligent."

So I'm assuming this measures reactions to relative intelligence, or at least of the presence of its more obvious indicators.

In the sense that makes Shivbunny an outlier, although I'm under the impression he has plenty of native intelligence and self-confidence, and in fact comes off very well.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
16

Honestly? I'm ambivalent about dating women notably more ambitious than me. One thing is that I don't feel that great about ambition as a major value in life. But I think there's also a dimension of fear that she might lose respect for me if she ends up being more successful. That second aspect does vary with how much I trust her as a person.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
17

Men's leeriness about dating women more ambitious than themselves is probably closely related to the fear that their partner will make more money than they do.


Posted by: stu | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
18

13: I cannot resist the temptation to parody, which means you'd get a string of comments suffering from mirror syndrome.

16: My father is terrified that I am going to resent shivbunny for being less successful than I. My dad needs to read the job market stats without thinking 'oh, those poor people losing out on the great jobs to my daughter.'


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
19

Wait a minute. From the linked article:

400 daters from Columbia University's various graduate and professional schools

Forget it. I retract any observations about race and dating. I flatly refuse to believe that there were sufficient Hispanic or Middle Eastern people participating for any kind of valid conclusions to be draw. And probably not African-Americans either.


Posted by: Coconut | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
20

draw s/b drawn


Posted by: Coconut | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
21

For optimal sexiness in a man, I vote for a combination of reasonably good looks, high cleverness, moderate but not excessive ambition, and just the right balance of competence and vulnerability.


Posted by: kwrl | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
22

Also, this: stereotype of a white male preference for East Asian women

Am I wrong, or is the stereotype that a subset of white guys date Asian women exclusively? It's not really a stereotype about all white guys.


Posted by: Coconut | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
23

Just because it needs to be said: On the veldt...


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
24

17: Please. If dudes are that shallow and competitive, it's not like we're going to get along anyway. I'm glad to know they're using the very dealbreakers that would be dealbreakers for me.

I just read the Single Blind thread and will stop commenting as me now.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
25

shivbunny comes off well, but there have been moments where some of my grad school friends have made asses of themselves assuming he's an idiot, or uncultured.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:34 AM
horizontal rule
26

Like, this article on women who earn more than their men is scary in a particularly New York sort of way.


Posted by: sin |
Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
27

ummm, yeah
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
28

I'm hoping a new commenter with a forceful pseud appears in a minute to unpack the difference between:

total pussies and those who have given up any huge goals they might have had

I think there's an important difference too, because the latter may find something new that lights their fire.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
29

a combination of reasonably good looks, high cleverness, moderate but not excessive ambition, and just the right balance of competence and vulnerability.

I'm right here, baby.


Posted by: mtd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:40 AM
horizontal rule
30

Asian culture is understood

Asian culture is not understood.


Posted by: Figbash | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:40 AM
horizontal rule
31

21: What are you doing this weekend?


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
32

The North-South difference in openness to interracial dating was surprising. I would have guessed it went the other way -- that while you might be more likely to run into unembarrassed racists down South, that people who thought of themselves as not-racist were more likely to be in racially-integrated social groups in the South than in the North, and so would be more likely to be comfortable with interracial dating. Maybe a differential expectation of trouble from older family members?


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:44 AM
horizontal rule
33

27: Those articles just read like scare tactics to me. I know lots of families in which the woman is the primary breadwinner and the man is just happy being a father and caring for the garden and stuff. Obviously, not all men are raging to be gigantic financial successes, and women who seek that out in a man are mostly really comfortable with it. It's other people who shame them.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:45 AM
horizontal rule
34

26-27: I hate everyone who is quoted in that article, the person who wrote the article, the editor who approved that article, and 32% of the people who read the article.


Posted by: d7c | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
35

All those Korean whores ruined it for me and asian women.


Posted by: bjk | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
36

total pussies and those who have given up any huge goals they might have had

Pussies are good. Huge goals are vastly overrated.


Posted by: sven | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:47 AM
horizontal rule
37

28: Total pussies socially, then guys without huge career ambitions. The groups might intersect, but I know lots of guys who are socially terrified, especially of women, but who have huge ambition, and then plenty of guys whose careers are not the most important thing in their lives who are absolute tigers in social situations.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:48 AM
horizontal rule
38

14: I'm still hoping to overthrow global capitalism by age 35.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:48 AM
horizontal rule
39

How the fuck am I supposed to find a dude who is both smarter and has more ambition than me? All the really smart guys I know are total pussies, or have given up any huge goals they might have had.

"I'm a perfectionist. Sometimes I give too much."


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
40

Plenty of folks here have the statistical chops that I lack, and I'd be curious to hear an informed opinion about the size of the differences involved here. Even accepting that there are measurable differences, the article mostly glosses over the size of those differences.

And to add to Coconut's observation in 19, I'd say that generalizing about "men" and "women' from 400 Columbia graduate and professional students seems like a bit of a reach. To pick one issue: I wonder if an East Asian-looking woman in East Asia would have a different attitude than such a woman at Columbia.


Posted by: bvd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
41

Also, we're onto the attempt to stir up a new, fresh, different feminism argument without the usual suspects saying the usual things. Lur craftiness: also overrated.


Posted by: sven | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
42

37: Is this part of your recurrent complaint that the men you meet aren't as fun-loving and sextastic as you?


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
43

Men's leeriness about dating women more ambitious than themselves is probably closely related to the fear that their partner will make more money than they do.

No, that's not it (at least not for everybody). I dated a woman between my marriages who was significantly more ambitious than I was. Also crazy, but that's a separate issue. What became apparent fairly early in the relationship was that she was NEVER going to accept my level of ambition and, had we stayed together, would be resenting and nagging the fuck out of me to this day.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
44

I thought this was a stale old argument. If anyone was interested in my 32, that'd be a less gendered topic.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
45

(38: It's possible to overthrow global capitalism through teaching seminars and publishing articles in little-read academic journals, right?)


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
46

42: I would far prefer to meet someone who has zero career ambition but who is socially confident and not insecure than to meet yet another megalomanical shrinking violet.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:53 AM
horizontal rule
47

37: My distinctions track yours to some extent, although I think of TPs as having worse character flaws, huge ambition or not, than the others. I am an other, my career has never been the most important thing, but I'm a serious person and have accomplishments I'm proud of.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:53 AM
horizontal rule
48

megalomaniacal, that is.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:53 AM
horizontal rule
49

someone who has zero career ambition but who is socially confident and not insecure

Hello.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
50

another megalomanical shrinking violet.

Well, shoot.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
51

I'm interested in 32, but it's pretty straightforward: Southerners are racist. When I was dating an Indian Muslim guy, my mother took me aside and asked, "why are you trying to punish us? We know you're just doing this to make us upset." When asked how they would feel if I ended up married to a black man, my grandmother said "it would be its own punishment." That side of the family also nicknamed the child of my uncle and his Mexican wife "Pedro."


Posted by: oleo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
52

Goddamn pseuds.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:56 AM
horizontal rule
53

46: So you're saying that you want a man who is perfect in every way -- or at least that that would be the only way for you to find someone "higher up" than you on the social scale. I think that's reasonable.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:57 AM
horizontal rule
54

I'm interested in 32, but it's pretty straightforward: Southerners are racist.

I was trying to think of a nicer way to say this, but, yep, that's it. (Not that I'm willing to withdraw my previously stated concerns about the study.)


Posted by: bvd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:57 AM
horizontal rule
55

Also, we're onto the attempt to stir up a new, fresh, different feminism argument without the usual suspects saying the usual things

For what it's worth Sven, I haven't figured out who's who, and even a familiar old argument without ready attribute-ability would be fun, and might even change a view or two.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
56

megalomanical shrinking violet.

Stop oppressing my people !!


Posted by: bvd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
57

The North-South difference in openness to interracial dating was surprising.

Just because you've explicitly fought socialization doesn't mean you've beaten it. Don't most people find they do a fair bit of backsliding on ideological commitments they make in college? (And that's not always a bad thing.)


Posted by: tgv | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
58

I know lots of guys who are socially terrified, especially of women, but who have huge ambition, and then plenty of guys whose careers are not the most important thing in their lives who are absolute tigers in social situations.

One potential source of male career ambition is a displaced or sublimated desire for social prominence and sexual success, that the person can't satisfy directly because they are too shy. To put it another way, I think there are at least some super-successful men who are driven by trying to finally get the unattainable cheerleader.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
59

it's pretty straightforward: Southerners are racist

Cracker, please. There may be more racists in the South, but "Southerners are racist" is as accurate as "Blacks are on welfare".


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
60

I always think of eddie murcury when i think of gay iranians.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
61

I've discovered that I find intelligence and ambition in women pretty much uniformly sexy. I also seem to know an enormous number of couples where the men are less educated and less ambitious than the women, but better paid. Which figures, I suppose.


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
62

another megalomanical shrinking violet.

I know what you mean, AWB. There's nothing worse than a man who is so consumed by grandiose delusions of his own self-importance that his only recourse is to shrink into shy retirement.


Posted by: cfm | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
63

Frequency and intensity of racism is greater among older Southerners (aka family members) than among their Northern counterparts. Happy?


Posted by: oleo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
64

55: Sure, but we're required to question your motives even when you're masquerading as an armored personnel carrier.


Posted by: sven | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
65

I would far prefer to meet someone who has zero career ambition but who is socially confident and not insecure than to meet yet another megalomani[a]cal sic shrinking violet.

One hesitates to try to untie the knots of assumption and implication in the phrases "zero career ambition" and "socially confident and not insecure."


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
66

Damn, yoyo, you of all people should definitely have used today's pseud. I definitely would have guessed who you are.

Granted the article in 27 is a repulsive, propagandistic scare tactic, but it worked on me. It definitely scared me about dating the kind of women who comment in New York magazine.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
67

53: Of course not. I'm fine with dating someone who isn't interested in his career, but they tend to be terrified of me.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
68

65: someone like curses, that is.


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
69

I think I know who cps is.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
70

Whoever the commenter is behind comment 59, I agree with him or her.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
71

62: You seriously don't know the kind I mean? The kind who wants to take over the world with his mind, but to whom it hasn't occurred that he may have to interact with humans to do it?


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
72

I just read the Single Blind thread and will stop commenting as me now.

That's very clever, AWB, but I already figured out that you are curses.


Posted by: lol | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
73

61: I think this study indicates that there's a real dating opportunity for you, then. Go find yourself an nice physicist who can't get a date because men have trouble getting past her IQ.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
74

67: Did we just have some pseudonym slippage?


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
75

One hesitates to try to untie the knots of assumption and implication in the phrases "zero career ambition" and "socially confident and not insecure."

She just means she wants to find someone who derives security and social confidence from something other than his current or future career prospects. Doesn't sound so unreasonable to me.


Posted by: stp | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
76

This tracks with my dating experience. I'm "smarter" in a fairly impractical, good at crosswords way than lots of people I meet. So I'm fishing in a tiny pool of guys. Only the bright ones are really attractive. Real life example - couldn't take seriously a guy who thinks The Da Vinci Code could be on to something, even though any man who even reads fiction for pleasure is already in the minority.

Meanwhile I can see with my male friends that once a woman is intelligent enough to meet a certain reasonable standard, more intelligence is not seen as a bonus. I'm overweight too so it's basically a bunch of cats in my future.


Posted by: hangnail | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
77

65: My ex was like this, but he was a pretty remarkable person.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
78

I always think of eddie murcury when i think of gay iranians.

Now there's a guy who conclusively made a choice between his faith and his impulses.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
79

eddie mercury wasn't really gay, folks. that was just an act for the stage.


Posted by: lol | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
80

someone who derives security and social confidence from something other than his current or future career prospects.

Clubs and discotheques are full of these guys. Some of them use too much cologne, though.


Posted by: pox | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
81

80 gets it right. What you need, AWB, is a bodybuilder.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
82

64: Questioning my motives is not something I resent, Sven, because I do it myself. And they may see things in my writing I'd rather not were there.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
83

78: Nonsense. Ahura Mazda loves the gays.


Posted by: Figbash | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
84

76: Something that's interesting about the article is that the intelligence/ambition preference in their data doesn't seem to be symmetrical. While women are attracted to intelligence and ambition, they don't report any particular effect for women from seeing a partner as less intelligent or ambitious than themselves (I suppose this would show up as intelligent, ambitious women not liking anyone much.) From this data, the requirement for the male partner's being more intelligent and ambitious seems to come from men, primarily.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
85

We megalomaniac shrinking violets can be very nice people, once you get to know us.


Posted by: Mac | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
86

63: Show me the numbers.


Posted by: adz | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
87

81: I have done that, actually. In his case, it didn't work out because he got freaked out about my sex drive and editing skills. But I'd happily date someone who isn't a careerhound, as long as he's clever. Mental whateverness, you know.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
88

81: or a graduate student?


Posted by: aos | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
89

81: If Sam Fussell's available she can stick it to the old man.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
90

FM was Parsi and was given a proper Zoroastrian funeral despite his gayness.


Posted by: Mung | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
91

I always think of eddie murcury when i think of gay iranians.

Whoever posted the comment above just showed an utter ignorance of history and is a stupid racist bastard.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
92

Not to re-open an argument you tried to apologize for but . . .

How the fuck am I supposed to find a dude who ... has more ambition than me?

That's a rather high bar

Since I was a very little girl, I wanted to be optimistic about what I could do to change the world for the better. I was told I should do that through the church, so I was a Christian, until I realized that Christianity wanted me to marry someone who would change the world. I became a scientist, until I realized that all my research would basically mean nothing unless it produced some hideously expensive drug whose side-effects would be swept under the rug. So I became a writer, until I realized that, unless I sounded exactly like the bland shitty bourgeois self-absorbed novelists du jour, I'd never get a contract. So I became an academic, and I'm becoming increasingly aware that ideas that have the potential to affect more than 150 people in the world are considered not terribly interesting,


Posted by: bbh | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
93

90 pwned by 83.


Posted by: Mung | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
94

Does anyone know why I torture myself reading the blogs of extremely interesting but unavailable-to-me women?


Posted by: d7c | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
95

Does anyone know why I torture myself reading the blogs of extremely interesting but unavailable-to-me women?

Because you need to get a divorce!


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:20 PM
horizontal rule
96

84 is exactly right.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:20 PM
horizontal rule
97

No, I'm pretty sure that's not it.


Posted by: d7c | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
98

I have never had any problem being with women who might be more intelligent or ambitious than me, but I felt like it was impossible to continue the relationship with a woman who had a higher sex drive than me. So different stereotypes affect different people.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
99

and editing skills

You mean like w-lfs-n's?


Posted by: Mung | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:22 PM
horizontal rule
100

92: That's just it. I don't care if I find someone who is more ambitious than me. But 84 is right; if men can't date women who are more ambitious than them without getting all "onoes, her dick might be bigger than mines!!" what the hell are we supposed to do?


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:22 PM
horizontal rule
101

How the fuck am I supposed to find a dude who is both smarter and has more ambition than me?

Sorry, I'm spoken for.


Posted by: Figbash | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
102

someone who has zero career ambition but who is socially confident and not insecure

What about someone who has zero career ambition, is deeply insecure, but still manages to hide his insecurities behind a mask of confidence and gay abandon?


Posted by: fnord | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
103

But 84 is right; if men can't date women who are more ambitious than them

Oh, I misread your initial comment as, "this is what I want" not, "if these are the only people who would date me, how do I find them?"


Posted by: bbh | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
104

From this data, the requirement for the male partner's being more intelligent and ambitious seems to come from men, primarily.

Not more, I think: equal or less.


Posted by: tgv | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
105

104: Either you misread the quoted sentence, or you're making an interesting and controversial claim.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:29 PM
horizontal rule
106

Sometimes men whose careers are their first priority don't want to be with an ambitious woman because they are afraid a situation will arise where one or the other partner will have to sacrifice their career ambitions for the relationship. Rather than cock-size issues, perhaps.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:30 PM
horizontal rule
107

101 made me laugh.


Posted by: cfm | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:30 PM
horizontal rule
108

In all my best relationships, my male partner has been the smarter one, but I've been the more ethical one. Ambition itself, then, can be seen as a product of my desire to do something in the world, not my smarts.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:31 PM
horizontal rule
109

You sound cute, Adam Kotsko. Wanna fuck?


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:33 PM
horizontal rule
110

You sound cute, Adam Kotsko. Wanna fuck?


Posted by: global capitalism | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:33 PM
horizontal rule
111

: Either you misread the quoted sentence, or you're making an interesting and controversial claim.

Sorry. Equal or more. But--I thought that this was sort of interesting--men are fine with equally ambitious women.


Posted by: tgv | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
112

I don't care if I find someone who is more ambitious than me

Ever been on the receiving end of a partner who thinks you may have a bit of the lazy bum in you, i.e. you're not as ambitious as they are? It's not great.

if men can't date women who are more ambitious than them ... what the hell are we supposed to do?

Where does it say men can't date women who, etc.?

Some men can do this. Probably quite a few. What to do? Go find them. OR go ahead and generalize from the reported trend among 400 grad school types and declare it's all a lost cause.


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:35 PM
horizontal rule
113

The comment in 92 remains as eloquent as ever.


Posted by: Booze Not Bombs | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:36 PM
horizontal rule
114

eddie mercury wasn't really gay

What's more, he wasn't named Eddie.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:36 PM
horizontal rule
115

I can't decide whether self-congratulation is the most attractive habit, or if whining is. Anyway, it's a winning combination.


Posted by: Mung | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
116

Man, you guys are mean when you're anonymous. Come to think of it, you're mean when you're not anonymous. So I suppose it all works out.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
117

It's weird to realize you're not really among friends.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:39 PM
horizontal rule
118

117 to 116? If so, sad!


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
119

86: I'm looking. There's this, but it breaks out region and age separately. Anecdotally, I've never met a white non-Southerner with similar stories about family reactions to interracial relationships.


Posted by: oleo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
120

115: I literally laughed out loud at this.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
121

And the comments and its sisters from the linked thread in 92 rattled a lot of cages around here; I've had a lot of OB exchanges about it.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
122

119: My mom and dad would be fine if my sister or I brought home someone of a different race (or at least my mom would), but in my extended family, it'd be an issue. Both sides.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:42 PM
horizontal rule
123

Questioning my motives is not something I resent, Sven, because I do it myself. And they may see things in my writing I'd rather not were there.

Just to be absolutely clear, since it's harder to get the tone right when you take the history away: the original comment was purely teasing and I really do agree with the thoughts expressed in 55.

Ever been on the receiving end of a partner who thinks you may have a bit of the lazy bum in you, i.e. you're not as ambitious as they are? It's not great.

That occasionally creeps into my home life a little bit, as does my partner's concern about being viewed as overly careerist and uncaring. It balances out.


Posted by: sven | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:48 PM
horizontal rule
124

I'm sorry I got into this argument. It's none of my business.


Posted by: Mung | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
125

I like a woman who informs me periodically of her ambition, attractiveness and social power as much as the next man with a lot of practice wearing an I am interested in what you are saying expression. I particularly like the "some guys aren't secure enough to handle that" part, because that usually means the speech is close to finished.


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:54 PM
horizontal rule
126

I've never met a white non-Southerner with similar stories about family reactions to interracial relationships.

I take it you're not a (nor have you know any) non-Asian people who've dated an Asian person in one of the various ethnic enclaves?


Posted by: richard hiscock | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
127

Asian people are not white non-Southerners.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
128

Fuck generalizations about what "men" and "women" prefer. What's interesting about this study is that graduate/professional school men like smart women only up to a point, whereas graduate/professional women self-defeatingly prefer men with a lot of ambition. Also, graduate/professional men may "not discriminate" racially because white graduate/professional men are (duh) higher status than women of all races, whereas graduate/professional women may discriminate because they don't want to date someone "lower" than them on the social status scale.

All this study (tries to) prove is that the things we already know about gender and status are, apparently, simply a question of (women's) "choices" and therefore nothing men need worry about.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
129

125's drollery is surpassed only by the pseudonym, which totally rocks.


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
130

I think I know who posted 128!


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
131

127: One too many negations there threw me for a loop.


Posted by: richard hiscock | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
132

Since I was being kept secret from the family of the Indian boyfriend, I'm aware that white people do not have a monopoly on racist opposition to interracial relationships. And what 127 said.


Posted by: oleo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
133

Feather Indian or dot Indian?


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:00 PM
horizontal rule
134

117: You are, but the hostility is still surprising.


Posted by: sven | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
135

I've never met a white non-Southerner with similar stories about family reactions to interracial relationships.

Oleo, I don't know how old you are, but within my lifetime the phrase "Sure, but would you want your sister to marry one?" has been an argument-winning comeback even in far northern latitudes of this country.


Posted by: pox | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
136

Bitch is right right right in 128.

graduate/professional school men like smart women only up to a point

So true.


Posted by: zoom! | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
137

How many Native American Muslims are there, anyway?


Posted by: oleo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
138

fun-loving and sextastic

Plus is as comfortable in jeans as a in tux.


Posted by: toy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
139

I want someone who likes going out, but also likes to stay in sometimes.


Posted by: Castrating Harpy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
140

What's funny is that I'm used to people misreading me and making sexist assumptions about my sexual preferences. That's what y'all do, to needle me and deflate me, I guess. But when that needling is tied to the name of someone I know cares about me, it's funny. All these unfamiliar names means the needling just reads as unkindness and hostility. Very weird. I pronounce: Single Blind Day blows. I want my friends back.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
141

A partner in crime!


Posted by: zoom! | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
142

140 to 134


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
143

137: There are a surprising number of converts in Michigan, actually.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
144

I think the "sexist presumption" was cleared up in #103.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
145

Also, graduate/professional men may "not discriminate" racially because white graduate/professional men are (duh) higher status than women of all races, whereas graduate/professional women may discriminate because they don't want to date someone "lower" than them on the social status scale.

By this logic, wouldn't the women all prefer white men, since white men are at the top of the social status scale, as opposed to the article, which suggests they preferred men of the same ethnicity?


Posted by: Figbash | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
146

136: That point being the point at which the woman is capable of appreciating the man's brilliance and his graciousness in complimenting her own intelligence.

Not to pretend to be innocent of this on my own part, though.


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:08 PM
horizontal rule
147

143: Interesting.

I'm not that old, but perhaps my Yankee acquaintances are simply less forthcoming about their wacky racist relatives.


Posted by: oleo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:09 PM
horizontal rule
148

141: OMG, I'm looking for a partner in crime, too! Do you mind if I'm quirky? Also, I like to think of myself as a shy extrovert who likes to be pampered sometimes.


Posted by: Castrating Harpy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
149

But how do you feel about long walks on the beach?


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
150

Single Blind Day is valuable, because it may reveal the true extent of our alienation and disagreement.


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
151

That's a little cliche, but I do like music and travel.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
152

Damn you, reverting comment-box!!!


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:12 PM
horizontal rule
153

148: But are you interested in exploring all the city has to offer?


Posted by: zoom! | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:12 PM
horizontal rule
154

150: That's what this blog needs. Hostile sulking!


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
155

148: Definitely! Do you know any good dive bars?


Posted by: Castrating Harpy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
156

Single Blind Day is valuable, because it may reveal the true extent of our alienation and disagreement.

Also because no one assumes I'm trying to be horribly bitter and hostile when I write with this handle. Viva Figbash!


Posted by: Figbash | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
157

Love is a verb, not a noun, you lovebirds.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
158

155: I do, but first I have to ask: do you go to the gym? I take care of myself, and you should too.


Posted by: zoom! | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
159

I hate you all.


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
160

145: Yeah, that's an interesting problem. It suggests that possibly professional women, like the men, only want to be out-classed "up to a point," or maybe that low-status graduate/professional women are acutely conscious of subtle racism in their fields and, accordingly, more judgmental of white men. That is, their conscious rejection of the ways they're professionally disadvantaged because of race might counterbalance the status thing.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
161

Someone has pointed out that the article's contentions about the non-existence of Yellow Fever are almost certainly bullshit, right? We've covered that base?


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
162

158: Didn't you see that my interests included Yoga and Being a Health-Nut? Also, you'd better love biking!


Posted by: Castrating Harpy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
163

Does anyone ever specify the "crime(s)" for which he or she is seeking a "partner"?

For example, I'd be happy to meet a woman who wanted to steal Romney's portrait of Lady Hamilton from the Frick. Also, a skilled knife-fighter.


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:18 PM
horizontal rule
164

Hostile sulking!

An alternative to bickering. A sexism threadstarter may not have been the best choice.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:18 PM
horizontal rule
165

161: If you average out the tastes of Columbia students, I'm sure there's no such thing as a shoe fetish or male submissiveness, either.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:18 PM
horizontal rule
166

Oh, I bet 165 is wrong about male submissiveness and Columbia graduate/professional students. I bet the study would show that surprisingly! men are far more submissive than women.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
167

A sexism threadstarter may not have been the best choice.

I suggest a thread on the tastiness of pie.


Posted by: Figbash | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
168

163

I want to be a partner in that prostitution crime! That sounds like the most fun!


Posted by: toy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
169

163: Online personals are actually a major recruiting ground for terror cells. One of the most under-reported stories of the last six years.


Posted by: Castrating Harpy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
170

I know who Castrating Harpy is.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
171

I like long walks on the beach -- with Adam Kotsko!


Posted by: Mac | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
172

168: Prostitution isn't actually a crime in my state, as long as it happens indoors.


Posted by: Figbash | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
173

I like 128 too. And I'm not trying to reopen old wounds like scurvy, but I wonder if it throws some light on the Hirshman issues. They may have looked like they started of equal in promise and ambition and one threw it over when the other never would, but these propensities might have been operating much earlier, on both.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
174

Of course you do. I flagrantly revealed it above.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
175

166 gets it right.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
176

162: Oh right, I overlooked those. Maybe I can also introduce you to rock climbing?

Yoga, eh? That must mean you're pretty flexible.


Posted by: zoom! | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
177

166: There is a difference between submissiveness in personality and sexual submissiveness, right? A lot of the submissives I know tend to be really vocal and powerful outside the bedroom and like the idea of someone else being in charge for a while. But yeah, I didn't mean Columbia specifically, just that if you average out any population, fetishy sexual interests will disappear, obviously. The two guys out of 300 with YF, e.g., are not going to be statistically significant if you're trying to come up with a statement of guys go like this, girls go like this.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
178

176: No, it means that I own a yoga mat and keep it stuffed in a corner near the TV.


Posted by: Castrating Harpy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
179

Damn, damn, damn. I want so much to comment on this thread but the damned working and the bosses and the not having time. Figures Single Blind day would conflict with my very important schedule!


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
180

173: Argh.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
181

173: I think Hirshman actually said as much, specifically, at the time.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
182

92: AWB is a megalomaniac, but not a shrinking violet.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:30 PM
horizontal rule
183

Also, OT and all, but this is well worth a read. Sports, human interest emotions, just the thing to bring the men and womyn together.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:30 PM
horizontal rule
184

Barbara Manatee ??? Veggie tales???


Posted by: xxx | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
185

178: C-ya! I'm sure superfunstuff78 must be skinnier than you.


Posted by: zoom! | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
186

180, 181: Very possible, in fact I think I remember it. Certainly a lot about getting serious about careers and what-are-you-going-to-do-with-thats in college.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
187

177: That's what I meant. IME, grad student men are way more likely to be sexually submissive than non-grad student men. And I'm going to imagine that Columbia grad-student men are more likely than average to be insufferably smug in seminars, and so therefore.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
188

All this study (tries to) prove is that the things we already know about gender and status are, apparently, simply a question of (women's) "choices" and therefore nothing men need worry about.

Sort of. But there's also the part about men not wanting someone more ambitious/accomplished, which is about men's choices. Still, stuff we already knew.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:35 PM
horizontal rule
189

179: This article made me think of unfogged, for some reason.


Posted by: bvd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
190

I'm a Republican. My dating preferences are simple: a dead woman, or a live boy.


Posted by: Booze Not Bombs | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
191

grad student men are way more likely to be sexually submissive than non-grad student men.

This is because intellectuals aren't real men. Except for General Petraeus, and that guy who stars in the Tom Clancy books.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
192

if you're trying to come up with a statement of guys go like this, girls go like this.

Why would you try to come up with a statement like this?


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:38 PM
horizontal rule
193

163: I am known throughout the land for my knife-wielding skills.

Also, I think that the most romantic dates involve trespassing on government property.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:38 PM
horizontal rule
194

grad student men are way more likely to be sexually submissive than non-grad student men

What?


Posted by: richard hiscock | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:38 PM
horizontal rule
195

grad student men are way more likely to be sexually submissive than non-grad student men

Not my experience at all. I must have dated too much in the Spanish department.


Posted by: zoom! | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
196

191: On the contrary; it's because they're arrogant twerps.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
197

184: Yuh huh -- one of Larry's finer silly songs, shedding light on the very question here of the drama inherent in male-female coupling rituals.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
198

192: Because you're a girl.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
199

191: But intellectual women aren't real women either as proven by SDB.


Posted by: xxx | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
200

grad student men are way more likely to be sexually submissive than non-grad student men

I've also found--but of course, this is only personal experience--that they also have a higher incidence of being extremely neurotic about sex, which is a disappointment. I should get out more.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
201

Oh, the huge manatee!


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
202

185: That was unrealistic, because you made your snap judgment, then wrote back rather than just leaving me hanging.


Posted by: Castrating Harpy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
203

193: Erm, what are you doing this weekend?


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
204

193: I'd also like to meet a woman who is a big fan of Jorge Luis Borges.


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:42 PM
horizontal rule
205

But intellectual women aren't real women either as proven by SDB

Hence, all the neurosis involved with sex between grad students.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
206

I'm a Republican. My dating preferences are simple: a dead woman, or a live boy.

I can't decide whether or not this comment conclusively disproves my hypothesis that Booze Not Bombs is Blume.


Posted by: pox | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
207

192: Isn't that all "science" does these days? It's really gross.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
208

200, 205: Yup.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
209

203, 204: Wow, we could have some fun, couldn't we? My Saturday plans quite likely involve being places I shouldn't be.

& I used to have a conflicted relationship with Borges, but I've forgiven him since realizing that much of the Borges criticism is the source of the problem. XIII, what about Danilo Kiš?


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
210

205: If we tentatively don't count a professional degree as "grad school," then it would appear that -- shockingly -- I have never slept with a grad student.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
211

202: True. But in this forum I had to perform that for everyone else.


Posted by: zoom! | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
212

I suspect I know the identity of Figbash.


Posted by: Emblus Fingby | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
213

I think that the most romantic dates involve trespassing on government property.

If it's an approved conjugal visit, it's not really trespassing.


Posted by: pox | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
214

200 is way true. Every six months or so, I have to remind myself that it is excruciatingly stupid to think any grad school boy I meet will ever put out.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:46 PM
horizontal rule
215

I pronounce: Single Blind Day blows. I want my friends back.

We still love you, AWB. Even though (with rare exceptions) we've never met you.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
216

205, 208: Doom, doom--but at least stories of the "sex with grad students" genre tend to make for extremely entertaining retelling.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
217

WHAT? We put out, damnit!


Posted by: Grad school boy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
218

I've also found--but of course, this is only personal experience--that they also have a higher incidence of being extremely neurotic about sex, which is a disappointment.

I would guess that being neurotic about sex correlates extremely highly with being concerned about a sex partner's pleasure rather than simply one's own. Said concern leads to a feeling of hopelessness about the possibility of accurately communicating in such matters, which leads to ennui.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
219

This is reminding me why--or just that--I don't much like puzzles.


Posted by: sven | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
220

217: Maybe, but you'd want to "talk" about it afterwards.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:49 PM
horizontal rule
221

213: Not yet--show some imagination.

214, 217: Oh, they put out--but it's just. so. complicated. afterward. Or during, which is worse.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:49 PM
horizontal rule
222

218: WTF? Are you a super neurotic grad student or something? Stop overthinking things -- other people like sex too, nature designed us to.

I've only slept with one female grad student, and she was neurotic, but I've been with lots of lady professors, and they were all enthusiastic and fine. So cheer up, just get your Phd and things will be great!


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
223

I would guess that being neurotic about sex correlates extremely highly with being concerned about not being concerned about a sex partner's pleasure


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
224

218 is a charitable reading of the situation.

also, pwned by 220.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
225

206: Or maybe pox is Blume, trying to throw us off the scent.


Posted by: zoom! | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
226

Maybe I don't know what "neurotic" means. To me it means "overthinking everything, leading to an inability to get things done"


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
227

I've been with lots of lady professors, and they were all enthusiastic and fine

This somehow gives a very peculiar picture of sin's sex life. Randy librarian? Guy who hands out the name tags at conferences?


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
228

Without some degree of neurosis, advanced scholarship is impossible.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
229

209: Never heard of him. My reference to JLB is probably due to something that "The Uncivil Teacher of Etiquette, Kotsuke no Suke" reminded me of recently.


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
230

226: Yeah, I think that's it. In grad student boys, it tends to be self-loathing mixed with pride, covered over by self-analysis and constant introspection.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
231

I would guess that being neurotic about sex correlates extremely highly with being concerned about a sex partner's pleasure rather than simply one's own. Said concern leads to a feeling of hopelessness about the possibility of accurately communicating in such matters, which leads to ennui.

Being concerned about the partner's pleasure, perhaps, in a particularly over-achiever, performance-focused sort of way that loses focus on the partner in the obsession with providing the pleasure.

Trust me, that sentence (fragment) makes perfect sense.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
232

being neurotic about sex correlates extremely highly with being concerned about a sex partner's pleasure rather than simply one's own because their pleasure massages your ego.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
233

228: Agreed. But "some neurosis" w/r/t sex can mean "general kinkiness," which is fine, but "pervasive neurosis" can just lead to the ol' trainwreck-in-bed scenario.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
234

218
Tautological logic is bad for healthy sex.


Posted by: toy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
235

229: Ki


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:55 PM
horizontal rule
236

New thread, please. This one blows. If there's a worse topic than grad student sex, I don't want to know about it.


Posted by: pox | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:55 PM
horizontal rule
237

Damnit.

229: Kiš is underrated--like Borges but rather more pleasant. Besides, Eastern Bloc writers are just fun fun fun.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
238

wtf? Ok, this is totally whack. Now my entire class of people is being castigated as bad in bed because we -- heaven forfend -- try and please our partners.

Perhaps you would all like to go back to the "lay still and think of England" days? It would certainly be a lot easier for us.


Posted by: grad student boy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
239

Gah, 231 is pwned by like 40 comments, all of which are more articulate.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
240

wtf? Ok, this is totally whack. Now my entire class of people is being castigated as bad in bed because we -- heaven forfend -- try and please our partners.

Perhaps you would all like to go back to the "lay still and think of England" days? It would certainly be a lot easier for us.


Posted by: grad student boy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
241

wtf? Ok, this is totally whack. Now my entire class of people is being castigated as bad in bed because we -- heaven forfend -- try and please our partners.

Perhaps you would all like to go back to the "lay still and think of England" days? It would certainly be a lot easier for us.


Posted by: grad student boy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
242

This thread seems to have definitively proved that overeducated men and overeducated women kind of resent each other.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
243

(sorry for the triple post, tech glitch


Posted by: grad student boy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
244

240: Your entire class of people is being castigated because they never get around to actually having any sex. They just talk about it all the time.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
245

Triple posters are invariably bad in bed.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
246

Without some degree of neurosis, advanced scholarship is impossible.

This is my new excuse.


Posted by: cod | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
247

Shorter grad student boy: "what? You don't think I'm awesome in bed? Well, *fuck you*, here I am trying to please you and it's not working! Why do women only like assholes?"


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
248

238&c.: Calm down, sweetheart. You're not all bad in bed--in fact, the grad students I've slept with have been some of the best lays--you just all have teh crazy about it either before, during, or after.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
249

238, 240: No, no. We don't want you to ignore our pleasure. We just don't want you to treat us like a project to be successfully completed. If you seem to be carrying out a task rather than having fun, it's kind of a buzzkill.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
250

And the comments and its sisters from the linked thread in 92 rattled a lot of cages around here; I've had a lot of OB exchanges about it.

I really was not trying to open that can of worms in 92 (though it may have been inevitable), I was just trying to tease.

Back to the original post, I wonder if the differing results in the importance assigned to intelligence is based on the fact that men and women have very different social norms about competitive displays of intelligence.

If it's socially acceptable for men to frequently engage in displays of intelligence or ambition it makes it easier for women to identify and categorize men based on those traits. If women are conditioned to be more circumspect in their displays it makes sense that men would look for other cues.


Posted by: bbh | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
251

241 et al.: It wouldn't be so bad if you grad students didn't ask for an orgasm count and then put a corresponding number of notches in your belt.


Posted by: Castrating Harpy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
252

God, closing tags. I wish I had "it's Friday" as an excuse.

246: What excuse were you using before?


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
253

This thread seems to have definitively proved that men and women resent each other.

Fixed.


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
254

To be fair, non-grad-student-men are also crazy and neurotic about sex. They're just less verbal about the crazy neurosis, so it's easier to ignore.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
255

Laying still and thinking of England is preferable to double-posting.


Posted by: Booze Not Bombs | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
256

Yeah, there's mutual enjoyment and then there's being the canvas on which someone demonstrates their prowess and sensitivity.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
257

243
That's sort of in sync with the topic.


Posted by: toy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
258

249: We just don't want you to treat us like a project to be successfully completed.

So, calling up a friend to report that you've found the clitoris... that's bad, right?


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
259

251: Exactly!


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
260

ack, I hate to break it to you, but when someone says "you're bad in bed because you try to please us," it's entirely on point to say "well, perhaps you'd rather we not try and please you, then." It has nothing to do with niceguyism or any of that bullshit. And "fuck you" is totally appropriate as a response to being told "trying to please me is what keeps you from pleasing me."


Posted by: grad student boy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
261

249: I became a better lover when I realized that insisting that the woman come was almost as bad as not paying any attention to whether she did.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
262

Someone put up a new thread, please! I might have to go back to doing work if this shit keeps up.


Posted by: pox | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
263

Actually, I sort of don't mind the kind of guy who fucks to get himself off, as long as it's possible for me to do the same thing at the same time (like, he doesn't require me to just lie still). In fact, I'd say that's the hottest kind of sex I've ever had.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:04 PM
horizontal rule
264

I think this is bracing, and great.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
265

244
As my dad in the white t-shirt with a rolled-up sleeve of cigarettes used to say- some things are talking things and other things are doing things.


Posted by: toy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
266

237: Really? I find Eastern European writers less sympathetic, generally.

261: Or, as the lady said at Pamela Harriman's funeral: "There are no tricks. There is only enthusiasm."


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
267

260, please refer to 261.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
268

260: So who wants to fuck grad student boy tonight? Show of hands? Finally -- a man who's not afraid of women's sexuality!


Posted by: Castrating Harpy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
269

(like, he doesn't require me to just lie still).

College roommate of a friend reported a boyfriend who asked that she take a very cold bath before sex. And lie perfectly still. (Not a grad student, though!)


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
270

263: you have no idea how or why the guy is fucking. The best lovers fuck to get you off, but make it seem like they're just animalistically concerned with getting themselves off because you've driven them mad with passion and made them forget all technique or self-control. Women love that, it's a testimony to their power.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
271

The problem isn't that graduate student boys are neurotic in bed, but that they're neurotic in bed in the exact same way that graduate student girls are. They repulse each other like magnets.


Posted by: lju | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
272

I think a lot of women are just *sure* that their sexual preferences are universal. So on a site like this, you'll see one knot of women saying "why are so-and-so group of men so clueless they don't realize we just want to be thrown on the bed and fucked silly without any of that damn talking?" On the next site over, a different group of women are saying "why are so-and-so group of men so clueless that they don't ask us what we like then do it?"


Posted by: grad student boy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
273

Actually, I sort of don't mind the kind of guy who fucks to get himself off

You busy tonight, cps?


Posted by: pox | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
274

270: I come giving blowjobs. A dude getting himself off is hott.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
275

266: Generally, yes, but compared to Borges, Kiš offers the same kind of interesting crypticness with a really pleasant dose of the humane.

268: Hey, we could save it for Sex-Party Saturday. We've already agreed to trespass on government property!


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
276

272: And do you have a good answer for either of those questions? I think not.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
277

270: No. That can be totally hot, but there's also nothing wrong with directly trying to cause an orgasm because you're genuinely enthusiastic about it, think it's fucking awesome when a woman comes, and sure, maybe there's a little bit of ego trip involved. A guy on an ego trip isn't unattractive. What's a complete cold shower is trying to make a woman come because you're *worried* that she won't, or that you don't know how, or that you're doing it wrong. Then the woman ends up in the position of, oh, I have to have an orgasm now to reassure this poor boy. Which is NOT sexy.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
278

I'm going to PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE take the opportunity PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE to do PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE an imitation of another commenter. I have noticed ARE YOU BEING PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE WITH ME a tendency on this commenter's part. I can't PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE put a finger on PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE what it is.


Posted by: nihil | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
279

260: Oh poor grad student boy. It's really not so tricky. We want you to try to please us, you are just not likely to be very successful if we get the impression that trying to please us is: (1) a bit of a chore for you, (2) a little test to prove your skills, (3) a process that is all about what you do to us. In other words, we kind of want to be part of the pleasing process and we want to think both of us are in it for the fun of it.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
280

272: Maybe you're reading them as universalizations, when we mean "IME"? Most of the guys I meet are neurotic, inward, and obsessed with trying to act pleasing, but that's because I'm in a particular social milieu. A lot of the women who complain about all the men they meet being brutes are probably meeting a lot of brutes.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
281

277: yes, I do. It's because the men who the first group are sleeping with are listening to the second group, and vice versa. That was the point, duh.


Posted by: grad student boy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
282

277: yes, I do. It's because the men who the first group are sleeping with are listening to the second group, and vice versa. That was the point, duh.


Posted by: grad student boy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
283

I think a lot of women are just *sure* that their sexual preferences are universal.

I think that some insecure defensive boys are just *sure* that "a lot of women" are all alike, and that their (the boys') personal problems with sex are somehow the fault of Those Women.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
284

275: Borges is about as humane as I care to get. "In Memoriam, J.F.K." makes me a bit misty, actually.


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
285

What excuse were you using before?

You mean for my neuroses or for my low output of advanced scholarship?


Posted by: cod | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
286

Yeah, 270 was reductionist. The truth is that once you get a little bit of experience, the distinction between getting yourself off and getting your partner off fades and eventually vanishes. But that takes confidence in your skillz. Like 276 said.

Also, one night stands often make for bad sex, when you know you'll do it again you can just relax about stuff.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
287

Ack: right back at you, but with the genders switched.


Posted by: grad student boy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
288

It would be great if grad student boy turned out to be AWB.


Posted by: cod | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
289

College roommate of a friend reported a boyfriend who asked that she take a very cold bath before sex. And lie perfectly still.

Ewwwww!

Give the guy credit for having the guts to talk openly about his needs, though.


Posted by: pox | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
290

grad student boy: Ever seen the movie "Election" with Matthew Broderick?


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
291

278 is hilarious, and grad student boy is doing an excellent job of living up to the stereotype associated with his pseud.

Which means either he's a genius parodist, or else, well, man. Sad.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
292

286: Some of the best sex I've had has been one-night stands, perhaps because they happened out of inconquerable and inappropriate lust, not in some kind of negotiation of a relationship. But that's sad, I guess.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
293

GSB, you're being a total douche. Come on.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
294

I'm not positive who "ack" is, but I know she's being pointlessly inflammatory.


Posted by: Second-order pseudonym | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
295

284: Suit yourself. We can still have knife-fighting dates.

285: The latter. I've heard (& used) the "I'm just the crazy one over here, I'll publish in another five years" excuse so many times that I'm not sure if anyone even uses a different excuse anymore.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:18 PM
horizontal rule
296

288: I guarantee he isn't. AWB's neither misogynist nor prone to taking everything personally.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:18 PM
horizontal rule
297

Lot easier to figure identities here than other thread.


Posted by: aps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
298

I come giving blowjobs.

Will you marry me?


Posted by: pox | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
299

I'm going to adopt another pseudonym, quote my earlier posts, and write "so true! brilliant!" underneath. I always wanted to do that.

once you get a little bit of experience, the distinction between getting yourself off and getting your partner off fades and eventually vanishes.

This is so true! And also brilliant! In bed, the distinction between pleasing self and pleasing other is an artificial one that eventually vanishes into a higher synthesis. Sex is all about merging and losing individuality.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
300

292: I don't see how that's sad--at least you're getting what you want, right? I'm all for it.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
301

291: I was thinking along the lines of this:

Which means either he's a genius parodist, or else, well, man. Sad.


Posted by: cod | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
302

I'm actually stuck on GSB. I'm kind of surprised -- his comments seem like the sort that should be easily attributed. (And 277 was meant to be lightly comic, GSB. It failed, but I didn't mean to be jumping into this one for real.)


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
303

Further level of experiment would be no identities at all, just comments, which would refer to one another by number.


Posted by: aps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
304

I think GSB is one of the big payoffs of anon day so far. Come on everybody, say what you really think!

Ogged, don't reveal pseuds later.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:23 PM
horizontal rule
305

299: Get a haircut, hippie.


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:24 PM
horizontal rule
306

Ogged, reveal everyone's real name and location later, so we can compare their comments to what we can google about their personal lives!


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:24 PM
horizontal rule
307

I can't figure out what 278 is about. Could someone please enlighten me?


Posted by: vit | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
308

I'm guessing he's B indeed but not GS. Not that the attributed sins aren't real.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:26 PM
horizontal rule
309

302 gets it right, he doesn't sound like a regular. Although I would base that more on the fact that we hardly ever have double-posting incidents around here and GSB seems to be having quite a lot of them.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
310

I totally agree with what toy has been saying.


Posted by: toy2 | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
311

Serves us all right when he turns out to be Ogged.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
312

307: It would be mean.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
313

GSB might be very young, you know. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for young men to worry about being pleasing lovers. You practice a few of those skills for a while, and then, when you've constructed a body of go-to skills, you can later think more in terms of raw animal lust, knowing that, in a pinch, you will know how to get someone off.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
314

Or not a regular, true. I was thinking which regular he could be, and no grad students came to mind


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
315

214: B has so many modes that she could be 3 or 4 people here and stay in character.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
316

Further to 290: because his wife in that movie totally evinces the female version of what ack is talking about.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
317

Well, this has kind of been the thread for mean.


Posted by: vit | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
318

As a former sufferer of "yellow fever", I would say :

I was rather socially awkward growing up. In high school (US, Texas, even) I started doing academic extracurricular activities like Latin and math club, as well as drama. I made a lot of East Asian friends, male and female, who were like me in that we were all rather intelligent, and rather socially unsophisticated. It was within this social pool that my first several romantic relationships occurred. I knew other white boys more or less like myself. Within this anecdata, I observed relatively fewer relationships between white girls and East Asian boys.


Posted by: bub | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
319

314: That is, maybe he's just running drills right now and confusing it for having a Total Game Strategy.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
320

in a pinch, you will know how to get someone off.

A virtuoso move.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
321

(These others may be lying in wait for you like a nest of vipers, GSB, but I'm the viper whose venom is made of love.)


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
322

he doesn't sound like a regular

For one thing, a regular would have known better to run through the lions den waving a handful of porterhouse steaks like GSB did.


Posted by: pox | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
323

Look, GSB, you sound young b/c you sound like you don't have all that much experience yet. Women are *not* all alike, and even if they were they would *not* want being fucked to be someone's fucking art project.


Posted by: kik | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
324

314 gets it right. I mean, does the concept of being "good in bed" mean anything, or doesn't it?

Many women here in threads about early sexual experiences have referred to being disappointed by the inability of teenage boys to get them off. This creates a milieu in which teenage boys feel that it is somewhat important to be able to get girls off.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
325

Well, this has kind of been the thread for mean.

<gripe>And the thread for people not quoting the comment to which they are responding. It's been a long time since there's been a thread that has required more scrolling than this one.</gripe>


Posted by: bbh | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
326

318: What you're describing isn't really Yellow Fever, then. Yellow Fever is the dude who's all about getting with an Asian chick, because man are they crazy in the sack. Which is a widespread enough fetish that entire subsections of the pron industry are built around it, AFAIK.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
327

315: John, John, you poor dear. Women are just Completely Mysterious, aren't they?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
328

323: I certainly hope the grant committee doesn't agree with that.


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
329

And as women gain experience, different kinds of things get them off. When I was a college virgin, a soft timid touch would have been just the thing, but the boys were all so hard and awkward and rough. Now that I have somewhat more experience, the boys all seem way too gentle and timid. The answer, clearly, is to fuck undergrads.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
330

322 is hilarious.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
331

Woohoo!


Posted by: Undergrads | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
332

So, Emerson! How's that no-relationship policy look now? Aren't you sorry you're missing the fun.


Posted by: Mac | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
333

Well, to be fair, part of the "what gets women off?" issue is that, duh, women are less likely than guys to just be straightforwardly selfish about this. Which isn't the guy's fault, and it does really fucking suck.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
334

Random, by dear B.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
335

It would be a complete trip if people had delurked for super-anonymity day, and the reason identities aren't apparent is because some of the commenters aren't from around these here parts.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
336

Well, this has kind of been the thread for mean.

I read this as "Well, this has kind of been the thread for men," and then went off on a happy mental tangent contemplating the awesome possible ads for MANYARN, the thread for men.


Posted by: kwrl | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
337

318
Christ on a cracker. Did you just apologize for liking Asian women? Since when did we decide that being being generally attracted to a certain kind of person constituted racism?


Posted by: toy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
338

336 is great.


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
339

I mean, does the concept of being "good in bed" mean anything, or doesn't it?

Sure, yeah, the concept of being "good in bed" means something. It's just not entirely a mechanical something. Letting a girl know she's getting you off is kind of hot. Telegraphing that you are overly anxious about whether you are getting her off really isn't. Like Ack said in 276, this just makes her feel pressured to come so that you won't feel bad and then neither one of you ends up having any fun.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
340

337: Since "being attracted to a certain kind of person" just happened to break down on racial lines?

E.g., I dated mostly Filipinos in high school. Not because I "like Asians" but because I lived in a town where there were a hell of a lot of Filipinos, and the people I liked were as likely to be Filipino as not.

In short, I am morally superior.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
341

329: Great, start 'em young. Actually, some kind of undergrad sex-technique class might solve some of the uh, graduate neurosis problems. Unlikely, sure. But the idea of seeing that class listed in a course bulletin entertains me no end.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
342

Telegraphing that you are overly anxious about whether you are getting her off really isn't. Like Ack said in 276, this just makes her feel pressured to come so that you won't feel bad and then neither one of you ends up having any fun.

Making her aware that you care about whether she gets off seems like it would make her more likely to be honest about what she wants.

So, maybe bad for eroticism immediately, but good in the long run.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
343

337: I only ever sleep with blond-haired Aryan women, and I can't see any reason why anyone should assume there's any racial pathology going on there.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
344

Letting a girl know she's getting you off is kind of hot.

As is letting her know that *her* arousal/off-gettingness is massively awesome.

Just adding that in to preempt the "so women like selfish guys" thing.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
345

339: Biggest turn-off I can think of is when the first thing a guy says in bed is "Tell me what to do to make you come." I have heard this from more than one guy, and they seemed to have no idea why this was not a question I could or wanted to answer. Isn't every woman's fantasy to have a guy willing to spend hours doing every little thing she says in bed? Uh, no, if I wanted to masturbate I'd just do it my own damn self.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
346

345: So tell him to wash the dishes.


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
347

Making her aware that you care about whether she gets off seems like it would make her more likely to be honest about what she wants.

This seems fair.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
348

All problems men have in bed can be solved by men learning how to fake orgasms convincingly.


Posted by: Booze Not Bombs | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
349

344: Ah, yes! I get a lot of shit for that comment I made about thinking of cunnilingus as "that old chestnut?" but that was in reference to men who I thought were doing it to make me come without it exciting them at all. I like receiving oral sex from a guy who's totally getting off on doing it.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
350

245: Right. If we're going for efficiency here, you sit over there, and coming up with an orgasm should take me two-three minutes. After that, I dunno, wanna watch TV?


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
351

345: Hmm, I think this may be a little unfair to the guys. The question is poorly phrased, yes, but asking for the information up front seems like not a bad thing necessarily: knowing what your partner does/doesn't like gives you a basic template to improvise from, rather than just randomly casting about in the dark, as it were.

Of course, it depends on the spirit in which the question is asked, too.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
352

349: Wait, it's possible to like giving oral sex to a woman?


Posted by: Sensitive Guy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
353

men who I thought were doing it to make me come without it exciting them at all

Oh god yes, that's just completely horrifying. Surely men should be able to simply reverse the actors in that scenario and realize why.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
354

Biggest turn-off I can think of is when the first thing a guy says in bed is "Tell me what to do to make you come."

So many good answers:

"Get [insert name of incredibly hot dude] in here, and then give us a little privacy."

"Top drawer of the nightstand, batteries should be fresh."

"Go clean my kitchen while I, uh, spend some time in the shower."


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
355

326: Most likely so. It certainly wasn't out of any idea that they were crazy in the sack.


Posted by: bub | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
356

Biggest turn-off I can think of is when the first thing a guy says in bed is "Tell me what to do to make you come." I have heard this from more than one guy, and they seemed to have no idea why this was not a question I could or wanted to answer. Isn't every woman's fantasy to have a guy willing to spend hours doing every little thing she says in bed? Uh, no, if I wanted to masturbate I'd just do it my own damn self.

I'm sure a lot of women like being told that. Some people, both male and female, want to spend a while exploring with sex -- some people want it to be a sort of intense exclamation point in the middle of the otherwise nonsexual day. I think I've found another person who, like me, is the latter.

Frankly I don't enjoy being horny. It creates intense tension and I can't think clearly. It makes me look forward to the release of the tension.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
357

Frankly I don't enjoy being horny. It creates intense tension and I can't think clearly. It makes me look forward to the release of the tension.

Sure, but have we learned nothing from the marshmallow experiments?


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
358

353: Surely men should be able to simply reverse the actors in that scenario and realize why.

Only the sort of men who would actually care whether fellatio is enjoyable for the person doing it.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
359

Biggest turn-off I can think of is when the first thing a guy says in bed is "Tell me what to do to make you come."

Pretty clueless, and I always knew it and never did anything like that, in fact was pretty sure-footed, but I can't think why I knew better when I didn't know so much else.

All I can think to say is that people are really in their own heads about this, and don't seem able to pay attention and respond.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
360

The worst part of telling someone exactly what to do is when it doesn't work.

Oh, and to 86: this might be interesting.


Posted by: oleo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
361

Yeah, but only someone completely lacking in sexual empathy wouldn't be turned on by getting his cock sucked by a girl who's genuinely aroused to do it. I'm sure such people exist, but, more likely, they just assume that cocksucking, like anal sex, is 100% unenjoyable for women, just as they think vaginal sex is, like 75% unenjoyable.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
362

Wait, I assume that cocksucking and anal sex are unenjoyable for women.


Posted by: Sensitive Guy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
363

Having those assumptions is not necessarily bad, though, 361. It's a matter of what you're taught growing up.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
364

335: Oddly enough, today is the day I delurked, and I thought about saying so in 318

337: I didn't really mean to. On rereading, I still don't think I did. But at the time, I did know a white girl about my age, and her mother, who I think wished we were together, and her mother would tease me about having dated mostly Asian girls. I felt defensive, and tried to argue that I found girls of all races attractive, but she still teased me.

Finally, I feel like pointing out that I have used "boy" and "girl" consciously, since I am mainly talking about my experiences from 15 or more years ago.


Posted by: bub | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
365

Nothing wrong with asking except that I'd feel like I needed to give an answer with precise instructions when the real answer is more like 'pay attention' rather than 'bake at 350 degrees for ten minutes.'


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
366

I'm sure such people exist, but, more likely, they just assume that cocksucking, like anal sex, is 100% unenjoyable for women, just as they think vaginal sex is, like 75% unenjoyable

And presumably some seem to need to believe this and some are just ignorant and in for what, perhaps after the initial shock and not being too weirded out, will be a pleasant surprise.

What's behind the ones who need to believe it?


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
367

The turn that this thread has taken makes me want to slam my head in a car door for a while. Carry on while I'm gone. If I'm not back by tomorrow, have someone make a recondite reference to Frank Miller's run on Daredevil in memory of me.


Posted by: XIII | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
368

I mind being asked because the only answer I can think of is, "Be the kind of person who never would have asked me that because you'd be too busy fucking me in a blind passion."


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
369

361: I'm sure such people exist, but, more likely, they just assume that cocksucking, like anal sex, is 100% unenjoyable for women

Barbarians.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
370

I mind being asked because the only answer I can think of is, "Be the kind of person who never would have asked me that because you'd be too busy fucking me in a blind passion."

See, I wouldn't enjoy having sex with you at all.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
371

366: What's behind the ones who need to believe it?

It's not that uncommon for people to get off on sort-of-forcing someone to do something unpleasant.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
372

370: Luckily for me, the universe is quite large.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
373

Y'all excel at making sex sound like a call to performance full of onemanship and barely concealed resentment and scorn.

I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole.


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
374

Y'all excel at making sex sound like a call to performance full of onemanship and barely concealed resentment and scorn.

Often it is.

I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole.

Hopefully you've never been forced to.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
375

Often it is.

And: totally hott.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
376

Yeah, screwing around a lot gets less attractive when you listen to people who do.


Posted by: sven | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
377

Often it is.

The task is to minimize these occurrences.


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
378

this thread horrifies me, yet i cannot look away. single blind day is the bestest thing ever.


Posted by: aos | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
379

The guy who used to ask what to do was, oddly enough, often an extremely enthusiastic lover. It was just that he'd get in these moods, like, "It's all about you tonight, honey," and he didn't understand that making it "about me" made it the opposite of "for me."


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
380

379: I'm going to need more detail.


Posted by: Sensitive Guy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
381

376: Let me tell you a thing or two about rashes, sven...


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
382

364-
No, you didn't apologize, but I just don't think you need to explain yourself. If you're attracted to Asian women, that doesn't make you a racist.


Posted by: toy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
383

Doesn't horrify me: hope we can learn from this how to be like this more often, and how fond we are of one another.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
384

Group hug!


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
385

I hate you all.


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
386

Love is nice.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
387

382: Does too. Infinity.

Whoever baton rouge really is is banned!


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
388

Puppies, also fluffy and snuggly.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
389

wait how do you people know who i am

i barely post here and only recently started anyways.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
390

he didn't understand that making it "about me" made it the opposite of "for me."

hahahaha. That's when you have to try to talk to him. But oh! That would be, like, talking, like neurotically, like maybe over-thinking. We must never do that, else people might learn what we prefer rather than divining it all by themselves!

Sheesh.


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
391

We're learning that we're fond of one another? I'm learning that people hate me a lot more than I thought they did.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
392

Y'all excel at making sex sound like a call to performance full of onemanship and barely concealed resentment and scorn.

Seriously. My partner has recently been freaking me out by ramping up the roughness/aggressiveness. I'm having a tremendously difficult time determining whether this is some kind of bad self-effacement, whether I'm complicit in it, whether my instincts to be sensitive and concerned about her pleasure are just emosogyny, etc. It got so bad that sometimes during sex I would ponder whether I had been reading the sex threads here too often, or not often enough.

But you know what? Fuck that. Sometimes fucking is just fucking.


Posted by: yay! | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
393

Well, this was fun. Tomorrow, I come back to my academic wanna-be self. So sad.


Posted by: toy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
394

358: I assume that most men who I'd end up naked with would find the idea of my sucking their cocks merely out of a sense of mechanisitic duty a complete turnoff, yes. Also that most men who aren't complete morons realize that there's a difference between "I like X activity in and of itself" and "I like making you, personally, feel good."

370, 373: Charming. I doubt we'd want to have sex with either of you, either.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
395

379: See, I think we need a full essay on this as I think this understandable misunderstanding is the source of much sorrow. Or sexual frustration. Which is sorrowful.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
396

"ramping up" s/b "asking me to ramp up"


Posted by: yay! | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
397

Some people use the R-selection rather than K-selection strategy. Have a lot of sexual partners with limited information or preparation, in the hope that a few will be sustainable and successful. This makes it important to weather the frustrations and annoyance that result from most of the encounters.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
398

it also makes me want to go get laid, secure in the knowledge that no matter how much my technique and emotional approach could stand improvement, there is so so so much worse out there.


Posted by: aos | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
399

I just watched that youtube clip from a few weeks ago posted here

lol@the one girl thinking hair meaning non-haircut, unlike the rest. i think the two haircuts i wished i could do are really limp and straight blond hair thats a bit shaggy, or really really spiky asianish hair.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
400

391, 394, I absolutely did not intend 370 as an insult. Just an objective statement that we have extremely different tastes/styles/whatever. Sorry.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
401

haven't read this thread yet but it probably needs to be stated that the thing most people like the most is being needed, which is best signaled by doing useful things for others


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
402

not the usual 'who is stealing from and oppressing who' story thats usually postsd


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
403

Christ, this thread does not look fun. Admittedly, I've only scanned it.

To me, AWB is easily recognizable.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
404

391: Aww. I love you cps.

390: hahahaha. That's when you have to try to talk to him. But oh! That would be, like, talking, like neurotically, like maybe over-thinking. We must never do that, else people might learn what we prefer rather than divining it all by themselves!

What, may I ask, leads you to conclude that she didn't talk to him? (Unless you are the guy, in which case I guess you would know, and then I retract the question.)


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
405

392
I would ponder whether I had been reading the sex threads here too often, or not often enough.

Friend, this is a great blog for a lot of things, but sex isn't one of them.


Posted by: toy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
406

Well, she did drop the veil a couple of times. So she's been pretty much out for the whole thread.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
407

I remember one occasion where there was some really intense sex going on, and while I wasn't looking for "tell me what to do to make you come", I did want to know if there was any particular fetish, fantasy, dirty-talk-direction, etc. she might be interested in. I asked and got no answer, not even a "this is just fine as-is, thanks".


Posted by: rma | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:33 PM
horizontal rule
408

Christ, this thread does not look fun. Admittedly, I've only scanned it.

This thread has pretty much made me happy I am celibate.


Posted by: CJB | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
409

I pretty missed this entire thread, 'cause I was too busy having sex.


Posted by: Anon A. Moose | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
410

At that point, that sounds like her difficulty. Nothing wrong with looking for interests, but you are going to run into people who are too shy/inhibited to talk.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:37 PM
horizontal rule
411

I'm learning that people hate me a lot more than I thought they did.

Except for the ones who want to have sex with you more than ever now.


Posted by: d7c | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:37 PM
horizontal rule
412

394:

370, 373: Charming. I doubt we'd want to have sex with either of you, either.

Don't lump me together with Junius Ponds.

What I object to is the almost incessant tendency here and in other, similar threads, to generalize the type of sexual experience you wish for in such a way that those who don't provide it to you suck as lovers overall.

Fuck that noise. There's no one right way to have sex, and I sure as hell do my best to avoid finding myself in bed with someone who's going to be as critical as some of the commenters in this thread.


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:37 PM
horizontal rule
413

404: Obviously, if I don't think everything every man has ever said to me or done to me was perfect in every way, I'm a total cunt, and probably mean and hateful to anyone who doesn't read my mind or fulfill impossible expectations. This happens all the fucking time here, that women with any opinions at all about sex or interpersonal interactions are branded as total cunts by someone. Luckily, those someones are in the minority, and for the most part, get mildly chastened. But it's important to be reminded that not everyone thinks of me as an ethical person.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
414

Except for the ones who want to have sex with you more than ever now.

And the ones who don't necessarily think they'd be sexually compatible with you but like you anyway.


Posted by: sven | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
415

407: I did have a guy ask me that once (in a bar, though, not in the midst of the act). I didn't answer either. Because I couldn't think of anything. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. After being deeply depressed about this for some time, I finally resolved to really think about it. Next guy who asks, man, I know the answer!


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
416

to generalize the type of sexual experience you wish for in such a way that those who don't provide it to you suck as lovers overall.

Well, duh--to you, they do. Feel free to mentally append "to me" to all comments of this nature, it makes life much easier.

I sure as hell do my best to avoid finding myself in bed with someone who's going to be as critical as some of the commenters in this thread.

Because the commenters are too hostile and judgmental? Hmm?


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
417

Some of my best friends are total cunts.


Posted by: d7c | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
418

415. Share.


Posted by: rma | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
419

I'm surprised at how critical people are of their lovers, because it surprises me that people are willing to sleep with people they're not so favorably disposed towards that they'll extend them quite a bit of generosity after the fact, even if the sex didn't go well.


Posted by: stu | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
420

415 was a revealing comment; I can now hazard a guess who Barbara Manatee is.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
421

I have to go to a talk at school. I'm not storming off in a huff. I love you all.


Posted by: cps | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:44 PM
horizontal rule
422

GSB, I mean Tabletop, I was almost about to sort of come to your defense until I saw 412. Get over yourself. That's some of the worst insecure prickery I've ever seen.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:44 PM
horizontal rule
423

It's weird. The last woman I dated was incredibly demanding in her sexual requests -- like, to the point that it was actually a turn-off. I'd be getting into something that had started out pleasing us both, then, all of a sudden, she'd actually say, in this horrified tone of voice "what are you doing?" I stopped wanting to have sex with her as a result.


Posted by: Shadow Stalkin' | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
424

419: Why surprised? People can be *both* generous and loving *and* have thoughts that they know perfectly well they shouldn't express bluntly. People are even incapable of having issues and knowing that they have them, and yet having them nonetheless!


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
425

it surprises me that people are willing to sleep with people they're not so favorably disposed towards that they'll extend them quite a bit of generosity after the fact

Unfogged commentators are neurotically obsessed with sex and terribly afraid of loneliness. Hence.


Posted by: yay! | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
426

413: if I don't think everything every man has ever said to me or done to me was perfect in every way, I'm a total cunt

I didn't mean anything of the sort.

I've got to get going now. Honestly, this:

women with any opinions at all about sex or interpersonal interactions are branded as total cunts by someone

does not in any way describe what I was doing or saying.


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
427

I sure as hell do my best to avoid finding myself in bed with someone who's going to be as critical as some of the commenters in this thread.

What's weird is that I'm apparently missing what's so "critical" about what anyone is saying. A guy or two complained about women saying they didn't like him trying to please them in bed. A woman or two expounded upon what it is they mean when they are turned of by a guy too focused on pleasing them. Sort of the kind of "talking" cps got yelled at in 404 for presumably having failed to do. So how do you "talk" about this stuff without being received as "critical." Serious question.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
428

423: Are you sure she wasn't just asking you to tell her, graphically?


Posted by: Abraham Lincoln | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:49 PM
horizontal rule
429

Came off that way. Look, if you were annoyed that cps was generalizing about grad student boys rather than 'those grad student boys she's been sexually involved with', that's actually a legit point. But the undirected way you went off at her looked really disproportionately hostile.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:49 PM
horizontal rule
430

So how do you "talk" about this stuff without being received as "critical." Serious question.

I think whenever we make a statement without making it clear that it's not a generalization, it can be taken as a generalization, and that leads to disagreement on basic issues of facts, morality, sanity, existence or nonexistence of people who supposedly believe something, and so forth.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:49 PM
horizontal rule
431

426: It kind of describes the tone of your comments, though, yes, very much. I mean, what is the *point* of going out of your way to say "I sure as hell do my best to avoid finding myself in bed with someone (like) some of the commenters in this thread" if not to be insulting?


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:50 PM
horizontal rule
432

420: Next time we go for drinks, Knecht, ask me again.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:50 PM
horizontal rule
433

Unfogged commentators people are neurotically obsessed with sex and terribly afraid of loneliness. Hence.


Posted by: curses | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:50 PM
horizontal rule
434

427: Yeah, and with double pseuds, even. I'm annoyed that cps feels bad, because she doesn't deserve on the basis of anything said or referred to here. I hope BSB/Tabletop is a lurker, or never reveals.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
435

430: Eh, I don't like the onus being on the talker to constantly reassure the auditor that "this isn't a generalization, it's not about you, dear." In a personal relationship, absolutely. In an open public forum? That should be a basic assumption.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
436

That's some of the worst insecure prickery I've ever seen.

I was angry. Over now. Apologies to all.


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
437

I honestly didn't think 370 would be offensive at all. You say you don't like what I like, I say I don't like what you like. That one seems to have caused a lot of the offense.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
438

Feel the love!


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
439

386 to 438.


Posted by: Junius Ponds | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
440

Oh, I get why GSB and (?) Tabletop are defensive about it, and I do think that CPS's comments suggest that CPS has some "issues." Like everyone else in the universe.

The problem with GSB/TT isn't that they find some of the discussion offputting, it's that the only way they can say so is to be personally insulting and imply that the problem with the discussion is that "you women are fucked up" rather than realizing that yes, sex is one of those topics that's tricky to talk about and negotiate.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
441

I'm annoyed that cps feels bad

Spare us. cps mocked specific practices like saying "tell me what you like," which runs the risk of pissing off people who engage in those practices, probably with the consent and encouragement of their partners.


Posted by: stu | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
442

430: That makes perfect sense, Junius, and it's something I'll pay attention to, seriously, in the future.

But how about when it's clear that you are not generalizing, that you are in fact talking to a specific person about a specific "performance" and are trying to explain this idea of "your focus on my pleasure made me feel like a project resulting in my total alienation from the actual sex," without the guy who is being told feeling totally criticized? It's very easy to see how this would be pretty upsetting to hear, but the alternative of sucking it up and not being terribly satisfied ain't so great either.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
443

285: The latter. I've heard (& used) the "I'm just the crazy one over here, I'll publish in another five years" excuse so many times that I'm not sure if anyone even uses a different excuse anymore.

Missed this in the flurry.

I've just gone with "I suck". Hence the need for a new one.


Posted by: cod | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 3:59 PM
horizontal rule
444

441: She didn't "mock" the practice. She said it was a total turn-off. Which obviously ist is for her. And me. And I'd wager at least a few other women in the universe.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
445

443: Self-esteem! Self-esteem! At least if we have to be (self-)branded with the "neurotic" onus for the rest of our lives, we can make it work for us, too. You should only suck if you want to.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
446

441: cps mocked specific practices like saying "tell me what you like," which runs the risk of pissing off people who engage in those practices,

Nothing wrong with a little snark and counter-snark, but I fail to see how someone who's doing this with the consent and encouragement of their partner should feel threatened by some anonymous stranger saying they don't like it.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
447

She didn't "mock" the practice

Uh, no, if I wanted to masturbate I'd just do it my own damn self.


Posted by: stu | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
448

saying something like "your focus on my pleasure made me feel like a project resulting in my total alienation from the actual sex" isn't a bad place to start. along with "that was amazingly enjoyable. we should do it again." if it's true.



Posted by: aos | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:04 PM
horizontal rule
449

Further to which, 447: Boo. Fucking. Hoo.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:04 PM
horizontal rule
450

But how about when it's clear that you are not generalizing, that you are in fact talking to a specific person about a specific "performance" and are trying to explain this idea of "your focus on my pleasure made me feel like a project resulting in my total alienation from the actual sex," without the guy who is being told feeling totally criticized?

Back in the day (that is, not in my current relationship) I had a conversation kind of like this with a guy with whom the sex was actually mostly, like 98% of the time, mindblowingly great. But the other 2% did have a bit of the project mindset, "I will play on you like a musical instrument, and bring you to new heights of pleasure," which is, as you say, offputting and alienating. I did have the conversation, and phrased it as a power/agency issue: that it really wasn't as enjoyable being an object getting acted on, however skillfully, as it was being an active agent for his and my own pleasure. And I don't think I hurt his feelings. But the sex was generally good enough that I think I had a fair amount of slack for talking about how things could get better before he would have been likely to worry that they weren't good.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:05 PM
horizontal rule
451

I'm going to generalize about grad student boys now because, hey, everyone's already pissed off. Grad student boys tend to be a) repressed and/or socially awkward, b) intelligent and mostly rational, and c) touchingly genuine and genuinely concerned about others. This, besides being really irritating to anyone who is not a grad student boy, results in a strong desire to be told explicitly what to do, or at least be told that what they're doing is good.

Too bad that many women don't like it for the reasons elaborated here: it stifles creativity and emotion, and creates too high an expectation. Grad student boys eventually learn, especially when they find partners willing to give them enough experience, instruction and feedback to develop the confidence to not need to be told what to do.


Posted by: abc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:05 PM
horizontal rule
452

Boo. Fucking. Hoo.

No doubt you'll remember that this is the suggested response the next time someone is upset by something.


Posted by: stu | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:06 PM
horizontal rule
453

None of this thread has anything to do with grad students in the hard sciences, whatever its applicability to humanities grad students might be.


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
454

447: Okay, I hadn't relaly read that as mocking, more as explanation for why it's a turn-off, but I see your point.

But, if you want to be specific about the quote, she also wasn't talking about guys saying "tell me what you like," but rather "tell me what to do to make you come." Which is different.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
455

The next time someone is a ludicrous drama queen upset over a mild and unobjectionable joke? Yes, it will again be the suggested response.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
456

this is the suggested response the next time someone is unreasonably upset by something.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
457

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for young men to worry about being pleasing lovers. You practice a few of those skills for a while, and then, when you've constructed a body of go-to skills, you can later think more in terms of raw animal lust, knowing that, in a pinch, you will know how to get someone off.

This is so true. Once "technique" becomes second nature, you can be totally in the moment and your own pleasure without worrying that you're not pleasing the other person. For guys, part of this is getting solid control over when you come.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
458

437: It's not "I don't like what you like"; it's "I wouldn't like *you*."


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
459

For guys, part of this is getting solid control over when you come.

Without that, don't even try having sex with a woman. We'll just point and laugh. Practice on your own with a stopwatch until you've got it down.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
460

part of this is getting solid control over when you come.

It should be solid before it comes out.


Posted by: old lady | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:11 PM
horizontal rule
461

a ludicrous drama queen upset over a mild and unobjectionable joke

unreasonably upset by something

The standards board has spoken. I was told that PC hippie lefties didn't question the validity of people's emotional responses.


Posted by: stu | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:12 PM
horizontal rule
462

458: That's not what 370 says, right?


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
463

Dude, who told you something like that?


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
464

Who'd have guessed that people could get so touchy about sex?

Everyone who's been upset by cps ought to take a deep breath and read 446 a whole buncha times.


Posted by: Captain Awesome | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
465

All right! I was hoping Single Blind day would get ugly! Now everybody's going to be all upset when they realize they've been super angry with their best blog friend!


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
466

part of this is getting solid control over when you come.

Or learning that just because you came doesn't always mean you are done. Shake it off, man, and get back in the game!


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
467

450: phrased it as a power/agency issue

I had the same conversation once, with someone who was also fantastic in bed (for the record: a male graduate student in the humanities!). Unfortunately with him it ended up leading into far, far too much Foucauldian power-balance complications; but I hold to the argument that it's a power-balance issue most of the time I find myself uncomfortable during sex--& this is even coming from someone who really enjoys tweaking the power-balance, just not all the time & across the board.


Posted by: paronomasia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
468

458, 462: I read 370 unobjectionably, as 'we would be incompatible sex partners' not 'you revolt me'. I think it might have looked worse mixed in with GSB/TT's stuff.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
469

446: A-fucking-men.

Can we hereby ban everyone who gets "upset" over *other people's conversations*? I mean, jeez louise. If they're not talking to or about you, specifically, stop going around looking for things to be bothered by already.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:15 PM
horizontal rule
470

I totally know who Captain Awesome is.


Posted by: old lady | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:16 PM
horizontal rule
471

Too bad that thread about pie never turned up.
I like this site when I want something inoffensive to look at.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
472

469: Eh, I think you do need to look at the content. There are things I'd get cranky about even if they weren't directed specifically at me. I just don't think cps's comments reasonably fell into that category.


Posted by: baton rouge | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
473

458: Eh, it shouldn't be any more offensive than the comments that the guys are taking personally, which is to say it shouldn't be offensive if taken in the spirit in which it was intended.


Posted by: sven | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
474

You know what just occurred to me. Tomorrow when everyone finds out how easy it was for people to identify them, a slow but inexorable paranoia will creep in as people suddenly realize their presidential comments were probably just as transparent.


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:18 PM
horizontal rule
475

468: Oh, I didn't read it as "you revolt me." I just thought it was poorly phrased and (unlike the things that so upset GSB/TT in this thread) actually personal when it could easily not have been, and wanted to point it out.

461: The emotional response of being upset is totally valid. What you do about it (e.g., get all pissy) may not be.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:20 PM
horizontal rule
476

464 gets it exactly right.


Posted by: stp | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:20 PM
horizontal rule
477

Is it turning out easy to identify people?


Posted by: old lady | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:20 PM
horizontal rule
478

everyone finds out how easy it was for people to identify them

You think? Several people have remarked that it was unexpectedly difficult to identify people, and I agree.


Posted by: stp | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:21 PM
horizontal rule
479

Not for me it's not.


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:21 PM
horizontal rule
480

I know for sure my Presidential comments are transparent. But it's a comforting veil anyway.

471: Is this Unfogged or isn't it? We can have the pie thread right here.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:21 PM
horizontal rule
481

472: "Cranky" is acceptable. Pissy never is.

473: Again, I wasn't particularly offended (it wasn't towards me, anyhow); just pointing out that it was saying something it didn't want to be saying.


Posted by: ack | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
482

I think anon day has been great. Furthermore, I think we ought to get more new blood in here to troll the board, so Ogged and w-lfs-n wouldn't have to do it all the time. I love me a good internet blowout.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
483

Not for me it's not.

... because you're looking at the IP addresses, you big cheater?


Posted by: jmc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
484

474 some of mine aren't.


Posted by: Anon A. Moose | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
485

Yeah, maybe I'll just keep this alter ego and be two people from now on.


Posted by: old lady | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
486

We can have the pie thread right here.

I don't think we should reward this thread with pie.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
487

Oh, sure, this has turned out great. Next week, costumes and roleplaying.


Posted by: lunk | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:25 PM
horizontal rule
488

And pick fights with my other self and get attention.


Posted by: old lady | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:25 PM
horizontal rule
489

Why is xxx picking on that nice old lady? She seems harmless.


Posted by: old lady | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:26 PM
horizontal rule
490

479 to 477.


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
491

486: But it could be, like, all about totally gross pies. What's the weirdest thing you've ever seen in a pie?


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
492

Okay, I don't really think the pseudo-pseuds are that transparent. I'm just attempting to sow a little healthy paranoia... (I do have a couple I think I could solidly guess at, but I'm pretty confident that I will be embarassingly far off when the veils are actually lifted.)


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:30 PM
horizontal rule
493

You I think I know. I was baton rouge, obviously, but I'm sick of it now.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:32 PM
horizontal rule
494

Weirdest pies are the banana cream pies under glass in greasy-spoon restaurants.


Posted by: lunk | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
495

Shall we all unmask? I'm tired of clearing my info every time.


Posted by: apc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:35 PM
horizontal rule
496

Y'all want an unmasking and reflections on the day that was thread?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:36 PM
horizontal rule
497

495: Sure thing. IDP, I presume? And I think, but am not 100% certain, that Barbara's Di.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:36 PM
horizontal rule
498

Is this the big moment of truth? I've barely said anything all day.


Posted by: old lady | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:36 PM
horizontal rule
499

496: Yeah sure.


Posted by: Beer Nuts Gang | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:37 PM
horizontal rule
500

493: Yeah, I kind of got that from the generally reasoned, well-balanced good sense. Dead give away.

I don't suspect I'm transparent much either, but I rather dread learning what characteristics would most give me away...


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
501

We can keep up the names too, if people want to keep going for a while. Votes?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
502

yeah. My guess about Barbara aussi.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
503

How about have a guessing round before we take the masks off?


Posted by: old lady | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:39 PM
horizontal rule
504

Beer nuts is definitely Sifu.

I definitely don't think that curses should be identified.


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:39 PM
horizontal rule
505

Ack is B


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:40 PM
horizontal rule
506

Maybe a separate thread for guessing? So it doesn't take so long to keep refreshing the guesses. Because I'm impatient that way?


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:41 PM
horizontal rule
507

I know kwrl and Captain Awesome.


Posted by: old lady | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:41 PM
horizontal rule
508

If we're going to unmask, a new thread would be nice.


Posted by: stp | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:41 PM
horizontal rule
509

Actually I don't think I know Captain Awesome for sure.


Posted by: old lady | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:42 PM
horizontal rule
510

I figured that LB was BR, yes.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:42 PM
horizontal rule
511

505: Did B use two pseuds? Because I could have sworn Coconuts was B, and couldn't figure who ack was.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:42 PM
horizontal rule
512

500 -- The day is far from over. Especially for those of us who are 'time challenged' in one way or another. Like living in Samoa or having day jobs.


Posted by: npi | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:43 PM
horizontal rule
513

I vote for an unmasking thread.

Man, I was totally wrong about who baton rouge was, which destroys my confidence for further guesses.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:44 PM
horizontal rule
514

I seriously am so bad at guessing.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:44 PM
horizontal rule
515

You are all transparent to me, for I am your OWN SELVES.


Posted by: slapioca | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:45 PM
horizontal rule
516

Castrating Harpy had to be B too, right?


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:45 PM
horizontal rule
517

Shouldn't the unmasking thread wait until after the speculating who curses is thread?


Posted by: sven | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:45 PM
horizontal rule
518

512: How about a separate Single Blind experiment for the night shift. 'Cause I really, really wanna know who everyone is!


Posted by: Barbara Manatee | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:46 PM
horizontal rule
519

Ok, unmasking thread is up. Let's move it there, please.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:48 PM
horizontal rule
520

Isn't it sort of discomfiting to leave the Curses disclosures just sort of floating around to be free-associated with various female commenters? Not that it's nearly as bad as an earlier instance of weird disclosure... I'm just wondering.


Posted by: TOBC | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:48 PM
horizontal rule
521

516: No.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:49 PM
horizontal rule
522

OK, but for the record, 517 was intended as a joke.


Posted by: sven | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:50 PM
horizontal rule
523

519: Seconded. The more I thought about it the more Curses bothered me, on exactly those grounds.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 4:58 PM
horizontal rule
524

See one of my last comments in the new thread. She gave enough biography that it would be hard to misattribute her comments to anyone specific.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
525

Now that I know you were stu, ogged, you definitely seemed to get people to yell at you in a somewhat different way than they normally would.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 5:03 PM
horizontal rule
526

Why did I post that here? Mysteries, mysteries.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 5:04 PM
horizontal rule
527

524: yeah, she immediately seemed different from most of the well-known female commenters. Not just biographically, but tone.


Posted by: marcus | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
528

emosogyny

So great.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 5:36 PM
horizontal rule
529

Without having caught up much to the thread since the mid-400s ...

I find myself really bothered by cps's conclusion in 413 that what I said upthread amounted to:

if I don't think everything every man has ever said to me or done to me was perfect in every way, I'm a total cunt

This is pretty shocking. How my comments should give the sense that this is my much, much broader view is mysterious to me.

But see 440:

The problem with GSB/TT isn't that they find some of the discussion offputting, it's that the only way they can say so is to be personally insulting and imply that the problem with the discussion is that "you women are fucked up"

A couple of things. I'm not GSB, in case that was in question. I'm also not a graduate student boy.

I'm interested in what sounded like an emerging assumption that I'm male. (I love what Single Blind Day does in that regard.) I don't deny that I was hostile earlier, but I think it became easy to pigeonhole my remarks by jumping straightaway to the suspicion already voiced by cps and others that 'boys' consider the majority of sex-and-relationship issues to be a function of the maddeningly perverse whims of strong-minded women.

That's an easy out. You'll kill me for saying so, but it's a form of playing the victim card: the speaker (Tabletop) must be criticizing my criticizing of male sexual behavior because I'm, uh, threatening his power, or perfection, or, uh, mumble mumble. He (Tabletop) must be taking it personally.

Would it make a difference if I mentioned that I'm a woman?

Anyway, at this point I just consider this a thought about the fallout from a Blind posting day. If you don't know my gender, all kinds of interesting things happen. I haven't even read the Unmasking thread.


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:42 PM
horizontal rule
530

without additional comment, I'll note that some people are just bad kissers, and some people are just bad in bed.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:45 PM
horizontal rule
531

Huh. You sounded absolutely continuous with GSB to me -- I figured you were male and had just changed names.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:45 PM
horizontal rule
532

I now have a fairly confident guess.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:47 PM
horizontal rule
533

I'm interested in what sounded like an emerging assumption that I'm male.

Um, because you made a point of saying you wouldn't sleep with anyone like the (women) who were commenting in this thread in a way that offended you so deeply?

it's a form of playing the victim card

Oh barf.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:47 PM
horizontal rule
534

That was exactly what I thought.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:48 PM
horizontal rule
535

(531 was exactly what I thought, that is.)


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:48 PM
horizontal rule
536

FWIW, I didn't; Tabletop sounded less self-pitying and more aggro/hostile.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:52 PM
horizontal rule
537

Although scanning back, Tabletop was commenting well before GSB went away.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:52 PM
horizontal rule
538

I didn't think TT was the same as GSB either. Different tone, as B points out.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
539

Yeah, in retrospect it was a sloppy mistake for me to have made.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:55 PM
horizontal rule
540

And now that I've scanned, I think I pretty much agree with TT/GSB, but boy am I not going to get into it. What stu said!


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:55 PM
horizontal rule
541

It was mostly on the basis of one particularly peevish post that I jumped to that conclusion, in retrospect. Sorry, Tabletop.

(But you're still totally wrong.)


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:55 PM
horizontal rule
542

TT is a brave woman for taking on the consensus like that. I think she has a bit of a point, in that some people here do tend to brashly assume that their experience is universally shared, but (a) GSB was kind of a douche and (b) 540's second clause gets it exactly right.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
543

I wonder how much of my reaction to this thread was colored by the fact that I knew who cps was and figured out who ack was very quickly, but didn't know who GSB and Tabletop were (though I had a guess about the latter, probably the same as NPH's in 532).


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:01 PM
horizontal rule
544

GSB was a huge douche, and "some people here do tend to brashly assume that their experience is universally shared" is a ridiculous point. A reasonable response to "Sex like [whatever] is no fun," isn't "How dare you generalize about everyone's experiences" but "Personally, I like it like that" if you do. Getting pissy because other people's comments are insufficiently qualified is pointless and annoying.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:02 PM
horizontal rule
545

Honestly, I think these discussions are best avoided, because people are approaching sex with such very different needs, expectations, assumptions and emotions, and it's also a topic that's important to most people. There's no way that they don't turn nasty and personal, unless one side just shuts up and lets the other side go on (and by "shuts up" I mean "seethes until it boils over fifty comments later.")


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:07 PM
horizontal rule
546

544: I mean, yeah. But sometimes a quickly forming, unequivocably expressed consensus can scare people into feeling like they're going to be treated like freaks our outcasts if they express a contrary opinion, especially if those people aren't regulars. It's certainly something that wouldn't be said in the normal course of events here, but maybe it's worthwhile to remember that there probably are people who don't generally want to get in on threads where they'll have to be bucking the tide of high-profile regulars who are seemingly quite unequivocal about judging them (or anyhow people who believe what they believe) stupid, crazy, or immoral.

Not the biggest deal in the world, and it's my long stated policy to not get upset at anything anybody says on the internet, but still something to think about.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
547

Well, they could not turn nasty and personal if people were willing to accept that everyone's posting from a basis of their experiences with the people they've been involved with, and that any comments not made by an ex-lover aren't directed at you personally.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
548

It's certainly something that wouldn't be said in the normal course of events here

Are you kidding?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
549

Well, you can try to make sure sex doesn't come up -- good luck with that -- but I still don't see any reason why anybody should be seething because other people are chatting about their sexual preferences. It seems to me like a perfectly normal, everyday sort of thing.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
550

But sometimes a quickly forming, unequivocably expressed consensus can scare people into feeling like they're going to be treated like freaks our outcasts if they express a contrary opinion, especially if those people aren't regulars.

But one of the things that's good about this place, and that our host is particularly good at, is that very often someone or other does have the intestinal fortitude to challenge the consensus. Sometimes it leads to ugly arguments, but mostly everybody gets over that.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
551

Maybe that's wishful thinking. But there are definitely threads where people don't offer their thoughts because they don't want to be the bad guy in that particular instance. Shit, it's happened to me and I'm no shrinking violet.

Again, I'm not suggesting anybody do anything about this.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
552

But sometimes a quickly forming, unequivocably expressed consensus can scare people into feeling like they're going to be treated like freaks our outcasts if they express a contrary opinion, especially if those people aren't regulars. It's certainly something that wouldn't be said in the normal course of events here, but maybe it's worthwhile to remember that there probably are people who don't generally want to get in on threads where they'll have to be bucking the tide of high-profile regulars who are seemingly quite unequivocal about judging them (or anyhow people who believe what they believe) stupid, crazy, or immoral.

This sort of unpleasantness isn't limited to discussions of sex, of course, but it does seem to be more intense there.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
553

545: You really think so? I see so much potential in these kinds of discussions for helping us all to get a better idea of what might be going on in our partners' heads. Not that it's a substitute for talking to the actual (or, for some of us, hypothetical, imaginary...) partners about what's going on in our heads. But having heard all this crazy shit somewhere before, maybe it's a little easier to process and understand hearing it from a partner?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
554

LB and DS, you should listen to Sifu. Y'all are part of the consensus group here, so it all seems fine to you, but you'd be surprised at how many people stay away from the blog because the range of acceptable opinion is so narrow on some topics. Again, like Sifu said, that's not a reason to change anything you're doing, but something to be aware of. And LB, it's not just about this specific instance of "insufficient qualifiers" or whatever, and what it is is what I'm trying to not get into.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
555

Ironically, given my tendency to be over-sensitive about this stuff in general, when the subject is sex it doesn't bother me at all. Presumably this is because there's no way I could take them personally.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
556

Ok, gotta get on the elliptical. What Sifu said!


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
557

range of acceptable opinion is so narrow on some topics.

Huh. No one not actually trolling gets banned, so you're talking about people who just don't want to argue?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
558

I do find it odd that Sifu and ogged, of all people, are here taking the position analogous to the one I usually take on the subject more generally.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
559

555: This is funny because I was thinking very nearly the same thing. I'm usually hypersesitive about "conflict" and didn't find this thread particularly contentious at all...


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
560

557: pretty much, yeah. And especially don't want to argue from a position of being preëmptively judged to be a jerk or a loser.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:19 PM
horizontal rule
561

Most people totally masturbate wrong.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:19 PM
horizontal rule
562

Sorry, that was passive-aggressively pissy. I just don't know what to do with:

you'd be surprised at how many people stay away from the blog because the range of acceptable opinion is so narrow on some topics.... that's not a reason to change anything you're doing, but something to be aware of.... what it is is what I'm trying to not get into.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
563

533:

Um, because you made a point of saying you wouldn't sleep with anyone like the (women) who were commenting in this thread in a way that offended you so deeply?

Well, no, I said I wouldn't sleep with anyone like the people who were so *critical* of their lovers. Whether male or female.

Please note that difference. Important.

Oh barf.

Ha! I sort of agree, which I why I told you in advance it was okay to kill me. Except I said I anyway. Stubborn that way.


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
564

but you'd be surprised at how many people stay away from the blog because the range of acceptable opinion is so narrow on some topics

Do you get emails, or what?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
565

Most people totally masturbate wrong.

Sucks for them.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
566

Getting pissy because other people's comments are insufficiently qualified is pointless and annoying.

I think it depends a little bit on the domain in which the insufficiently qualified claims are being made. I'm pretty sure I want to reserve my right to get pissy when someone makes an assertion like "All women are hoping for a knight in shining armor."


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
567

"I said it anyway"


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
568

Redfoxtailshrub shouldn't ever get pissy ever about anything, or else she's a terrible person.

Unless it's warranted. Duh! Obviously that was implied.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
569

Most people totally masturbate wrong.

In other words, this discussion of shitty lovers should be extended to include the DIYers.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
570

566: Eh, true. But there's something to it -- taking a statement that could reasonably be read as a statement about personal experiences, and being offended by taking it as a generalization about all humanity, is generally pointless and annoying.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:24 PM
horizontal rule
571

I would never masturbate if I thought I was only interested in my pleasure, and not also getting my own pleasure out of it.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
572

Mostly because all of your available mental energy would be occupied in successfully having that thought.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
573

In other words, this discussion of shitty lovers should be extended to include the DIYers.

We're none of us perfect.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
574

I would never masturbate if I thought I was only interested in my pleasure, and not also getting my own pleasure out of it.

I would.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
575

I never masturbate with my left hand, because I would be overcome with guilt at the thought of cheating on myself.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
576

That's either horribly selfish or absolutely selfless of you. Which way it comes out I'm not sure.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
577

It just would feel so demoralizing if I didn't think I thought of myself as a person.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
578

571, 573: Sadly, I think I have in fact had such a thought process on occasion, entirely devoid of irony...

Me: "Your not really into this, are you?"
Myself: "It's not you, it's me."


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
579

TT is a brave woman for taking on the consensus like that.

Yeah, women are always "brave" when they tell other women that they're "playing victim" or when they pull the trollish "how do you know I'm a man/white person/etc." line out of their asses to try to score some identity politics point.

LB is completely right. There is a difference between *having opinions and expressing them in a non mealy-mouthed way* and "the range of acceptable opinion being so narrow." Truly, really, there is.

I mean, look; back when the blog was all Jessica Biel's ass and cock jokes, would you (not Ogged particularly; the generic "you" who are saying people should be less opinionated about sex) have given the time of day to anyone who expressed concern about feeling put off by the "tone" here and the "acceptable range of opinion" or subject matter? Or would you have thought they were being pusillanimous dumbasses?

533: In context, you certainly seemed to be saying what I summarized you as saying. Now that you're pulling the gender identity politics card, you want to have this "please note the difference" thing as a way of masking your (I presume) deliberately leading people to think you were a guy. Gimme a break, one, and two, don't patronize me with this "please note the difference" crap.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
580

577: It just would feel so demoralizing if I didn't think I thought of myself as a person.

No furbashing.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
581

I: "It's 'you're,' not 'your,' idiot."


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
582

I wonder if people with callosectomies feel like they're cheating on themselves if they switch hands?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
583

At least B and LB are consistent in their attitudes.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
584

OT: I'll admit: I was looking for Sifu's email address, but stumbled across this quite impressive statement instead. I only wish he'd say the same of me.

Now, let the bickering resume.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
585

I'm not surprised that there are some kinds of topics on which people might find the Unfoggedtariat's range of opinion "narrow" by some definition. Politics, for example, what with the common pro-sanity/anti-McMegan slant shared by so many, except Becks.

I'm rather more surprised that "what people prefer in bed" would be one of those topics. If there's anything about which even our Benign Oppressors from the Sisterhood exhibit a pretty wide range of opinions, this surely is it.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
586

583: ?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
587

Anyway, fwiw, I think the real narrow range of acceptable opinion crowd here ain't me and LB and the other feminazis, who I think have proven willing to argue about all manner of "what women are like" topics. It's the guys who get all defensive and hostile when women talk about men who seem to me to be making trouble.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
588

579: no, they're brave when they argue with you, B. It does happen that the opinions people who argue with you hold are opinions you are not impresssed by, yes. This should not be that surprising.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
589

586: See 558.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
590

Also what Slack said in 585.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
591

587: There you're heading into "takes two to tango" territory, or maybe "I'm rubber and you're glue."


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
592

587: B., I thought we contrarianism was mandatory. (That's what Emerson told me, that lying fuck.) But I don't understand this place in the least, and I'm not ashamed to say so. (Or link to myself saying so. You people and your dynamics baffle me.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
593

Huh. I'm not following 588 at all as a response to 579. 579 was B being testy about a rhetorical technique, not about anyone's opinions.

589: Ah.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
594

584: I've e-mailed you before. Yeah the whole thing you linked to still totally amazes me. He signed a book for me over the summer.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
595

588: Tabletop wasn't arguing with me; up until the great unmasking s/he was arguing with "ack" and a couple of other people no one knows.

I'm perfectly aware that arguing with me about stuff I have strong opinions on takes a stout heart. But I don't think that means I need to soften my approach to make the world Unfogged safe for scaredycats.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
596

I have a feeling -- perhaps somewhat orthogonal to this particular discussion -- that my idea of qualifying one's assertions responsibly may overlap substantially with B's category of being mealymouthed. Alas.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
597

588: Except that if there's a pre-existing beef of some sort with AWB, it's not exactly courageous to be taking the same sort of shots as always under cover of a one-day-only pseud. Assuming TT is who I'm assuming she is.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
598

594: I know you have, which is why I was annoyed by my not being able to find your address. (I'm stupid, technically speaking.) (As in, "speaking of technology.") (And "otherwise," but that goes without saying.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:40 PM
horizontal rule
599

593: Yeah, women are always "brave" when they tell other women that they're "playing victim" or when they pull the trollish "how do you know I'm a man/white person/etc." line out of their asses to try to score some identity politics point.

That's what 588 was in reference to. In the context of this specific forum, it does take a certain kind of fortitude to take on certain commenters in an argument.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
600

591: Perhaps so, but nonetheless.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
601

591: "It takes two to tango" is patently false. The rubber, glue thing however -- clearly true.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
602

I'm perfectly aware that arguing with me about stuff I have strong opinions on takes a stout heart. But I don't think that means I need to soften my approach to make the world Unfogged safe for scaredycats.

Me neither. Just sayin'.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
603

596: Well, context matters. In the context of this blog, where we all hang out and comment a lot, I *assume* people have a general sense that, for example, I'm not a vicious misandrist using feminism as a cover for man-bashing, and that I don't therefore need to qualify every statement I make by saying "now, I realize this doesn't apply to *all* men." In other contexts, I'd be more careful about that, because less well known. In a context where I'm known, asking me (not that anyone's doing that here, but I mean, as a general rule) to do that sounds a lot like "be nicer to the poor boys."

On a second read through, I don't think you're mealymouthed, just in case that's what you meant.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
604

602: Then that's cool.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
605

I tend to agree with 597. Either TT is who NPH assumes, or else TT is a trollish guy pretending to be a woman in order to preempt criticism.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
606

579:

Now that you're pulling the gender identity politics card, you want to have this "please note the difference" thing as a way of masking your (I presume) deliberately leading people to think you were a guy. Gimme a break, one, and two, don't patronize me with this "please note the difference" crap.

B, my friend. Obviously I was deliberately masking my identity, but not at all deliberately pretending to be male. I really don't get that part. I was just writing. Seriously.

Jesus. I need to eat.


Posted by: Tabletop | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
607

596, 603: There's also a huge difference in applying the term 'mealymouthed' to oneself and to someone else. If your rhetorical style is to carefully qualify all assertions you make, that can work very effectively. Feeling that one is required to adopt such a style, on the other hand, can seem stifling.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
608

Amusingly, LB, 607 does an excellent job of qualifying your assertions. You mealymouthed equivocator, you.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
609

606: Tabletop? Could you unmask, or stop purporting to be acquainted with people here? I've made the same surmise as to your identity as NPH and B., but I don't want to unfairly attribute your comments in this thread to anyone who doesn't want to claim them. But if you don't want to claim them in the persona of a regular commenter, I'd rather not engage with 'Tabletop' as if she were a regular commenter.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:55 PM
horizontal rule
610

603: That's totally fair. I'm not particularly worried that you think I'm mealymouthed -- though it's nice to know that you don't! It's more that the moments where I tend to get very frustrated in arguments are exactly the ones where someone makes an ostensibly strong claim and then gets annoyed that I (or someone else) didn't realize that they only really support the weak version of that claim. Still, even I would happily agree that there are some subjects and claims where that say-strong/mean-nuanced behavior is reasonable because of shared background and context.

I was just thinking of the time when I said, "well, if you don't want people to take you the wrong way, you could try hedging your claims a little bit more" and noting the resistance to "soften[ing] my approach" you mention here. This made me think, hm, I suspect that a lot of what I would consider "being explicit about one's position" would fall into the bucket of sheerly cosmetic soft-pedaling for you, and plenty of other people here, too.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:55 PM
horizontal rule
611

608: Dude, I'm a lawyer. I can hedge and qualify with the best of them, and often do. I just sympathize with the desire to have non-hedging styles available for use.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
612

I admit it. Tabletop is PK. I snuck him an iTouch when B wasn't looking. I've been feeding him lines all day. I'm filled with shame.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
613

I do think a lot of people keep their mouth shut because they know that they're going to have to deal with the obligatory 'so you're for raping tiny babies with puppies' comments while everyone tries to figure out their position for abotu 600 comments. I suspect this because I have this feeling myself sometimes, and I don't usually have a problem being a bulldog.

I don't think this translates into people needing to soften their positions, just making sure they've read the other posts first. No, we're not worried about birth control because someone might get bigger breasts. Etc.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
614

610: Yeah, and it's all an approach thing. When I've said something broader than I mean, hastily or for rhetorical force, I'm usually fine with 'Don't you really mean [narrower claim X]?' but I can get my back totally up at a 'How dare you make [ridiculous claim that's a literal reading of what I said, but you'd have to be very strange to think I'd actually meant]?'


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
615

606: You said, I'm interested in what sounded like an emerging assumption that I'm male. (I love what Single Blind Day does in that regard.)

That sounds to me like you were aware that SBD would, among other things, mask people's gender identity; in context, it's kind of disingenuous (or shockingly naive) not to assume that your comments would be read as male.

Here, to be as plain as possible and stop pussyfotting around, is what I think happened.

I was making half-serious shit-stirring comments about male grad students, just for the fun of giving half the commentariat shit. AWB picked up on this to talk, more seriously, about her issues with the guys she's dated. GSB got huffy and defensive, living right up to stereotype, which was hilarious. TT came to the defense of the poor maligned men that AWB was talking about; not by saying "I don't think you're being fair to guys, and here's why", but by (in effect) saying that AWB and those who were discussing with her are basically bitches who are mean to men and have double standards.

Now, in all honesty, I think AWB has some "issues" with intimacy and guys, yes. And guess what? She's *admitted as much* more than once.

*In that context*, it is just crappy to start bitching her out for talking about it. If TT *were* a guy, like GSB, it would be more excusable, because there'd be a *reason* for TT to be taking it so personally. If, as TT is claiming, she is a woman, then either she's got some personal issue with AWB (as NotPrinceHamlet implies) or else she's got some really weird hangup that she, unlike AWB, is not disclosing. Maybe about having an issue with (some kinds of) feminism, maybe having an issue with sexually "loose" women, who the fuck knows.

Personally? I'll take someone who is brave enough to set herself up as a shooting gallery, and to admit that her issues are indeed hers, over someone who claims to be representing some "objective standard" any damn day of the week.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
616

610: Oh, in that case I didn't mean it so much as a sweeping "I demand the right to always be aggressively argumentative!" thing--since after all, I'm *not* always aggressively argumentatitive--as what LB's saying; I assert the right to *sometimes* be aggressively argumentative and not have people dismiss me as "crazy".

612: Tweety, PK has been lying on the living room floor all day watching movies while I've been serving him gingerale and jello and commenting on Unfogged. Nice try, but the kid's been under my eyes and feet all damn day long.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:04 PM
horizontal rule
617

And we descend into self-parody. Look, it's not about hedging or being mealymouthed or being strong. Here's my take, and it's about the site, not about any person or group.

There are a lot of comments and they come very quickly. That means that anyone who wants to participate has to do so quickly and decisively. If there were a formal requirement to make your arguments in punchy two or three sentence chunks, you'd see how difficult it is to have an edifying discussion, but the pace of comments has made us all unconsciously do that. What we end up with is often a simulacrum of debate, instead of real debate; it's too slow and takes too many words to read each other carefully and respond charitably. Closely related to that is the fact that for a lot of us, this is something of a medium-healthy addiction, and what we want is to comment and be responded to. It takes less work and is often more gratifying to get a quick and strong response than to write something considered, and so we act in ways that elicit the former. Finally, I think we've internalized the critique of weak-kneed liberals and practice our killer moves on each other.

Clearly this isn't about blame, but about structural factors that make discussion here less satisfying than we'd like. I said upthread that I don't think anyone should do anything differently, because it doesn't really seem like a matter of individual choice, and I don't know how to solve the problem.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:04 PM
horizontal rule
618

And, you know, it's not like there's a certain female commenter who routinely comes down on the side of the sorts of male commenters who feel their "range of acceptable opinions" is being threatened by feminazis, and who has a personal and particular history of being an evil, patronizing, disengenuous cunt to AWB, or anything.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
619

I assert the right to *sometimes* be aggressively argumentative and not have people dismiss me as "crazy".

Roger that!


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
620

I think there's also a failure of subject matter material -- when this site got started, and even when I showed up, there was a lot more breadth of opinion among generally reasonable people on, say, the war. Now, we're not going to have a substantive argument about the war, because anyone who still thinks it's a good idea is either braindamaged or baa (who isn't braindamaged but goodness knows why he thinks what he does).

A lot of things, the people who are interested in talking to people like us have just gotten much more uniform in their opinions over the past few years.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
621

I think 617 is also correct, yes.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
622

618: May I bear your children? I've got a good record -- the ones I've got already are awfully cute.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
623

Just getting quasi caught-up, and I'm thinking at the moment it's a good thing that you people are all imaginary.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
624

I'm not sure why you're encouraging comments like 618, LB, since it seems a bit counterproductive at this particular moment.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
625

Geez, yeah. Imagine getting all these people in a room? Drunk?

I'm picturing calling it DCon II: Beyond Thunderdome.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
626

609: 606: Tabletop? Could you unmask, or stop purporting to be acquainted with people here?

Fine, I unmask. I'm not sure why.

I really am starving and can't focus on B's 615, the Recounting of What Happened.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
627

620: Also we've somehow fallen into some parody of the gender wars, which is immensely frustrating. But as Slack said upthread, I think that AWB, for instance, is one of the women on the site who is the *most* likely to be unpredictable when it comes to "boys do x, girls do y", and part of the frustration is having comments that aren't doing that shoved into that frame.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
628

626: Hey, parsimon? You're a cunt.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
629

I am still debating coming to the DCon by the way. I need to talk shivbunny into and find a way to hide in the corner with the philosophers since I will not be cool enough to talk to anyone else.

It's just the Christmas thing. First the APA, now the damn blog.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
630

620: see, I think it can be easy to believe this is the case because oftentimes consensus develops so quickly that people with contrary opinions aren't even really tempted to offer them. From personal experience, there was a strip club thread not too long after I started commenting here where I expressed a somewhat contrary take on the subject, and boy, that ranks right up there with my most excruciating experiences on the internet. I still have thoughts about some of the fundamentals of feminist thought that I'd like to have vetted by people here, but, you know, not running through the lion's den with the steaks, no thanks.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
631

Fuck you, Lunar. Cut that shit out.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
632

624: Because I think Tabletop was unnecessarily unpleasant to a friend of mine, and consider reciprocal unpleasantness appropriate. This isn't substantive debate, this is interpersonal hostility.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
633

On review I fell a bit afoul of 627, but oh well.

629: maybe I'll let you hang out with the undergrads, Cala. I'll have to see.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
634

Then fuck you too, LB. And fuck AWB for moving her blog into the Unfogged comments section and fuck anyone who can dish it out but can't take it.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
635

630: It's a shame, then. I was certainly one of the people arguing with you on the strip-club thread, and I don't think less of you for anything you said there: I'd be surprised if anyone did. I'd be interested in your "thoughts about some of the fundamentals of feminist thought", but it's hard to talk about them without the full panoply of claws and teeth. But anytime you're up for it, do bring something up.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
636

fuck anyone who can dish it out but can't take it.

Hrm. Not seeing this as an accurate reflection of much.

Seriously, parsimon's nasty to AWB every time she brings up something personal. Getting hostile in return surely isn't what you mean by a narrow range of acceptable opinions, is it?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
637

But anytime you're up for it, do bring something up.

I probably won't be. I don't have the time or the stomach to take on that kind of argument, especially solo against several excellent, practiced debaters. Really, I'd mostly just like to understand some things, and probably we agree on 90% of things. But I don't feel like there's any way to get there without causing a critical failure in the anger-and-misunderstanding containment field.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
638

People, can't we all just get along?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
639

It's just the Christmas thing. First the APA, now the damn blog.

I was half thinking of going along to the APA this year b/c of DCon, but the former is such a pain in the ass, and now it seems the latter will be a lot of shouting.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
640

I harbor a hope that there will be dancing at ChicagoCon.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
641

Man. "Assume Everything's Meant Lightheartedly On The Internet" is seeming wiser and wiser to me every day. People! Join me! Do not worship at the feet of Emerson's false "No Relationships" god! Mine is the true creed!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
642

Sifu -- easy solution is an anonymous ATM question and let the lions fight over your steaks while you sit back and watch.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
643

I think it's clear that there won't be a second Single Blind Date Day.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
644

639: Oh, don't make plans on the basis of one bad day on the blog. There will be puppies, and baby rabbits, and harmony and peace, I'm sure.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:24 PM
horizontal rule
645

parsimon's nasty to AWB every time she brings up something personal

And every time I get a bunch of "thank god for parsimon" emails.

Look, we can make this personal or we can try to figure out why the site is breaking down in certain ways; it's not about any one person.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:24 PM
horizontal rule
646

617 seems exactly right.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:24 PM
horizontal rule
647

640: I just might come if there is. (Weigh that info however y'all like... )


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
648

And every time I get a bunch of "thank god for parsimon" emails

From dudes? (Genuinely curious.)


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
649

every time I get a bunch of "thank god for parsimon" emails.

I really, really wish you wouldn't do this. Especially without saying who is sending those emails.

That said, I'm all for figuring out what the issue is with the site without getting into personal shit, yes.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
650

I just might come if there is

I am looking forward to the youtube video.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
651

Look, we can make this personal or we can try to figure out why the site is breaking down in certain ways; it's not about any one person.

I'd agree that the site's off its feed, but I don't think parsimon's a symptom of anything to do with any larger issues.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:28 PM
horizontal rule
652

639: Oh, don't make plans on the basis of one bad day on the blog.

Nah, mostly it was the problem of managing the conference that got in the way. I'd probably have come along for the shouting. O APA, ruiner of Christmases and spoiler of blogcrush consummations.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:28 PM
horizontal rule
653

I really, really wish you wouldn't do this.

Sorry, but it's on point: there are people who read and would like to participate but feel alienated. They email me. (Not just dudes, Brockster.)


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:28 PM
horizontal rule
654

May, I'm really starting to wish I had time to read this whole thread. It sounds juicy.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:28 PM
horizontal rule
655

I think it's clear that there won't be a second Single Blind Date Day.

Oh, I think it's been great, perhaps because I've kept my mouth good and shut.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
656

That said, I'm all for figuring out what the issue is with the site

I take full responsibility. I havent been proofing my posts or putting a lot of thought into them. I am sorry that I have been letting this site down.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
657

And yeah to 649. What is anyone supposed to say to that?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:30 PM
horizontal rule
658

Look, we can make this personal or we can try to figure out why the site is breaking down in certain ways; it's not about any one person.

Your 617 seems like a good start. I will note, though, that when I brought up similar issues recently most of the response I got was along the lines of "Conflict is what makes Unfogged great! You can't silence us!"


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:30 PM
horizontal rule
659

653: But the point is, they "would like to participate but feel alienated" . . . because of AWB? Because that's what the "yay Parsimon" thing kind of implies.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:30 PM
horizontal rule
660

Ogged, if you don't want discussion about sex, don't host discussions about sex. I never talked about stuff like that on my blog; I've always only talked about it here. I just comment more than I used to.

And Jesus Christ, if I couldn't take it, why would I be here? I had to go to a talk. I wasn't angry at all, aside from being mildly and predictably annoyed by TT's constant assumptions that I'm a really bad person, especially in the context that I was not fully pseudonymous here the way she was.

When I say it's good to know who your enemies are, I meant it. I like knowing when I'm not among friends. I am among some friends and some enemies here, and I like it that way. I am not personally insulted when people say they wouldn't sleep with me. I am not here trolling for lovers, for God's sakes. Take for granted I wouldn't talk the way I talk here to impress boys; I'm not that dumb.

Everyone is fine! I'm fine!


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:31 PM
horizontal rule
661

652: I am trying to avoid the Eastern APA until I have to, but I have friends on the market this year, and FL is trying to talk me into it, so if I go, I will find you and we will have a drink, which will mitigate the fact that you know, APAs over vacations are a crime against natura naturans.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:31 PM
horizontal rule
662

I just might come if there is

Yay! I will dance, even though I'm a foot taller than rfts.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
663

Sorry, but it's on point: there are people who read and would like to participate but feel alienated.

I'm not understanding how that can be regarded as a problem. What can you say to someone like that: "We're glad you like reading the blog, we're sorry you don't like it enough to comment. Please explain how we can make it different enough that you will comment."


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
664

Ohboy dancing.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
665

645 is more measured than I was hoping for. Rage, ogged! Rage against the forces of premature comity!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
666

I think it's clear that there won't be a second Single Blind Date Day.

If that were true, more's the pity. I mostly hang out on the periphery around here, and I missed virtually all of today's threads as they were playing out, but from what I've read so far it seems to have been a pretty fascinating and worthwhile (and funny, and acrimonious &c.) exercise.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
667

617 and 630 both seem like fair assessments, from the perspective of someone who reads but is discouraged from participation due to alienation (not AWB-related).


Posted by: Amber | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
668

I agree with Jesus in 666 (!); despite the unpleasantness, I thought this was an interesting experiment that would be worth repeating.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
669

629 and 639: You really should try to make it to DCon. Emerson has promised to sing Koombyah.


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
670

Ogged gets emails, I get emails, I'm ruining Unfogged singlehandedly by making lurkers fearful of my all-powerful self. Come on. I am not nearly bad enough to be that harmful of a presence. If you want me gone for some reason, I'll leave. But I don't feel like I've ever come here to start fights or pick on anyone, and I try not to be a hateful person, here and in general.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
671

Rage, ogged! Rage against the forces of premature comity!

I really am torn between being so nasty that no one comes back and playing peacemaker. You can be the devil on my left shoulder.

I'm not understanding how that can be regarded as a problem.

I genuinely don't understand what you don't understand. More smart interesting people would comment here if the site were more open to heterodox views. Isn't that a problem?

And Teo, the difference you and I are having (or I thought we were having) is that you seem to want less disagreement; I want more disagreement. Where we agree is that the way discussion is carried on currently doesn't satisfy either of us.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
672

652: I am trying to avoid the Eastern APA until I have to, but I have friends on the market this year, and FL is trying to talk me into it, so if I go, I will find you and we will have a drink,

Which would be absolutely terrific, but I'm almost certainly not going to be there now. Too complicated to manage the family stuff.

which will mitigate the fact that you know, APAs over vacations are a crime against natura naturans.

I've sacrificed several holidays to this evil system, including a couple in the role of job market support unit. Why do philosophers hate Christmas?


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
673

663: but LB, there are regular commenters who don't weigh in with trenchant observations on given subjects because they don't want to be taken as on the side of Evil. It's not that they don't want to comment, it's that they can't figure out how there's room.

Rereiterating, I haven't the slightest how you might fix this without breaking something else (i.e my interest in commenting).


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
674

I'm ruining Unfogged singlehandedly by making lurkers fearful of my all-powerful self

Of course you're not; I really don't mean to say that you are. I'd rather drop the who ruined what stuff and talk about the site more generally.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
675

if the site were more open to heterodox views

I think I'm repeating what other people have said, but I really hardly understand how this could be possible.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
676

My dislikes:

I dislike the personal insults. Quite frankly, Ogged seems pretty willing to ask people to stop the insults.

I also dislike the grammar bitching.

I can see how people might be discouraged from commenting in order to avoid such unpleasantries.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
677

There are a lot of comments and they come very quickly. That means that anyone who wants to participate has to do so quickly and decisively. ... [de facto] requirement to make your arguments in punchy two or three sentence chunks

From the perspective of someone who is often limited to commenting infrequently I will say that it's frustrating to feel like it's almost impossible to make an argument in one or two comments that will communicate successfully.

It can feel like trying to craft a complete argument in one comment means that it will be too long and ignored, and making a shorter comment that alludes to, rather than makes, an argument is asking for trouble as well.

Obviously, it isn't really productive to try to shift the blog to accomodate the occasional commenters, but I wanted to say that I'm very aware that the main way in which arguments are made on the blog is through repetition, and that can be hard to jump into the middle of.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:41 PM
horizontal rule
678

More smart interesting people would comment here if the site were more open to heterodox views.

I guess I thought the ethos of the site was, as you say, to encourage disagreement. Yet somehow, you want to attract people to the site who are intrigued, but unwilling to comment because they fear they will be vigorously disagreed with. This seems contradictory, no? If that's a problem, what's the conversation going to be like when the hypothetical smart interesting people get here -- tiptoeing around their opinions so as not to scare them off?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:41 PM
horizontal rule
679

If the grammar bitching goes, so does unfogged. I think that's indisputable.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
680

I think I'm repeating what other people have said, but I really hardly understand how this could be possible.

Really? Like for-real really?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
681

And Teo, the difference you and I are having (or I thought we were having) is that you seem to want less disagreement; I want more disagreement. Where we agree is that the way discussion is carried on currently doesn't satisfy either of us.

Okay, that clarifies things. For a while there it looked like you were objectively pro-comity.

I don't think "less disagreement" is really an accurate description of my position, though; it's not about the amount of disagreement, but the way it's (often) expressed. We do seem to agree that it isn't possible to fix the way discussion is carried on currently, though, so I'm not sure what exactly your goal is here.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
682

677 does seem very right.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
683

I agree with Jesus in 666 (!)

Ha! I didn't notice that. (Incidentally, I was god for a while this morning. Not intended to be a play on my regular pseud, which was itself a spur-of-the-moment response to LB's hectoring, but I was obediently looking for a three-letter combo, and that was pretty much the first thing that popped into my head.)


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
684

there are people who read and would like to participate but feel alienated.

You know, I lurked for a long time, because this was completely true for me in one of Unfogged's earlier incarnations. The frat-boy atmosphere, not to mention select war and torture posts, were sufficiently offputting that it took a while for me even to become a regular reader.

Since then I've watched this place go through several iterations. I happen to find the current one rather congenial, but I'm quite aware that we tend to value certain things (speed, wit, cleverness, a loose set of left/liberal beliefs) over others. I've only ever linked one real-life friend here, and that's because most of the folks I know wouldn't be comfortable in this mileu.

I guess I'm saying that it's not at all hard for me to understand why people might feel shut out from this place. I'm not suggesting that the blog should change to welcome or exclude people, but it's a fair observation.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
685

680 after 679 is awesome.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
686

I had a great time today, and feel I learned something.

I've often taken things too personally in the past, and was pleased not to be do so today; it's so much better without.

And, weirdly, I think I already said this either as myself or not, it felt like the clock had been turned back, today when I knew people by style alone, all the hard feelings that have encrusted and are somehow part of our histories were gone and I realized how much I loved them. I was quite soppy about it.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:45 PM
horizontal rule
687

I like the grammar bitching, up to a point.

Here's a thought. Did we not used to have a "you've commented too recently; you have to wait X amount of time to comment again" feature? Now, that was frustrating when it meant you couldn't comment simultaneously on multiple threads. But if it could be implemented on individual threads separate from one another, that would be ideal*; and even if it had to mean no simultaneous multi-thread commenting, well, maybe that would be a small price to pay.

*Not to me; I adore the fast arguments and sweeping generalizations and all of it, but I admit that I also really could stand to be forced to go do other things sometimes. I offer the idea only in the spirit of "being nice to Ogged" and completely against my own personal interests. Because THAT'S WHAT A NICE PERSON I AM.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:45 PM
horizontal rule
688

who don't weigh in with trenchant observations on given subjects because they don't want to be taken as on the side of Evil.

I've heard you say this, and similar things, a couple of times, and I don't really know what to do with it. Taking me as the voice of the oppressive consensus: you've got some trenchant opinions, but you don't want to argue them, because I'll think you're Evil. But you know your opinions aren't Evil, or you wouldn't hold them. And to the extent I'm going to think they're Evil, I'm (from your point of view) wrong, so there's no reason to feel bad about me thinking ill of you -- if I do, I'll be mistaken. And maybe you can get me to see your point.

And if none of that works, we can agree to disagree. Some of my best friends, I disagree with fundamentally about some very important stuff.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:46 PM
horizontal rule
689

Cala and Gonerill should be banned. They're actually trying to carry on a reasonable conversation amidst this noise. The motherfuckers.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:46 PM
horizontal rule
690

670: Wait, how on earth could there be AWB-related alienation? She's, like, one of the nicest people around these parts!

671: Peacemaker, peacemaker! Seriously, there's alot of smarts in the commenting community and it would be a shame to lose all the good discussion to an outbreak of mass interpersonal hostility.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:47 PM
horizontal rule
691

689 made me chuckle.

This sort of comment, while true, should never be allowed again. Wasn't there a rule once? Whence our standards?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
692

677: This is absolutely true. Too many of the arguments are like the joke about telling jokes in prison: "18!" "75" "31!" I don't know what to do about it, but it's a problem.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
693

I like the grammar bitching, up to a point.

Me too, it's part of the distinctive personality of the blog. Besides, we like Ben w-lfs-n.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
694

690: I dunno. I usually feel pretty happy here, but people tell me that Most People at Unfogged hate me. This is always a shock. I just thought it was, like, two people who hate me.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
695

Maybe it would fix things if there was a per comment fee.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
696

I think part of "the problem" is that the distinction between "being mean in a jokey way to people you are genuinely fond of" and "being mean in a non-jokey way to people you genuinely don't like much" has gotten blurred.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
697

And apparently Ogged gets emails. Sorry about getting huffy on your behalf -- the conversation made me cross.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
698

(The fee need not be monetary.)


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
699

Community service?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
700

I actually like the grammar comments. I also like the fact that I can correct my own spelling (ahem, milieu).


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
701

688: Can you see Witt's description

You know, I lurked for a long time, because this was completely true for me in one of Unfogged's earlier incarnations. The frat-boy atmosphere, not to mention select war and torture posts, were sufficiently offputting that it took a while for me even to become a regular reader.

as understandable?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
702

Oh, cash money by all means. I'll provide a PO Box.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
703

This whole thing was about incomplete double-pseudonymity. If a certain Bradley M2 were truly pseudonymous, attacking her wouldn't be the same as attacking AWB, and our collective indignation would not be necessary. That said, "I wouldn't talk the way I talk here to impress boys; I'm not that dumb" is silly. I'm deeply impressed, and I'm a boy, so there.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
704

I think part of "the problem" is that the distinction between "being mean in a jokey way to people you are genuinely fond of" and "being mean in a non-jokey way to people you genuinely don't like much" has gotten blurred.

I agree with this, of course. I think a lot of the recent problems, including this one, are mostly due to the site getting bigger in terms of readership and number of commenters.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
705

692: I think this is a volume problem. It used to be a fun part of the injokeyness, and now with threads that go into the hundreds as a matter of course, it's more of an impediment.

I still like it, but I can reluctantly see that it's A Bad Thing Now.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
706

688: clearly you are insufficiently neurotic to understand me. Some issues are so emotional, so fraught -- or can seem that way, because, you know, internet, even though they aren't -- that it seems to me (and, I conjecture, to other uptight-Protestant born) that disagreeing will hurt somebody's feelings very deeply, and that's something I never like to do.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
707

Ogged, if you're still reading this, I sent you an email and I would like to know if you got it, because Gmail is behaving rather wonkily.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
708

I find it hard to believe that people dislike AWB.

I guess that I typically assume that people are not really that serious when they start their bitching about someone else.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
709

I am of course just assuming that the readership's increased lately; does anyone have stats on this?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
710

702: seriously. AWB has been steadily moving up my blogcrush list.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
711

I sent you an email and I would like to know if you got it

Nope.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
712

Relevant.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
713

Also, are the "people who email Ogged saying they're scared to comment" the same as "people who hold heterodox opinions"? Is it even possible to tell?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
714

712: suprisingly, not so much.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
715

I'm deeply impressed, and I'm a boy, so there.

I find it hard to believe that people dislike AWB.

AWB has been steadily moving up my blogcrush list.

In the words of Donkey, "Now let's not all start kissing each other's butts."


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
716

701: Sure. But she sucked it up (or waited for the tone of the blog to become more congenial) and jumped in. Can you imagine suggesting to Ogged that there should be fewer posts on pro-war arguments because they were offputting to possible valuable commenters?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
717

that it seems to me (and, I conjecture, to other uptight-Protestant born) that disagreeing will hurt somebody's feelings very deeply, and that's something I never like to do

That's been big for me too, although it's good to be feeling finally that it ain't so.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
718

Can you imagine suggesting to Ogged that there should be fewer posts on pro-war arguments because they were offputting to possible valuable commenters?

I suggest there should be fewer swimming posts because they are offputting to possible valuable commenters.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
719

suprisingly, not so much.

You don't think?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
720

being mean

See, this is part of what I meant about the current blog culture. My brother and I can never talk politics at my sister's house (even though we are 98% in violent agreement) because she always says "Would you please stop arguing?" It's genuinely painful to her to witness what to us is a subject-matter debate that has absolutely no bearing on how much we love each other.

I think that for a lot of active commenters here, what's appealing about this place is that there a bedrock understanding of how we engage in debate. It's largely not personal. It can be conversational blood sport, but in the sense of batting around a topic to get at some sort of improved understanding, not merely to score points.

And I think we (I) value the shared understanding of not having to re-argue everything (feminism 101, whatever) from square one.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
721

Yeah, I can't tell if the problem with my comments is that I'm too friendly-chatty, too heterodox, or a lightning rod. I'm not an asshole, with a few exceptions (boomer thread), and I don't derail threads at the beginning. Maybe it's that I unwittingly set terms for the ensuing conversation? Except, a lot of the time, people just ignore me, so it isn't really that.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
722

618, 628:

626: Hey, parsimon? You're a cunt.

Holy shit. I just saw this.

I'll say this once: we don't know each other.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
723

I hate it when mommy and mommy fight.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
724

It's a fair point to wonder what the hell I'm after when I say I want more disagreement but complain that people feel shut out. And maybe these goals are in conflict: I want people with a broad range of opinion to be able to join the discussion here without feeling jumped on, and I want people to feel free to say what they mean without worrying about everyone's feelings. I think we've become pretty good about the latter goal, but has it been at the expense of the former? Maybe? I don't think it's a big fat accident that baa, Idealist and even Jake (who is basically a lefty, as far as I can tell) hardly comment here anymore; we've become intolerant or unwelcoming. Some of this, as LB says, is understandable: what the fuck is left to argue about, but some of it bleeds over into areas where there really are reasonable differences of opinion. Again, I don't know what to do about it. Maybe the aim should be unvarnished but not personal debate. Tough to pull off, certainly.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
725

people tell me that Most People at Unfogged hate me

Was there a vote? Because now I'm feeling totally disenfranchised! And I demand a recount, too!!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
726

And maybe these goals are in conflict: I want people with a broad range of opinion to be able to join the discussion here without feeling jumped on, and I want people to feel free to say what they mean without worrying about everyone's feelings.

I'd say they certainly are, and if you really want to fix the problems you see with the blog (which it's not clear you do), I think you have to decide which is a higher priority for you.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
727

: Sure. But she sucked it up (or waited for the tone of the blog to become more congenial) and jumped in.

Really, I'm just trying to figure out if you're not understanding that the present tone in some threads could be off-putting to some people. I thought you were saying that you couldn't understand how that might be.

Can you imagine suggesting to Ogged that there should be fewer posts on pro-war arguments because they were offputting to possible valuable commenters?

I think people did so as regards the frat-haus sensibility.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
728

724:

It isnt that hard to disagree with someone's point without saying "fuck you ___________."

But, that doesnt happen here that much.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
729

724: to offer an opposing perspective, I'm generally understood to be wrong about most things, and while I do sometimes worry about hurting people's feelings, I think most people are pretty good about that, and certainly I don't ever feel unfairly "jumped on" (except insofar as experiencing overwhelming disgreement necessarily feels like being "jumped on"). I really meant 675. This is probably the fairest and most open forum for engaging substantive disagreement I've ever encountered. I think people who feel uncomfortable here just probably don't like to disagree.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:07 PM
horizontal rule
730

Parsimon we have had your back, after our fashion. I would say roll with it.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:07 PM
horizontal rule
731

I am drunk, so all y'all shape up because if you don't I'm starting a blog and stealing your commentariat.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:07 PM
horizontal rule
732

So out of date.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
733

724: Well, is it really about "lefty" vs. "not lefty" stuff? Serious question. Because I think the question is, what do you want disagreement *about*?

Maybe the issue is that you want a blog that talks about certain topics but not others--e.g., you want people to talk about politics from various points of view, but feminism is tiresome? Which again, not an accusation, but a question. I mean, you've named a few commenters you miss, and it seems to me they're all people who aren't terribly interested in feminist discussion beyond a certain point, but like the politics stuff.

If it's the politics stuff, I actually personally agree, but I wonder if it might not be, not "the blog" but just that we're all so fucking worn out about the topic.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
734

727: Of course it's offputting to some people -- Jonah Goldberg shows up, he probably won't enjoy the conversation. The question is if there's any way to make it not offputting to the people ogged wants to attract without shutting down conversation for the rest of us.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:09 PM
horizontal rule
735

Whee. I should read the blog less anyway. But going back and reading what Tabletop said, I really don't see where the accusation of "any woman who expresses an opinion about sex gets called a complete cunt" came from. 390? Really?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:09 PM
horizontal rule
736

It can be conversational blood sport, but in the sense of batting around a topic to get at some sort of improved understanding, not merely to score points.

I think it sometimes becomes mostly about scoring points. Almost as a matter of rhythm. (I'm not really sure what "improved understanding" means, here.)


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:10 PM
horizontal rule
737

I want people with a broad range of opinion to be able to join the discussion here without feeling jumped on, and I want people to feel free to say what they mean without worrying about everyone's feelings.

See, I think this *is* doable, but I suspect it's something that can only happen within *some* kind of frame. Either a limited amount of commenters or a set bunch of topics. Like, you can have a broad range of opinion about subject X, but subject Y is not something we talk about much because we're all basically on the same page.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
738

any way to make it not offputting to the people ogged wants to attract without shutting down conversation for the rest of us

The one thing I can think of is that we could extend more argumentative charity to people, which is to say that I'd rather we (and I do mean all of us) would have a default assumption that the person on the other side of the argument is basically decent and pursuing recognizably decent goals. Maybe this means avoiding loaded language when we disagree, maybe it means asking for clarification before we disagree. I'm really not sure, but I don't think there's nothing we could to improve things.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
739

The length of these comment threads has got to be a part of the problem, whatever we ultimately decide the problem is. There was a time when I read every single comment posted on this site for months on end. That was a time when we didn't routinely have threads with 500+ comments.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
740

737: B, you think the way to make people feel free to say what they mean without worrying about everyone's feelings is to talk about the things we disagree about and ignore the things on which we're all basically on the same page? That seems odd.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
741

What a weird thread. Man, I just waded through the last 200 comments or so.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
742

Can you imagine suggesting to Ogged that there should be fewer posts on pro-war arguments because they were offputting to possible valuable commenters?

FTR, I was absolutely shocked about who Alameida recruited. Not because the people weren't thoughtful and interesting posters, but because the blog had at that point been a whole lot of not-really-joking jokes about finding a "blogger with ovaries" and then all of a sudden there was this wave of new front-page posters, and some of them emphatically did not represent the status quo with regard to gender issues.

I never spoke to anyone about this in e-mail, so for all I know Ogged actually asked Alameida to shift the tone of the blog by recruiting a different set of folks. Somehow I doubt it.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
743

Who dislikes AWB? Any why? Because she's frank in her admissions of what all men boast about?

Please.

What has this thread become? People, I say, PEOPLE, everything's five-by-five.

I mean, obviously, that's not true, but in the spirit of comity, we can pretend it is, no?

(And I say this after admitting Kotsko guilted me into retracting what was, in retrospect, an inadvisable Unfogged-related post.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
744

739: I still hold out hope that some day all of you will look back on Lander's Folly and recognize its genius.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:15 PM
horizontal rule
745

I feel like the quintessential turned-off wannabe commenter, but I don't have time to contribute to this thread. The points that blame commenting brevity and frequency are dead-on. That's what turns me off the most from ever posting in disagreement: the way the discussion here is structured, I will have to spend the next six hours refreshing the thread if I don't want to allow my pseud to become a caricature.


Posted by: destroyer | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:16 PM
horizontal rule
746

Right when I started reading, I think Alameida wrote up ground rules for arguing. But now I can't find it.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:16 PM
horizontal rule
747

Landers'


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:17 PM
horizontal rule
748

733: I find the feminist stuff much more entertaining than the politics stuff. I've also got no problem being told I'm wrong. I don't even have a problem being told I'm stupid by Emerson, because trolling him can be a bit of a guilty pleasure. But there's definitely something weird about the feminist discussions here - I don't know if it's just being around a bunch of people who have spent years trying to reason about it and so have developed jargon that excludes outsiders, or if it's the more or less complete absence of anything regarding a "male" viewpoint (remember the time we tried to have a conversation about masculinity?), or what, but there's a very real sense that some people find this stuff interesting while others FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT IT and get easily offended and then band together to drive off the attacker.

Oh, Ogged. I went swimming twice this week. I'm either out of shape or my heart is gimping out, as while I was able to do 5x100 on 1:30 holding around 1:15, my pulse was over 180 at the end of the last one. When are we going to enter a masters meet?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:17 PM
horizontal rule
749

745 is very true, too.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
750

735: Well, yes. I didn't say by you. There are lots of threads about what's attractive or not in women, and people respond angrily. There are also threads about what's attractive or not in men, and people respond angrily. I think there's a little too much identification going on in both cases. I'm not trying to be attractive to ogged, so his statements about what's attractive have nothing to do with me. Why would anyone here care, except as an interest in knowing such people exist, that I feel the way I do about sex? I'm not saying it to hurt you; I don't know how anyone here fucks or doesn't fuck.

I read comments here because it's made me somewhat gentler when I meet people I used to think were too weird to be engaged with. I'm a lot more thoughtful about human difference.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
751

"any" s/b "and" ... I'm not used to non-ergonomic keyboards yet.

The one thing I can think of is that we could extend more argumentative charity to people, which is to say that I'd rather we (and I do mean all of us) would have a default assumption that the person on the other side of the argument is basically decent and pursuing recognizably decent goals.

Do people really not do this (except for effect)? Isn't charity one of the things that differentiates Unfogged from (all apologies) B.'s comment threads? There's an orthodoxy (productive, mostly) there, that would serve no purpose here.

(Or maybe I'm a Republican at heart who needs LB to convince me of what's rational.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
752

728, see 628.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
753

I suspect it's something that can only happen within *some* kind of frame. Either a limited amount of commenters or a set bunch of topics.

I agree. There are online communities dedicated to very specific interests that work pretty well because they explicitly forbid discussion of anything other than the narrow subject that they're about. This isn't necessarily as much fun as a general-interest community, but it's more manageable because there are clear guidelines.

There are also online communities that are limited to a small number of people who know each other well (families or real-life friends or some such), and they also often work well because people are so familiar with each other that they don't have to make (m)any rules, formal or informal, to manage discussion. This model isn't applicable at all to a site that's open to everyone, of course.

So a general-interest site with low barriers to entry needs to develop some sort of framework for discussion if it's going to prevent the kinds of problems that such sites tend to experience. This can be either a set of formal rules or a system of informal norms, but whatever it is it has to be agreed upon by all participants to work.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:19 PM
horizontal rule
754

When are we going to enter a masters meet?

Hey! I've started with a coach. Shall we aim for early '08?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:19 PM
horizontal rule
755

687 has a point about fast-paced comments creating a heated rather than thoughtful style.

trying to craft a complete argument in one comment means that it will be too long and ignored

is something I've thought too. Sidebarred or flagged threads where slower and thus lengthier commenting is invited or, if technically feasible (would likely take more tables than now exist, if I understand remarks about the db behind the scenes), required? Reading/book threads?


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
756

I have this weird feeling of deja vu, because as an undergrad my famously vicious, heckle-filled and unforgiving college debating society went through a very similar crisis of faith. On the one hand, they wanted to encourage new people with different points of view to come and speak up. On the other hand, they were an audience of 400 smartass undergrads focused on a core clique of very clever, very articulate people who wanted to be entertained by cutting banter on Saturday evenings. The attempt to square this circle did not go well.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
757

738: Agreed.

739: No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that within a certain community, which can be quite large, you can have congenial disagreement about one set of topics in part because you know that, underneath, you're all good buddies--which relies on your *not* disagreeing, or even discussing, a bunch of other things because they're so taken for granted.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
758

I think it sometimes becomes mostly about scoring points. Almost as a matter of rhythm.

Hm. Maybe you're right, and I'm just not participating much in those threads. I don't tend to enjoy conversations that I think are mostly posturing. I don't think that the majority of threads here deteriorate to that point, though.

(I'm not really sure what "improved understanding" means, here.)

Well, I originally wrote "truth," but that sounded faintly ridiculous. Obviously some topics we just kick around for the heck of it or for entertainment value. But there is something useful about a bunch of literate, loquacious, somewhat self-disclosing people batting around a topic. I can't be the only one who has gotten a better sense of what on earth might be going on in my co-worker/friend/SO's head by reading something here in which a person outlined their thought process.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
759

The one thing I can think of is that we could extend more argumentative charity to people, which is to say that I'd rather we (and I do mean all of us) would have a default assumption that the person on the other side of the argument is basically decent and pursuing recognizably decent goals.

Yes. Some people are interested in talking (arguing?) about things, while others are interested in advancing the cause, and the different default assumptions that come along with those respective goals lead to a lot of conflict and personal attacks.

Given the general on-the-same-side nature of the unfoggedetariat, I'd think that this isn't the best place to try advancing the cause, but what the hell do I know?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
760

Hey! I've started with a coach.

Oh yeah? I went to high school with Al/lison Wa/gner.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
761

713: I'm sometimes, not afraid but reluctant to express my heterodox opinions on certain sex/gender/feminism topics. It's a question of, Do I have the energy to face the all-but-inevitably at least moderately hostile response? Which, frankly, I don't always have the energy to face.

It's the not the prospect of real (and sometimes heated) debate that makes me hesitate. I'm fine with argument and debate. It's rather that, on certain sex/gender/feminist issues, there's a dynamic where anyone who questions the orthodoxy (as defined, in most cases, by a handful of commenters) is presumed to be arguing in bad faith. And it almost invariably becomes this weird girls versus boys thing; and then, if that's the game, well, of course, and for all kinds of reasons, I want to side with the girls, except that sometimes I don't, or not fully, but then I don't really want to side with the boys either, if that's the game we're playing, or I don't want to come across as a Stepford Wife or something...So I often don't say anything at all.

No great loss to the blog, to be sure, if I keep my mouth shut, but I do have to wonder if there are others who are also reluctant to speak, and what kinds of conversations we are not having here as a result.


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
762

I have a theory. It may sound stupid. But:

AWB thinks of herself as an unattractive girl.

But her comments here seem like they're coming from a hot girl that all the guys want.

This breeds unfair resentment which she thinks is even more unfair than it is.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
763

I went to high school with Al/lison Wa/gner.

She's not coaching anymore; you're going to have to put this one back on the shelf.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
764

AWB thinks of herself as an unattractive girl.

Not to speak for AWB here, but this is completely untrue.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:27 PM
horizontal rule
765

you're going to have to put this one back on the shelf.

It's a safe bet that, instead of putting it on the shelf, I'll trot it out relentlessly every time swimming comes up in conversation.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:27 PM
horizontal rule
766

762: Whoever you are, AWB's an attractive girl who's more attractive because she lacks the airs of most attractive girls. I can see why that might be annoying ... but I don't know why that'd be annoying to commenters here. I mean, we're all about the written word, right?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:27 PM
horizontal rule
767

awb, feel free to be mean to boomers, because: pie.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:28 PM
horizontal rule
768

there's definitely something weird about the feminist discussions here - I don't know if it's just being around a bunch of people who have spent years trying to reason about it and so have developed jargon that excludes outsiders, or if it's the more or less complete absence of anything regarding a "male" viewpoint (remember the time we tried to have a conversation about masculinity?), or what, but there's a very real sense that some people find this stuff interesting while others FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT IT and get easily offended and then band together to drive off the attacker.

I think this is true, and I'm not sure why it happens or what to do about it. I think part of the problem *is* that "the male viewpoint" as such is suspect (and not so well examined), part of it is that feminism (and everyone else) hasn't done a lot of thinking about how maleness gets constructed. I suspect it's a topic most of us are very interested in, actually, probably more than how femaleness gets constructed, but it's something there's not a lot of rules about how to talk to.

I also, honestly, think it's something men (for understandable, sympathetic, and even admirable reasons) are, at this moment in history, prone to get waaaay defensive about.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:28 PM
horizontal rule
769

I will have to spend the next six hours refreshing the thread if I don't want to allow my pseud to become a caricature.

Jeez. Lazy, doesn't care.

Perhaps we should fission the way the Amish do when their community gets too large. They have a systematic way of doing this without hostility (though respecting difference). There's a certain critical mass above which face-to-face one-on-one communities can't function.

People could visit back and forth.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:29 PM
horizontal rule
770

"girl" s/b "something less condescending, lest I be a complete and utter prick"


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:30 PM
horizontal rule
771

I suggest "gel."


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:31 PM
horizontal rule
772

Since Gmail appears fucked for the duration: Ogged, I'm sorry for putting you in an uncomfortable position with my comments, and there's a few other things I'd like to say, if I can figure out a way to make email work and you're still interesting in hearing from me. And thanks.

762 is the classic example of why Unfogged can't have nice things.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:31 PM
horizontal rule
773

I get weird around feminist discussions. I tend to take them personally and often have a chip on my shoulder and in particular, the stripper thread, where I yelled and screamed a lot.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:32 PM
horizontal rule
774

Email anytime, Lunar.

And now that AWB's been attacked and defended, let's let her retire as a topic in this thread.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:32 PM
horizontal rule
775

Isn't charity one of the things that differentiates Unfogged from (all apologies) B.'s comment threads?

No; I think it's familiarity. Most of the commenters here are regulars; not so much at my place. Once Bitch got beyond a certain readership, the sense of community that let people actually *discuss* things evaporated; now such discussion only happens sometimes. Mostly on threads that have kind of a personal angle to them.

Also, b/c of the nature of the blog, I get more trolls.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:33 PM
horizontal rule
776

And, just for the record, I wasn't anyone in any of the anonymous/newly psuedonymous threads; the only times I've commented today have been under this handle, and I've been lurking around tonight mainly because I'm hoping Curses comes back because I'm concerned for her, especially if she is who I think she is.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:34 PM
horizontal rule
777

LROC (and you know I love you, right?) I wonder if his unhappiness didn't have more to do with the idea that personal invective is really boring for everybody else to read, and tone is (obvs) notoriously hard to read accurately on el Tubo. But I dunno. That's just what I would have been grumpy about.

Good to see you commenting.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:34 PM
horizontal rule
778

773: Personally, I think Heebie can get away with pretty much anything.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:35 PM
horizontal rule
779

773: heebie I still feel terrible about your reaction, although I know that, in some ways, might be silly.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:36 PM
horizontal rule
780

What a strange turn. Meta: sometimes overrated, always a mistake.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
781

It's a question of, Do I have the energy to face the all-but-inevitably at least moderately hostile response? Which, frankly, I don't always have the energy to face.

This, definitely. I won't disagree if I don't have 6 hours to defend myself. Which I don't always have. But I don't think that has anything to do with anyone's behaviour in particular--it's a volume problem.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
782

780: this is why you need to filter the meta, ne?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
783

774, yes.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
784

Sifu, I really flew off the handle. I didn't even remember that it was you that it was directed at. But I'm sorry for unleashing whatever torrent came out.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:38 PM
horizontal rule
785

781: speaking of spending hours defending yourself, Brock, why don't you send a fellow an e-mail, if you can figure out how to do it without getting in trouble.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:39 PM
horizontal rule
786

this is why you need to filter the meta, ne?

Talk to snarkout. He can hook you up.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:39 PM
horizontal rule
787

784: wasn't a torrent. You left the thread, hurt. I felt bad. A couple dozen lap dances later, it was all a memory. No but.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:39 PM
horizontal rule
788

785: huh? I just checked my email and don't see anything from you. What am I misunderstanding?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
789

It's a question of, Do I have the energy to face the all-but-inevitably at least moderately hostile response?
Seconded. I'm more interested in books and politics than men v women, would be happy to do a paragraph every hour or two on something contentious (healthcare finance, say), but not sentence-per-minute.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:41 PM
horizontal rule
790

788: I don't have your e-mail, is why you should send me one. If you don't have my e-mail, uh. Well fuck, I don't know. Figure it out.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:41 PM
horizontal rule
791

I think this is true, and I'm not sure why it happens or what to do about it. I think part of the problem *is* that "the male viewpoint" as such is suspect (and not so well examined), part of it is that feminism (and everyone else) hasn't done a lot of thinking about how maleness gets constructed. I suspect it's a topic most of us are very interested in, actually, probably more than how femaleness gets constructed, but it's something there's not a lot of rules about how to talk to.

The biggest and probably insurmountable issue is that thinking about gender issues is not a very male thing to do. So most of the thinking and talking that gets done is by people without firsthand knowledge, so to speak, and who react to being disagreed with "but you're clearly unfamiliar with even the basics of gender studies." Not sure how to get around it, but it's frustrating.

I also, honestly, think it's something men (for understandable, sympathetic, and even admirable reasons) are, at this moment in history, prone to get waaaay defensive about.

What, because they get attacked?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:42 PM
horizontal rule
792

I won't disagree if I don't have 6 hours to defend myself.

Honest question: why not? I mean, what's wrong with popping in, saying "I disagree, and here's why" and then just going away? If anything, I like doing that because it prevents me from getting sucked into a long argument that will upset Ogged, and I feel like I've had my say. And half the time someone who isn't me will pick up my point and do a better job of explaining it anyhow.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:42 PM
horizontal rule
793

Might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, so:

I think part of the problem *is* that "the male viewpoint" as such is suspect

"The male viewpoint" is a both a reduction and an abstraction. A highly useful analytic device in certain contexts and for certain purposes, yes. And ultimately grounded in the complex interactions of economy, society, polity and history, of course. But the closer you get to actual men, I propose, the less likely will "the male viewpoint" fully (or, in some cases, perhaps, even half-adequately) capture the relevant characteristics of the viewpoints of the relevant men. The assertion that "the male viewpoint as such is suspect" (which I don't disagree with, btw) should not necessarily translate into a presumptive suspicion toward the viewpoints of men.


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:44 PM
horizontal rule
794

Okay, apparently I can get email but not receive it, so: nice person who just emailed me, yes, that's a real email. Thank you, and I'll email you back when Gmail stops sucking ass.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:44 PM
horizontal rule
795

I like doing that because it prevents me from getting sucked into a long argument that will upset Ogged, and I feel like I've had my say. And half the time someone who isn't me will pick up my point and do a better job of explaining it anyhow.

You answered your own question. Having (B) available makes (A) less of an issue.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:44 PM
horizontal rule
796

790: Should I be able to find it at thepoorman? Because I can't. Also, am I supposed to know why I'm emailing you or is that a surprise? I'm not interested in purchasing any encyclopedias.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:45 PM
horizontal rule
797

I don't know why, since I never notice when people leave, but I noticed when L-Rock left, and wished she was here more.

She and AWB are particularly good about not generalizing.

Also, somehow despite being completely averse to confrontation IRL, I have no problem saying something controversial here. It's just inevitable that if several people disagree, they will respond disagreeingly. But each is acting singly and I try not to see it as being ganged up on. Just because several people are seemingly attacking me, using slightly different lines of reasoning which cannot all be rebutted at once, doesn't mean they should be blamed for ganging up on me, because they aren't coordinating their attack. It may be overwhelming, but it'll pass.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:46 PM
horizontal rule
798

Fuck. We appear to be at an impasse. Click my name as attached to this comment, Brock buddy. I have access to funds in Africa beyond the dreams of avarice.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:46 PM
horizontal rule
799

B, Sifu got there with 795 before I'd even read you're comment.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:46 PM
horizontal rule
800

What, because they get attacked?

No. Because there's about forty-odd years of thinking about constructions of femininity in contemporary American society to draw on, but very little thinking about guys; so even finding a vocabulary is tentative and difficult. And because gender roles have changed a lot, and for men as a class that means status inconsistency--y'all have lost power, or perceive yourselves as having lost it, because you don't get to assume the advantages you used to. Which though of course this is perfectly fair, blah blah, nonetheless is going to feel crappy, just like it would feel crappy if I had to move into a condo after a few years of living in a single-family house with a yard. And, I think, because the vast majority of men (here, certainly, and in the world at large) do, in fact, genuinely want to be liked by women, do feel like they "need" women, and are very afraid of displeasing women. I suspect part of this is a sex thing, part of it is a "most people are decent" thing, and part of it may well be a lingering Oedipal thing.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:47 PM
horizontal rule
801

Whatever else we might have in common, I obviously don't support Brock's inappropriate use of "you're."


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:48 PM
horizontal rule
802

801: It was there just to needle B, Sifu. Not deliberately, but nonetheless.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:50 PM
horizontal rule
803

Most of the things being talked about as potential problems here are not really problems.

The Unfogged house style -- various flavours of sardonic, rapid-fire commentary -- is a feature, not a defect. It's a huge part of what attracts most people to the site and motivates them to want to comment at all. It basically performs the function of an interesting, challenging set of rules within which general-interest discussion takes place, and in so doing it mercifully, one might even say miraculously, obviates the need to have Arguments about How We Argue, which as we can see here are by-and-large fucking awful. Without it (... and the grammar bitching ...) Unfogged would not be distinguishable from other blogs.

Now, obviously that style isn't for everyone, and will intimidate some people. But then, no set of rules is going to suit every smart and interesting person you would like to include. This is why, I hear, the Internets have literally dozens, even hundreds, of "web pages."

The dynamics of the gender wars threads can be stupid and tiresome, it's true. But any time I'm tempted to get in too much of an Eeyore frame of mind about this, I take note of how much better things are in this vein than they were a year ago (and they are much, much better), and how much more constructive and interesting the discussions on Unfogged tend to be than the average run of discussions on the bulk of the specifically gender-issue-concerned blogosphere (much, much more constructive and interesting).


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:50 PM
horizontal rule
804

794: You're saying exactly what I was saying; that there's no such thing as "the" male viewpoint. I.e., "the male viewpoint" as such--which is to say, the very existence of "the male viewpoint"--is suspect.

should not necessarily translate into a presumptive suspicion toward the viewpoints of men.

Again, I agree completely. I get frustrated a lot because people seem to think that I'm suspicious of men's viewpoints when for heaven's sake, I think I go way out of my way to make it clear that I'm actually mostly empathetic with them.

795: But see, you don't think that (B) exists because you're not trying to find it. Or at least, *I* usually don't think (B) exists until I am literally forced not to pursue my own argument, and then when I come back I'm all, "oh yay, someone else said what I was going to say."

I mean, it can't hurt to try, dudes.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:52 PM
horizontal rule
805

I really do like Slack. Even though sometimes I think he's wrong.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:53 PM
horizontal rule
806

DS complimented me on my mixtapes. Ergo he is probably the best person in the world.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:54 PM
horizontal rule
807

I suggest "gel."

Who the hell let my grandfather onto this site?


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:54 PM
horizontal rule
808

B, I think more hostility has been directed at people who say "controversial" things and then leave than at anyone else. I imagine doing it regularly would not be productive.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:55 PM
horizontal rule
809

I mean, it can't hurt to try, dudes.

Out of curiosity, how would you distinguish between a dude trying this, and a dude being shown the error of his ways so emphatically that he snuck off with his tail between his legs?

And for people who believe that the very existence of the male viewpoint is suspect, there's a lot of talk about what men do or do not get out of strippers, or what they do or do not find attractive in women, or what they do or do not do in bed.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:56 PM
horizontal rule
810

there's a very real sense that some people find this stuff interesting while others FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT IT and get easily offended and then band together to drive off the attacker.

Aside from one severe flare-up ages ago, this dynamic is actually quite tame and restrained here. Seriously.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:57 PM
horizontal rule
811

I suggest a reading group on The Second Sex. I think that wil solve all our problems.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:58 PM
horizontal rule
812

I think I probably agree with Jake more than anyone else on an agreements-per-comment level.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:58 PM
horizontal rule
813

Jake I so want to have gay sex with you now, you hero.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:58 PM
horizontal rule
814

805: Back atcha. And now I must be off to bed.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:59 PM
horizontal rule
815

Er, on gender issues, that is. Which I guess is not a large percentage of total comments.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:59 PM
horizontal rule
816

I won't disagree if I don't have 6 hours to defend myself.
Honest question: why not? I mean, what's wrong with popping in, saying "I disagree, and here's why" and then just going away?

I'm pretty much just a lurker here, but freals, B, on one or two occasions when I've tried to participate in a discussion, you've responded to me in such a way as to make it appear that I've meant something that I didn't, and then argued against the newly construed argument in a totally demeaning way. I'm not interested in trying to defend an argument I didn't make, or in trying to explain myself to someone who appears determined to take me on bad faith, but it's beyond annoying to let the misconstruction stand. I think this sort of thing really may dissuade people from commenting. It does me, anyway.

I'm sorry, I know this pseud is going to annoy LB, but I'm not a regular, and I don't really comment here.


Posted by: anonymous | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 9:59 PM
horizontal rule
817

815: Whew. I was beginning to get a bit weirded out.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
818

I really do like Slack.

Since you're thick-skinned, B, I wonder if statement like this are a (small) part of the problem. "I agree with you, so I like" and the implication that "I disagree with you, so I don't like you" make things more heated than they need to be. I mean, Unfogged is love and it's great when people say that other people rock, but it also contributes to offputting cliquishness. (I think I did it upthread too, so don't get your frilly panties in a bunch.)


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
819

I feel like I should cop to the fact that there are proximate, practical causes as the basis of my reduced commenting (job related stresses and a new and evil IT regime, mostly), not just those relating to the tone of Unfogged/certain sectors of the commentariat. As much as the latter has been making me say "fuck it, not worth the effort", I'd still be commenting a good deal less if all was roses, backflips, and healthy scientific chauvinism. It's largely not personal, and that which is, I have always regarded as my own problem. A lurker supporting Ogged in email I am not, basically, is what I'm saying.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
820

what possible relevance does ogged (or anyones) email have?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:02 PM
horizontal rule
821

and continuing 812-815, I find that on economic issues people from Minnesota usually make more sense than anyone else. Mostly because I feel like being a millennarian is the logical thing to do in economic terms these days. Growth is not infinitely sustainable, by definition.

what happened to Frowner?

note that I am trying to make this the smiles and sunshine complimenting each other thread.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:02 PM
horizontal rule
822

808: Those are people who aren't known quantities, i.e., they look like trolls.
809: See above.
809.2: Sigh. I just had this convo with sifu in chat a while ago. Speaking for myself, one, I am not "people." Two, when I talk about "men can't possibly see strippers as human beings" for example, I am *not* making a statement about what is going on in every individual man's mind; I am making a statement about what I see as the structural situation of stripping in the larger context of the world as we currently knowing it. Kind of like saying "women can't possibly 'choose' to get pregnant"--not a statement denying that some women try and succeed in getting pregnant, but a statement about their lack of conscious control over ovulation.

I don't know what other women mean by it; when I am around women who I think are genuinely making assumptions about what individual men are thinking, I will generally tell them I think they're on the wrong track.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
823

817: I'm touching myself right now thinking about you in the water.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
824

Two, when I talk about "men can't possibly see strippers as human beings" for example, I am *not* making a statement about what is going on in every individual man's mind; I am making a statement about what I see as the structural situation of stripping in the larger context of the world as we currently knowing it. Kind of like saying "women can't possibly 'choose' to get pregnant"--not a statement denying that some women try and succeed in getting pregnant, but a statement about their lack of conscious control over ovulation.

Those don't seem parallel at all. Not that it matters. More pointedly, "men can't possibly see strippers as human beings" is not a reasonable thing to say, if what you mean to say is what you say you mean, at least not without providing a lot of additional explanation.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:06 PM
horizontal rule
825

A lurker supporting Ogged in email I am not, basically, is what I'm saying.

You are teen yoda.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:08 PM
horizontal rule
826

Frankly, and this is the last meta thing I will ever post in my life I swear, my problem with the tone of people on the internet in general can be boiled down to six words.

- Talking past each other
- Condescension
- Generalizations

The first doesn't happen here, really, which is amazing.
The second happens here but not as much as elsewhere.
The third happens here but not as much as elsewhere.

Still, there's no excuse for intentionally doing any of these three things, unless it's in the rare case that maximum force must be brought out against a true troll so that he will go away and not come back.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:08 PM
horizontal rule
827

men can't possibly see strippers as human beings

When women have to rank raising their kids, having a high-powered career, or making more money than their husband, "having a high powered career" usually ends up at the bottom of the list, and this is why they are underrepresented at the top of their fields.

Purely a comment on the structural situation of the current state of American society. How could anyone take it remotely personally?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:09 PM
horizontal rule
828

820: Were you referring to my 819?


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:10 PM
horizontal rule
829

825: Strong is the snark in this one.

(Ahem . Yes, Sifu, I specifically posted that so we can bond about Usenet.)


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:12 PM
horizontal rule
830

829.2 was quite funny, and was an internet trope I had actually wholly forgotten about. Sorry ogged, eldernet is mocking you on that one.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:14 PM
horizontal rule
831

there's no excuse for intentionally doing any of these three things

Come on. There's no excuse for generalizing? Generalizations are fun. All broad and sweeping statements about the world are generalizations. Without broad and sweeping statements, no grand theories, no rhetoric...


Posted by: sin | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:14 PM
horizontal rule
832

marcus never fixes his information when he comments.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:15 PM
horizontal rule
833

Sifu, do you have a Gmail account? Would you be willing to do me a favor?


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:17 PM
horizontal rule
834

Wouldn't we be better off without grand theories? Is the net contribution of say Freudianism, Marxism, Objectivism, Chicago-school economics, etc. clearly positive?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:17 PM
horizontal rule
835

Yes and yes, depending? See above where I dropped some e-mail addr. science on Brock.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:17 PM
horizontal rule
836

Lunar, Sifu can't have gay sex with you, if that's what you have in mind.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:18 PM
horizontal rule
837

I'm aware of the "the lurkers support me" trope, youngsters. Still and all, sometimes it's relevant information.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:19 PM
horizontal rule
838

834: as a Marxi-Freudian Chicago School Objectivist, I object to the premise of your question.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:19 PM
horizontal rule
839

836: just watch me.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:19 PM
horizontal rule
840

818: I'm not wearing panties, frilly or otherwise; I've been in my footie jammies all day long.

Re. the substantive issue, maybe so. But I do like Slack, and I also disagree with him sometimes on the gender threads, specifically. I also, fwiw, like Jake and Brock and I adore you and Sifu. I get what you're saying about the implication, but as always I'm kind of at a loss as to why saying "I like Slack" has to be taken to mean "and I don't like the rest of you."

But like, if it's a problem, I'll try to remember to say instead "Slack's mostly right." In the interests of comity.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:20 PM
horizontal rule
841

Oh, it was a minor point, B, I'm not even sure why I brought it up. But thanks.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:22 PM
horizontal rule
842

839: Fine, but he'll have to pay extra.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:23 PM
horizontal rule
843

More pointedly, "men can't possibly see strippers as human beings" is not a reasonable thing to say, if what you mean to say is what you say you mean, at least not without providing a lot of additional explanation.

I swear to god I think I say every time we have a gender fight that I am making my assertions structurally rather than personally. Really, truly, I do.

827: I have no argument with that statement whatsoever. If we were really having this discussion, I would *build* on it by saying, yes, and the issue is that women shouldn't have to be the ones who are the primary child caretakers, and that worrying about making more money than their husbands is a silly thing to do and they shouldn't (have to) do that either.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:23 PM
horizontal rule
844

I'm not even sure why I brought it up.

Because you like picking on me.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:24 PM
horizontal rule
845

But thanks.

Does that mean, "thank you, I accept your promise not to talk about who you like any more again" or "thank you for saying you like me"?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:25 PM
horizontal rule
846

I've been in my footie jammies all day long.

With a trap-door?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:26 PM
horizontal rule
847

846: Dammit, no. And every time I have to pee I have to unzip the whole damn thing and freeze my tits off.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:28 PM
horizontal rule
848

I was thanking you for being reasonable (for once. fatty.)


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:28 PM
horizontal rule
849

842: Do you take PayPal?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:29 PM
horizontal rule
850

I'm always reasonable, dear. If you'd stop hating women, you'd realize that.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:29 PM
horizontal rule
851

Liking people is why I come here. Also, I seem to hang out in NYC more with people from Unfogged than with most of my other friends. So cliquishness works for me. But I also have friends here who've said that knowing there's an off-blog subtext of ongoing IRL relationships, as well as extremely ancient online relationships, makes that cliquishness even harder to tolerate.

In its defense, I think it's exclusively a positive cliquishness, in that I really like the people I've hung out with off-blog, and it doesn't manifest itself (to my eyes) as any less admiration for people we haven't met. But what do I know?


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:29 PM
horizontal rule
852

847: wait. Did you buy footie pajamas off that site that I found? That's so gross.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:29 PM
horizontal rule
853

843: B, really? I understand you to be saying you would have no problem with someone making the structural statement that "women can't possibly be top executives"? I doubt it, but even if so, do you think making an argument in those terms is a helpful way to proceed?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:31 PM
horizontal rule
854

852 made me laugh. No, I got them in the Target boys' department so that PK and I could have matching footie jammies. And they're not even the largest size.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:31 PM
horizontal rule
855

853: "Can't possibly"? That isn't what Jake said. "Women don't usually become top executives," otoh, is fine.

It's a perfectly valid way to proceed when you're talking to an audience that you think is likely to understand what you're saying, accept it, and let you move on to spend the bulk of your time discussing the more interesting subjects of (say) why. Yes.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:33 PM
horizontal rule
856

Answer quickly, or I'm leaving work to go home and go to bed.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:33 PM
horizontal rule
857

I have no argument with that statement whatsoever. If we were really having this discussion, I would *build* on it by saying, yes, and the issue is that women shouldn't have to be the ones who are the primary child caretakers, and that worrying about making more money than their husbands is a silly thing to do and they shouldn't (have to) do that either.

Hmm. Whenever this comes up, I always perceive the general argument to be that women shouldn't have to choose between the three, and a fair amount of resistance to the marrying down suggestion. Ah well. Could be my imagination or desire to feel unfairly persecuted rather than just wrong.

Ogged: early '08 will work.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:34 PM
horizontal rule
858

No, that isn't what Jake said, but "men can't possibly see strippers as human beings" is exactly what you said.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:35 PM
horizontal rule
859

857: I'm on record as being pro-marrying down; that's part of what all the "Hirshman hostility" was about.

See? The "general argument" /= what individual feminists who are *having* the argument are actually saying. I don't think it's your imagination or desire to feel persecuted; I think it's a tendency to conflate "feminists" into a monolithic group. Which even here, isn't the case.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:36 PM
horizontal rule
860

858: And I explained what I meant by that. And yet you still seem to be insisting on hanging on to your (mistaken) reading of it, even so.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:37 PM
horizontal rule
861

As an example of why discussing cliquishness seems reasonably I offer 622, 624, & 632.

[greatest respect for LB and AWB, etc of course.]

I think it can feed into/off of the importance of repetition to unfogged arguments.

Or, another way to look at it, is that many of us do not have the experience that B describes of making a comment, taking off, and seeing someone else argue that POV.

The ironic thing is that I've been thinking one change to try to make in the culture is to encourage more comments that exist just to acknowledge and offer respect other comments. I know that idea came up once before, and I've been consciously trying to that when I see things worthy of compliment, and I think it's become less common as the commentariat has gotten larger.

So I am of two minds on the subject.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:38 PM
horizontal rule
862

Hmm. Perhaps I could make the stronger statement that the inability of women to get top executive jobs without either a) not having children or b) marrying down is not a problem, because that's the path men follow to get there. And that most of the claims that is a problem come from people who really don't want to marry down but refuse to admit it to themselves.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:38 PM
horizontal rule
863

It's a perfectly valid way to proceed when you're talking to an audience that you think is likely to understand what you're saying, accept it, and let you move on to spend the bulk of your time discussing the more interesting subjects of (say) why. Yes.

The issue that we seem to keep getting stuck on with regard to this, of course, is whether the readers of Unfogged constitute such an audience, and whether this can be assumed. The answer may well be different depending on the specific subject of discussion in a given instance, even with a broad category such as gender issues.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:40 PM
horizontal rule
864

Are you being serious, B? I'm not hanging on to any reading of anything. I understand what you say you meant. And so I was asking you the question (which you have not answered): would you therefore have no problem with someone making the structural statement that "women can't possibly be top executives" (and explaining what he or she meant)? And even if so, do you think framing an argument in those terms is a helpful way to proceed?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:40 PM
horizontal rule
865

864 to 860.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:41 PM
horizontal rule
866

The ironic thing is that I've been thinking one change to try to make in the culture is to encourage more comments that exist just to acknowledge and offer respect other comments.

I like this idea a lot.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:42 PM
horizontal rule
867

866: I despise it. I'm not joking. A bunch of back patting and mutual congratulation is boring. We should be aiming to cut and maim. (But not in a hurtful way.)


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:45 PM
horizontal rule
868

866: I'm trying to find the comment in which Di Kotimy suggested the idea (it went along with her suggestion that people should be more willing to say when they're hurt of offended). IIRC she phrased it well.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:45 PM
horizontal rule
869

Brock is saying we should hate the sin but love the sinner.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:45 PM
horizontal rule
870

LROC has yet to e-mail me. I worry about my directions. Thoughts?

OT: Teo, I have now seen your facebook page. There is no doubt in my mind that there are dozens -- nay, many dozens -- of women plotting how they might sleep with you. Have you considered an intentional, multi-week coma as a seduction technique?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:46 PM
horizontal rule
871

We should be aiming to cut and maim. (But not in a hurtful way.)

How to do this is the central conundrum of Unfogged.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:46 PM
horizontal rule
872

867, I don't see why we can't have both. It's nice to have some evidence that other people have read ones comments other than disagreement.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:46 PM
horizontal rule
873

872: I disagree.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:47 PM
horizontal rule
874

861: The cliquishness thing cuts two ways here. I'm aware that the people who like me are particularly vocal in their defense of me, and, while I appreciate it, I know it inspires a lot more vehement attacks against my positions from people who don't consider themselves my friends. Ideally, we'd all be texts in a vat who don't already have feelings about each other, but history here is very long, and certain social dynamics are perhaps regrettable but unavoidable at this point.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:48 PM
horizontal rule
875

Have you considered an intentional, multi-week coma as a seduction technique?

Um, how would this work, exactly?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:48 PM
horizontal rule
876

I swear to god I think I say every time we have a gender fight that I am making my assertions structurally rather than personally. Really, truly, I do.

I believe you, but you have a rhetorical tic that makes such protestations necessary. I don't mean this as a complaint; I've now adjusted to this, and read your comments with bitchfilters on, but the first couple times this happened to me it resulted in my misunderstanding you. I'm not sure what the rhetorical tic is, and I can only recall it erupting once in a Bush-style "some people say" dodge, but it does happen. You're a great writer, but if you're talking to people you don't know, you might want to be extra careful with the implicature.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:48 PM
horizontal rule
877

I like you, AWB. You be you.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:48 PM
horizontal rule
878

Having just caught up... the pace of things here is a bit of a problem, even as much as the rhythm is its own kind of fun. I say this having just started a new job that is interesting enough to keep me from looking to the web for distractions constantly, and as a result having missed all kinds of good stuff in just a week.

As a technical/interface measure, I think the front-page display of recent comments, sorted only by time, definitely biases things towards heavy traffic in a thread or two - less-busy threads quickly become out of sight and out of mind. A rejiggering of that - maybe listing the last posters to each of several threads, but not letting it be swamped by just one thread, would help make it possible for slower threads to continue slowly, rather than quickly falling into oblivion.


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:48 PM
horizontal rule
879

Ideally, we'd all be texts in a vat

New mouseover.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:49 PM
horizontal rule
880

I'm also a little perplexed about how Sifu could have possibly seen my facebook page.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:49 PM
horizontal rule
881

875: you, being unconscious, would have an inoperative self-cock-block. How else would it work?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:49 PM
horizontal rule
882

880: it's complicated. Feel free to e-mail.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:50 PM
horizontal rule
883

Ideally, we'd all be texts in a vat

What happened to former commenter "text"?


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:51 PM
horizontal rule
884

And while I'm not sure about the multi-week-coma approach (not that it wouldn't work, but there may be other less drastic approaches that would also work), and not having seen Teo's Facebook page, the second sentence of 720.2 is the truth.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:52 PM
horizontal rule
885

Information fixed.

Reading up: I think the structural/personal thing is a cop out. It's condescending at best.

A lot depends on whether one feels that women are are structurally oppressed in this society -- or, more precisely, that they are much *more* structurally oppressed than men, in a fundamentally and deeply disadvantaged position. For those who do feel this, male complaints in the battle of the sexes are expressions of this oppression, and womens' complaints are righteous cries for justice. That leads to a dynamic where women are self-righteous and men are defensive. A dynamic sometimes in evidence on this blog.

As you can probably tell, I don't really think women are less powerful in this society than men. I actually don't think either sex is particularly powerful as such; I think we're all embedded in an ideological system that may use gender but has only an uneasy relationship with the real human needs of either. Sometimes being a woman puts you in an advantaged position within that system, sometimes being a man does.


Posted by: marcus | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:53 PM
horizontal rule
886

How else would it work?

That makes a certain amount of sense, but wouldn't it involve some planning? Where to position myself, etc.? The self-cockblocking could easily creep in there.

Feel free to e-mail.

Will do.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:53 PM
horizontal rule
887

861, 866 -- As nice as it is to have people agreeing with or complimenting one's posts, doubling threads, or even increasing them by 10%, presents its own issues.

Taking the thing for what it is seems to me the more sensible course. Not taking disagreement personally, enjoying interaction with enjoyable people, ignoring threads that aren't worth the effort, avoiding arguing with people who are not only not going to be convinced, but are not interested in the least in being contradicted (no matter what they say). Lest anyone take it personally, we all fall into this latter category at different times and on different subjects.

And teo, in the other thread, you suggested a Dinè association for my new handle. It's Algonquin: I am become Cautantowit, creator of worlds.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:54 PM
horizontal rule
888

Creepiness factor of searching for people you meet on one online dating site on a different one and then googling them once you have their last name?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:55 PM
horizontal rule
889

Marcus goes meta meta. Props, dude.

Hell, Teo, I think even I've seen your Facebook page, and I don't even have a Facebook account. That said, I've since forgotten even your real name, so we can pretend that it never happened. Except to say that you should be getting laid.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:57 PM
horizontal rule
890

888: creepy, but natural and near-inevitable given the easy, addictive nature of the technology. All forms of cyber-stalking are like this.


Posted by: marcus | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:57 PM
horizontal rule
891

As nice as it is to have people agreeing with or complimenting one's posts, doubling threads, or even increasing them by 10%, presents its own issues.

True, this is a concern.

And teo, in the other thread, you suggested a Dinè association for my new handle. It's Algonquin: I am become Cautantowit, creator of worlds.

Interesting. It's Diné, though.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:58 PM
horizontal rule
892

That said, I've since forgotten even your real name, so we can pretend that it never happened.

Only family members can know his real name. You can refer to him as Jacoby Ellsbury.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:59 PM
horizontal rule
893

Hell, Teo, I think even I've seen your Facebook page, and I don't even have a Facebook account. That said, I've since forgotten even your real name, so we can pretend that it never happened. Except to say that you should be getting laid.

Interesting how it's always dudes saying this.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:59 PM
horizontal rule
894

As further evidence for 808, I'm now frustrated as fuck about not getting a response to 864. After two prior non-responsive responses, the silence feels evasive. Which creates bad faith. Which I have to consciously put down, since I'm quite sure it's just that B's off doing something else. Which is totally fine, of course. But people dropping in and out of conversations, especially ones with real disagreement, causes a lot more animosity than staying around and hashing things out. Which, back to my original point, can take hours.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 10:59 PM
horizontal rule
895

As nice as it is to have people agreeing with or complimenting one's posts, doubling threads, or even increasing them by 10%, presents its own issues.

We could always have a feature to attach a chili pepper to a comment if you liked it a great deal.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:00 PM
horizontal rule
896

Silly Ned, the chili pepper should only be to indicate the physical attractiveness of the commenter in question.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:01 PM
horizontal rule
897

then googling them once you have their last name

My, you move fast. I wait until after dinner.


Posted by: feldspar | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:01 PM
horizontal rule
898

Or Digg-style voting. Thumbs up or thumbs down. Marking as spam. "Industry Best Practices", don't you know?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:02 PM
horizontal rule
899

Interesting how it's always dudes saying this.

teo, sorry, and I really, really don't want to argue about it, but: based on your facebook page, I doubt we'll ever snuggle.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:02 PM
horizontal rule
900

888: I am pro-googling potential dates, but with a positive attitude only. There is always weird old stuff that comes up, like embarrassing interviews with school papers and whatnot.

I once googled a prospective date and found he'd been the subject of a long investigative article about why he was apparently undatable. (It was all, "Here's a handsome, creative, well-educated guy! Why is he a disaster with women?") I read it in as generous a light as I could, and thought about how I'd feel about the things it brought up.

But we never met, because, five minutes into a conversation on the phone, he screamed at me that I didn't know what I was talking about, and suddenly, the article made more sense.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:02 PM
horizontal rule
901

I don't think it has much to do with structural versus personal. It's more that people divide opinions they don't agree with into two groups: a) provocative, or b) wrong-headed. The group you choose is determined by the amount of imaginative sympathy you feel for the person or the opinion. For example, I have more imaginative sympathy for feminism than I do for libertarianism (say), so a sweeping comment like B's strikes me as mildly provocative, while a comment about how people who support public schools are lackys of the teachers union would annoy the crap out of me. I can imagine someone having the opposite reaction (though I have no sympathy for them if they do).


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:03 PM
horizontal rule
902

I'd sage this thread, but first I have to figure out how to downvote some of the comments.


Posted by: Auto-banned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:03 PM
horizontal rule
903

As an example of what I'm thinking of in terms of compliments, at it's best, consider my comments and Kieran's response.

Kieran's comment was substantive, but I was really pleased that he noticed that I had picked up on something he posted a while back, and expressed his pleasure at that. It made me feel good about my comments which I'd felt slightly self-conscious about since they were a recommendation of a book I hadn't finished.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:03 PM
horizontal rule
904

I don't really think women are less powerful in this society than men

And here we go again. A gentleman doesn't say something like this when the thread is approaching 1000. It's just not done.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:03 PM
horizontal rule
905

Interesting how it's always dudes saying this.

to

I've since forgotten even your real name, so we can pretend that it never happened.


Posted by: feldspar | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:04 PM
horizontal rule
906

based on your facebook page, I doubt we'll ever snuggle.

That's okay. To be honest, I'm kind of intimidated by that mustache.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:04 PM
horizontal rule
907

Marcus goes meta meta. Props, dude.

I wanted to be in the argument but not of it. Or, of it but not embroiled in it. Especially since I have to go off to sleep now. No time for embroiling.


Posted by: marcus | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:05 PM
horizontal rule
908

900: One of the biggest reasons I vaguely with I had a pseud is that I am convinced that my Unfogged commenting history renders me more or less undateable, at least without extensive explaining beforehand.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:05 PM
horizontal rule
909

There is much wisdom in 901.

Creepiness factor of searching for people you meet on one online dating site on a different one and then googling them once you have their last name?

Not creepy at all, but then I'm definitely on the stalkerish side when it comes to googling people. Like, I think I've read all the comments at your Friendster page. HOW DO YOU LIKE IT???


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:07 PM
horizontal rule
910

885 isn't wrong, really, from a feminist perspective. It's just that men and women who buy into the structures of the patriarchy will more easily gain power than men and women who don't want to play, or are bad at playing, the game. Feminism isn't trying to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Fucking with the patriarchy not only raises a lot of girl-boats, but most of the boy-boats here too.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:07 PM
horizontal rule
911

I call shenanigans, Jake. You can have Sifu any time you want him.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:08 PM
horizontal rule
912

905: It's true. Cads.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:09 PM
horizontal rule
913

910 is a damn lie.

OT: How long should I keep my hitler mustache?


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:11 PM
horizontal rule
914

909: Not creepy at all, but then I'm definitely on the stalkerish side when it comes to googling people.

Jesus, thanks for sclearing that up that after I email you from the account with my full name.

Which is to say, lol u hav mail.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:11 PM
horizontal rule
915

Not creepy at all, but then I'm definitely on the stalkerish side when it comes to googling people. Like, I think I've read all the comments at your Friendster page. HOW DO YOU LIKE IT???

Oh man, those are from a long time ago. And I removed the really incriminating ones. But I still appreciate the privacy that Facebook provides.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:11 PM
horizontal rule
916

How long should I keep my hitler mustache?

A thousand years.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:11 PM
horizontal rule
917

Yeah, Facebook has been a boon to the casual stalker, but a bane to...others.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:12 PM
horizontal rule
918

Interesting how it's always dudes saying this.

Maybe because dudes feel like they've been in your shoes, but less well spoken and goofier looking, and have no idea what it was that moved them from the "getting laid" to the "not getting laid" category, but are sure that as soon as it happens to you, people better stand the hell back?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:14 PM
horizontal rule
919

916 was a decent answer, but I was expecting something along the lines of "No fewer than .5 and no longer than 1.2 centimeters."

I am now afraid to leave the house.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:14 PM
horizontal rule
920

I was expecting something along the lines of "No fewer than .5 and no longer than 1.2 centimeters."

I did think it was kind of an odd question.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:16 PM
horizontal rule
921

904, 905: funny

908: sexy


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:17 PM
horizontal rule
922

There's a more general (transcendental?) problem with invoking structure: you're never talking to one. There's no getting around the personal dimension. You're always arguing with a specific person who either is or isn't operating on the particular motives you've assigned to the bourgeoisie, or The Patriarchy, or whatever. And by working to convince them you're acknowledging a) that their personal beliefs have some practical consequence for the structure under discussion, and b) that they are--personally--acting either for or against it.


Posted by: Michael Vanderwheel, B.A. | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:18 PM
horizontal rule
923

904 is true, an annoying hit-and-run.

I once googled a prospective date and found he'd been the subject of a long investigative article about why he was apparently undatable.

OMG, are you talking about that Nerve article on the Woody-Allenesque director guy? With interviews with his exes, his responses, etc.? And links to Gawker pieces about him? I was totally curious about that guy -- I couldn't quite tell if he was a total asshole or the article was really unfair.

OK, now I really do need to go to sleep...but please answer, AWB. I'll check back tomorrow.


Posted by: marcus | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:20 PM
horizontal rule
924

923: No, I think in was in the Observer.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:22 PM
horizontal rule
925

I couldn't quite tell if he was a total asshole or the article was really unfair.

From AWB's account (assuming it's this guy, which I was also wondering), probably the former.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:23 PM
horizontal rule
926

So was it this guy?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:25 PM
horizontal rule
927

Send me a link to the article; maybe it's about the same guy.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:25 PM
horizontal rule
928

Oh no, not him. Different guy.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:26 PM
horizontal rule
929

I find it hilarious that "why can't this deranged creep get laid?" is now apparently an established genre of investigative article.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:27 PM
horizontal rule
930

Yeah, the link in 926 was the guy.

Teo and I, both single Jewish men, both fascinated by the same article...I think Eric Schaeffer must be our deep nightmare single Jewish male alter-self. Like, if I stay single long enough, could I ever morph into such an asshole?


Posted by: marcus | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:28 PM
horizontal rule
931

I didn't read the article, just the Gawker posts. They were fascinating, though.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:28 PM
horizontal rule
932

If you are single for an infinite amount of time, at one point or another you will manifest as every imaginable type of asshole.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:29 PM
horizontal rule
933

So AWB could still possibly date Eric Schaeffer!

But I think Schaeffer is fascinating because he's so shameless -- he's like, how can I still be single! I'm so amazing! Let's write a book about how amazing I am! When he's pretty clearly a total jerk.


Posted by: marcus | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:30 PM
horizontal rule
934

But I think Schaeffer is fascinating because he's so shameless -- he's like, how can I still be single! I'm so amazing! Let's write a book about how amazing I am! When he's pretty clearly a total jerk.

Agreed. I'm amazed that he's managed to get this much mileage out of the "why am I still single?" premise when the answer is so blindingly obvious.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:32 PM
horizontal rule
935

864: Holy shit, people, I go to read to my kid and now I'm sixty-odd comments behind.

Now I understand what you're saying, Brock. And the honest answer is that, no, *in a discussion about, say, "why aren't women top executives," if someone who I thought was basically a sensible person said "women can't possibly become top executives because they have kids and don't marry down," I would not take that as an offensive statement but as a statement of (more or less) fact.

The trick may be that I am not someone who y'all see as basically a sensible person. Which, at this point? If so, there's very little I can do about it.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:32 PM
horizontal rule
936

Oddly, the Observer article about the guy I didn't go out with was pretty thoughtful and kind. The journalist really couldn't figure out what made the guy undatable until he saw him in a bar trying to pick up girls, where he did some sort of awkward hanging-around-too-long stuff. He wrote that the guy got a little punchy sometimes and was overly defensive, but not totally out of line.

On the phone, he was asking me about my work, which I explained. He "corrected" me about the use of a literary term, which he said only applied to the nineteenth century. I patiently explained that, no, it was a literary technique developed in the eighteenth, though, sure, he was right that certain 19th-century authors used it more self-consciously. He said I obviously had gone to a shitty college if that's the kind of crap I was learning. It escalated from there.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:33 PM
horizontal rule
937

Having an offensive mustache is exactly like being a member of an oppressed race/class: you can't walk down the street without judgment. Not that I'd walk down the street just now, it's late, where would I walk to in this city of Puritans? But the two hours that I've had a Hitler mustache have been enlightening.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:33 PM
horizontal rule
938

908: The lisp? And... shucks.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:34 PM
horizontal rule
939

Now, why exactly did you decide to get a Hitler mustache?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:34 PM
horizontal rule
940

Goodnight, y'all.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:35 PM
horizontal rule
941

I seem to have posted this in the wrong thread:

You know what would be a good thread to have before too long? DJ suggestions for UnfoggeDCon: In It to Win It.

I'm pretty certain "Love Me or Hate Me" should be in the mix.

Of course, this is probably much more like how we (Unfogged) do it when we do it, yo.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:36 PM
horizontal rule
942

The trick may be that I am not someone who y'all see as basically a sensible person.

Restricting it to top executives is a bit of a stretch though, as as near as I can tell we don't have many of them around Unfogged. Unless Ogged with his stalking skills wants to correct me. Maybe the reason they don't get tenure?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:37 PM
horizontal rule
943

Goodnight, AWB.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:37 PM
horizontal rule
944

I believe you, but you have a rhetorical tic that makes such protestations necessary. I don't mean this as a complaint; I've now adjusted to this, and read your comments with bitchfilters on, but the first couple times this happened to me it resulted in my misunderstanding you. I'm not sure what the rhetorical tic is, and I can only recall it erupting once in a Bush-style "some people say" dodge, but it does happen. You're a great writer, but if you're talking to people you don't know, you might want to be extra careful with the implicature.

Right, I realize, which is why I offer them. Thank you for the compliment. When I'm talking to people I don't know, I'm a lot less sweeping, and when I'm writing for audiences I don't feel sure of (and broadly speaking, I do feel sure of the folks here, dammit), I do as well.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:38 PM
horizontal rule
945

and broadly speaking, I do feel sure of the folks here, dammit

This may be the issue, right here.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:39 PM
horizontal rule
946

Christ people, way to set the thread on fire.

And re: The Tone Of The Blog, the ladies are telling the guys to man up? Heh.

Think of it like a boxing everybody. Sure people are trying to hit you, but it ain't personal. If you're the kind that cringes at the thought of getting hit, maybe boxing isn't for you.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:41 PM
horizontal rule
947

Reading up: I think the structural/personal thing is a cop out. It's condescending at best.

Now who's getting personal?

A lot depends on whether one feels that women are are structurally oppressed in this society -- or, more precisely, that they are much *more* structurally oppressed than men, in a fundamentally and deeply disadvantaged position.

Indeed.

For those who do feel this, male complaints in the battle of the sexes are expressions of this oppression, and womens' complaints are righteous cries for justice.

No; I disagree. You're oversimplifying. And, as one who I think it's clear does think yes, that women are structurally oppressed in ways that are more disadvantageous to them then the ways that men are oppressed, I think I said clearly upthread that men's complaints are understandable and empathetic. Hello?

That leads to a dynamic where women are self-righteous and men are defensive. A dynamic sometimes in evidence on this blog.

Especially if that's what you're looking for.

As you can probably tell, I don't really think women are less powerful in this society than men. I actually don't think either sex is particularly powerful as such; I think we're all embedded in an ideological system that may use gender but has only an uneasy relationship with the real human needs of either. Sometimes being a woman puts you in an advantaged position within that system, sometimes being a man does.

Whatever, dude. Yes, sometimes individual women are advantaged and sometimes individual men are: but *as a class* "women" are less powerful by all the things we use to measure power: money, status, political power, capital, etc.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:41 PM
horizontal rule
948

Marcus has moved beyond your categories, B; try to keep up (I'm 100% serious about the content, but not the tone, of this comment).


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:43 PM
horizontal rule
949

I don't think it has much to do with structural versus personal. It's more that people divide opinions they don't agree with into two groups: a) provocative, or b) wrong-headed. The group you choose is determined by the amount of imaginative sympathy you feel for the person or the opinion. For example, I have more imaginative sympathy for feminism than I do for libertarianism (say), so a sweeping comment like B's strikes me as mildly provocative, while a comment about how people who support public schools are lackys of the teachers union would annoy the crap out of me. I can imagine someone having the opposite reaction (though I have no sympathy for them if they do).

Agreed, though I don't see what this has to do with the structure vs. individualized argument; this is basically what I was trying to say earlier about how you can disagree about some things because you basically agree on others.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:45 PM
horizontal rule
950

939: I was shaving my mustache, and halfway through I saw that I had half a Hitler mustache. I wondered how long I'd have the balls to rock a hitler mustache, and almost three hours later I'm still waiting for an answer.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:46 PM
horizontal rule
951

There's a more general (transcendental?) problem with invoking structure: you're never talking to one. There's no getting around the personal dimension. You're always arguing with a specific person who either is or isn't operating on the particular motives you've assigned to the bourgeoisie, or The Patriarchy, or whatever. And by working to convince them you're acknowledging a) that their personal beliefs have some practical consequence for the structure under discussion, and b) that they are--personally--acting either for or against it.

This is true. I maintain that the person who is being talked to has *some* responsibility to try to meet the speaker halfway, i.e., by recognizing that their defensiveness about recognizing that, say, they are personally acting for or against something shitty is *not the speaker's fault*.

Maybe the reason they don't get tenure?

I would continue to agree. Many feminists have made precisely this point, and it is why childcare, etc. are still so-called "women's issues", though of course they shouldn't be.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:48 PM
horizontal rule
952

948: Then perhaps Marcus, or as he's gone to bed, you, might be so kind as to take the time to explain to me what he is saying, much as I've done in this thread to everyone who's been arguing with me.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:49 PM
horizontal rule
953

947 yes, 948, no. Inasmuch as 885 is arguing that we are all, men and women alike, oppressed, right on. But there must then be a set of oppressors: feminism demands that we be oppressed by women at least as much as men.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:51 PM
horizontal rule
954

Whatever, dude. Yes, sometimes individual women are advantaged and sometimes individual men are: but *as a class* "women" are less powerful by all the things we use to measure power: money, status, political power, capital, etc.

Right, but I think one of the things that is underappreciated in gender studies is that while men as a class may have a lot more power, there's a much broader range of power within that class (all the presidents, most of the fortune 500 CEOs, and most of the people in prison), so most men will tell you, and quite reasonably so IMHO, "all this power men have doesn't do me a damn lick of good."


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:52 PM
horizontal rule
955

I wondered how long I'd have the balls to rock a hitler mustache, and almost three hours later I'm still waiting for an answer.

I gave you an answer, in 916.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:52 PM
horizontal rule
956

Marcus will have to speak for himself, but he's made comments before that indicate that he thinks market forces basically have their way with us, and use gender as one tool among many to do it. But don't argue with this, because I'm extrapolating and he might think something else.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:53 PM
horizontal rule
957

I wondered how long I'd have the balls to rock a hitler mustache, and almost three hours later I'm still waiting for an answer.

Aren't you in Oakland? The real challenge is the walk to the store.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:54 PM
horizontal rule
958

I think he's in Boston, actually.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:54 PM
horizontal rule
959

#22: Am I wrong, or is the stereotype that a subset of white guys date Asian women exclusively?

Yes, we're called Jews.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:55 PM
horizontal rule
960

954: Absolutely, and I, at least, am completely on board with this.

956: Right, well, I have no problem with the argument that gender is a subset of capitalism (I don't agree with it, but I understand it). That didn't seem to me to be what he was saying, or at least, if he was saying it, I don't see why he felt the need to phrase it as if it were an argument with feminism, which it isn't.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:56 PM
horizontal rule
961

Yes, we're called Jews.

Or "engineers."


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:56 PM
horizontal rule
962

I agree with Jake's 954, unsurprisingly.

Aren't you in Oakland? The real challenge is the walk to the store.

He needs the right haircut as well.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:57 PM
horizontal rule
963

960: You are being suspiciously reasonable. Is this some sort of trick?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:57 PM
horizontal rule
964

960.1: At least, I'm on board with the broader statement. Not with the idea that this fact is underappreciated in gender studies; see, e.g., Faludi's book *Stiffed*. I'm pretty sure that the gender studies people are the ones who have pointed out to us all that not all white men are at the top of the heap, and that this is one reason why Feminism Helps Us All. Etc.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:58 PM
horizontal rule
965

960, I think the way in which it was an argument with feminism was the implication that the concept "women as a class" and "men as a class" are meaningless and cannot be compared to each other.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:58 PM
horizontal rule
966

I'm pretty sure that the gender studies people are the ones who have pointed out to us all that not all white men are at the top of the heap, and that this is one reason why Feminism Helps Us All.

How does this follow? I could see how anti-top-of-the-heap-ism helps us all, but I don't see how one gets there from feminism, unless you make the definition of feminism so broad as to be meaningless.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 8-07 11:59 PM
horizontal rule
967

In high school, our basketball team once faced a team whose coach bore an incredibly creepy resemblance to Hitler, right down to the tic of smoothing his hair across his head not with his whole hand, but just the heel. So weird. (I wasn't on the team at this point, Timbot.)


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:00 AM
horizontal rule
968

963: Nope. This is me. It helps that at the moment I seem to be the only Official Feminist speaking in this thread, and therefore I have time to respond to individual comments and y'all have the luxury of focusing attentively on my words without the unnecessary distraction of trying to listen to anyone else.

(Basic sentiment sincere; phrasing deliberately vain, for the sake of humorous self-deprecation by playing to stereotype.)


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:00 AM
horizontal rule
969

Is this some sort of trick?

Yes, she's done this to me before. In the golden olden days, we would have said something about "feminine wiles."


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:01 AM
horizontal rule
970

It seems to me that the most reasonable conclusion to draw from "all this male power isn't doing me any good" isn't "patriarchy doesn't exist" but "patriarchy sucks." But I'm not entirely sure how we got to be actually having this argument, rather than referring to it as an example of the sort of argument we have here (or something).


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:02 AM
horizontal rule
971

And, to answer 966, if patriarchy sucks, and feminism is about fighting patriarchy, then feminism rules. Even for men.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:03 AM
horizontal rule
972

I'm too teeth-grindingly annoyed to do my Official Feminist duty, B, but I can try if you'd like.

965: Which is manifestly bullshit and frankly needs to be met with punching! PUNCHING! ... see, like I said, teeth-grindingly annoyed.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:03 AM
horizontal rule
973

972b: What? Why?


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:05 AM
horizontal rule
974

966: Well, see, feminism is largely about interrogating gender norms and the relationships between The Sexes, as defined by the broader cultural context. This would include interrogating the gender norms that, say, a Real Man is a Good Provider or a Real Man Gets Ahead By Working Hard or Real Men Don't Cry, etc., and pointing out how these fuck men over as well as (by the way) implying that Real Women are Provided For, Get Ahead by Marrying Well, and are Too Emotional.

Just for example.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:05 AM
horizontal rule
975

How'd it get to be after midnight already? I should go to bed.

Good night, all.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:08 AM
horizontal rule
976

969: I know you are just trying to annoy me (and succeeding, a little) but if it is not sexist/personally insulting to pull this "oh, she's only pretending to be reasonable but really she's CRAZY" thing, then what, please, is it?

973: Because it's really easy to just say "oh, it's meaningless that women as a class make much less money than men as a class do; look at the Big Picture" or "it's meaningless to talk about rape or domestic violence as women's issues because they happen to men, too" or "it's only coincidence that women do most of the unpaid labor in the world". And those are the kinds of conclusions that follow from saying that talking about men and women as classes is meaningless.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:09 AM
horizontal rule
977

Well, see, feminism is largely about interrogating gender norms and the relationships between The Sexes, as defined by the broader cultural context. This would include interrogating the gender norms that, say, a Real Man is a Good Provider or a Real Man Gets Ahead By Working Hard or Real Men Don't Cry, etc., and pointing out how these fuck men over as well as (by the way) implying that Real Women are Provided For, Get Ahead by Marrying Well, and are Too Emotional.

But what does any of that have to do with a huge spread of power amongst men, where most of the additional power men have is concentrated at the top? Or Patriarchy, for that matter?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:10 AM
horizontal rule
978

Goodnight Teo. Thank you for 970 and 971.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:10 AM
horizontal rule
979

then what, please, is it?

I was just teasing. I don't think you're humorless or on the rag for not laughing at it.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:13 AM
horizontal rule
980

Don't go to bed yet! We're almost at 1000!


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:14 AM
horizontal rule
981

This is what makes me talk about weird professional jargon that the rest of us don't understand.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:16 AM
horizontal rule
982

977: Sigh. Well, first, it's what Patriarchy *means* (and by the way I very seldom use the word Patriarchy; that's Twisty's gig, and honestly, I do wish you guys could keep in mind that feminists are individuals). Second, I explained in the rest of the comment you're quoting what it has to do with a huge spread of power among men *as a class*: that these stereotypes depend on making "woman" the economically dependent class, the "emotional" class (and "reason" is "better" than "emotion"), etc.

I mean, let's take a concrete example: child support payments. A lot of guys find them really fucking onerous. Which I'm sure in some cases they truly are. But it is not *women* who insist on those payments; it's the government. Which does so because it wanted to get rid of AFDC. So yes, The System is disadvantaging both poor women (who are no longer getting AFDC) and poor men (who are somehow supposed to come up with child support payments). But when push comes to shove, the woman who has the kids to support is the one who is going to get royally screwed: she's economically dependent on the good will of a man who has every (structurally imposed) reason to resent the fuck out of her, and if he flakes, she's the one who has to figure out how the hell to come up with the money to pay the rent.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:18 AM
horizontal rule
983

It's not sexist or personally insulting if it's a purely objective, forensic diagnosis.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:19 AM
horizontal rule
984

958 is correct, but 957 has me paranoid. My Pats/Sox allegiance is no secret, but how did my Oakland upbringing show?

The real challenge is the walk to the store.
Oakland isn't nearly as violent as the mythology holds, at least for 80% of the town. Down by Foothill, look the fuck out.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:19 AM
horizontal rule
985

979: I'm not on the rag, but I have been Very Patiently Explaining basic feminism for over an hour now; if I'm a little bit pissy with you teasing me about it, well then, you can just kiss my fine, fine ass.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:20 AM
horizontal rule
986

Sigh.

Please, please, stop doing this. It's condescending. It's always condescending. And it makes me feel like the rest of 982 is going to be something angry and personal, even though it makes total sense.

Sorry to nitpick, but I think when the discussion starts to actually involve the word "feminism" it becomes contentless anyway. I could not give a definition of "feminism" for the life of me, and neither could virtually anyone I know. Therefore it becomes a debate over the meaning of a word which evokes strong associations in everyone's mind for no good reason. Sorry for bringing it up.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:21 AM
horizontal rule
987

(982 continued): Which isn't the fault of (all) men; but men who bitch about child support payments or complain that they should be able to opt out of them because after all women can have abortions, *are* buying into the larger system's idea that women are ultimately responsible for children. And the fact that they see this as a women vs. men thing rather than a women (and men) vs. The System thing is pretty telling. IMHO.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:23 AM
horizontal rule
988

"Interrogating" is a weak verb. Why not say, "How women get fucked by", or, if you are feeling charitable "Assessing the extent to which women get fucked"?


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:23 AM
horizontal rule
989

"for no good reason" modifies "evokes"

Holy crap, I'm going to bed.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:25 AM
horizontal rule
990

but how did my Oakland upbringing show

You mentioned it in a thread once. I think I'd mentioned in the same thread that my dad's family is from the bay area, and my aunt and cousins lived in Oakland for a long time.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:25 AM
horizontal rule
991

986.1: I wasn't talking to you; I was talking to Jake. For god's sake, you're the one who's always saying we should be more charitable to each other--can't you at least be "charitable" enough not to be insulted by a comment that's clearly directed at someone who isn't you? And if you have to be insulted by it, might you be able to recognize that I've been writing rather lengthy, reasonable--by your own admission!!--responses to a lot of comments in this thread and yeah, maybe I'm feeling a little tired?

986.2: If you think that discussing feminism is contentless, then right: don't discuss it. I don't, and I'm going to keep discussing it.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:25 AM
horizontal rule
992

988: Because it hurts people's feelings when I do that.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:27 AM
horizontal rule
993

982 and/or 987 almost completely lost me. Am I completely wrong to believe that child support payments have been around a lot longer than AFDC? And that opposition to child support payments isn't really about poor men being disadvantaged more than rich men, but rather about some men having a rather selfish view of things and not being willing to accept that society doesn't treat men and women equally because it's trying to treat them both fairly, and given the fact that it's the woman who gets pregnant and can't work and can breastfeed and so on and so forth, he should damn well kick down some money?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:30 AM
horizontal rule
994

973: Because a little bit of thought and awareness of the subject real reveal that there are whole categories of problems that women as a class are vulnerable to, and the other forces (class, race) only mitigate and never alleviate them. Further, almost all the men who are vulnerable to that kind of thing (domestic violence, basically any kind of rape or sexual abuse not involving prison*) are in some way explicitly disinherited from patriarchy in a manner that relies on gender: they're gay men (yes, that has to do with gender), "effiminate" or otherwise expressing themselves outside of gender lines, or are transwomen. Basically, saying "patriarchy hasn't done me a lick of good" is in no way reasonable if you are a cisgendered heterosexual man in a traditional relationship, which last I checked was the vast majority of men in America. It doesn't even have to be anything as dramatic as rape or domestic violence; just being a "normal" man raising kids with a "normal" women generally means that the guy is almost certainly in some way benefitting from patriarchal pressure on his partner, even when they've consciously set up the relationship to try and mitigate it, not to mention benefitting from the pressures on his female colleagues, etc etc.

There are any number of ways in which women as a class are oppressed compared to men, even after correcting for income, race, class, etc. If you're a cisgendered straight man, then yes, patriarchy and the "power of men" have benefitted you. And while that in no way makes you a bad person, nor means that women of various classes don't benefit from structures of opporession that are unrelated to patriarchy, but I am sick of having to explain this over and over and seeing other feminists explain it over and over, while both men and white chicks and who the hell else totally fail to get it, to the point where it's very hard not to see those denials as explicit reinforcements of that power, "angry white man" Republican style, and a sign that the utterer, specifically, is a monumentally clueless douchebag.

And I say "monumentally clueless douchebag" not because I am an evil man-hating bitch, but because there are a number of men in my life who I love, who fall on all different places on the spectrum of power and priviledge and normativity and whatever who do not talk like that and are capable of dealing with the fact that they are priviledged as men, and I feel comfortable holding the rest of humanity to their standard.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:31 AM
horizontal rule
995

(by the way, thanks for being willing to go on about this for a while - I hope that you are getting some sense of satisfaction out of it, and if not we can keep pretending until we hit 1000)


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:31 AM
horizontal rule
996

given the fact that it's the woman who gets pregnant and can't work and can breastfeed and so on and so forth, he should damn well kick down some money?

That leads us into the trap of reasoning that it's okay to pay men more than women, because the women will just quit and have babies and need a big-earning man to support them.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:32 AM
horizontal rule
997

if I'm a little bit pissy . . .you can just kiss my fine, fine ass

Next unfogged meetup: You can now experience what only PK has experienced before! Bound by her pissy promise, Bitch's fine, fine ass is available for the kissing!


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:32 AM
horizontal rule
998

981: weird professional jargon

I meant to mention, Jake: bring up "best practices" once more, and I'll send my multi-gendered squad of "team leaders" to cut you. Um, with plastic sporks.

(How'm I doing on the new comity?)


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:32 AM
horizontal rule
999

1000!


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:32 AM
horizontal rule
1000

stu!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:33 AM
horizontal rule
1001

Dammit! Too quick once again.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:33 AM
horizontal rule
1002

993: Sure, child support's been around a long time. I actually don't know if "child support" as such is older than AFDC--it may well not be, you know. But yeah, I disagree with you about the whole "men who don't pay are selfish assholes" thing, or at least I think their selfishness is pretty understandable on the "holy shit, it was a one-night stand, now I have to pay X hundred bucks a month for the rest of my life?" grounds.

Regardless, I oppose the social preference for child support payments over welfare (and the whole "deadbeat dads" language and jail terms *is* of a piece with welfare reform, truly), for the reason I said. It does the kids (and custodial parent) jack shit worth of good to berate the dad for being a selfish dick if he's not paying, and there's no reason the woman should have to keep trying to get the money by going to court, or maintain any kind of relationship whatsoever with (say) an abusive ex. The state should support poor kids; if they want to fund this by taxing single men, men of childbearing age, or all of us, I don't care, but the whole child support payment thing is a remnant of the idea that Men's Job is to Provide for their families, and it perpetuates the economic dependence of mothers (women), and men's resentment of them. It's wrong.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:37 AM
horizontal rule
1003

And also too late.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:37 AM
horizontal rule
1004

Damn, several hundred comments behind twice in one day. If this continues I may have to give up eating, sleeping, and working, not necessarily in that order. But since I copied it when I came across it:

you, being unconscious, would have an inoperative self-cock-block

I will note that I have cockblocked myself in my own dreams. I think it's my subconscious' way of keeping the sheets clean. (TMI?)


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:39 AM
horizontal rule
1005

Rocky, I hate to do this to you, but the word "privileged" only has one "d" in it.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:40 AM
horizontal rule
1006

The state should support poor kids; if they want to fund this by taxing single men, men of childbearing age, or all of us, I don't care, but the whole child support payment thing is a remnant of the idea that Men's Job is to Provide for their families, and it perpetuates the economic dependence of mothers (women), and men's resentment of them. It's wrong.

Wow, that's the fourth thing B and I agree on. I can't remember all three of the others, but heck, we're practically soulmates by now.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:40 AM
horizontal rule
1007

No need to hate to do it, B, I'm cranky and kind of inebriated. Thanks for the correction. I can never spell that fucking word, and it makes me sad.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:43 AM
horizontal rule
1008

You know what makes me sad? The way the laydeez keep making me scroll up to see what the hell they're responding to.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:44 AM
horizontal rule
1009

1004: I can't tell you how many dreams I've had where I've had to tell some hottie "we really can't go past the smooching until you've met my wife."


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:44 AM
horizontal rule
1010

1009: Whipped.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:46 AM
horizontal rule
1011

gwift, you need one of these here chrome dedicated USB scrollin' wheels. They won't make scrolling less annoying, but they feel neat and glow blue.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:46 AM
horizontal rule
1012

Gswift, you ingrate, I've been quoting ENTIRE COMMENTS that I'm responding to. Just for you.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:47 AM
horizontal rule
1013

I have a scrolling wheel. I'm just really lazy.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:48 AM
horizontal rule
1014

I want thank everyone for their efforts above and beyond the call of duty today. Normally, everyone is asleep by now and I start to get work done, which is always a sad moment in my life.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:48 AM
horizontal rule
1015

re: above

I'm not a shrinking violet and have fairly confident opinions on gender issues and issues surrounding sex and sexuality but there are times when I also find myself shutting up rather than getting into a huge argument about things where, most of the time, I otherwise agree [often on those very issues] with the people I'd be getting into a huge argument with. IYSWIM.

This can happen with political issues too, but, frankly, I don't really give a fuck if I offend people with my views in that area.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:49 AM
horizontal rule
1016

Wait, a dedicated wheel? I'm talking about the one on the mouse. There's a different kind?


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:49 AM
horizontal rule
1017

That is sad, Walt. Work is bad.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:49 AM
horizontal rule
1018

1015: Oh, shut up ttaM, no one's asking the Scots.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:50 AM
horizontal rule
1019

1016: like on The Price is Right. It's amazing.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:51 AM
horizontal rule
1020

the whole child support payment thing is a remnant of the idea that Men's Job is to Provide for their families,

I don't see this. Having a child is a dual responsibility, and one party is structurally able to escape it, and, historically has, to great individual profit. I see child support laws as a legal recognition of a man's responsibility to do his part in covering the cost of a child. I mean, a man should provide for his family, just as a woman should. If he skips town, he should still be liable. If the woman skipped town, I'd hold her liable too.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:52 AM
horizontal rule
1021

re: 1018

Be careful about offending the Jockocracy, or we'll invade your country and impose universal health-care and a liberal system of education.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:52 AM
horizontal rule
1022

1015: You know what I think? I think everyone does this - seriously, everyone, including B and me - and basically either people just get over it in their own ways (including just not doing anything and living with the sense of being stifled or self-censoring or whatever) or we need to declare fighting amnesty and kick the shit out of each other indiscriminately.

I'll leave which is my personal preference/practice as an audience for the readers.

1016: Fuck, lemme try and fine a link. It's made by Griffin, I'm pretty sure; it started out as a Mac thing, but it works on Windows too, and there may be Linux or BSD drivers around too. It's oriented differently from the scrollwheel. And is awesome.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:55 AM
horizontal rule
1023

1021: And the cafeteria will serve deep-fried pizza. Truly awful. Vouchers, now!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:56 AM
horizontal rule
1024

1020: It is a dual responsibility, but in the real world "child support" is usually paid by men; hence "deadbeat dads." You're completely right that one party has been able to escape it; this is kind of a biological fact. Trying to make the man "do his part" puts the woman in a dependent position; it's kind of like a lot of social conservative wishful thinking--trying to force people to do the right thing is not only unrealistic, it also inadvertently fucks over everyone else who is somehow related to the person who is being bad, rather than just fucking acknowledging that people are sometimes bad, and setting things up in such a way that the system has some give in it.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:56 AM
horizontal rule
1025

1021: The Retarded T-Rex That Roared?


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:57 AM
horizontal rule
1026

1002 (!): Hmm. Ok, this is an example of how a certain subset of poor men are being screwed by the patriarchy and would be helped by feminism. You are indeed correct. I believe that it's generally non-representative, but have no facts to prove it and told my coworker when he left the office fifteen minutes ago that I'd leave in five to meet him at a bar.

Thanks for learning me. Seriously.

Incidentally, I think this lends credence to the thought that the blog's problems are scale-related.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:58 AM
horizontal rule
1027

1021: In that case, FUCK SCOTLAND I HATE ALL YOU BASTARDS.

Just doing my part.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:58 AM
horizontal rule
1028

I found Griffin scroll wheel. That thing is awesome.

http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/powermate/


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:59 AM
horizontal rule
1029

Griffin Powermate! It is hypnotizingly cool. Also very useful for certain kinds of non-English script/text input.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:59 AM
horizontal rule
1030

1026: No problemo. Enjoy the bar.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:00 AM
horizontal rule
1031

Will try my best. Night all.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:01 AM
horizontal rule
1032

Comity on scroll-wheel devices!

(but a thread on child support would be instructive, ahem, proprietors of blog)


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:02 AM
horizontal rule
1033

re: 1022

Yeah, we probably all do do it. I am interested in the fact that *I* only do it in certain topic areas. There are others where I genuinely don't care.

Perhaps the areas where I choose to be more circumspect are those where there can be a fairly wide array of opinion consistent with the commentator still being, from my point of view, a pretty decent person -- i.e. I think all of us struggle a little with how we ought to think about gender, sex and sexuality, even the people who've thought about it a great deal, and this is compatible with a fairly broad range of views -- whereas, I tend to just think right-wingers or shmibertarian types are bastards, for example.

re: 1027

Once we impose ginger wigs and beards for your menfolk, our hegemony will be complete.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:02 AM
horizontal rule
1034

Shouldn't we have a new thread at some point? Something to do with feminist mousewheels, or something?


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:02 AM
horizontal rule
1035

Oh, I like red hair, go right ahead.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:03 AM
horizontal rule
1036

1033.1 would be a great topic for further discussion, but not right now as I am heading bedwards.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:04 AM
horizontal rule
1037

1002 is completely and absolutely right, and that includes the words "and" and "the".

But seriously folks, we should talk about more important things, i.e. the soundtrack for UnfoggeDCon II: Pig in the District. I think this is another must-have.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:04 AM
horizontal rule
1038

1034: I have a feeling I'm about to be pointed to the archives, for discussion on child support. I suppose feminist mousewheels might've come up, too.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:06 AM
horizontal rule
1039

1017 - So don't stop arguing. I'll help. There was once joy in the world, but then feminism came.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:08 AM
horizontal rule
1040

feminist mousewheels

I'm an expert on that topic.

Goodnight.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:11 AM
horizontal rule
1041

Eh, B has terrible taste in music anyway.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:20 AM
horizontal rule
1042

I knew you'd let me down, B. Feminists always do.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:21 AM
horizontal rule
1043

I want to say something about the luxury of which things you get to take personally, and how Ogged's outburst towards AWB and this whole "people bitch about feminazis in email" thing is basically bigtime well-poisoning, but I lack the sobreity or awakeness to even approach coherency. Also, I would make teo cry like a bitch.

So, night.


Posted by: Lunar Rockette | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 1:32 AM
horizontal rule
1044

Damnit Rockette, you need to comment more often.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 2:04 AM
horizontal rule
1045

You people disgust me, with your filthy sleeping habits.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 2:14 AM
horizontal rule
1046

Hmm... has everyone given up?


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 2:21 AM
horizontal rule
1047

We've all been silenced by the oppressive feminists.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 2:27 AM
horizontal rule
1048

Through their capricious control of the day-night cycle. Bitches.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 2:30 AM
horizontal rule
1049

Seriously though, I don't know that I've got anything to add that hasn't been said by LB, Bitch, or Rockette.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 2:31 AM
horizontal rule
1050

We can keep the argument going if one of us steps up to be the feminist. I nominate Jake. Jake, can't you see that heteronormativity is hallowed by centuries of tradition, and therefore, totally rocking?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 2:33 AM
horizontal rule
1051

Oh man, I was so tempted to point out that from the point of keeping your little tribe alive, if you start with ten men and ten women, having five men killed is much less of a problem than having five women killed, and this probably accounts for some of the difference between the inclination of men and women to do things that are dangerous but cool, and that it's not all socially constructed. But it seemed like asking for trouble.


Posted by: Jake | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 2:38 AM
horizontal rule
1052

re: 1045

You people need to step up and defeat the diurnal domination.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 2:39 AM
horizontal rule
1053

I'm jealous of the diurnal crowd. I've got to get off this godamn grave shift. When I take the family on vacation, I slip right back into a normal sleep pattern, and it feels fucking great.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 2:55 AM
horizontal rule
1054

re: 1053

I worked night shift for a month or two, years back.* I really liked it. But, I only liked it because the night shift was longer hours and paid higher. Which meant I could work 3 or 4 days a week and make my normal salary. I don't think I could have sustained it for more than a few months, though.

As it is, my 'natural' sleeping cycle would have me asleep about 2am and up about 9:30 - 10am. I get up before 7am every morning and even after nearly 5 years of doing it, I still hate it.

* I was the 'manager' of a tech support department and when our regular nights guy left, I was the one who had to fill in.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 3:04 AM
horizontal rule
1055

1054: Fascinating, Ttam.

But what about music suggestions? You're EnglBritish, you must know something about good dance music, non?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 3:10 AM
horizontal rule
1056

I've been doing a 6:30pm-3:30am shift for 5 1/2 years now. 5 days a week. I was doing 3pm-12am swing shift before that. I also get my girls up and ready for school, so typically I go home and nap for a couple hours, then get up to fix breakfast and make their lunches. While they're at school I can do errands, sleep a few more hours, etc.

Has its upsides. We managed to get my wife through her undergrad without her having to work. Also, no daycare costs as I've always been around during the day.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 3:28 AM
horizontal rule
1057

6:30 to 3:30am is a crazily harsh shift. I've never heard of anyone working that sort of pattern, which seems borderline inhumane, to me.

re: 1055

What kind of dance music? Basement Jaxx, Simian Mobile Disco, that sort of thing? Or something more esoteric.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 3:33 AM
horizontal rule
1058

to 1056: jesus, gswift, that's brutal. I'm sure Jake will be able to explain how the patriarchy is to blame and that a stronger political commitment to feminism in our fine nation would get you better working hours.

also, having read this whole thread and the one below, I am a annoyed/baffled by the claim that people are apparently emailing ogged to say things like "I'm sick of hearing about awb's sex life" and "thank god for parsimon standing up to that insufferable awb." what the fucking fuck? awb is not particularly hostile or cutting to other people on the board. if you asked me to pick out even the top 20 commenters about whom I felt that they went over the line a lot awb wouldn't be on there. and I think vicarious interest in the sexual shenanigans of her assorted lovers is very much a positive feature of the blog. parsimon is over-the-top hostile to awb for reasons I don't understand, and often takes advantage of awb's admirable openness to pick some tender personal admission and try to wound with it.

the possibility that unfogged has become such a hotbed of feminist groupthink that people are afraid to comment...well that would be a pretty ironic thing to happen, all things considered. relatedly, I know it's funny to complain about that craaazy bitchphd and her craazy feminist opinions, but I often feel that real anger and hostility is being expressed, and it rubs me the wrong way. I'm not saying bphd doesn't have strong, not immediately predictable opinions, but I sometimes feel that her "craziness" is more stipulative than actual, and that guys can bond over how crazy she is. crazy, is how crazy!!

finally, I love L-Rock! without endorsing a blog-wide spike in telling people they're cunts.


Posted by: alameida | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 4:38 AM
horizontal rule
1059

The icing on the cake? I have split days off, Mon. and Wed. Actually works great for when my wife's had classes with afternoon/early evening labs (we both majored in chem., she's done, I'm not), and taking the munchkins to soccer practice.

Honestly though, I look at the hours some of the lawyers and such are spending in the office, and I don't envy them. My kids are 10 and 8 now, so my transition to a normal schedule isn't far off. In the meantime, being around during the days means I've been able to spend a lot of time with my daughters. There were a lot of days this summer that we were out fishing and stuff while the rest of you saps were in the office.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 5:04 AM
horizontal rule
1060

I wish I had stayed up for this discussion (well, not really, I'm awfully tired), and it's probably meaningless to try to add this so long after the fact, but...

This idea B has expressed about the structural problem of child support and how the system rather than dads should have to take care of it, seems off to me. The argument has some merit when you are talking about the poor, for whom the child support payments can be indispensible for the recipient and crippling for the payor. But the system is also in place for the sake of the well-off, and when a guy can perfectly damn well afford to support the child he fathered but wants to evade that responsibility because he'd rather buy another convertible or plasma TV, then it seems entirely appropriate for the system to impose the standard that says, fuck that, buddy, support your kid. To say that public aid should cover it doesn't work for these situations because, at a certain level of income, we're not going to be comfortable giving aid to a woman /custodial parent and the children, but that shouldn't mean that the non-custodial parent should just have the luxury to float away on his yacht. At these levels, enforcing the obligation is much easier (yay lawyers!) and the recipient is not left so entirely at the "good will" of the payor, so your point about public aid needing to step up and not leave poor families at the mercy of uncertain child support still stands. But I see nothing to be gained from eliminating a standard which requires a non-custodial parent to finanicially support his (or her, but more often his) children.

Of course, I obviously have a rather personal interest in the issue.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 5:06 AM
horizontal rule
1061

The shared custody child support guidelines are pretty good. The more time you have your child, the less child support you pay.

It isnt a perfect system.

Unfortunately, child support drives custody battles. People often fight over custody and visitation because they realize the impact of the child support guidelines.

Also, I hear a lot of noncustodial mothers bitching about what a bastard a guy is if he gets custody AND wants child support. The reverse is not true when the woman has custody. "That deadbeat doesnt want to support his children??!!"

I elect to believe that some of this will improve as it becomes more common for men to have primary physical custody or equal physical custody.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 5:25 AM
horizontal rule
1062

I'm not saying bphd doesn't have strong, not immediately predictable opinions, but I sometimes feel that her "craziness" is more stipulative than actual, and that guys can bond over how crazy she is. crazy, is how crazy!!

B.PhD's views tend to be largely non-crazy. Except for the whole Catholicism thing.

awb is not particularly hostile or cutting to other people on the board.

Definitely.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 5:44 AM
horizontal rule
1063

AWB's confessional stuff is unique here and I think that's what bothers people. The rest of us mostly confess to pretty mundane things, like ogling lifeguards. I don't think that she's hostile or aggressive at all, except when people are taking digs at her. Her stuff is so unexpected that I think that sometimes people end up sort of reflexively making unnecessarily critical or snarky remarks. I think that I did at first until I realized what was going on. But Parsimon has been pretty relentless, in a way that I have trouble understanding.

No particular view of B's is crazy, but the ensemble doesn't make sense to me.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:19 AM
horizontal rule
1064

But Parsimon has been pretty relentless, in a way that I have trouble understanding.

Eh. Sometimes I find Parsimon a little hypocritical when she responds to an insult with "you don't know me" after just lobbing a personal insult at (typically) AWB.

I suspect that more lurkers would be interested in commenting substantively if people would respond substantively, instead of personal insults or nitpicky things. But those things are part of the internet and like in general.


Posted by: POS | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:32 AM
horizontal rule
1065

oops. My mistake.


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:33 AM
horizontal rule
1066

Feminism is feminism because it is opposed to masculinism, which is a 500-year old social system in which men prove their adult manhood through constant social, sexual, and military conquest over people who do not count as "men"--the old, the impotent, the poor, the female, the queer, and the dark-skinned. There were other systems of masculinism before that, but this is the one we're dealing with now.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:36 AM
horizontal rule
1067

And I don't feel like I'm being confessional at all; I just hear conversations in which no one's offering details to be discussed, and it leads to clichés. I hate clichés, especially about women's experiences of sex. So because I'm the one who's willing to offer details to be discussed, I do.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:40 AM
horizontal rule
1068

"men"--the old, the impotent, the poor, the female, the queer, and the dark-skinned.

That seems a pretty strange definition. Often the most powerful people [mostly men] in our society are old, and the poor and the dark-skinned are perfectly capable of 'masculinism' too, if we identify that with the oppression of women.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:43 AM
horizontal rule
1069

the soundtrack for UnfoggeDCon II: Pig in the District

Obligatory.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:44 AM
horizontal rule
1070

I have a request for Unfogged Meet-up III: That we schedule it for election day/night 2008, and all get together to throw the sons of bitches out of office.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:47 AM
horizontal rule
1071

1068: I was trying to define the sixteenth-century masculinism, the sort of high point before later versions came to embrace a less physically combative and less racially-bound masculinity. But it's all still the same beast.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:48 AM
horizontal rule
1072

1068 is an important qualification of 1066, and that is that under masculinism, shit flows downhill. You get to oppress whoever is less manly than you, even if you're old, poor, dark, or female. And you have to submit to whoever is more "manly."

Everyone is caught up in being both victim and oppressor, which makes solidarity a real bitch to acheive.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:49 AM
horizontal rule
1073

1064: ... more lurkers would be interested in commenting substantively if people would respond substantively, instead of personal insults or nitpicky things. But those things are part of the internet and like in general.

I think here you mean "the Internet and the the like in general."

I am underwhelmed that someone has seen fit to re-unearth The Question of Parsimon Vs. AWB, but it does at least give me the opportunity to say that

a) AWB is as it happens one of my favourite commenters,

b) despite having reacted sharply to her earlier (more sharply because I thought she was a he, and she's right that there's something interesting about that), I value Parsimon's contributions here and I don't think she manifests some kind of pathological toxic hatred for anyone, it's more that she has an extremely acerbic style and sometimes gets carried away.

Let there be love all around. Or something.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:53 AM
horizontal rule
1074

I'm a little uncomfortable with identifying the current [and undoubtedly inequitable and oppressive to the poor, women and racial minorities] social system with the social system of the 16th century. Rather a lot has happened since them.

I'm not sure that thinking in terms of 15th century society illuminates much about a society that has passed through the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the industrial revolution, urbanisation, colonisation, decolonisation, imperialism, post-imperialism, etc, etc. ad infinitum.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:54 AM
horizontal rule
1075

I thought that was life in general.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 6:55 AM
horizontal rule
1076

1076: Maybe I'm cynical, but one of the issues masculinism always brings up is "How do we validate that our generation is the most masculine, especially since we can't run around dueling people and raping women as much?" Well, you construct new masculinities in which the cool thing is making a lot of money, or having political power, or constructing a new intellectual discourse. But my point is, even our conversation is laden with oneupsmanship and conquest. In academia, it certainly is. I'm not immune from wanting to sound like I have the biggest cock in my academic department, but I have to control that impulse because it leads to unkindness.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:00 AM
horizontal rule
1077

I think here you mean "the Internet and the the like in general."

And lest you be thinking, "ha, you dumbass, there's a grammar error in your grammar flame," I'll have you know I did that deliberately as an ironic commentary on the whole phenomenon. So you're the dumbass. Double dumbass on you.

1066: Feminism is feminism because it is opposed to masculinism

A favourite hobbyhorse of mine is that it is the task of men in the contemporary age not to adopt feminism as such -- which, not having the experiences of women, they cannot fully do -- but to redefine masculinism in a way that incorporates and responds to feminism's insights and critiques. (Do you keep anything of the old masculinism? Which insights and critiques, anyway? My views on this are half-baked evolving.)


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:00 AM
horizontal rule
1078

awb is not particularly hostile or cutting to other people on the board.

I think this is true and I don't know why she takes such hits around here. I think her confessional stuff is a public service, in the sense that she reveals herself in interesting ways and opens herself up for comments by others without taking too much offense.

947 and following: sorry, but I just don't have my normal work procrastination time to do all the necessary exposition right now. I'll return later with a more full response if this thread doesn't collapse of its own weight. But thanks for a civil response.


Posted by: marcus | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:02 AM
horizontal rule
1079

even our conversation is laden with oneupsmanship and conquest

I'm pretty uncomfortable with that impulse -- rather than specific expressions of it -- being identified with the masculine.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:02 AM
horizontal rule
1080

1067: Put "confessional" under erasure, if you want, but what you say is outside a lot of people's comfort zone in terms of the amount of frankness and detail they want. It's one of those things with people (the Unfoggetariat) wanting to be wild and crazy but not too wild and crazy. I did double takes at the beginning before I realized that basically the conversation had been taken to a more serious level.

I think that we've always had to work out the limits within which we're able to converse in a frank and friendly way here. I guess I have more tolerance of this kind of conflict than many here do, even when it gets fairly harsh. If this place became more harsh it would fly apart, but I think that if it got less harsh that would be bad too.

I suggested far above that maybe Unfogged will end up fissioning into two or more sibling blogs, the way Amish communities do. We're a face-to-face community of sorts, and communities like that can't hang together past a certain size (unless they have a dictator, which we don't). The Amish have a systematic way of dividing which minimizes the hostility; the division is regarded as normal.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:03 AM
horizontal rule
1081

1077b: I think this is right, and responds to Nattarg's comment about the different forms masculinity takes. Masculinism seems to have responded to organized feminism (say, since Wollstonecraft) by altering its own definition just far enough that, like, dudes can still get laid and stuff. Luckily, dudes wanting to get laid with ladies is a great motivator for positive social change.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:05 AM
horizontal rule
1082

AWB & parsimon don't get along? Good lord, where have I been? Granted, a) I've only been around for a year and b) I don't read every thread, but I've never noticed any particular interaction between the two, positive or negative.

I'm not asking anyone to explain further or link to such exchanges; I'm just saying that there's even more going on around here that I miss than I realized.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:05 AM
horizontal rule
1083

1082: This was my reaction as well. Between work and babies I don't get to read as much as I once did (and I tend to check out of threads that get heated anyhow), but this was still all news to me.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:09 AM
horizontal rule
1084

re: 1079

What I mean by that is that some competitive situations are implicitly or explicitly gendered and winning or being the best in that domain is identifiably associated with being 'manly'. But it's by no means obvious [which is a polite way of saying 'wrong'] that competition itself or the competitive impulse in the abstract is explicitly gendered in that way.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:09 AM
horizontal rule
1085

A major drawback of these 1000+ comment threads is that I can't read them on my Blackberry as they exceed the available memory. Actually, that's true above roughly 700-800 comments.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:11 AM
horizontal rule
1086

As far as I understand, competition and the hierarchies it produces or ratifies are especially central to our society. ("Ratifies": President Bush needs to win and sees himself as the victor in a competition, even though the competition was fixed in 2000, and even though he came into power is the front man for a machine which pre-existed him and could have chosen someone else, and even though his bloodline and team loyalties were alost his only assets.)

So anyway, even though I've disagreed pretty strongly with LB and B here recently, to the point that it got painfully harsh at moments, I don't think that it would have been better if either they or I had just mellowed out and let it go.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:18 AM
horizontal rule
1087

1084: My point in calling attention to the history is only to show that masculinism is so clearly separable (and has been very gradually separated) from the genitally male. Some of the earliest famous female writers in English, like Aphra Behn, wrote self-consciously masculine works about colonial military conquest, and used military metaphors, and they almost all referred to their "female pens" as a sort of weird paradox.

When I act competitively, or when I act "cool," I am enacting types I learned from a masculinity-centric world, which offers reward for these behaviors, even if they appear in women.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:18 AM
horizontal rule
1088

My point in calling attention to the history is only to show that masculinism is so clearly separable (and has been very gradually separated) from the genitally male.

I totally buy that, yeah. I'm also aware of ways in which masculinity is constructed differently even within segments of our own societies. Masculinity for me, I'm sure, is slightly different from masculinity for someone brought up in the USA, or someone brought up in a different class or cultural milieu, and vice versa.

More what I was getting at is that when I am around women a lot I'm aware of various forms of competition going on that seem separable and distinct from "types [you] learned from a masculinity-centric world" [which also go on, obviously]. And I'm not comfortable with identifying those specifically with 'masculinity' unless we end up just defining a whole range of things as 'masculine' in ways that seem to hinder rather than help any analysis we might want to carry out. IYSWIM.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:23 AM
horizontal rule
1089

Yeah, obviously there's female competition too, but it's not feminist, certainly. It tends to reinforce the hierarchy of masculine value (getting the "hottest" guy, the "richest" guy, the "strongest" guy, etc.). Comity?

Feminism itself, as a thought structure, is about trying to move away from competition and domination as the core value under which we operate, either as participants or as individuals who work hard to invest value in that competition and domination.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:31 AM
horizontal rule
1090

Reviewing in the morning, B was almost supernaturally patient with us yesterday, so much so that I actually would feel bad making a joke about it.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:32 AM
horizontal rule
1091

It tends to reinforce the hierarchy of masculine value (getting the "hottest" guy, the "richest" guy, the "strongest" guy, etc.). Comity?


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:34 AM
horizontal rule
1092

crap

I meant to write:

It tends to reinforce the hierarchy of masculine value (getting the "hottest" guy, the "richest" guy, the "strongest" guy, etc.). Comity?

Yeah, in the sense that I think we broadly agree. However, I'm pretty sure there are forms of competition going on that really aren't about affirming masculine value hierarchies. Even though those latter go on too, of course.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:37 AM
horizontal rule
1093

New thread please, oh front page bloggers! We've worn off all the sticky on this one.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:38 AM
horizontal rule
1094

Feminism itself, as a thought structure, is about trying to move away from competition and domination as the core value under which we operate, either as participants or as individuals who work hard to invest value in that competition and domination.

This surely should say "some sub-strands of feminism", right?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:38 AM
horizontal rule
1095

1080: (unless they have a dictator, which we don't).

I nominate Tweety.


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:40 AM
horizontal rule
1096

1082 was my reaction, too, except that I'm wondering about this secret world of e-mails where people pick teams.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:42 AM
horizontal rule
1097

I'm wondering about this secret world of e-mails where people pick teams.

You're not alone.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:46 AM
horizontal rule
1098

1089:
Feminism itself, as a thought structure, is about trying to move away from competition and domination as the core value under which we operate, either as participants or as individuals who work hard to invest value in that competition and domination.

That's the sticky part. On the one hand, I'm sympathetic. On the other, I'm pretty pessimistic. On the third hand, some feminists (several non-imaginary, non-famous women I've know, but also some feminist leaders, I think) don't seem to realize that this can't be achieved without a massive restructuring of society, not just with regard to male-female relations. In other words, this kind of feminism and a very radical kind of politics are mutually necessary to one another.

At the point I'm resigned. I think that competitive hierarchy is so deeply rooted that it can only be ameliorated and buffered, not changed or replaced. And as a result, equalizing gender relations basically will mean making women more competitive.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:50 AM
horizontal rule
1099

Huh. So I missed a bunch of stuff, largely involving B indeed being very patient. I've got some more stuff to say about mechanisms of disagreement and why I think people are afraid to get into arguments (bonus: the theory isn't itself gender based, although I think most of the substantive arguments that worry people like this are about feminism), but I'm not going to bring up anything new at comment 1092 -- if the conversation wakes up again on a shorter thread, I'll launch into it.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:50 AM
horizontal rule
1100

Something I've long thought but felt might be idiosyncratic to me here, because my combination of age and origin/ethnicity is unique, was amazingly well stated by Sifu yesterday.

The idea was that his kind of Protestant upbringing had left him with a horror of hurting people's feelings, even when he knew better.

I have that too, and it's been a big problem for me on threads where I had no substantive disagreements but was near distraught about it.

A further one is that I realize I was taught to feel like a cad for arguing with a woman.

I can't get rid of this feeling, and it is very frustrating in my dealings with LB and B, because the better I do the worse I feel, and I feel crippled. So I have all kinds of avoidance strategies and passive aggressions that leave me frustrated.

How many other guys feel some version of this?

I got into a rhythm with "baton rouge" and "ack" yesterday that held even after I realized who they were, that felt ridiculously liberating. I wasn't arguing with either, but I realized that I wasn't afraid to either


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
1101

I'm wondering about this secret world of e-mails where people pick teams.

That comment from ogged rubbed me the wrong way, too. Given the explicit norm of "sanctity of off-blog communication", I think it was wrong of him to allude to comments that everyone knows he cannot actually produce. It's like deliberately mentioning in front of a jury a piece of evidence that would be inadmissible under the rules of evidence; the judge would shut you up, but the jury is already tainted.

In saying this, I'm not taking sides on any of the substantive issues.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
1102

1100!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:55 AM
horizontal rule
1103

Figures.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
1104

1100: I was raised post-Catholic and have absolutely no trouble with hurting people's feelings.

OT: it seems that tennis courts have been fitted with nifty new cameras capable of catching the once-elusive "down the shirt" shot. Could this be the most feminist development in sports yet?


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 7:59 AM
horizontal rule
1105

Ooo, that foreshortened arm confused me completely -- I couldn't figure out what was going on anatomically for a minute or two there.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:00 AM
horizontal rule
1106

Since the content of the emails doesn't matter, as long as you believe me about their general thrust, I don't see the analogy, Knecht, and again, it seemed pertinent to the claim that people feel alienated from commenting.

And y'all are being incredibly annoying with the "but AWB is great!" thing when I've tried to kill that damn discussion so many times and you know that people are generally unwilling to be personally mean. So in the interest of representing the interests of the silent annoyed, I'll say that different people read comments differently, and some people extrapolate to a personality behind other people's comments, and sometimes decide they don't like that personality and get annoyed when it manifests its distinctive characteristics. So, you know, fuck your comity.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
1107

1106: Maybe we're at one of those turning points I speculated about.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:09 AM
horizontal rule
1108

But what's the structural problem? Some people are annoyed by AWB. Of those, some don't comment, either at all, or about their annoyance, and some are parsimon, and express their dislike consistently and openly. Some, like Lunar Rockette and me, are annoyed by this practice of parsimon's, and express annoyance in return. And so the great circle of life continues.

I can't see this as either a problem related to people being afraid to argue against the consensus, or much of a problem in its own right. Sure, "But we all love AWB", while true for fairly large values of 'we', hasn't got much to do with anything, but what's the issue at all?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:09 AM
horizontal rule
1109

OT: This blog should have a comments engine that doesn't require you to load all 1100 comments each time you want to see the ten new ones. We have the technology, gentlemen.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:12 AM
horizontal rule
1110

Or it should have a new thread. I'm not posting generally but I think I'm going to toss one up now.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
1111

Ogged, I wasn't trying to be annoying when I made a "but AWB is great!" comment. I was just hoping it might marginally improve my chances of getting laid if she shows up at our Tuesday meetup.

Those other people, though, you are right to condemn.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
1112

The AWB stuff, which I really wish we could stop talking about, is just one instance of the "structural problem." This "what's wrong?" talk is hilariously similar to privileged men saying "I don't see a problem here."


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
1113

Oh man, I was so tempted to point out that from the point of keeping your little tribe alive, if you start with ten men and ten women, having five men killed is much less of a problem than having five women killed, and this probably accounts for some of the difference between the inclination of men and women to do things that are dangerous but cool, and that it's not all socially constructed. But it seemed like asking for trouble.

See, I'd agree with that as well.

1060: In a case where the father can afford child support, I still say let the state cut the check and then let *them* go after him to collect. Plus, as with all entitlements, if they're only for those that "need" them, then that's like a recipe for resentment, whereas if everyone gets 'em, then they're sacrosanct. I learned this from ttaM and his socialist Scottish ways.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
1114

And y'all are being incredibly annoying with the "but AWB is great!" thing when I've tried to kill that damn discussion so many times and you know that people are generally unwilling to be personally mean.

Two thoughts. First, I am not getting what is annoying about people saying "but AWB is great." I do get the discomfort with people adding in "and Parsimon is a total cunt," of course. But given that AWB mentioned having been told that everybody hates her, it seems like such a natural instinct for people to want to chime in with, "Oh my God, that's nuts, I think you're great." I suppose to the extent that digresses into a big debate about who does and who doesn't like AWB and why, that's not cool. So maybe I've answered my own question?

This other part, that we all know that people are generally unwilling to be personally mean, is I think not entirely correct and perhaps a part of the "structural problem." Personally, I have a hard time sometimes determining when people are being deliberately nasty and when that's just the edgy in-group humor. I really don't know that this is a fixable something, though. I mean, yeah, people can speak up when their feelings get hurt and that's reasonable. I also (mostly) get that some people are going to respond to that by thinking, "What, now I'm supposed to qualify and clarify everyt fucking thing I want to say just to make sure I don't hurt some oversensitive imaginary person's feelings?"


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
1115

1112: Ogged, I think you're actually the only one who's brought up the AWB stuff for quite a long time (other than people briefly responding to you). Other people were bringing up the sort-of-related-but-not-really idea that your appealing to the content of the thousands of pieces of fan mail you receive. I agree with the crowd: that's annoying.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:27 AM
horizontal rule
1116

Hmm, somehow I didn't manage to finish the second sentence of 1115, but luckily I think the idea comes through anyway.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
1117


Ooo, that foreshortened arm confused me completely -- I couldn't figure out what was going on anatomically for a minute or two there.

Actually Jelena Jankovic has no left arm, just a blurry blob which shoots out tennis balls for her to hit with the racket in her right hand.

Check this picture out next.

1082 was my reaction, too, except that I'm wondering about this secret world of e-mails where people pick teams.

That completely surprised me as well.

Non-participating people, lurkers or people who drop by, not only have opinions on parsimon, but think that ogged, as her boss, would benefit from hearing them? Good gracious.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
1118

This "what's wrong?" talk is hilariously similar to privileged men saying "I don't see a problem here."

That, now I'm supposed to qualify and clarify everyt fucking thing I want to say just to make sure I don't hurt some oversensitive imaginary person's feelings?"

Sweet.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
1119

1115, see 1058.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
1120

The solution is that no one should get their feelings hurt, ever. Perhaps ogged should impose a "no commenting while not on valium" rule.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:31 AM
horizontal rule
1121

We should write all comments in the form of LOLCATS memes, so as not to intimidate anyone.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:33 AM
horizontal rule
1122

INVISIBLE COMITY!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
1123

Maybe Unfogged can't be all things to all people. Seriously. Quite a few people have stopped posting for various (usually unknown to us) reasons at various times. Maybe this just wasn't their kind of place, maybe they had other things to do.

AWB's stuff did take me aback, but I can't understand being offended by it.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
1124

Ogged, here's the problem with the emails. By saying "people email me saying they feel excluded," especially in the context of (say) some nastiness around AWB, or some other nastiness, or whatever, you make people paranoid. "Who's emailing saying they hate me? Is it B? Lizard Breath? Tweety?" And I mean, personally, it *does* matter to me who's complaining; I would value a complaint of, say, Kraab's or Slack's more highly than I would one from the long-departed Walter Sobchek. You know?

Re. my being patient, I realized last night a funny thing: when I'm being what you guys call patient, I feel like, to me, that tone is more patronizing than saying things like "sigh" or "what the fuck?" It feels like I'm putting myself in the position of Knowledgable Instructress at the Head of the Class rather than an equal. I don't know if this is because of internalized feminine modesty ("oh, my knowledge of feminism isn't all that and I'm sure anything I think is probably common knowledge"), a total allergy to showing off (really!), or some kind of fucked up issues where I'd personally rather be yelled at than have someone be patient with me. But anyway, I offer the explanation because I think it's a self-flattering explanation of why I more often roll my eyes than patiently explain stuff, and since you guys are crazy enough to prefer the latter to the former, fine; I'll try to overcome my dislike of lecturing and step up to the podium sometimes.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:35 AM
horizontal rule
1125

In a case where the father can afford child support, I still say let the state cut the check and then let *them* go after him to collect.

Oh, I get it. Okay, as long as the mother fucker is still ultimately on the hook, I'm all over your idea.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:35 AM
horizontal rule
1126

my dislike of lecturing

Wow, did you pick the wrong profession.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:36 AM
horizontal rule
1127

Also I feel like Ogged is getting smacked now, so come on, you guys: none of you have ever emailed another commenter here to say "oh my god, Emerson is DRIVING ME CRAZY today with this Elgin ND shit"? I'm sure Ogged gets those emails too.

I still think it's cruddy to bring them up though.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:38 AM
horizontal rule
1128

1126: I'm great at leading discussion and that whole socratic thing, really I am.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:38 AM
horizontal rule
1129

Not entriely coincidentally, she's out of the profession now. She recently explained what she had to do to meet Canadian politeness standards. It wasn't pretty, believe me.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:39 AM
horizontal rule
1130

1127: no.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:39 AM
horizontal rule
1131

1127: Just you, B. Because you're a fine lady and the very thought of Elgin makes you perish.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
1132

I put up a new thread trying to talk about a theory I've got about the structural issues that doesn't involve AWB at all. And has no comments yet, so it loads fast. Yay!


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
1133

I'm sure Ogged gets those emails too.

Right. Like I say, this really isn't about one person, but about an apparent consensus on-blog that conceals a lot of disagreement, alienation, and anger off-blog. I'm annoyed because when someone makes even a tentative suggestion that something's amiss, like Sifu did upthread, the response is to smack it down and say there's no problem. Really, it is pretty funny to be on the other side in discussions like this.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:45 AM
horizontal rule
1134

Dear Ogged,

Sometimes I feel that people in the comment threads all know each other and do cliquey stuff like send each other emails that the not-cool people don't get to see. This intimidates me and makes me afraid to comment here.


Posted by: Barbar | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:46 AM
horizontal rule
1135

Dear Ogged,

Sometimes I feel that people in the comment threads all know each other and do cliquey stuff like send each other emails that the not-cool people don't get to see. This intimidates me and makes me afraid to comment here.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:46 AM
horizontal rule
1136

"oh my god, Emerson is DRIVING ME CRAZY today with this Elgin ND shit"

Aww, I like that running joke. If nothing else, it serves the great purpose of reminding some of the major commenters here that there's a whole damn country of cheap living when everything gets a little too coasty (IYKWIM) up in here.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:49 AM
horizontal rule
1137

1127 - I'll own up to emailing Ogged himself the other day to say that I thought he was doing something that was both funny and mean. (It was an appreciative email, which probably doesn't speak well of me.) This was not an OMG I AM BEING TEH OPPRESSED email or anything, but there are certainly things one wishes to say about on-site behavior that people don't want to bring up in full sight of God and Google. That said, it's hard to address these things without giving individual particulars, and starting the discussion by saying it's about Person X definitely gives it a horrible junior high school vibe.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 8:53 AM
horizontal rule
1138

Sometimes I have contacted oneof the principals (not Ogged) when I was uncertain as to how to respond to some individual. Basically, in the interest of the blog's tone, I was holding off on my gut instinct to attack them, and giving myself a cooling-down period. This is a different thing than conspiracy. In most cases I think that I let the matter drop, so that the private communication made things easier for everyone.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
1139

I don't think there's anything wrong with emailing acquaintances behind the scenes, generally. FTR, I don't email people all that much, or get a lot of emails -- better than 90% of my interaction with Unfogged people is the comments.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 9:16 AM
horizontal rule
1140

Before this thread dies, I'm afraid I can't let all that "B's not crazy talk" go by without mentioning "deafness is not a disability."


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 9:41 AM
horizontal rule
1141

I've been trying to resist posting this, but I can't.

AWB's expectation that lovers get her off while seeming to be in it totally for themselves strikes me as just like the old joke about high maintenance chicks who think they're low maintenance.


Posted by: spaz | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
1142

947

"Whatever, dude. Yes, sometimes individual women are advantaged and sometimes individual men are: but *as a class* "women" are less powerful by all the things we use to measure power: money, status, political power, capital, etc."

Not true. Women live longer, are less likely to be imprisoned, are less likely to be the victims of a crime and crimes against them are punished more harshly then crimes against men.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
1143

Dude, Shearer, you can't start an argument on comment 1142. You want to pick a fight, you need a shorter thread -- try Lurkers.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
1144

671

"I genuinely don't understand what you don't understand. More smart interesting people would comment here if the site were more open to heterodox views. Isn't that a problem?"

More dumb boring people would comment also. And there are too many comments already.

Do you have examples of blog comment content that you prefer?


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
1145

1141: Either you or I have completely misconstrued AWB's comments in this thread. My reading is precisely the opposite, that she does not expect her lovers to "get her off" and gets a little frustrated with their expectations that this is her expectations. Or something like that.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
1146

1064 and others:

Sometimes I find Parsimon a little hypocritical when she responds to an insult with "you don't know me" after just lobbing a personal insult at (typically) AWB.

I have to say here: that was the most civil thing I could come up with to say to Rockette's comment. It shouldn't have been graced with a response at all.

I'm not sure if I owe everybody a statement about all this or not. I don't really want to add to the mess this has become. But maybe it's wise to try to clarify *without opening the whole thing up again*, please! If possible.

So, couple things: whatever off-blog emails Ogged gets are news to me. Nobody likes to know that people are talking about them privately, but it'd be very naive to think it doesn't happen on a site like this, and I don't think it was a bad idea for Ogged to have made people aware of the phenomenon in general.

That said, the drawing up of sides, or teams, is pretty damn distasteful to me, and I'd like it to be clear that I'm not running around bad-mouthing AWB behind the scenes. I sincerely hope that no one's thinking that.

God, I really don't want to be discussing this. DS is right at 1073:

it's more that she has an extremely acerbic style and sometimes gets carried away.

I'm not sure if the difference here will be clear, but contra the emergent view upthread, I have nothing against AWB *personally*: it's her approach to sex that seems to drive me freakin' bananas. While obviously every person's statements can be considered to have an "in my experience" appended to them, AWB's statements frequently stray toward more global pronouncements, about what's wrong with grad school boys, what's wrong with people who want to talk about the sex they're having ... and she not infrequently seems to sneer at these dispreferred people and practices.

That just drives me nuts; I don't care who's saying it. I consider it an appallingly uncharitable way to go about getting naked with people. BUT, to each his own, if that's your practice, be my guest: just don't try to tell me at the same time that this is how women more generally feel, if only they weren't afraid to say so.

Okay, enough of that. It's really my sole beef; it's not directed personally; and now that I've stated it, I'll let it go.

Sorry for the whole thing, everyone. This thread is almost impossible to refresh.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
1147

Of course you have to have an incredibly interesting discussion in the middle of the day, when I'm too busy to read it. You fuckers. I will get you for this. Every single last one of you.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
1148

AWB's statements frequently stray toward more global pronouncements... she not infrequently seems to sneer at these dispreferred people and practices.

OK, but it's pretty clear that she's working out some personal and highly idiosyncratic stuff there. And she readily acknowledges that. I always view AWB's posts as saying more about AWB than about women or men in general. She's pretty unique. So I just appreciate her willingness to self-reveal in an interesting way and discount her statements as fact claims about the broader world.


Posted by: marcus | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
1149

"oh my god, Emerson is DRIVING ME CRAZY today with this Elgin ND shit"

By the way, I was making that one up. I LOVE Elgin, ND.


Posted by: atic | Link to this comment | 11- 9-07 4:10 PM
horizontal rule