Men Explain Lolita to Me

[Mickey]

Okay, Laura. You can continue "explaining" how when you said it was easy for Duane to discount labels because he is a white, privileged male. Because as such, he has never been labeled as anything "other", despite the story that he led in which he obviously had (at least in your view) been labeled and then you labeled him right there as someone who couldn't understand a poor Latina woman living in a blonde-haired, blue-eyed society (who needs labels?). It doesn't surprise me that you don't see the irony in the situation. I mean, that sort of irony is often not seen by the person committing it. (And might even qualify as being unable to see past your own nose.)

Speaking of the article, we can also discuss Solnit's view that white men who read fiction do not get the same boost in empathy as others do because they do not have to "change". As if white males are interchangeable with each other and all have similar experiences. As if there are not plenty of books written by and written about other types of people.

[E.D.]

Faced with a snarling weasel, do you need to reason yourself into a state of murderous action?

Nope. Your *natural* reaction is to twist the buggers head off and stomp it. Hardwired. Primordial. No lube needed. Easy.

Now, deciding who's a snarling weasel may require some thought or training, but once you get there the rest comes naturally.

[Mickey]

E.D. wrote: "Now, deciding who's a snarling weasel may require some thought or training, but once you get there the rest comes naturally. "

I imagine that since you must take some thought to recognize a snarling weasel, that they probably disguise themselves in some other form. Like human beings. In which case, you may want to look back at post #10, in which Laura educated us on dehumanization.

Although, to know if your post qualifies as offensive and if you, as the author, are in need of re-education, we have to first discover whether or not you agree with Rebecca Solnit's article (as I don't believe you've mentioned it yet). If you do, then you have free rein to call people stupid, poor readers, and oblivious to anything outside of themselves. I imagine "snarling weasels" will fit in nicely.

[blereader]

The author's larger point, it seems, is that she is not free to voice an opinion without be corrected or accused of being violent--the irony being, that she is descrying the books where females are overwhelmingly silent, and for this, being excoriated by males.

Whether or not this irony means anything or whether it exists, is part of the heated debate over the article. Otherwise, I agree that it's important to have public spaces where we can share private ideas. That's why I like GoodReads, where people can post whatever they want about a book, and choose whether or not to reveal their sex/sexuality/race/religion/age. There's a lot of different perspectives to draw from without the hurdle of indirect discrimination.

[Karen]

Mickey wrote;
"Although, to know if your post qualifies as offensive and if you, as the author, are in need of re-education, we have to first discover whether or not you agree with Rebecca Solnit's article (as I don't believe you've mentioned it yet). If you do, then you have free rein to call people stupid, poor readers, and oblivious to anything outside of themselves. I imagine "snarling weasels" will fit in nicely.

Good one Mickey.

[E.D.]

As a white-blue-eyed father of two daughters, I see Solnit's point. I accept that the true nature of The Social Order is what it is. I never lied to my girls about it. They live it. With it.

They don't like it either. Too many Snarling Weasels on too many sides of every issue.

There is the occasional Fluffy Bunny Farting Glitter.

Those are nice. :}

[Mickey]

E.D. wrote: "As a white-blue-eyed father of two daughters, I see Solnit's point. I accept that the true nature of The Social Order is what it is. I never lied to my girls about it. They live it. With it.

They don't like it either.

It's interesting the way you phrased that. There must be a point system somewhere that can tell us the certain weight of various characteristics. For instance, my father was a white, black-haired, green-eyed father of three daughters. Does this make him more credible than you in terms of talking about the female experience? How about an actual woman? Can a female talk about her experiences as a woman and have that seen as credible or if they don't line up with people's (Solnit's) ideas, does that mean that her experiences don't count? And if her experiences don't count, wouldn't it be Solnit and her cohorts that are attempting to silence these women? Wouldn't this mean that the complaint of silencing women and calling women names for daring to disagree could easily be extended to those who claim they are all women's champions?

[Karen]

Mickey wrote;
"Can a female talk about her experiences as a woman and have that seen as credible or if they don't line up with people's (Solnit's) ideas, does that mean that her experiences don't count? And if her experiences don't count, wouldn't it be Solnit and her cohorts that are attempting to silence these women? Wouldn't this mean that the complaint of silencing women and calling women names for daring to disagree could easily be extended to those who claim they are all women's champions?"

Yes to your first question to ponder, and yes to the second. I feel silenced by "feminists" like Solnit. Because I disagree. I recently saw part of an interview with Gloria Steinem, where she hinted to the same thing. She (I cannot quote it, I'll do my best) said her idea of feminism was to respect women's CHOICES, and also disagreement. And one of the worst things I have seen in my fifty eight years is the labeling of people when all that does is separate us.

[E.D.]

Micky,
I was not seeking points towards credibility, merely identifying my seat on the bus. As to your father..., you and your sisters can tell which seat is his.., I can not. I only can relate what I see from mine.

I see Solnit's point--to varying degrees. In a generalized sense. Empathy does not require agreement in toto. Or at all.

As to "champions"...(Hi Karen, long time!)..., it appears to be a skip-and-a-jump from Champion to Snarling Weasel. Zealotry can come wearing many different uniforms, and singing many different anthems. Front of the bus..., rear of the bus.

What's the common denominator between a brain with a penis and a brain with a vagina? :}

[Duane]

E.D. wrote: "Faced with a snarling weasel, do you need to reason yourself into a state of murderous action?

Nope. Your *natural* reaction is to twist the buggers head off and stomp it. Hardwired. Primordial. N..."

Dammit E.D. Will you please quit insulting weasels by comparing them to feminists? I used to have them living in the back storage room under the pallet floor and they're REALLY cute (The weasels that is). (I have photos!). And I wouldn't THINK of twisting their head off. (The weasels that is.)

Plus they're actually useful - They eat mice!! If one of them was snarling I would assume s/he was mad at my cat or couldn't find a mouse to eat.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "Is it my imagination or does this thread keep getting shorter instead of longer?"

[Karen]

Duane wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Faced with a snarling weasel, do you need to reason yourself into a state of murderous action?

Nope. Your *natural* reaction is to twist the buggers head off and stomp it. Hardwired. ..."

Lol. Hi E.D.

[Laura]

Mickey wrote: "Because as such, he has never been labeled as anything "other"

How curious, again, that you understood this, because my exact wording was "make no mistake, those boys who bullied you back then, they were actually labeling you something, which is why you were their target." (Message 10)
And it was Duane himself who kept claiming that he was not being labeled, but simply dehumanized (which makes it hilarious that you pin on me the dehumanization lecture). That, for me, was simply another way of labeling, and that was my point, which you missed so largely I wonder if you read me at all.

In fact, when I said I was a Latina woman -etc-, I was answering to Duane wrote: "all of the noise about "privilege" and "oppression", and "race" and "gender", etc. ad infinitum, is just vapid intellectual pretentiousness, and clearly quoted him there (message 25), which makes irrelevant the connection you wanted to make, just because you were so eager to dismiss my argument. YES, saying all the "noise" about race, gender, and oppression is nothing but bullshit IS not seeing past your own nose, even if you were bullied for other reasons.

Oh, and... "As if there are not plenty of books written by and written about other types of people." No, there aren't, not in the same amount, but that is another issue entirely.

It's almost cute how Mickey and Karen bring up respecting the ideas of "non feminist" women (whatever they think that is) as the epitome of the One True Feminism, yet they seem to support that the ideas of other women should be dismissed if they sound feminist. I would add to that, but since Mickey and Duane have moved on to ad hominem, that must mean they ran out of arguments.

I agree with E.D.'s sit on the bus, though.

[Karen]

Laura wrote;
"It's almost cute how Mickey and Karen bring up respecting the ideas of "non feminist" women (whatever they think that is) as the epitome of the One True Feminism, yet they seem to support that the ideas of other women should be dismissed if they sound feminist. I would add to that, but since Mickey and Duane have moved on to ad hominem, that must mean they ran out of arguments."

WHAT????? Huh? When have I EVER mentioned "non feminist" women??? What are you talking about? Because I disagreed with some of what Solnit said?
BTW, what is a non feminist woman? And who decides what women are feminists and who are not? You?

[Mickey]

"Mickey wrote: "Because as such, he has never been labeled as anything "other"

Laura wrote: How curious, again, that you understood this, because my exact wording was "make no mistake, those boys who bullied you back then, they were actually labeling you something, which is why you were their target." (Message 10)
And it was Duane himself who kept claiming that he was not being labeled, but simply dehumanized (which makes it hilarious that you pin on me the dehumanization lecture). That, for me, was simply another way of labeling, and that was my point, which you missed so largely I wonder if you read me at all."

Wow. What a devious editing job you did. This is what I actually said about the exchange-the full sentence from message #60: Because as such, he has never been labeled as anything "other", despite the story that he led in which he obviously had (at least in your view) been labeled and then you labeled him right there as someone who couldn't understand a poor Latina woman living in a blonde-haired, blue-eyed society (who needs labels?).

It's obvious that I understood that you were discussing how labels were the problem and in the next breath, go right into labeling Duane as someone who can't possibly know the pain of labels (ignoring his story) because he is a privileged white male. I would say that this wasn't so much dehumanizing Duane as "depersonalizing" him. He becomes a member of this dominant group that cannot know the pain of being the "other". To know his skin color and gender erase any personal experience he might have had.

Laura wrote: "In fact, when I said I was a Latina woman -etc-, I was answering to Duane wrote: "all of the noise about "privilege" and "oppression", and "race" and "gender", etc. ad infinitum, is just vapid intellectual pretentiousness, and clearly quoted him there (message 25), which makes irrelevant the connection you wanted to make, just because you were so eager to dismiss my argument. YES, saying all the "noise" about race, gender, and oppression is nothing but bullshit IS not seeing past your own nose, even if you were bullied for other reasons."

Do you really think that in one message you can talk about the evil of labels and in the other, use them to your advantage to discount someone? How does being a Latina woman in a blond-haired, blue-eyed society compare with having broken bones and repeated physical assaults?

This lack of any core set of principles or ideas is one of the more troubling aspects I find in feminism and feminists. There is no internal consistency in it, and I consider that dangerous.

Laura wrote: "It's almost cute how Mickey and Karen bring up respecting the ideas of "non feminist" women (whatever they think that is) as the epitome of the One True Feminism, yet they seem to support that the ideas of other women should be dismissed if they sound feminist. "

I don't know if Karen and I agree much on the topic. I rather doubt it as I think we are different sorts of people. The truth is that the majority of women do not identify themselves as feminists. I'm not a feminist, and I say that like I say that I'm not a Mormon. I don't belong to that particular group, and that is a choice I freely make. According to a recent poll, only about 20% of American women identify themselves as feminists. Although they claim to speak for women, they do not have the mandate to do so. I don't have a very good view of feminism in general, and so I don't envision any "One True Feminism".

Laura wrote: " I would add to that, but since Mickey and Duane have moved on to ad hominem, that must mean they ran out of arguments."

We started the ad hominem attacks? Might I direct you to the beginning of the thread? Talk about rewriting history!

[Laura]

Mickey, I keep repeating the quotes, and you keep making connections that aren't there. What I left out from your sentence, which you bold out there, is exactly the connection you made in your head, that does not really exist in my conversation with Duane.

I will try again, just to see if you finally "get it", though I have the feeling you started off biased as soon as you saw a word that "triggered" you against me. But let's pretend you are unbiased and simply not understanding.

I first discussed labels and labeling with Duane, in my comment 10, where he said he was not being labeled when he was abused; he was "othered", and I said I thought it was pretty much the same, as being classified or labeled can part of considering someone "other". Later on, he said that race/gender and oppression are bullshit, to which I said that, from my own experience, they are not bullshit, in my comment 24. Nowhere in those two exchanges I dismiss his experience, other than inside your own head. Nowhere I said my experience was worse than his, or even comparable, other than inside your own head ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Duane does not have experience with race/gender issues, regardless of his past personal experience with bullying, in the same way that I do not have experience with child abuse, regardless of my experience with race and gender issues. I don't claim to know how it's like to be in his shoes (again, other than inside your head).

You are utterly wrong in something very basic here:
1) You seem under the wrong impression that there is a competition here for who is the most pitiful victim. Neither Duane nor I have written anything of the sort.
2) You seem to think that the most pitiful experience is the only valid one, so my experience is the one that should be dismissed in favor of Duane's.
That is a fallacy in the best case, and bullshit in the worst. This is not a competition, and everyone's experience with "oppression" is equally valid. Duane's broken bones are valid, my experience as Latina woman where I live is valid, Karen's experience being insulted by WhatWasHisName is valid. You aren't the one with authority to decide who "wins a cookie" and who has to go shut up in a corner. Neither is Karen, and neither am I. But I do have the right to refuse to go shut up in my corner just because you say so.

Yes, IF I had said to Duane that his experience has no merit, it would have been narrow-minded of me, and not seeing past my nose. The thing is... I never did, other than inside your head. But for him to say race/gender issues are brain farts IS not seeing past his nose. I do understand why he tends to reduce it all to "human is evil", and I just keep thinking we're both bringing a similar concept with different words. But that's my conversation with Duane.

Again, the problem with you is that you can't seem to really understand what we were discussing in each case, and what was exactly said. And yes, I know who first said "snarling weasel". It's obvious it was not being used as ad hominem to anyone with basic reading comprehension. I would say "do you take me for a..." but of course I know that you do. I do apologize to Duane, though. I re-read it, and I see he was making a joke, while you were the one using it for ad hominem for the "lolz".

Karen: you said, literally, that you felt silenced by feminists (like Solnit, who didn't participate in this thread, so I don't see how SHE silenced you, but moving on...). Then you tried to recall a quote (what the actual quote said is irrelevant) from where what you cherished was "her idea of feminism was to respect women's CHOICES, and also disagreement". I'm not even discussing Solnit's essay, if you were not paying attention to what I wrote either.

Thus, it's your definition of who is a feminist what I should be wondering about, considering that you are all for people accepting your dissenting ideas, while you should keep the right to dismiss the rest.

[Karen]

Mickey wrote"
"I don't know if Karen and I agree much on the topic. I rather doubt it as I think we are different sorts of people. The truth is that the majority of women do not identify themselves as feminists. I'm not a feminist, and I say that like I say that I'm not a Mormon. I don't belong to that particular group, and that is a choice I freely make. According to a recent poll, only about 20% of American women identify themselves as feminists. Although they claim to speak for women, they do not have the mandate to do so. I don't have a very
good view of feminism in general, and so I don't envision any "One True Feminism".

Mickey, we may be different sorts of people, but I do think we mostly agree on the topic of feminism.

[Karen]

Laura wrote;
"Karen: you said, literally, that you felt silenced by feminists (like Solnit, who didn't participate in this thread, so I don't see how SHE silenced you, but moving on...). Then you tried to recall a quote (what the actual quote said is irrelevant) from where what you cherished was "her idea of feminism was to respect women's CHOICES, and also disagreement". I'm not even discussing Solnit's essay, if you were not paying attention to what I wrote either."

That was message 67, it was not addressed to you.

And this is what I said below (also in message 67) in quotes about feeling silenced, I never said I felt silenced by Solnit, but by feminists LIKE Solnit.

"I feel silenced by "feminists like Solnit. Because I disagree."

So this statement you wrote here- "(like Solnit, who didn't participate in this thread, so I don't see how SHE silenced you, but moving on...)."
-doesn't make any sense.

[Duane]

I friggin give up on who said what. I'm just gonna "Italicize" whoever threw a particular rock and let everybody finger it out who said it...

...it was Duane himself who kept claiming that he was not being labeled, but simply dehumanized...

Yeah, and I still am! (Claiming, that is... The dehumanization process was long ago completed to near perfection, as I said.)

(damn, I HATE being The Subject of dicsucsion... I just want to stand on the sidelines and throw bombs and then run away laughing maniacally, dammit!! And it's my OWN DAMN FAULT for not saying "I have a friend who" and pretending it happened to somebody else like I usually do... I don't know WHAT got into me. ( Fuck! << You IDIOT, Duane... Like you shouldn't KNOW by now... >> ))

(wuddever... At least I make a BAD example.)

Laura is as usual WAY overestimating the intelligence of, ummm... just about everything (Except me, whom she's as usual underestimating, of course). What I was describing is just pure, visceral hatred. But, Laura sez, "That, for me, was simply another way of labeling..."

Yeah, SO - NOW, back to Post #27 we go, to *again* attempt to
Get Down To The Meat Of The Subject, which is: What is a "Label"?

I mean, you can go all Red Queen on me and say "Label Means Exactly What I Want It To Mean!!". OR, we can Arrive At Consensus (Though probably only at gunpoint) about what it means. Etc. We can even form a committee to have a meeting to file a report on HOW to define what a "Label" is!! But regardless, what I'M saying is, there's NO labeling going on when the little monsters get it in their pretty little heads they're gonna Attack - the labels (If any) come later.

At one extreme, I suppose, if you wanna be totally "Inclusive", you *could* call *anything* from "Asshole Motherfucker" at one extreme of the Bell Curve, to "Racist Sexist Homophobe!" somewhere in the middle of the distribution, to... lessee... umm, "Revisionist!" or "Heretic!", or something, at the other end, a "Label"...

But,

And, YES, saying all the "noise" about race, gender, and oppression is nothing but bullshit IS not seeing past your own nose

OK, I DON'T get THAT at all. ?? We all know there's a race war going on in the U.S., but again, all the neurotic scribblings and "Analysis" by legions of Pecksniffian sociologists doesn't alter the fact that it's basically just that somebody from one race sees somebody from the other and just wants to kill them. THEN maybe they'll label them one way or another, but what additional information of any significance does knowing that add to any "Undersatanding" of the "Issue"? MY assertion, which I'm sticking to tenaciously, is that no matter WHAT the "Labels", they come AFTER the rage and the fury. I mean, a fat Dworkin who can't get laid, FIRST gets all pissed off, and THEN starts hating men, and THEN starts coming up with labels. So, my thesis is, it's sort of meaningless to even bother analyzing the labels (no matter how you define "Label"), because the internal motivation is the really important thing, and *that* is *entirely* visceral. I.e., what is Solnitwit REALLY torqued about? Maybe she married somebody for his looks or his money or his cocaine or something and got burned? I'm jus' sayin'... 5 will get you 10 it's not "Sexism" or "Male Duminance" or some such esoteric fixation that's at the *core* of it...

(Not that I would EVER suggest that the legions of sociologists should EVER lose their fat government grants and tenured professorships or anything, mind you, BUT... .)

In fact, all the yowling about which "Race" is "Allowed" to say the "N-Word", is a *really* good case in point. Go ahead, analyze the living bejeezis out of THAT "Label" and for whom it's what kind of a "Label", and all you'll accomplish is to raise the CO2 level and drown more polar bears - and the temperature will just keep on rising (especially in Baltimore).

Or something. Stuff like that. In any case, I submit that by comparison to everyone who's picking nits about "Labels" I'm not only seeing WAY past my (very likely not Aryan, though I'm still not sure) Nose, but I'm seeing farther than... oh, never mind. That will only precipitate an argument over what "Farther" means.

...since Mickey and Duane have moved on to ad hominem, that must mean they ran out of arguments.

Now, WHERE did I "Ad Hominum" somebody? (Not that I'm in the least bit incapable of it, but I don't see where I did it?) Unless you count my chewing E.D.'s ass for maligning weasels by calling them feminists "Ad Hominem". Well, if that's the case E.D. is being Ad Putorium and some of my best friends are weasels and live in my back room And it is just downright cowardly of him to pick on them and call them feminists when they can't defend themselves. and I'm By god gonna stand up for 'em!!

But I am seriously *thinking* about using "Dworkin" as a pejorative "Label"... Or maybe turn it into a verb, like, as in, "Solnitwit has Dworked the entire Male Gender again". So maybe I've committed the Thoughtcrime form of Ad Hominem, at least. Which I mention because somebody was going on about how only 20% of American women want to be thought of as feminists. That does NOT surprise me considering that the Screaming Harpy Community has managed to get feminism stigmatized as being composed of Dworkins, with which the average American woman *really* doesn't want to be associated (I mean, can you blame them? they're hardly THAT dumb, right?) Like, if feminism was associated with the Camille Paglias and Florence Kings of the world instead of the Dworkins, women would be *happy* to be thought of as feminists...

[Karen]

Thank you Duane, for your colorful honesty. Are you like this in "real life?"

[Laura]

Duane wrote: "Now, WHERE did I "Ad Hominum" somebody?"
I know I know! I apologized in a later comment (but according to yourself, you just adhominemated the Paglias of the world too with it *giggles*)

And about "only 20% of American women want to be thought of as feminists" well, of course, since gamerboys and other creatures manage to turn all our nice toys into nasty insults. Remember how Social Justice Warrior, which is inherently a good thing, is now used to ridicule people? Well, I'd say that, to put it in the terms of an occasional friend of mine, feminists who waste time and effort debating whether we should be called "womyn" rather than "women" because "men cooties" and crap like that are to blame for feminism (as label, lol) now becoming just as "insulting" as SJW.

By the way, E.D. brought up the snarling weasels, but it was Mickey who pinned them to someone(s) specific. Be mad at him on behalf of your furry buddies.

[Mickey]

Laura wrote: "By the way, E.D. brought up the snarling weasels, but it was Mickey who pinned them to someone(s) specific. Be mad at him on behalf of your furry buddies. ."

God, Laura! You are probably the worst poster I've seen for making things up. Show me where I pinned the label "snarling weasels" to someone specific. I even discussed how labeling people "snarling weasels" dehumanized people.

And if the "him" in the sentence "Be mad at him on behalf of your furry buddies" is supposed to be me, you're using the wrong pronoun: I'm a "she" and a "her".

[Mickey]

Laura wrote: "And about "only 20% of American women want to be thought of as feminists" well, of course, since gamerboys and other creatures manage to turn all our nice toys into nasty insults.."

I think the unpopularity of feminism started long before "gamerboys and other creatures" were born. If you want to really get to the bottom of what makes feminism so unpopular among women (who, as a general rule, don't rely on gamerboys for their opinions), you might start reflecting on your "performance" here. Were you a good representative of your philosophy? Did you make persuasive and intelligent arguments in its defense?

[Duane]

Mickey wrote: "I think the unpopularity of feminism started long before..."

Yeah, there's some truth to that in general... "Bluestocking" used to be a pejorative even back in the 1800s...

But it took Dworkins (Ably assisted by Solnitwits) to make *women* really turn tail and run from feminism. I mean, look at it from their viewpoint - They might be thinking they agree with at least *some* of the feminist "Agenda", but then they get one look at a squawking Dworkin and think, "Am I gonna wake up in the morning looking like THAT someday?"

And I DID NOT Dwork Paglia!! I LOVE Paglia. Somebody didn't pay close enough attention to whom I was Dworking. And to whomever accused weasels of raiding the chickencoop, I am telling you, Weasels are peaceloving and it is JUST a few EXTREMIST Weasels that give the others a Bad Name!!

lesseee, what else...

Anyway, returning to the critical question of Grease,
About your question... it would depend how you define humane. It could obviously mean different things to you or me, and the grease would have to have a different composition. But wait... if you apply what you consider to be humane, can you label another inhumane after your own view? *Gasps*
Oh, RIGHT - NOW we're headed for trying to define "Humane" and "Inhumane", which, while a worthy pursuit in its own right, is NOT necessary in this case since the *real* question is, given that "Humane" and "Inhumane" CAN, as antipodes, exist in SOME frame of reference SOMEwhere, does ONE of them ("Humanity"), in ALL frames of reference, require grease in order to be present, while the other ("Inhumanity") does not?

And,

Thank you Duane, for your colorful honesty. Are you like this in "real life?"
NO - I am WORSE.
(Thanks for leaving the door open for *that* one...)

[E.D.]

After prolonged consultation with The League of Fluffy Bunnies Farting Glitter, I have agreed to replace "Snarling Weasel" with Agitated Gerbil. This after the application of much Fluffy Bunny "grease". They work hard at being nice.

Although, I don't see gerbils in *any* state triggering a primordial response other than a giggle…, which is nowhere near illustrating my point on inhumane behavior being hardwired in, and humane behavior requiring effort to overcome our natural proclivity to kill and eat anything that moves or takes an oppositional position.

I hesitate to mention "The Reptile Brain" as I fear it will cause The Fluffy Bunnies to return, and I'm still cleaning up glitter from their last visit.

[Karen]

E.D. wrote: "After prolonged consultation with The League of Fluffy Bunnies Farting Glitter, I have agreed to replace "Snarling Weasel" with Agitated Gerbil. This after the application of much Fluffy Bunny "gre..."

Lol!

[Laura]

Mickey, whatever your gender is, your comment 62 was so clear, even Karen got it and celebrated it. As for the rest of your wanking, I tried to keep redirecting your babbling non-sequiturs, but they got too boring even for me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Duane wrote: "They might be thinking they agree with at least *some* of the feminist "Agenda", but then they get one look at a squawking Dworkin and think, "Am I gonna wake up in the morning looking like THAT someday?""

The fact that what seems to gross you out about Dworkin is not what she says, but what she looks like is very telling, but other than that, this is what I meant before (nice that some people are actually paying attention). But if I can distract your attention past her looks and to her actual discourse, I believe the same can be said about Solnit and women running away from feminism like the plague. Even though there is a core in the idea that is undeniable (sexism, sexist representation, etc.), the discourse is not only extreme, but "polluted" with diverting noise, to the point that most readers prefer to just dismiss the whole thing, rather than navigating the cloud of brain fart to rescue the primordial idea.

I think it comes down to "do I want to be associated with someone who says this?", rather than "am I a feminist?", because the most extremist representatives of any movement tend to be the loudest, and the ones that the populace soon associates with the whole movement. I figure that any given U.S. woman, rather than going to the core of feminism to find out if they want to identify themselves with that thought -not movement, they see the loudest in the movement -not thought, and go NOPE! (Though I have to wonder what a Russian woman feels like regarding the Pussy Riot women... I know I would not mind that kind of label by association, if it weren't for the possibility of jail that is).

AND then there is the use of the word as an insult, which you do, even though you like and agree with some feminists yourself. Yes, this may have been originated before gamerboys and other creeps, but we naturally see more of it now that Internet forum spaces abound. Same as SJW and stuff.

BUT this other stuff about needing to grease humanity is more interesting than the others' wanking... Is being inhumane so primordial that it comes in the absence of any environmental stimulus (parental guidance or lack thereof, societal standards, etc.)? Is it instinctive or rational? Duane mentioned -I think- it stems from visceral rejection to someone perceived as "other" (which I saw as a primordial form of labeling, but whatever), but is it visceral, or is it a calculated effort to set predominance on top of "weaker" beings? For example (considering we are on a thread of a book where a grown man takes advantage of a little girl), is a strong versus weak power trip a simpler explanation for sexism, patriarchy, and other currently neatly labeled social issues, as Duane seems to consider?

E.D., in the name of all the oppressed and underrepresented gerbils in this thread, I take offense. The fact that you assume that a poor gerbil's state of agitation can be played for the giggles is just as degerbilizing as using the species slur "desert rat". Check your non-gerbil privilege before you use gerbils as a punch line. Weasels suck. They're bad omen. It is known.

[Mickey]

Laura, I want you to tell me where I called someone a "snarling weasel". Show me that.

[Karen]

Laura wrote; "Mickey, whatever your gender is, your comment 62 was so clear, even Karen got it and celebrated it. As for the rest of your wanking, I tried to keep redirecting your babbling non-sequiturs, but they got too boring even for me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

Laura, you are a little snit, do you know that? I find you boring.

[Mickey]

I am really irritated with being accused of calling specific people "snarling weasels". Laura doesn't even deign to show me where I did so, because she can't. No "creative editing" is going to produce a quote where this happened. Laura knows this and doesn't have the class or the manners to apologize to me.

Laura, I think your defense of feminism could use some work. The idea that feminism has a public relations problem because of the "extremists" serves only as a convenient excuse to not reflect on your own behavior. Look at this thread: It started out with a male feminist posting a feminist article. When a woman disagreed with the article, (and I get the impression she had to tell him more than once that she did), his response to her (a Goodreads friend) was to excommunicate her, call her names, and imply she was too stupid to read that article. This isn't the best bit of proselytizing I've ever seen.

AnnLoretta came in and (I can't say for sure, because she deleted all her posts, but from what people replied to) egged Gary on. Laura comes to join the dog-pile, replying to AnnLoretta and taking several pot shots at Karen herself (the "can't see past her own nose"). Three people who agree with Solnit's article, so most likely self-described feminists, seem more interested in piling on a woman who doesn't agree. None of them have done any active persuading and their manner is arrogant and aggressive. They address each other more than the people that are disagreeing with the article.

The Duane conversation started, and Laura, with very little knowledge of the actual events, tries to explain to Duane the motives of his tormenters, and how more people who think like her would keep such abuse from happening (which took place because of labels). She then goes on to discount Duane's solution by labeling him a privileged white man, who does not know what it means to be other.

A few more conversations occur. Some people (who are too distracted to identify themselves as feminists or not) began haranguing one of the feminists for his behavior and it takes an outsider to finally start exposing the ironies of a male feminist explaining the article to a woman poster. Other ironies are discussed, and Laura comes back to defend herself. She continues to insult Karen, and proceeds to defend her earlier conversations by "creative editing", false accusations (the snarling weasel thing), and making pointless distinctions (ex: 'Since I was responding to a different section of his reply, there is no irony in me applying a label to discount his experiences, despite knowing that he actually had been 'othered'.')

I don't see the shining example of feminism that run-of-the-mill feminists make, not the extremists who spend time arguing about 'women' vs 'womyn' or that nonsense. I don't think this thread is unusual as far as the general tone it takes. They show run-of-the-mill feminists who don't listen to other's experiences and spend a lot of time discounting and denigrating. Instead of giving a solid intellectual defense of feminism, they seem more interested in insulting and taking cheap shots. I would consider this more damaging to feminism than Dworkin's looks or the weird preoccupations of the extremists.

ETA: There have been several times on this thread that the feminists could have stopped to reflect on how their approach was not likely to win any converts. One was when Karen said she, as a woman, felt silenced, because she didn't agree (this actually happened a few times). The response to this was very flippant and produced no change of direction. I would say that more women aren't feminists because they understand that feminists don't respect women's opinions.

[Mickey]

Karen wrote: "Laura, you are a little snit, do you know that? I find you boring."

So the other two women who are on this thread with you, Laura, don't think much of you and your behavior. Is this due to extremists? Dworkin? Is it due to ideological differences? Are we so blown away by the intelligence of your posts? Think about what sort of impression you are leaving.

[Mickey]

Laura wrote: "Mickey, whatever your gender is..."

And here I thought I was being clear when I said the appropriate pronoun to use when referring to me was "she" and "her". Listen carefully: I am a woman. Is this going to be another incident where you feel that you have some expert opinion to dispense like you did when you explained what really happened to Duane when he was in elementary school? Or explaining to Karen (although you actually just pontificated to the empty air, apparently finding Karen too lowly to address) that her thoughts were male? Do you have some special insider knowledge about my gender that means you won't accept my clear assertion as to what gender I am?

And feminists who debate using womyn or women are the chief reason why people find feminism distasteful? Like your behavior isn't as distasteful and more irritating.

Now show me where I called anyone specific a "snarling weasel".

[Karen]

Mickey wrote;
"ETA: There have been several times on this thread that the feminists could have stopped to reflect on how their approach was not likely to win any converts. One was when Karen said she, as a woman, felt silenced, because she didn't agree (this actually happened a few times). The response to this was very flippant and produced no change of direction. I would say that more women aren't feminists because they understand that feminists don't respect women's opinions."

Thank you. It seems that those who cry the loudest for more tolerance of different types of people are the least tolerant of others themselves. They claim to hold a certain position even though they don't know much about it, other than it must be the cool political stance they want to take.
And if Laura thinks my thoughts are male, I should thank her- my husband is a male, a real feminist, not a phony one.

[Duane]

This lack of any core set of principles or ideas is one of the more troubling aspects I find in feminism and feminists. There is no internal consistency in it, and I consider that dangerous.

OH boy, YOU ought to read Paglia. THAT is what pisses *her* off about "Mainstream" (? Or whatever it is?) "feminism" - their intellectual sloppiness. She says that whenever she's tried to engage one of them to find out what they're thinking, they aren't thinking *anything*, and are just full of slogans (now, this is coming from a predominantly leftist, lesbian (if that matters), feminist (by nearly any definition...).

This after the application of much Fluffy Bunny "grease".

OH, so NOW you're making the grease out of BUNNIES!!! E.D., is there ANY depth to which you won't sink???

I hesitate to mention "The Reptile Brain"...

WHAT? Now you've deicided to pick on GERBILS, and you're nonetheless *afraid* to demonize *REPTILES*?? What *exactly* HAVE you got living in your apartment, E.D.? (I've heard the expression "thinking with your lizard brain", though, so you may be on *somewhat* safer territory *there*...)

The fact that what seems to gross you out about Dworkin is not what she says, but what she looks like is very telling

Yeah, it sure is! It's the best proof I've EVER seen of the timeless maxim, "Beauty is only skin deep, but Ugly goes ALL the way to the bone". I mean, IIRC (it's been a mercifully long time although not mercifully enough) *First* I read something by Dworkin and thought, "man, this [Expletive Deleted] is REALLY fucked in the head", and THEn I looked up a *photo* of It, and went "mfnGAaaaAAghgggggg!!!!!!!HHEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLP!!!! THEY'VE **LAnDEd....!!! THEY'RE HERE!!!!!!!" And started looking around for a garbage can to hide in, in case it crawled through through my screen like that thing in "Ringu". and NOW NTS every time I hear its name my flesh crawls... What Has Been Seen, Cannot Be Unseen... !!

But actually, I agree with you <<< THUD!!! >>> <=- (sound of Laura hitting the floor in a dead faint); it's a fucked up situation; I can't rail at feminists collectively because of Dworkin, without including Paglia by implication, which really sucks. (Hmmm... There's *another* stellar example of why labels are such a pile of crap... even though, like urea fertilizer, when constructing a bomb they can be a useful ingredient even if they smell bad.)

Is being inhumane so primordial that it comes in the absence of any environmental stimulus (parental guidance or lack thereof, societal standards, etc.)? Is it instinctive or rational?

DING!!! Yeah!! (*Finally!*) And correspondingly, borrowing E.D.'s penetratingly vile descriptor, does it ALWAYS require "Fluffy-Bunny Grease (tm)" for *Humane* behavior to occur? I mean, I remember, at age 14 reading Burgess' "Clockwork Orange", in which Little Alex (My hero!) says, "Why do people always ask what is the cause of badness, and never what is the cause of doing good?" And I have YET to hear an answer to Alex's plaintive query, however many reptiles later.

...my point on inhumane behavior being hardwired in, and humane behavior requiring effort to overcome our natural proclivity to kill and eat anything that moves or takes an oppositional position.

OK... BUT.!! The *.Question* I keep *.Trying* to ask, is, are you claiming there is ***NO*** "Humane" behavior hard-wired in, from birth? I mean, that's a pretty profound indictment. We know humans are *capable* of "Humane" behavior. But are you claiming that it's *Entirely* due to "nurture" (read: Grease (From brutally murdered-and-boiled Fluffy-Bunnies?)) and not at all "Nature", which (by corollary) ONLY Produces savage little monsters? Now, I'm not really sure about that... I mean, if humans didn't somehow initially demonstrate spontaneous humane behavior *at least* on occasion, would they have ever managed to create "Societies"? I'm jus' askin'...

Having observed a pair of twins playing in a sandbox and seeing one of them gratuitously haul off and bash the other one on the head with a toy shovel with all his two-year-old might, though, it's hard to argue that "Inhumanity" doesn't come prelubricated... I guess the actual question is whether there's *any* "Humane" behavior that *doesn't* require grease, and whether there's ANY inhumane behavior that *does* require it...

(This could easily be construed as marketing analysis for "Fluffy-Bunny Grease (tm)" you know, E.D.) (he probably DOES know that, and is already working on a business plan...

...I have to wonder what a Russian woman feels like regarding the Pussy Riot
women...

GOOD question... . At the core, those girls aren't really even feminists, though - they're *anarchists* and *revolutionaries* in the *true* Russian tradition - and *badass* ones. If I assess Russians correctly (which is *seriously* open to question) my guess is that 90% of them, male *and* female - up to and including Putin - secretly admire and envy Pussy Riot. NOBODY makes revolutionaries like Russia... NOBODY. (The other 10% are Russian Orthodox Christians who are devout enough to be infuriated over the Pussy Riot "Church Invasion"... heh heh)

...is a strong versus weak power trip a simpler explanation for sexism, patriarchy, and other currently neatly labeled social issues, as Duane seems to consider?

Oh, I'll *stand* on THAT claim, all right. The fact that men are physically stronger than women, simply AARO of our species being sexually dimorphic, is the *entire* explanation (well, woman being the childbearer accounts for *some* of it, but her basic inability, historically, to bash his brains out with a club the way he can hers, is all there is to it), thereby removing any need for feminism, and reducing it to a simple need for adequate weaponry... Or as we say out here in redneck territory, "God made womyn, but Col. Colt made 'em equal".)

BUT - if you're asking if that accounts for the Humbert Humbert Humbert Humbert [(Humbert)^^n]s of the world,... HMMM... I never thought of *that*... I mean, to the extent that I can even manage to get beyond *mere* visceral revulsion for it, paedophilia is a complete mystery to me - I mean, wtf? I never thought of it as being driven at its core by plain old mindless, simian aggression toward the vulnerable, though. Ya gotta wonder... *That* would make sense, actually...

[Mickey]

Hey, Laura! Show me where I pinned the label "snarling weasels" on someone specific.

[Mickey]

Looking for one answer into why bullying happens will probably end up being frustrated. The problem with generalizations is that they need to fit everyone, and people being so different and varied, this is likely to produce nothing more illuminating than a convoluted conversation that everyone knows isn't practical. (Just for personal preference, I'm going to talk without using the charming vocabulary that has been introduced into the conversation: "grease", "humanity/inhumanity", "primordial", any animal references don't really help to clarify the situation, IMO. )

Instead of generalizations, which will likely not get anywhere, let's look for ready-made models. When we talk about what causes people to bully others: labels or just plain nastiness, I think we have two pretty good examples of it: Gary and Laura. I'll only be thinking about Laura this post, because her contributions span both pages and, I think, show an interesting change of character.

Laura showed up in the middle of a heated conversation about feminism and joined in, clearly identifying with the majority of those on the thread (at the time). She was quick to use insults, but they weren't generally hurled at the target as much as addressed to the other cohorts. At this point, she was using a lot of feminist vocabulary unironically. Looking back, her main goal did not seem the defense of any view as much as using the situation as a "bonding experience". It didn't seem like it was very successful, as neither one seemed to talk to her.

If you fast forward to this page, you'll see a very different Laura. With Gary and AnnLoretta gone, the feel of the thread changed from being stridently feminist to post-modern gonzo humorous. Laura, who had previously "educated" Duane on his experiences now *giggles* at his mention of specific feminists and uses feminist language in a spoof about gerbil rights. She's still nasty to others, but again, it is in an indirect way, playing more for the crowd she would like to be accepted in than directly challenging and engaging.

Now what does this show? Laura readily adapts to the majority opinion, and uses "outsiders" to try to confirm her insider status with the group. She's not wedded to any philosophy that she won't mock in order to fit in. Therefore, the concept of applying labels is only an afterthought for her. When being insulting, she seems more interested in getting closer to those she sees as the majority; the insulted (while apparently necessary) is nothing but a convenient foil. Her main goal seems to be the intimacy and camaraderie of a group. This is a person who uses bullying as a tactic to bond with others.

[Holly]

Duane, this statement caught my attention:

DuOh, I'll *stand* on THAT claim, all right. The fact that men are physically stronger than women, simply AARO of our species being sexually dimorphic, is the *entire* explanation (well, woman being the childbearer accounts for *some* of it, but her basic inability, historically, to bash his brains out with a club the way he can hers, is all there is to it), thereby removing any need for feminism, and reducing it to a simple need for adequate weaponry... Or as we say out here in redneck territory, "God made womyn, but Col. Colt made 'em equal".)

As a woman, I think that we are perceived to be more defenseless than we actually are. A sleeping man is quite vulnerable after all, his woman can chose to wake him up with a tire iron at any time........or make sure he never wakes up at all. A hungry man will eat what his woman puts in front of him, regardless of whether or not he is aware of all the ingredients in the dish. I've always wondered how many women got away with "Oh, look, he got drunk again and fell down the stairs and broke his neck and died. Alas, I shall just have to cash in his life insurance policy and go on with my life somehow........"

Nature provides a system of checks and balances to the differences between the genders........it is human society that fucks it all up

[Laura]

LOL Mikey, relax, breathe, have a tea. You need it. I don't know what's funnier here, Mikey loosing her shit for not understanding what I write, or Karen constantly going "I'm not ____, YOU are ___" as if that were the epitome of wit.

Mikey, I have no clue how you get the conclusions you get from this thread. In my language there is the expression to "pee outside of the pot", but you're actually peeing outside the whole universe. But you're the perfect example of my last comment with Duane. You saw Gary being nasty and insulting in the name of feminism, so automatically your brain decided that everyone here being feminist was being nasty and insulting. I said Duane was "a white male" and used the word "privilege", so of curse I had to be schooling him and diminishing his own experience, rather than having a discussion. Thank you for making my point of "by association".

The way your mind worked through this thread illustrates this to perfection. This is exactly why you failed to recognize what I was saying to whom, and most importantly, how I was saying it. You were so eager to believe I was snarling at someone (and I pointed the exact comment where you did it, so stop losing your shit over and scroll up), that you actually believed it when it was really not there, so later on, when I giggled at Duane's comment and followed up on the conversation we had started before, you couldn't grasp it and thought I had a sudden change of heart.

In reality, I haven't moved an inch from my initial argument about how I perceive the phenomenon of labeling people, "othering" people, and bullying, and I called myself a feminist repeatedly in the last comment I sent to Duane. I never went back on the thought about race/gender and oppression versus privilege, so I have no clue what change of heart you're talking about, other than more non-sequitur, yapping about whatever your mind thinks I must be saying because *OMFG another nasty snarling feminist*, right?

What I'm not wedded to is any "full package" of ideology. I take what my own logic dictates. This is why I declare myself a feminist, but still have the brains to tell you that "womyn" is bullshit, and I haven't lost the sense of humor to make a joke about gerbils, using social activism jargon because that was the point of the joke: not to take anything to the extreme, and have the brains to acknowledge when someone with a good basic idea started brainfarting around it, like Dworkin. But all explanations, for you, have been like when Charlie Brown's teacher talks, and all you read is "Snarling Feminist Bully Insult".

Actually, you have been the one being aggressive toward me since you first mentioned me, but instead of whining and calling you a bully, I've been trying to explain myself better, to show you where you were misreading me, and where you were completely misinterpreting my interactions with Duane, since you seemed to feel so sorry for how I was victimizing him. Obviously, I was overestimating you, as someone hinted already.

But I do appreciate you proving my point. That was neat.

[Mickey]

Still can't show me where I called someone specific a "snarling weasel"? Simply proclaiming something doesn't make it true, especially since you can't produce the quote.

Why you would put the energy into the multi-paragraphed and silly/snide last post and still not simply paste the incident where I called someone specific a "snarling weasel" is really telling.

[Karen]

Laura wrote;
". I don't know what's funnier here, Mikey loosing her shit for not understanding what I write, or Karen constantly going "I'm not ____, YOU are ___" as if that were the epitome of wit"

Hmm, I don't think I ever wrote a sentence like this- "I'm not_____,
YOU are____.
This sounds like somethings a whiny teenage brat would write, which is what you are..

[Mickey]

Again, I will point this out to illustrate the point that perhaps the feminists who debate using the term "womyn" instead of "women" may not be the main reason for the unpopularity of feminism: There are two women on this board (discounting the late-arriving Holly, who, as Laura's friend and considering the time frame of posts, I'm guessing she was persuaded to come on here by Laura). Laura continues to insult the women. This time, she has taken the cue of the non-feminist male (Duane, whom she is implying has indirectly called me stupid) whereas on the last page, she took the cue of Gary, a feminist male, as to which female (Karen) needed to be bullied as stupid. And I bet Laura can't see the irony in this.

[Laura]

True Science Literacy is less about what you know, and more about how your brain is wired for processing information.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) December 31, 2015

[Mickey]

Still can't produce that quote, huh? Because there isn't one. I wonder how feminism is served when a self-declared feminist accuses someone of saying something and then, when called out on it, can't produce the quote.

Let's see your reading skills in action. Show me where I called somebody specific a "snarling weasel". Show me that.

[E.D.]

A weasel, a fluffy bunny, and a Komodo walk into a bar.

The bartender throws them out.

No shirt. No shoes. No service.

A few days later, the bartender steps in a pile of feces infused with fur and glitter.

A Komodo walks into a bar.....

[Karen]

Karen wrote: "E.D. wrote: "A weasel, a fluffy bunny, and a Komodo walk into a bar.

The bartender throws them out.

No shirt. No shoes. No service.

A few days later, the bartender steps in a pile of feces infus..."

Lol

[Mickey]

Laura wrote: " You saw Gary being nasty and insulting in the name of feminism, so automatically your brain decided that everyone here being feminist was being nasty and insulting."

I think you are letting yourself off way too easy, and you are not understanding your position in both groups.

If you acknowledge that Gary was being nasty and insulting, I wonder at your immediate reaction. There was no call from you for Gary to stop being nasty and insulting to Karen. In fact, you appear to be looking for his approval and egging him on by taking your own shots at her (ex: Karen reminded me of a physician in one of those "horrible countries" she could be talking about (like mine, I guess), where the contamination with certain toxic was up the sky, but he kept saying "I lived here all my life and I'm fine" as evidence that such contamination did not exist. It's always interesting to me when people aren't able to consider there is a world beyond their own noses and Women who embrace the patriarchal mindset (as I expressed above, seconding Karen's complaint that we left them behind) do so because those ideas come inherently from a patriarchal system. They come from men. Some women are more compliant than others; it's a system that has run for centuries, and in the same way that some men disagree with it, some women agree with it. But as the origin is patriarchal, it's not entirely incorrect to assume it's a male thought, even if some women share it.) I don't see anything that suggests that you came to her defense or that you disapproved of Gary's behavior. If I'm wrong about this, show me quotes where you directly protested his behavior. "Creative editing", does not count, of course.

And while you're at it, show me the quote of me calling someone specific a "snarling weasel".

[Karen]

Laura, maybe you could also stop saying "losing your shit"- you want to come across as intellectually superior, and this phrase is not helping your quest.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "Rebecca Solnit (and this essay is my introduction to her work) reminds me a lot of Barbara Ehrenreich. She is obviously a very gifted writer. On the strength of the writing of this es..."

Mickey, yes, she appeals to those who share her outlook. The actual original essay "Men Explain Things to Me" has nothing to do with the recently modified essay Gary began this post with. But saying she only appeals to those who share her views is the equivalent of saying that everyone isn't interested in Delft porcelain, therefore, no books should be written about it.

Rebecca Solnit is an erudite and entertaining writer to those of us who appreciate her point of view. I don't read Clive Barker. I don't object to his books being published or discussed.

Please don't explain to me why a woman writing about women's issues shouldn't be published? Thanks.

[[deleted user]]

I don't quite understand why this thread wasn't posted within a women's group where the topic might have been appreciated. It's funny, it's frank, and it's just a shame that everybody's so at odds with each other.

I do now understand, however, why hard-backed books are considered weapons in prisons.

Her book Men Explain Things to Me is really interesting and entertaining, if you're interested in that sort of thing. If you're not, life's too short, and I don't finish books that I find don't engage me. That's all. It's easy. I return them. And rarely speak an uncivil word to the librarians.

Not that all differences in opinions lead to discord, but open threads are invitations to abuse.

[Duane]

Holly wrote: "...his woman can chose to wake him up with a tire iron at any time........or make sure he never wakes up at all. A hungry man will eat what his woman puts in front of him, regardless......"

Oh, of course women aren't *defenseless* in an *absolute* sense... but the point is that they HAVE to resort to stuff like you describe because they CAN'T just bash the man's head in with a club when he comes back into the cave all drunk and aggressive and starts in on them. That's not even peculiar to women and men, either - it's true with ANY two groups of animals; the physically stronger ones will dominate the weaker ones (Unless of course the latter are armed...).

My point is (JUST for example), even paternalistic religions would never have existed if the if the women were capable of just kicking in the door to the Temple/Mosque/Synagogue/whatever and telling the bearded geezers Fuck you assholes, we don't like your decisions running our lives and you're not kicking us out of here. And put up that spear or we'll take it away from you and shove it up your Abraham. (And go wash, all of you, you smell like goats.) Etc... .

AND BY THE WAY, does anyone remember... Apropos of this "I'm not ____, YOU are ___" stuff, THere is a *name* for that tactic, whereby somebody turns around and accuses somebody else of being what they got accused of, ad infinitum, and I've been trying to remember what that name is for a few weeks, for entirely unrelated reasons, and it's bugging me... it's named after some fictional character or something... like maybe a Lewis Carroll character... ?? I originally saw it on one of the Amanita "Space Fungus" threads on here but I'll be damned if I can remember it... << grumble... >>

And also, "Losing Your Shit" is a hallowed, time-honored, and sanctified American colloquial expression! I first heard it used in a review of a Lisa Suckdog performance, so it can't possibly be inappropriate. !@

Please don't explain to me why a woman writing about women's issues shouldn't be published?

whaAAAT? Who's saying she shouldn't be published? How could we *possibly* have such fun tearing her a new Obama, if she didn't get published somewhere that we could get at her??

And also,

Looking for one answer into why bullying happens will probably end up being frustrated.

Oh, hell no! There's one very simple reason: Because it can! (AS I've been saying for the last 384,674,183,992 posts...)

I do now understand, however, why hard-backed books are considered weapons in prisons.

OOH... GOOD one... "Full Auto Assault Books"!!

E.D. wrote: "... A few days later, the bartender steps in a pile of feces infused with fur and glitter."

E.D. there is so much WRONG with this I don't even know where to start.

First of all, the Bartender KNEW the Komodo was there, So he should be arrested for having failed to provide a "Safe Space" for the helpless peaceable bunny, at least.

Second, where were YOU while all this was happening? YOU let the Komodo get the Bunny, which could have been used to make another batch of "E.D.'s Fluffy-Bunny Morality Grease (tm)"!!

( << fume... >> Dammit! you just can't get good help nowadays... )