CHURL POWER TOO SUBTLE FOR PUNY ANTI-FEMINIST BRAIN

I don't want this blog to turn into the Richard-and-Happy Show, but this is just too delicious not to highlight.   In this thread, Richard began complaining about feminist bloggers and, sucker that I am, I took the bait:

HF: . . . You persistently read complaints regarding bad male behavior and the ways in which certain cultural pressures encourage same as feminists saying ALL men are bad.

Richard then responds, "I'm reading the plain meaning of the words, and the words embrace all men."  He then quotes a number of snippets from around the blogosphere including a gem from this post at Pandagon:

PANDAGON: There is a little known fact that male dominance and the biological reality of men are one and the same thing, due to a curse laid on half the human race by the wicked Witch Mispenasa. It’s said that if ever women should achieve equality with men, men will cease to exist altogether.

One would think the reference to a non-existent WITCH would tip him off, but oh no.  I guess we feminists have an obligation to always state what we mean with absolute literal precision so newbies like Richard won't get confused and hurt-- which of course means we can never ever ever indulge in verbal irony.

By the way, the full context of the statement is a debunking of "Feminist Myths 101" including the myth that "Feminists Hate Men."  Here is the full paragraph:

Feminists hate men.

This myth is frequently trotted out by the exact same people who think that we think we are men. That said, there is a little known fact that male dominance and the biological reality of men are one and the same thing, due to a curse laid on half the human race by the wicked Witch Mispenasa. It’s said that if ever women should achieve equality with men, men will cease to exist altogether. So if feminists are fighting against male dominance, we have no choice but to believe they are out to destroy men themselves. 

Comments

[Richard]

But you say nothing of the other five examples I posted. I wonder why not.

TWISTY: Germaine Greer says women have no idea how much men hate them. I’ve been doing my best to spread the word, but let’s face it; I’m just a churlish tree falling in the forest. With no pope taking a shit nearby to hear me, I might as well be espousing tube tops to Godly Josh. But really, girls. Men hate you.

THEATER_CAB: Don't think men suck? You're wrong.

MELTED DREAMS: Dear Straight Guys, I respectfully submit that perhaps, if you really want to be seen as an understanding or sensitive individual, that you need to start treating women as people.

JSTEVENSON: Men have nothing to contribute to the growth of society except their ability to provide security. All other positive aspects of the community survival can only be provided by women.

I'M NOT A FEMINIST: "Where are the angry newspaper articles on the crimes of sexist hate, the misogyny motivated attacks, the systematic abuse of one group of people by another based solely on their biological difference?"

I have more where these came from.

[Txfeminist]

And your point is..... ?

Your point is that you can cherry-pick with the best of them.

You have the opportunity to debate with a feminist on real issues anytime you want.

Aside from your drive-by commentary, any chance we'll be seeing comments enabled on *your* blog, anytime soon?

RSF

[The Happy Feminist]

FIRST: I don't have an obligation to try to defend every single comment ever made on the internet by a feminist. I mean if that were the game, I could just find random quotations by men that I find disturbing and demand that you try to defend them all-- and if you can't somehow allege that these guys are representative of your gender or that you have an obligation to "police" them.

SECOND: I have absolutely no faith that these quotations are all as you present them, given your track record of presenting snippets from people's blogs misleadingly out of context.

THIRD: Please see post and discussion (pro and con) at Feministing regarding the Melted Dreams quotation.

FOURTH: It is amazing how blithely you employ a double standard. Women tell anecdotes regarding their personal experiences with men and you demand that we provide statistics to try to prove that these are sufficiently frequent occurrences for you to deem them relevant. (For people just tuning in, I am referring to the prior thread.) You then happily provide random snippets on your blog as supposed examples of "churlish feminism," yet, by your own standards "of proof," you have failed to establish that these are sufficiently "representative" or "frequent" to mean anything.

[Richard]

*** PUNY ANTI-FEMINIST BRAIN APPARENTLY NOT PUNY ENOUGH TO JUST IGNORE ***

Happy-- What's with the silly name calling? I don't recall lobing anything like that your direction. It's out of character for you. Bad week?

R.

[Hypatia's Father]

I think she meant puny as in... weak slip-shod argumentation. Not puny as in *wiggles pinky finger*.

So, you can kinda see how the former deserves a response--namely, to "call you out on the carpet"--while the latter does not.

Maybe you'd have more luck if you actually responded to her points, rather than slipping into mock concern for emotional health. That's a standard bully tactic: "Why, whatever is wrong, dear?--Are you feeling okay?"

In any case, I'll take "churlish" over "smarmy" any day of the week.

(shrug)

[The Happy Feminist]

Light-hearted taunting is very much within character for me when a person really deserves it!

But the taunting also reflects a very real frustration. My feminist perspective is something about which I have thought and cared deeply for more than 25 years. And, while I feel very blessed every single day by the material gains made by feminists on behalf of women like me, I remain sensitive about the inequities still faced by women around the world and in our society, and efforts by anti-feminists (like the South Dakota legislature) to roll the clock back. These things affect real people with real lives. My own mother's life was severely diminished (in her own view) by the lack of opportunity for women in her era.

I don't expect everyone to agree with every single feminist idea-- and in fact feminists themselves often reach differing conclusions on a variety of issues. But I am stymied when someone appears to be making a game out of cherry-picking quotations -- frequently misread or out-of-context or without understanding the terms used in the quotations -- just to confirm some a priori notion that feminists are ugly or hateful. I can't help but conclude that such a person has no real interest in whether the issues addressed actually do affect women.

[Txfeminist]

Happy, you're right. He doesn't.

I had a visitor at my site whose head exploded because I pointed out that she seemed to need a legion of Strawfeminists (hateful, angry ones, of course) lurking around, miserable about their lives, bla bla bla, in order for her to feel good about herself in comparison.

[Holly]

Happy, I have a few questions. I realize they might sound accusatory, but I truly do want to understand your logic.

Why do you link to Richard?

Why do you allow him to post on your site, given A) the fact that he does not allow comments on his site and B) that he so rarely engages meaningfully with the topics you raise?

I'm all for free speech, but I don't feel that a blog needs to operate by the same democratic priniciples as a nation or state.

Richard is not a kind or a thoughtful person, and he is also deficient in integrity. Why do you provide him with a forum in which he can vent his spleen against feminists?

He dropped by my blog not too long ago and left a snarky, smarmy, churlish comment. I deleted it and banned him from my site, because I figure if he doesn't allow comments on his site, he has no right to comment on mine.

I find that puny anti-feminist brain remarkably easy to ignore--in fact, I find it impossible to take seriously. I would really like to know why you do.

[Amanda Marcotte]

Oh I'm so amused. I think I shall cast a little spell today trying to inject some intellectual honesty into Richard.

[The Happy Feminist]

Well, I think these are fair questions, Holly, and I've given this some thought myself. Am I essentially indulging a spoiled child who just wants to throw a temper tantrum about feminism?

A couple of notes:

-- I originally linked to Richard before all this "churlish feminism" nonsense began. I hadn't really thought about "delinking" him until you brought it up.

-- I think Richard has at times demonstrated an ability to engage in my posts in a thoughtful and civil manner. For some reason, he only does so on my blog rather than other feminist blogs, maybe because I am a "good" or "nice" feminist.

-- I would prefer not to ban anyone from this blog because I would prefer to allow a free-wheeling discussion, and I want to build an ideologically diverse community of feminists, conservative Christians and other voices.

-- I may simply make it a rule that we aren't going to discuss other people's blogs or threads on this site, and perhaps those are the kinds of comments that I WILL delete. I ain't in the business of dancing around like a marionnette breathlessly trying to justify every cherry-picked quotation from a feminist livejournal somewhere at the behest of some guy who is determine to distort those quotations to fit his preconceived ideas.