Men Explain Lolita to Me

[Laura]

The Komodo is innocent. It went vegan. It is known.

[Laura]

Karen wrote: "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."

LOL Dafuq? I think you are confusing intellectual superiority with ass tightness. But I don't want to come across as intellectually superior. All drugs have side effects. Narf!

Mickey wrote: "I don't see anything that suggests that you came to her defense or that you disapproved of Gary's behavior."

I don't see anything that suggests that I claimed to do such a thing. I arrived only to half the conversation, because Karen removed all her comments, and I had nothing to say about whether Gary removed Karen from friends or not. Is not defending someone the same as attacking them in your head? Interesting.
I didn't agree with what Karen was saying (what was not removed). You thoroughly quoted what I said to her about it. If that sounds to you like snarling or insulting, oh sweet summer child, you should just go back under your blankies.

(OOOH wait, let me do the Mickey style: Show me where I defended Gary. Show me. I want a quote, now NOW I SAY. Show me. Creative editing doesn't count, I bet you can't show me. OH COME ON!! SHOW ME NOWWWW!!") LOL just kidding. IDGAF!

I think your weakest moment was when you though I brought Holly to the thread. If you had invested as many brain cells reading and understanding what she wrote, as you did perving in our profiles to see who's "GR friends" with whom, you would have seen that what she said doesn't really agree with my point of view. Duane is my "GR friend" as well, and has been for a while. Do you think I followed him to the thread so that I could publicly "school" him about his past experiences, too? Your mind works in mysterious ways.

In normal life, Mickey, acquaintances and friends do disagree with each other about issues. I don't know if you have only friends who see eye to eye with you in everything, and who can go "rescue" you from Internet forum threads when you're being attacked, but I find that childish. One learns from connecting with all sorts of people, with all sorts of mentality and ideas. Duane, Holly, other GR friends, and I often disagree on some issues, discuss about it, then find some sort of common ground. Sometimes we don't, and we end up "agreeing to disagree". This is how adults (and I'm not talking about chronological age, of course) learn and broaden their minds, you know? But this only happens because they don't get all whiny and butthurt (another gem of language I learned from "gringos") when I disagree with them; they discuss, make their point respectfully -sometimes playfully- and we all move on and carry on.

Duane wrote: "Apropos of this "I'm not ____, YOU are ___" stuff, THere is a *name* for that tactic..."
Really? It has a name? I just thought it was what kids did in the playground or something, like little Timmy calls little Deb ugly, then little Deb whines "YOU'RE the ugly one!" I have to say the first time Karen used that one on me (I think it was another thread), it was way funnier than now, because she used this children tactic in the context of "you are the childish one". I'm still cracking up at that one.

Don't be so mournful about the bunny. They multiply in alarming rates. If anything, the Komodo was doing environmental control.

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: "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."

The main contention within this thread hasn't been the essay (or the book, which for the record, I've read since finding this thread). It's been the behavior of the people- namely Gary and Laura.

I don't agree that a 'women's group' would be a better forum unless this is a code word for 'group of feminists'. Most women (and you can see this on this thread) aren't feminists and don't agree with them. There would still be disagreements and, judging by the beginning of this thread, in which you participated, these would be heated enough to bring general condemnation on their behavior.

Why do I think Solnit is wasting her talent? (BTW, since reading her book, I've become less hopeful about her talents, but that's not pertinent to the discussion.) I would feel the same way if I were reading a book of essays from another minority point of view, say a Mormon or a member of some cult. If the writer wants to make any impact in the world, he has to branch out from his own narrow point of view and either universalize the topic somehow (so it would interest those outside of the "clan") or learn to look outside of his viewpoint and work on persuading. Writing only to the members of a small group who will readily accept your views uncritically is, IMO, wasting your talent.

That being said, I never said that she shouldn't write books. It's not quite like your porcelain example. If we say Solnit's book is about women's issues, a person wanting information about the topic of women's issues wouldn't find much information in that book. Only if you were looking for information on feminism (which is an entirely different topic) would it be of any interest. The book won't add anything to the general debate, but stay in its small enclave. But I have no objection to their being books simply for the edification of a small "in" crowd. I'm only noting that it limits the reach of a particular writer and it's unlikely to really stretch him as far as honing his skills.

I do have a question, though: Why did you delete your messages from earlier? I remember seeing a post where you told Karen that you finally realized why you two never agreed on anything; it was because she had a male mind (while you were backing up a male, Gary).

[Karen]

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

Nobody ever said writing about women's issues should not be published.

[Mickey]

Laura, why are you so resistant to showing me where I called someone specific a "snarling weasel"? Why not just admit that you either lied or misread something instead of making excuses and insults?

[Laura]

Mickey wrote: "Laura, why are you so resistant to showing me where I called someone specific a "snarling weasel"? Why not just admit that you either lied or misread something instead of make excuses and insults?"

Are you losing sleep over it? I gave you the comment number, go look. To avoid creative editing, you know. I wrote a lot of undeserved attention to you today. I'm not in the mood for more for at least a few hours.

[Mickey]

As you can see from Laura's post #112, AnnLoretta, this is the representative feminist in our little group right now. We haven't actually been talking about Solnit's piece because we've been too distracted by that behavior.

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: "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."

I agree with simply realizing that you are not a book's target audience and just putting it down and letting it be. But who do you think would or should be the book's target audience? If a general interest book is from a minority viewpoint, is it not "fair game" to judge the effectiveness of the book by the ability of the author to convince non-believers, to persuade them on her viewpoint? In my view, Solnit did not even attempt this, but wrote essays stating her views without any attempts at persuasion. (In my experience, this is pretty standard for feminists. The only book I can think of by a feminist who did a bang-up job at persuasion was The Beauty Myth, although it's been a while since I read that.)

[Mickey]

Laura wrote: "Are you losing sleep over it? I gave you the comment number, go look. To avoid creative editing, you know. I wrote a lot of undeserved attention to you today. I'm not in the mood for more for at least a few hours. "

This still isn't showing me where I called someone specific a "snarling weasel". At this point, don't you realize everyone knows you've lied about it and that you can't produce it?

I certainly haven't wanted any "attention". All I've wanted is to be shown where I've called someone specific a "snarling weasel", as you stated to Duane I did.

You've been ducking this for days, because you're too invested in your self-image to say that you lied or that your reading comprehension isn't as stellar as you would like us all to think it is. But, in all honesty, everyone already knows this about you. All this excuse making and ducking is just adding another fault.

[Karen]

Laura wrote;
" I have to say the first time Karen used that one on me (I think it was another thread), it was way funnier than now, because she used this children tactic in the context of "you are the childish one". I'm still cracking up at that one."

Why is that so funny? You are. Anybody can see that, and since you can't remember the thread, why even mention it? Odd.

[Gary]

AnnLoretta wrote: "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."

Funny you should bring that up. In fact, at the same time I posted it here, I posted it to another group, and it was given due appreciation... and then folks simply moved on, because that's how decent people deal with such matters. They take it as read, comprehend it and then get on with things. C'est la vie.

[Mickey]

Gary wrote: "Funny you should bring that up. In fact, at the same time I posted it here, I posted it to another group, and it was given due appreciation... and then folks simply moved on, because that's how decent people deal with such matters. They take it as read, comprehend it and then get on with things. C'est la vie. ."

Was that Karen's mistake? She wasn't "appreciative" enough? Is this why you were so insulting to her?

Was that Michael's mistake, too? (Of course, that was another thread...)

[Mickey]

I'd like to add that there is an obvious difference between a feminist writer and a writer who is a feminist and there are different expectations of each. That could be said for any writer who ascribes to a certain philosophy or religion. If that world-view is not front-and-center, and if it stays in the background, I don't think there should be any complaints. I think it's natural to accept some signs of that worldview as simply a part of that writer's experiences and subconscious. Although I've seen reviews of people upset at writers putting anything in at all, I think it's natural. The focus isn't on the world-view, and it's easy to latch onto the parts that do apply to you. I'm reading a book right now calledMy Year with Eleanor, a memoir of a writer who is using Eleanor Roosevelt's life story as a starting point to facing fears. Although she hasn't stated it yet, it wouldn't surprise me if the author turns out to describe herself as a feminist. There's a great book about young adult fiction of the '70's and '80's (organized as book reports) by Lizzie Skurnick, who apparently first wrote them for Jezebel magazine (which is feminist). I think there was some noise about feminism, but it wasn't much. Those books, at least as far as I'm concerned, fall into the category of 'the writer who is a feminist'. You aren't being educated on feminism as much as getting information about what the book is about. There is no bait-and-switch trickery.

A feminist writer is different, in that you're asking to get bombarded with it. The thing about feminism that I find irritating is that they don't deign to proselytize and they don't act like a minority. In fact, it's not surprising to come across an adherent who honestly can't fathom that every woman is not an convert, simply on the basis of being a woman. That sort of obtuseness is troubling to me, because I find it difficult to tolerate that my opinions, troubles, and concerns are being drowned out by a small minority who have decided that they speak for me. I've been reading a series called The Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture series for a few years. Each book is a collection of essays (generally by philosophy professors) on the philosophical aspects of popular tv shows or movies or bands. There's always at least one feminist essay in there and they generally use "women" and "feminist" interchangeably as if there is no real difference and that's incredibly irritating that they will not face the fact that they don't and never have spoken for the majority of women.

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: ".Her book Men Explain Things to Me is really interesting and entertaining, if you're interested in that sort of thing."

Personally, I found it much different from the essay. Whoever edited her essay should be retained to work with her permanently, as I think the essay had a lightness to it that the book lacked. Or maybe it was simply having more exposure to her work which magnified certain flaws of hers. It's not something I would recommend to a non-feminist and to a feminist, it didn't seem like she had anything to say that I hadn't heard others say better before. (There were some interesting moments.) There was no original insight. I can see why feminists like it; it has a sort of chummy, snide, insider tone, but I also think they may overestimate her persuasiveness with the general public. Like I said, this is a book by a feminist writer. If she has written more general interest books (and I have one sitting in my Scrib'd queue right now that I think might be better suited to me), I'd take a look at them, but I'm definitely less hopeful that she's either capable or interested in writing something that would be of interest to a non-feminist.

[Karen]

Gary wrote;
"Funny you should bring that up. In fact, at the same time I posted it here, I posted it to another group, and it was given due appreciation... and then folks simply moved on, because that's how decent people deal with such matters. They take it as read, comprehend it and then get on with things. C'est la vie."

So, now we are not decent. Lol. What you really mean is because it was given due appreciation by people in another group, those people were therefore decent. And this is a public thread, even though you started it- people can come here and criticize an article whenever they please. Yes, there are other arguments here on this thread- so what. So get off your high horse and go find people who appreciate everything you say and think exactly as you do, Gary. Good riddance.

[Duane]

The Komodo is innocent. It went vegan. It is known.

DAMN!!!

You know, she's got a point, E.D. (**IHWTH**!!!!). There is NO proof that the Komodo ate the bunny. In fact, unless there is *proven* weasel fur in the droppings (And are you did NOT say they were Komodo droppings either!!) You don't know *what* happened to the weasel!!

SO NOW, You've dug yourself even DEEPER - You get to apologize to the **KOMODO**!!!!! AND you're still out one Bunny (Which, yeah, there are plenty of them, but this one was RIGHT THERE ready for the grease factory...

Really? It has a name? I just thought it was what kids did in the playground or something,...

YEAh on BOTH counts. It's a KNOWN phenomenon and they've stuck a *label* on it - actually the Amanita used it on *me* and somebody ELSE jumped *its* ass and used the label on *it*. It's like a friggin gag reflex... there's some sort of psych phenomenon involved... "I'm a terrorist, not a psychologist, Jim". But I need the *label* so I can casually and condescendingly *use* it on somebody (preferably somebody who doesn't know what it means...).

OH. AnD!!

I've been subliminally irritated with the "Privileged White Male" label for a while, and even MORE irritated because I couldn't finger out why I was irritated. But now I've gotten it sorted out - I know why I'm confused! (4 1C...)

Herezadeal... HOW do we *know* that somebody has "Privilege"? I mean, it's not like you can just LOOK at somebody and say they're "Privileged", like you can with the "White" (though actually you'd probably need the color chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Lus... type stuff), and "Male" (though actually nowadays, you'd have to pull their pants down and check...) parts... The last two are just *descriptors*, but the "Privileged" part is, like, what? An opinion? A consensus? And where is the determining body... I mean, is the RuSHA doing "Privilege" classifications now? I can't keep up with this stuff... And since they can't tell by Casual Examination, do they tattoo you or something once they've got you categorized?

I mean, I'm OK with classifying people and tattooing their ass (Or wherever) if it's for the Greater Good in the Hope-n-Change Paradise or whatever it is this time around, but I'm completely confused with these new classifications the Millenials have come up with... I just can't quite get the hang of it. Like I can't finger out what a "1%'er" is - it seems like if one of them has three toothpicks and another one only two, the latter will accuse the former of being a "1%er"... Type thing. And stuff like that.

[Karen]

Oh Duane! It's nice to read posts from someone who just doesn't care what other people think. Are you and Donald Trump friends?

[Duane]

OH - And MORE And,

Can somebody explain to me what this "Friends" stuff is for?

I mean, I get these "Friend" requests, and I always say "yes", because in the immortal words of Rozz Williams (PBUH!!) "It takes too much time for me to say, `I refuse'"... But I don't see what they're there for - Unless it's to give you a way of smacking them by "Un-Friending" them when they've offended your Inner Weasel, or something? But why would they do *that*?

I mean, once again, I'm lost on all this stuff...

[Duane]

Karen wrote: "Oh Duane! It's nice to read posts from someone who just doesn't care what other people think. Are you and Donald Trump friends?"

Possibly, under an assumed identity somewhere on a website in a galaxy far, far away, where I don't know he's Trump...

But it would have to be a situation where *he* had wanted to "Friend" *me*, since I never "Friend" people because I wouldn't deliberately go out of my way to be friends with anybody who would befriend somebody like ME.

[Karen]

Well, goodreads friends usually have similar books in common and ideas. However, I think I need to be more cautious about accepting "friends" on GR. Lol.

[Laura]

Duane wrote: "he last two are just *descriptors*, but the "Privileged" part is, like, what? An opinion? A consensus?"

As far as I've read, it's a misuse of the original word privilege, in its basic meaning. In social activism "jargon", so to say, it means that group A has certain advantage compared to group B. Yes, this use of the word privilege is slightly bullshitted, because everyone has a privilege compared with someone else. I got used to this use of it, though...

My take on these matters, as I always say, is not to fly with extremes. One thing is to acknowledge that society has defined roles for men and women, and women often take the short stick (no pun int... wait!). The problem is when you start yelling "privilege" to everyone else, transforming what should be social activism into a victimization Olympics. For example: recently an actress, during an interview, discussed the gender pay gap in her métier. Some feminists nodded. Others, however, shook their heads and replied "If she was black, she really would have something to complain about".

Note both the similarity and the difference between that exchange and ours of earlier, the one that made Mickey decide I'm Gary's BFF and everything that's wrong with feminism. Unlike our exchange, where my talk of racial "privilege" was an answer to your claim that there was no such a thing, that "if she was black..." was a reply to the actress complaining about gender pay gap. It was a way of saying "you have no right to talk, because my oppression is worse than yours". And it didn't end there. Others shook their heads at that reply, adding "black, but straight... so privileged!"

That's the kind of behavior that perpetuates the labels, even if I did tell you that it was easy for you to say racial/gender issues are not a cloud of fart. In my country at least, it is undeniable that men have an advantage over women for many things, and lighter skinned people (which was my case over there, by the way) had an advantage over darker skinned people.

It's not a contradiction to say that I was both in disadvantage there as a woman, but in a relative advantage for being relatively lighter than others. This was my life experience, not something pulled from a feminist pamphlet. In med school, I was literally told that I was expected to abandon before second year, because "women only go to med school to marry a doctor". They usually gave us (women) tougher questions, because we had to prove we were as good as men, by being better. On the other hand, I was treated with more respect than my darker skinned peers, whose native names were often mocked and whose descent was often ridiculed.

Not being a Millenial from the U.S., our labels were different, but we all had them. We didn't say "privileged white male", but the concept was the same, that a man with lighter skin had it relatively easier compared to someone darker and/or a woman (worse if both). Of course, this may not apply to a case-to-case analysis, because any given white man could have been oppressed for other reasons, but in population terms, in epidemiological terms, the generalization is valid.

It's interesting that, for you, it all comes down to evil human nature -and all this talk about un/greased un/humanity. It really is. It may be so, but labels keep popping up, here, there, everywhere. This is an issue not limited to this thread, Solnit, U.S. feminists, or Millenials. People have been labeling each other and discriminating each other based on these invented labels for ages now, it's not recent.

But you bring up Millenials and... Oh Boy. I could develop on that, having one of them as sister, but... maybe not on this thread. Yes, they went bonkers, from acknowledging that there is an unfair situation, all the way to Tumblr profile descriptions often full of less than rational but Sacred And To Be Respected neologisms -labels- with which they identify. Again, the whole thing quickly turns into Oppression Olympics, with people -much in the fashion of Mickey- arguing that someone's oppression invalidates someone else's oppression.

I don't know if it's teenage angsty search for self-definition (can't find the right term there), or the struggle to find an explanation for random acts of cruelty, like the ones you suffered years ago. Perhaps a Millenial in your situation would try to find a label to "explain" why they're getting attacked, or perhaps their bullies would try to find a label to justify their rage. Is this what you meant, or am I reasoning outside of the pot?

Duane wrote: "Can somebody explain to me what this "Friends" stuff is for?"
It depends whom you ask. For some people, apparently, to call for rescue when you're in an argument. For others, it seems to be about the bonding. To each their own. I personally don't need to agree with everything a person says to accept GR "friendship" requests; I have to like how they discuss and be interested in what they say, even if I disagree with their ideas (case in point: you... I think there is an imbalance in the Force every time we agree).

[Laura]

Mickey wrote: "At this point, don't you realize everyone knows you've lied about it and that you can't produce it?"

Ooooooooh let me go cry in my corner, sucking my thumb in despair... Someone get me a fluffy bunny STAT!

[Holly]

Just to clear up the paranoia here:

Laura did not send me to this thread to rescue her, or even support her statements. Laura and Duane are both friends of mine on GR and their comments on this thread kept appearing in my update feed. I made a response to something Duane posted. I swear I am not part of a cabal conspiring to make other commentors feel marginalized.

Actually, the first time I encountered Laura at GR we heartily disagreed with each other. How did we end up being friends?

[Laura]

Holly wrote: "Actually, the first time I encountered Laura at GR we heartily disagreed with each other. How did we end up being friends? "

I actually can't even remember in which thread I first "met" you, but if we became GR friends, our interactions must have remained civil, even in disagreement. I know I would have never accepted the request otherwise. No clue.

Being GR "friends" doesn't mean we hang out all the time, go out for beers, or have secret meetings to plot against others. Sure, we must have at least a couple of books in common, I guess.

[Mickey]

Laura wrote: "Ooooooooh let me go cry in my corner, sucking my thumb in despair... Someone get me a fluffy bunny STAT! "

Lying is a sign of desperation and immaturity. I wonder if you realize how that makes you look- as a representative of your ideology and as a person.

If you can't make a decent defense of your views, I'd suggest watching other people who can, but this whole thread hasn't produced a decent one that I'd point you to as a model. Isn't that funny? I don't think you have to go too far from that realization to understand why feminism has such a popularity problem. No extremists to blame around here, as far as I can tell.

[Mickey]

Laura wrote: "Note both the similarity and the difference between that exchange and ours of earlier, the one that made Mickey decide I'm Gary's BFF and everything that's wrong with feminism...."Again, the whole thing quickly turns into Oppression Olympics, with people -much in the fashion of Mickey- arguing that someone's oppression invalidates someone else's oppression.

Oh, wow. You really made a mess of my views. No wonder you're seeing name-calling to "someone specific" (isn't it weird you didn't qualify who that exactly was? I can say 'You called so-and-so this'. I don't make it a point to lie about it, though. But I think it's generally a rule of thumb that the more specific you make it, the more believable it is.)

I certainly don't believe that an individual's oppression is invalidated by a person with more recognized labels. My point was that Duane had obviously experienced rather sharp experiences in his youth that would hardly be called "privileged". Knowing that, you discounted a solution because he was a 'white privileged male' and told him that you being a Latina in a blond-haired, blue-eyed society gave you more experience with labels and oppression. This is you playing oppression Special Olympics-quantifying both yours and Duane's experiences- but you honestly left out Duane's being bullied, because he just became the white privileged male. The experiences he had were all of a sudden irrelevant because you could trump them with your classifications.

Far from me invalidating his experiences, I discussed this irony in a general post of the ridiculousness of the feminists on this thread. I was saying you had. Then you went on to say that Duane had never suffered any racial or gender discrimination in his life, when nothing from Duane on this thread would suggest it, this was just something that you assumed. You don't even know if what he had already described (the beatings from elementary school) had any racial or gender characteristics. This is you making distinctions about what discrimination qualifies to make someone worthy of offering solutions, not I. I think it is more an attempt to distance yourself from the Laura of the first page to transition into the Laura that would fit in with the new majority. Just form your own personality. Gary goes from being the person you are running after for attention by bullying the same people he did to being someone you will call nasty and insulting.

You do seem to be underestimating a lot of things about people-including their memories. I can remember what happens from one page to the next. I'm sure most people can. Your reworking what happened earlier and re-positioning yourself (and others) into your new personality (including beginning to write in a different manner) points to some shakiness about identity.

[Mickey]

I'm beginning to wonder if there are feminists out there who can discuss their views intelligently without lying, name-calling, or evidencing some serious mental problems. How might we catch one of these rare birds and bring it here for our general education and to raise the tone of this conversation?

I think the point that feminism has a lot of clownishness and downright viciousness has been duly made clear. Perhaps now we can get someone to show us a better side?

[Holly]

Maybe we should all get together for a beer?

I guess the point I was trying to make about Laura and I is that neither one of us took offense during our disagreement; we continued to discuss the topic further until we understood one another a little bit better.

I enjoy knowing and learning the opinions and thoughts and experiences of people who are different than I am. I learn from these people, and I have learned from Laura.

Even if we have wavered from the Lolita topic, I think there is a lot of valuable discussion of ideas here; we all just need to not be so sensitive and stop letting the personal drama take center stage.

Mickey is correct that feminism has some public relations problems; at least here in the US. Now, what would be the best manner to go about changing it into a more positive image?

[Mickey]

Holly wrote: "I guess the point I was trying to make about Laura and I is that neither one of us took offense during our disagreement; we continued to discuss the topic further until we understood one another a little bit better."


I think that depends on how the disagreement is engaged in. If certain underlying rules are observed that establish a dialogue between differing views, but with a respect for the persons involved, I think certain common ground can be reached. Lying about what I said is an absolute deal-breaker for me. Laura should just leave and let someone new and more qualified take up the mantle.

[[deleted user]]

I guess everyone's experience is different and some of it depends on age and geographic location. I'm sorry. I have been enjoying her book. I have a lot to learn, and she's got one perspective. I don't think anybody's got all of them. But I do like the tone of her writing, suited for the purpose, and that's only my opinion, suited to the purpose of non-academic essays that seem to be meant to share experiences, look at both the serious and the humorous side of things, and learn in the process how other people think.

So it's a worthwhile read for me. I'm old, I've been reading on the topic for nearly 50 years, and I find her refreshing. I also am amazed at how far we've come. So I guess my reasons for liking it, and her, from what I can tell, as an author, are strictly personal.

[E.D.]

Nobody even considered that they might be weasel feces.

Would this be Weasel Privilege?

As an aside...., we're testing " Fluffy Bunny Essence". I think it *sings*.

Glitter sold separately. :}

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: "I guess everyone's experience is different and some of it depends on age and geographic location. I'm sorry. I have been enjoying her book. I have a lot to learn, and she's got one perspective. I d..."

I'm not getting a real sense from you what it is about her as a writer that you find so delightful. Have you ever read any of Barbara Ehrenreich's old essays from the 1980's or the 1990's? She is incredibly funny and has a talent for beautiful and original imagery that I think is exceptional. Solnit isn't in the same universe as Ehrenreich when it comes to communicating a point of view.

For me, Solnit comes across as a writer who would only be enjoyed by people who already share her view. Those that disagree with it will find many instances of her confirming their stereotypes about feminism in general. I don't think putting her forth as a general spokesman for The Cause is going to be very effective, as evidenced by the fall-out from the essay. (And that essay has definitely been worked over by someone else to make it more palatable than her usual writing, if I can judge it against her other essays from the book.)

But is any publicity good publicity? Feminism has been marginalized for many years. Solnit even discusses it in the book with her talk of the impact that may not be apparent and how to persevere despite seeing no progress. Her essay of the #YesAllWomen incident, which she hoped would spark more interest in feminism has come and gone. There are no indications that the waning will reverse, and Solnit, in my opinion, isn't the one to turn it around.

She's not awful by any means, but she's not the writer that will bring new converts or change anyone's opinions. She might be alright in exciting the base, but the base should've known better than to put her out in the general public. She might be able to tap into what other feminists think, but she can not extend that to others.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "I guess everyone's experience is different and some of it depends on age and geographic location. I'm sorry. I have been enjoying her book. I have a lot to learn, and she's got o..."

Sorry, I was actually editing my response while you were replying to it. So I guess it disappeared.

The first essay in her book, where she describes being invited to a dinner party, and being asked by the host what books she had written, describes how the host listened to Solnit's response (sorry, I'm not at home, I don't have the book at hand, or I'd cite the book's title for you), and then told her, Well, you know, a really important book was just written on that topic, I read about it in the NYT Review of Books, and went on at length to tell her what this really important book said. Her companion attempted at appropriate moments to point out that he was maybe not aware that, blah, blah, blah. You know how you try to get a word in edgewise? Turns out he hadn't read the book. Turns out they had a really hard time getting him to shut up long enough to tell him that the very important book reviewed in the NYT Review of Books was her book.

It was a funny story. It's not going to change the world. I find her amusing. I'd apologize to you for finding it amusing, but I don't want to. (For one thing, I see you and I share a state, and there's very, very little to laugh at here; and yes, my location is fake in my profile, and the name I use is my mother's. All for very good reasons, not for purposes of deceit.) I think we ought to be able to laugh occasionally, in the right situation. I'm sorry, I just found it amusing.

Now, I may dislike the second essay, or the third, I don't know. I have too much I'm reading right now to sit down and plow right through it, and I prefer to read my essays with breathing space in between. But I did enjoy "Men Explain Things To Me" for the reason above cited. It made me laugh.

I think the "Lolita version" of the essay is equally amusing, differently amusing. And one can be amused and informed at the same time? It is very, very true that bringing up Lolita in any context whatsoever is like... hmm, well, the reaction is so extraordinarily predictable, I'm trying to think of something slapstick funny, but I'm no good at slapstick. But bring up Lolita at a party, for instance, and every single cliche' about Lolita will come up, each opinion given as if the words had never before been spoken, almost with religiosity. Eventually with petulance and anger and put-downs and judgments, and, well, everything we have here. Lolita is an amazingly wonderful book, and while it shouldn't be censored, it should be read alone, with the curtains drawn, and never spoken of except with people you've known for a very, very long time and trust with your life. Because the two topics, Lolita and feminism, get exactly the same types of reactions from people. Each is a fractured reflection of the other and because of the fractures, even people who basically see things the same way cannot agree.

If Breugel's Tower of Babel were being painted today, the figures wouldn't be trying to reach heaven to find god, they'd be trying to climb up and get Vladimir to tell them they were right all along in their interpretation.

Sometimes you've just got to laugh.

EDIT: Sorry, yes, Barbara Ehrenreich's very good, a wonderful scholar and writer. A different sort of humor, but she's very penetrating and wry. And I do apologize, but Solnit just hits my funny bone. I can't help it.

[Karen]

Ann Loretta wrote;
"The first essay in her book, where she describes being invited to a dinner party, and being asked by the host what books she had written, describes how the host listened to Solnit's response (sorry, I'm not at home, I don't have the book at hand, or I'd cite the book's title for you), and then told her, Well, you know, a really important book was just written on that topic, I read about it in the NYT Review of Books, and went on at length to tell her what this really important book said. Her companion attempted at appropriate moments to point out that he was maybe not aware that, blah, blah, blah. You know how you try to get a word in edgewise? Turns out he hadn't read the book. Turns out they had a really hard time getting him to shut up long enough to tell him that the very important book reviewed in the NYT Review of Books was her book."

Yes, I found this a bit amusing too, but I didn't know if she found it that amusing or if she was complaining, or both. Which is fine- but what a huge compliment for someone to talk about her book that way! That wasn't mentioned, and I would be entirely flattered.
And AnnLoretta, don't apologize for liking something!

[Duane]

(@Laura) well, as usual, I end up being unable to deicide if I AM the whateveritis (in this case "privileged", having checked my pants and my skin color for the "White Male" part) because I can't even finger out what the whateveritis *is*, so *then* I start looking for how the whateveritis got *defined*, and there the *real* trouble invariably starts... . All of which is part and parcel of what I was saying *originally*, which is that I don't seem to HAVE an "Identity", particularly since I don't measure up to anybody's satandards for whatever it is that allows me to HAVE whatever Identity it is that they're trying to satandardize... In fact, to the extent that White or Male identity requires, in the view of somebodyorother, that I have some traits of some sort (in addition to whatever physical characteristics), I can't even be sure I've got *those* for an identity.

So, that got me thinking << OH NO! STAND BACK!!! >> , it was *probably* those kids in grade school who removed my identity by kicking me out of the human race, which thought then got me back on trying to get Holly interested in marketing "Identity Removals" along with her Vampire and Zombie Conversions. But I can't *even* seem to pique her interest. (I hope she's feeling OK... I mean, I see this is an *unparalleled* marketing opportunity, of no less import than "E.D.'s Fluffy-Bunny Morality Grease"... .)

ABOUT which... Um... E.D. - ? What, have you now gone sideways on us again and are thinking of marketing Fluffy-Bunny FRAGRAncE, is THAT what you're saying??? ( << sigh... >>) I suppose, yeah, people will certainly buy fragrance before they'll buy morality in any form including grease... But that seems REAaallly crass and mercantile of you... But, what the heck - Business is business...

NTL I'm sure these guys will test-market it 4U
http://demeterfragrance.com
If they'll sell "Earthworm" they'll sure as hell sell "Fluffy-Bunny" (although I couldn't interest them in "Gunsmoke", or my other favorite Fragrance).

It's interesting that, for you, it all comes down to evil human nature -and all this talk about un/greased un/humanity. It really is. It may be so, but labels keep popping up, here, there, everywhere.

You keep missing my !Point!, which is NOT that the labels don't exist, OR that the monkeys don't have some "reason" for constructing them, but that, *yes*, the visceral rage comes FIRST, and THEN the labels get adduced in order to throw a sop to reason or rationality or whatever...

It's more or less the same thing as, like umm... this woman I know says, "FIRST you decide to have sex with whoeveritis, THEN you start coming up with all the *reasons* WHY you're gonna do it, like your husband is boring, or you just need a fling, or whatever".

!But! The examples you cite, of mindless sexism and whatever, ethnic prejudice, etc., are interesting. For my claim to hold true (and I really *do* think this is the case), for the, I dunno, white supremacist? to get instantaneously pissed off whenever he sees somebody with black skin, he's gotta *already* be pissed off... Is my point. Experience bears that out - people with these knee-jerk reactions of that sort are nearly always *already* smoking out their ears at somethingorother, and now have just found a convenient whipping-boy - like, they got kicked around by Daddy so now they want to kick the dog. The *real* question is about the few who just *might* have "Reasoned" their way to "prejudice" or whatever - the William Pierces and Alfred Rosenbergs of the world... and I'm not so sure about them either way, but ya gotta wonder, because they are a *real* problem.

And... Apropos of which... Dude... (or whatever label...) You are scaring the FUCK out of me telling me there are braindead Millenials in OTHER countries. I thought only the U.S. was capable of producing anything THAT stupid. If they're all over the world spewing all this PC crap and classifying everybody, we are headed for GLOBAL fascism, and Stufflikethat.)

Perhaps a Millenial in your situation would try to find a label to "explain" why they're getting attacked, or perhaps their bullies would try to find a label to justify their rage. Is this what you meant, or am I reasoning outside of the pot?

(Hmmm... maybe she DOES get it... .) Yeah, at least by *my* theory (Which of course is the right one, as always) *first* (in the case of the latter) they get flaming mad or jealous and attack, and THEN (*if* they have even that amount of intelligence) they'll come up with some excuse, like (FI, in the case of thugs in the "Hood" brutalizing anyone who does well in school) "He was acting white" (no, I'm not joking... websearch it). Then the victim, of curse (at least in the case of wimpy spineless leftists) goes all Stockholm on us and/or tries to come up with some explanation for why he/she/it, the victim, is really responsible because they have "Privilege", or whatever.

Actually you've swerved into something *very* interesting, because the spineless leftist, Millenial, or whatever label, is actually *first* paralyzed by *fear* (i.e., the flipside of Rage), and *then* sets about rationalizing all manner of reasons why it shouldn't defend itself... It's the same phenomenon, but just shaken (Or stirred) well and turned upside down.

One thing is to acknowledge that society has defined roles for men and women,...

YOU FORGOT TO SAY "ALL BOW" WHEN YOU SAID SOCIETY!! ON YOUR KNEES, SCUM, AND SHOW PROPER RESPECT!!!

jeezus... Damned kids...

...feminism has some public relations problems... Now, what would be the best manner to go about changing it into a more positive image?

Well, we could all chip in to buy Dworkin a Burkah...

(OKAY, I'm SORRY already... I just COULDN'T resist it... E.D. The Devil made me do it!! I am an innocent victim of demonic possession!! Or something. And stuff.)

Nobody even considered that they might be weasel feces.
Would this be Weasel Privilege?


oh, GOD... This is a MAJOR screwup.

NOW I realize the Weasel - and, I *note* that this IS the behavior for which Weasels are *stigmatized*, despite ALL My attempts to improve their image - MAY have killed the Fluffy Bunny *knowing* that the Komodo would get blamed for it!!

E.D. I am now suspecting YOU of BEING the Bartender. What's the deal, did the Bunny have some serious CASH on him, and now YOU are SPLITTING it with the Weasel? That would JUST figure... And you probably DID end up making grease (Or fragrance?) out of the Bunny *after all*. Damn, I will just NEVER make a good cop...

[Duane]

Holly wrote: "Maybe we should all get together for a beer? "

You better be careful, Holly.

I was talking to this cop the other day, and he says, true story, one of his fellow Ossifers had gone down to the bridge to try and talk a suicide out of jumping. So the rescue cop says, "hey look, it can't be THAT bad, why don't you just come down off of there and we'll go down to the station and I'll buy you a cup of coffee and we'll figure out what to do about it?".

And the guy says, "I HATE COFFEE!!" And jumps.

(And if Laura was there she'd be all, "Can *I* have the coffee?")

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: "The first essay in her book, where she describes being invited to a dinner party, and being asked by the host what books she had written, describes how the host listened to Solnit's response (sorry, I'm not at home, I don't have the book at hand, or I'd cite the book's title for you), and then told her, Well, you know, a really important book was just written on that topic, I read about it in the NYT Review of Books, and went on at length to tell her what this really important book said. Her companion attempted at appropriate moments to point out that he was maybe not aware that, blah, blah, blah. You know how you try to get a word in edgewise? Turns out he hadn't read the book. Turns out they had a really hard time getting him to shut up long enough to tell him that the very important book reviewed in the NYT Review of Books was her book.

It was a funny story. It's not going to change the world"

I guess I didn't find it ha-ha funny. The lesson she took from this story was quite a leap of logic. If I remember correctly, the rest of the essay was about how women were silenced by such men, and how she was not as affected as other women who were not writers, but that this was pervasive and affected women's lives. As an anecdote, I'm sure stuff like this happens all the time, but the conclusions she took away from it were too overwrought. It's fairly common for members of either sex to spout off like experts in a field they know little about, especially to strangers at a party (or just after a party). People with a lot of money (and I've known a couple) have a tendency to do this and not be called out on it. I don't think it really necessarily fit well into a narrative about gender relations. I imagine most non-feminists would find the connection to be a little too tenuous. As a woman, I became frustrated with her explaining what she felt was my condition as a woman, because she is making points and generalizations with no qualifiers. While, I believe there was a qualifier about "not all men", she made none about "not all women". A personal essay is one thing, but the extension into the "all women" condition I found irritating.

AnnLoretta wrote: " I'd apologize to you for finding it amusing, but I don't want to. (For one thing, I see you and I share a state, and there's very, very little to laugh at here; and yes, my location is fake in my profile, and the name I use is my mother's. All for very good reasons, not for purposes of deceit.) I think we ought to be able to laugh occasionally, in the right situation. I'm sorry, I just found it amusing. "

I never wanted to make you feel like you had to apologize for liking it. I was just curious as to what you found so likeable and refreshing about her. No ulterior motive to twist it around on you and make you seem like a bad reader, I swear. I just don't see anything in her writing so remarkable, and I'd like to hear someone tell me what they like. I never liked The Catcher in the Rye, but I find it interesting to read essays on people who adored it. I can't really understand why people enjoy Hemingway so much. It's just curiosity with no evil intent.

If it's NC, I have to confess that I am not a native (but who is in Raleigh?) but I love it here. Beautiful weather and a nice mix of people.

AnnLoretta wrote: "Now, I may dislike the second essay, or the third, I don't know. I have too much I'm reading right now to sit down and plow right through it, and I prefer to read my essays with breathing space in between. But I did enjoy "Men Explain Things To Me" for the reason above cited. It made me laugh. "

I didn't mean to spoil anything for you. I thought you had read the whole book of essays already.

I don't know if you would agree with me or not, but I think Solnit is simply a writer to be enjoyed by the faithful and will not make any impact in the general public. Of course, I might have said the same thing about Ehrenreich, and she went on to write Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. But the writer that she is now, she won't be a crossover hit. She'd have to change (as Ehrenreich did) in order to be of general interest.

AnnLoretta wrote: "I think the "Lolita version" of the essay is equally amusing, differently amusing. And one can be amused and informed at the same time? It is very, very true that bringing up Lolita in any context whatsoever is like... hmm, well, the reaction is so extraordinarily predictable, I'm trying to think of something slapstick funny, but I'm no good at slapstick. But bring up Lolita at a party, for instance, and every single cliche' about Lolita will come up, each opinion given as if the words had never before been spoken, almost with religiosity. Eventually with petulance and anger and put-downs and judgments, and, well, everything we have here. Lolita is an amazingly wonderful book, and while it shouldn't be censored, it should be read alone, with the curtains drawn, and never spoken of except with people you've known for a very, very long time and trust with your life. Because the two topics, Lolita and feminism, get exactly the same types of reactions from people. Each is a fractured reflection of the other and because of the fractures, even people who basically see things the same way cannot agree. "

Lolita attracts a different crowd around here for sure. The threads do get contentious and there are usually several different kinds of types: I've seen the angry men who defend Humbert, the women who blame Lolita, the intellectual who thinks it's about language or story-telling. I've likened the story to the Rorschach test, where all the information is there and how you interpret it is how your mind takes all the pieces and turns them into a whole. For some people, pieces of information are left out or emphasized (such as Delores crying or taking money) to fit their interpretation.

I'm not sure I agree that Lolita gets the same reaction as feminism. I view feminism as another world-view, like Mormonism or Catholicism. The reactions to that have to do mostly with the people you've met who ascribe to that certain ideology. I think the difference is whereas those other adherents have a sense of themselves as a minority or at least understand of a larger world that are not "in the club", feminists are often a bit confused on this point and become angry when met with opposition or questions.

But they would fit into the old advice about steering clear of politics and religion when making small talk as too divisive.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "The first essay in her book, where she describes being invited to a dinner party, and being asked by the host what books she had written, describes how the host listened to Solni..."

Mickey wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "The first essay in her book, where she describes being invited to a dinner party, and being asked by the host what books she had written, describes how the host listened to Solni..."

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I do remember, not in the Lolita version of the essay, but the original version from the book, Ms. Solnit and her companion were bent with laughter when they left the dinner party. I took the liberty of joining in. Not that she didn't make some serious points in the book version.

I do do my bit, where I am, when I can. A man, about my age, 60-something, came into the office this morning to see one of the partners. I told him Mr. So and So would be in in a minute, if he'd like to wait. "No," he said, "My old lady's in the car waiting." "Mr. Tra-La," I replied, "It's 2016. She's not your old lady. She's your wife or your partner or your lady friend. Come to the party." "Well, I guess that's right," he said. And we all laughed. Did I change his thinking? Probably not. But I called him out. It doesn't make me Joan of Arc, but I don't keep my mouth shut. Because I've learned how to touch some things lightly, maybe, in part, from people like Solnit and while Sonit isn't one, from feminist comedians.

In my comparison of Lolita and feminism, I simply meant to imply that people cannot even agree on the terms to be used in the conversation, cannot agree on a vocabulary. They stomp each other on setting the rules long before they are able to reach the meaning of what they're discussing. It reminds me of the shape of the table discussion at the Viet Nam peace talks.

And you may be right about Solnit. But I don't think it's a bad thing to give some nurturing to the already-converted every now and again. You have to have some R&R!

Thanks for engaging. We probably see things more similarly than either of us realize.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "The first essay in her book, where she describes being invited to a dinner party, and being asked by the host what books she had written, describes how the host listened to Solni..."

By the way, you might start a group (make it private) on female/feminist journalism. You seem so very well informed, and I'd love a source of articles, essay collections, to keep up on what's being said. That's all I use FB for, feeds from journalists and literary/scientific magazines I enjoy. But you might think about it? It's much needed.

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: " I do remember, not in the Lolita version of the essay, but the original version from the book, Ms. Solnit and her companion were bent with laughter when they left the dinner party. I took the liberty of joining in. Not that she didn't make some serious points in the book version."

I remember feeling pity for the man. He seemed to be trying to impress her and to make such a large gaffe in front of her (with a friend in tow) would seem to me to be mortifying. I guess that pity made it hard for me to make the transition to thinking of him as part of this plot to keep women silent.

I mean, kudos for her in not using a case of some massive outrage in which to show a truly out-of-bounds case of silencing (she actually will make use of some truly horrific crimes in a later essay and then pair it with the normal condition of women), but again, it seemed too broad a leap for me to go along with her logically.

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: "In my comparison of Lolita and feminism, I simply meant to imply that people cannot even agree on the terms to be used in the conversation, cannot agree on a vocabulary. They stomp each other on setting the rules long before they are able to reach the meaning of what they're discussing. "

What terms are you thinking of?

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "What terms are you thinking of? "

Pity versus empathy, for example. You could discuss that forever.

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: "By the way, you might start a group (make it private) on female/feminist journalism. You seem so very well informed, and I'd love a source of articles, essay collections, to keep up on what's being said. That's all I use FB for, feeds from journalists and literary/scientific magazines I enjoy. But you might think about it? It's much needed. "

I think this is actually a good case-in-point about how strangers can sometimes give the wrong impression, much like what Solnit described in her essay (but without the gender issue).

I don't have any interest in feminist or female journalists, but perhaps I am giving that impression, because the topic on hand is feminism. My reading selection has always been just a case of coming across a book and reading it, and if I like it well enough, going out and finding more from the author. In this fashion, I've stumbled across some books by feminists, and I'm using what I've read to make points about it, but I'm not an expert or an aficionado of either feminist or female journalists. But you might actually be an expert, and I would not know it. So I might start discussing my views of, say, Ehrenreich while you (unbeknownst to me) know much more about the subject. This is exactly like at a party where you make conversations with people and may not know what they do or what they know. Like the man in the example by Solnit.

I'm sure when he heard that she had written a book about a certain obscure subject, his mind went to the book review he read, and wishing to be seen as intelligent on that subject, launched into what he knew. I doubt there was a thought about silencing her or making a slight to say that she, as a woman, could not possibly have written such an important book that was reviewed in such a prestigious forum. (I'm sure the review used some pronouns in place of the author's name, which would make her gender clear.) When he found out she was the author of that book, and it came out that he had not actually read it, it was funny, but I honestly don't find it to be a sign that women are silenced.

It seems like an everyday occurrence at parties or in other forums where people don't know each other well.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "By the way, you might start a group (make it private) on female/feminist journalism. You seem so very well informed, and I'd love a source of articles, essay collections, to keep..."

Oh, okay. sorry. I work in the field, so I do know intimately about routine silencing. Not only verbal silencing, but silencing by assault, and rape, and murder. So our perspectives are completely different.

[Mickey]

What field is that?

[Holly]

Duane wrote: "Holly wrote: "Maybe we should all get together for a beer? "

You better be careful, Holly.

I was talking to this cop the other day, and he says, true story, one of his fellow Ossifers had gone d..."


Beer.........my lifetime consumption of this substance is still under 12 ounces.......never acquired a taste for the stuff. What I meant was, you guys can sit around and sip a beer while I run outside for about 10 minutes. When I get back I will be ready to talk and eat some donuts.

I have not overlooked the marketing opportunities here. With "Feminism" failing, we need something to replace it. "Matriarchalism" has a nice ring to it. There, I'm going to copyright that word and start writing books and holding seminars.

Matriarchalism works.......did you see how I used it to get the thread back on track? Feminism divides women from womyn, but Matriarchalism will bring us all together.

Hey ladies, what do you say we remain celibate until overall conditions are more to our liking?

[Laura]

Duane wrote: "And if Laura was there she'd be all, "Can *I* have the coffee?""

Hey, I'll have the beer too.

Duane, Duane, Duane... I talk about other countries, but you brought it down to U.S. politics. Discrimination, labeling, extremist social activism, and any of the stuff discussed here do exist outside of your country, you know. I know you hate your country's "leftists" and would gladly find a way to blame them for the plague and the winter, but try taking your mind beyond your borders. I hear there's a big world out here.

Other than that, I do see your point, although it's too individual to be applicable to societies, and it's easy to see that certain behavior (like sexist attitudes, racial discrimination, etc.) come ingrained in society, any particular society.

This isn't about one particular individual having negative feelings when seeing someone with a different skin color for no reason at all, at least it doesn't seem to be at the population level. Take my that med school teacher for example (the one who said we were looking for husbands). Was he raised to think women were only good as wives? Given what I know of the place where I lived for decades, and his age, I bet he did. Did he witness sexist behavior celebrated as norm? Did his father? Was his father raised in a sexist environment? He is only an example. This individual "I don't know why but I don't like you" can be valid at the individual level, but it cannot explain big masses of people who share a trait (regardless of the particular label) constantly picking on people who share another trait. In certain particular cases, that can easily be the case, but when it happens in different contexts and in different countries, has to be something else, and this something else needs to be acknowledged and discussed.

Now, this is not really about the use of U.S. Millenials labels. As I mentioned before, it doesn't matter if you're called "privileged white male" or whachamacallit, as long as you don't really believe that there is no such thing as racial unfair discrimination and gendered discrimination, when lighter skinned men tend to have an advantage in the kind of societies we're talking about, which is not to say always, but when you have a population level problem (epidemiologically speaking), you can't get lost in the anecdotal.

Now, about #NotAllMen, well, context matters. If someone says "women are discriminated in my profession", and a man replies "that is false, because I'm that profession and I don't discriminate women", that is simply failing to acknowledge a known issue in favor of the anecdotal. Yes, I had good teachers, not all of them were misogynistic monsters, but the large majority were sexist. Some were sexist while trying to be nice, even (like sparing us something gruesome that I won't describe here, because oh we delicate ladies... and we were like Dude, we're also here to learn you know!). That's #NotAllMen being stupid.

BUT... if someone is saying "most men are sexist misogynist pigs who think with their dicks", and men feel offended and speak up in defense of their gender, that's #NotAllMen done right. Because one thing is to describe a societal problem that exists (like racial/gender discrimination), and another is to pin this problem on a group of people, even if you say "most" instead of "all".

AnnLoretta wrote: "Because the two topics, Lolita and feminism, get exactly the same types of reactions from people. Each is a fractured reflection of the other and because of the fractures, even people who basically see things the same way cannot agree."

Well, I've seen many heated arguments in GR, but yes, none as much as Lolita threads, in general. Perhaps because the nature of the subject is so strong, so prone to spur intense emotions, and naturally different people will take different comments under their own light. Perhaps it's the fact that feminist ideas (whether or not publicly tagged with "feminism") filter through already intense subjects, what makes these threads so heated.

Mickey wrote: "I've likened the story to the Rorschach test, where all the information is there and how you interpret it is how your mind takes all the pieces and turns them into a whole. For some people, pieces of information are left out or emphasized (such as Delores crying or taking money) to fit their interpretation."

This comparison seems well on point, thought it could probably be applied not only to this book. I think every reader brings their own "mental background", to call it something, into everything we read. I have seen this in most of GR threads. You can check heated arguments (again, tinged with sexist versus feminist undertones) about whether Emma Bovary is a stupid slut or a victim of circumstances, whether Romeo and Juliet is a romantic and sad love story or a silly tale about stupid horny teenagers, and the list of examples can go on.

You will probably take this as a personal insult too (as you take everything I write), but I think you made a magnificent example of this with your very special reading of my comments here. How you got to the conclusion I was with/supporting/agreeing with Gary, for example, is a mystery to me. But once your mind put that image together, you saw monsters in the ink spots every time.

I have no intention of leaving this thread, so I invite you to discuss our disagreements in the same manner we're doing with the rest of the people here, because all my "insults" are not in my words, they are in your head. Now, considering how badly mad you got over the silly weasel joke, I told you before TWICE, it's your comment 62. Here is a snapshot of it: http://prntscr.com/9md6xd. It was a joke, get over it. Like AnnLoretta said, sometimes you have to laugh, you know?

Holly wrote: "Even if we have wavered from the Lolita topic, I think there is a lot of valuable discussion of ideas here; we all just need to not be so sensitive and stop letting the personal drama take center stage."

Yep, pretty much that.

Holly wrote: ""Matriarchalism" has a nice ring to it. There, I'm going to copyright that word...

Sorry to disappoint you, but the word already exists.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "What field is that?"

One of the many that mandate absolute confidentiality. Sorry, don't mean to be elusive. Small world, open thread, open internet.

I did all but finish Solnit's book last night. While the first section of the first essay made me laugh in recognition, I didn't laugh again, although I smiled occasionally at a phrase I admired. I think she's an excellent writer. Direct, cogent, informed, deft with metaphor as well as with facts, passionate. While the subject matter was difficult, I found her to write with compassion and skill, able to humanize events as well as statistics. I learned a great deal, and it was quite an experience to read essays that pulled so many threads of recent events together. I also found that she repeatedly stated that she was not speaking of "all men" or all relationships between the genders.

One point she made, and I'm sorry to repeat what you've already read, was that India made the decision to deal with rape as a human rights issue, not a women's issue or a men's issue, but a human issue. I had heard that but forgotten it. And as she said, it remains to be seen how that will go, but looking at things in that light I found to be very liberating; one needn't be a feminist or bear any other label to be affected i some way by the issue, one need only be a human being.

I also found her essay on Woolf to be very moving to me personally. I'm not recommending it or anything else in the book to anyone else or advocating or promoting in any sense. I found Men Explain Things to Me helpful in coalescing my own thoughts. Others may not.

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: "Oh, okay. sorry. I work in the field, so I do know intimately about routine silencing. Not only verbal silencing, but silencing by assault, and rape, and murder. So our perspectives are completely different."

I think we are nearing a potential minefield now, so I'll try, in the interests of a good discussion, to traverse this ground carefully.

To begin with, I don't believe I've said what my own personal or professional experiences have been, and I don't like to have them be assumed to be a certain way . Don't assume I do not have personal or professional experiences that inform my views.

There is a debate about whether an essay like the first one in Solnit's book makes a meaningful contribution about victimization (or "silencing") or whether such victimization, which happens to both men and women (and girls and boys, for that matter) is used improperly as a way to present a false story that, while it might appeal to the faithful, will do nothing for its eradication and may even slow down any progress by distracting from the actual problem. Perhaps what many people react to is this "genderization" of something that is decidedly not gender specific. If you look at the first page of this thread, you can see people react to the essay they've read, which is different than the essay we're talking about, but you will see much of the reaction is centered on this generalization of people into neat categories.

If someone is planning to write an essay about "silencing", I think it would be much more effective to write about it from a personal point of view and in such a way as to gain a sense of recognition from the reader (it's a pretty universal feeling, after all). Instead, Solnit wrote about a man who made a social gaffe and her mirthful response to it. The rest of the essay was about her view of how women are silenced and men are taught to be overconfident. This is a worldview that the average person will likely find too many exceptions to be useful.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "Oh, okay. sorry. I work in the field, so I do know intimately about routine silencing. Not only verbal silencing, but silencing by assault, and rape, and murder. So our perspecti..."

I'm sorry, you asked what my field was I did not intend to imply that I had made any assumptions about what your experience was. I cannot apologize enough if I inadvertently was dismissive.

I apologize again for being off-topic.

You are correct. Only people with personal experience have anything valid or effective to communicate.

Yes, there are too many exceptions within her work to be useful.