unwashed dishes and toilet paper tubes

[emceng]

Do you need an account for Pirate Bay now? Went there last night for the first time in...no idea how long. Whenever I tried to download a torrent, it asked for an account - and I couldn't figure out how to create one. Might have been partly due to being drunk.

[ArgonV]

I don't need an account

[pseudoidiot]

They installed some new "no drunk torrenting" software.

[Triangle_Man]

I'm...

Well, I did view a ton of Radical Feminism blogs a while ago, and ended up doing an insane amount of thinking about my personal attitudes and where I agreed or disagreed with the people writing these blogs (I'm...going to try and find blogs for other kinds of feminisms in the future, run a wider variety than just Radical Feminism).

However...

I've begun detecting a large amount of hostility between Radical Feminism and Trans-Activism.

As in, 'holy shit, why can't people be civil'.

It just...shit, I used to think that infighting was limited to 'Liberals vs. Conservatives'. Turns out that was a naive and simplistic view in the end.

[SecondTalon]

What do we want? Social Equality! Who do we want it for? The people who think like us and no one else!

Or, as... Probably Dave Barry remarked - whenever I hear Power To The People I know they really mean Power To Me And My Friends.


But yeah, it's disturbing the number of groups who want to change the social structure - but only for their group, and fuck everyone else because they're wrong. I can understand not making it a priority, but actively rejecting? Fucked up.

[Triangle_Man]

But yeah, it's disturbing the number of groups who want to change the social structure - but only for their group, and fuck everyone else because they're wrong. I can understand not making it a priority, but actively rejecting? Fucked up.

As I recall, Radical Feminism wishes for Woman's Liberation or complete separation from men and the formation of women-only/focused communities.

But I have noticed that attitude while reading such articles, in that Men are often deliberately (and gleefully) promoting and benefiting from the patriarchy and hatred towards Women and that all Feminisms that try to bring Men into the conversation have been co-opted by the patriarchy and whatnot. These posts seem to outline the way that blog defines Radical Feminism, at least.

This is an example of the kind of stuff I was reading a lot of for the past several weeks (and also assuming that some of the more...extreme claims made by the so-called 'Men's Rights Movement' (like Men are somehow at a disadvantage to women /Ican'tseehowIbenefitfromsociety) are false). Sometimes I agreed with/was sympathetic towards the stuff I was reading (such as this entire blog), but on other occasions...

...Fuck, I don't know. Maybe I shouldn't spend so much time reading stuff that makes me wonder if I truly do hate women and then end up feeling miserable after reading several, very likely biological essentialist-based arguments. Then I remember that I've already left one-mega post about this same issue on another forum and got some praise for having a nuanced view of the issue as well as the suggestion that I wasn't a bad guy and then I wonder if I'm only doing this as some sort of twisted sympathy party...

Although maybe I'm just doing this because it's on my mind again and I wanted to see what people thought of it. If so, I've done a terrible job at being unbiased as, from what I can tell, the conduct of Trans-Activists in regard wasn't exactly that rosy either and if I lack sources from that side of the fence it is only because they haven't been the focus of my batshit-insane levels of obsession as of late.

And now I feel guilty since I feel like I'm just proving that the Radical Feminists are right by even making some sort of vaguely negative rant about the whole thing. Maybe I'll just stop now. Sorry.

Edit - Found this comment in this article.

From Lucy - It is a very interesting idea that you can only decide that you disagree with the ideas of someone else if you undertake to experience all of their work first. While it might appear to have merit, it is unrealistic and unnecessary. No one has that kind of time. More to the point, I do not need to read everything by an MRA to decide that they are wrong and oppose feminism. I do not need to read everything by an evolutionary psychologist to determine that they are promoting misogyny as science. I don’t need to watch every hour of the 700 Club to determine that Pat Robertson is a grab bag of nastiness. You get the point.

I also don’t see how accepting the terms of patriarchy, that men are superior to women, and then inverting them, as Mary Daly and others have, does anyone any favours. What does advocating the superiority of (some) women accomplish? I do see how it is empowering to women in that women are told the exact opposite in the patriarchal system. I do see how it provides an outlet for the rage women feel at patriarchal violence, hate, and oppression. I see how it makes the women who accept it feel special and superior to the women who don’t. But at what cost? At capitulating to patriarchy such that women can only have a better life in an utopia. At accepting that men are incapable of being redeemed. At accepting the all-too-patriarchal concept of war as the way of viewing the world. There’s more, but those are the biggies.

It’s an exclusive view, where only some women will have salvation before utopia, where women who do not accept its gospel are damned as being “fembots”, “traitors”, “collaborators”, and so on and will be condemned by their rejection in utopia. It establishes a hierarchy of the damned and the saved. Does any of this sound familiar? Like, say, a patriarchal religion that was rejected by Mary Daly?

I firmly reject the idea that it is radical, that it’s even an improvement, to invert patriarchy. Staying within the bounds of patriarchal thinking is not liberation, is not freedom. Women’s liberation that does not liberate all women, that doesn’t result in freedom for all women, is neither liberation nor freedom.

...Maybe I'll read some non-Radical Feminist blogs next time I want to read some Feminist Blogs. See if I can't get a different perspective.

[ameretrifle]

Yeah-- feminism isn't easy. It takes an awful lot of thought, an awful lot of the time. And sometimes the radicals are just as bigoted as what they're trying to revolutionize, just in shiny new opposite ways. You can't assume just because someone is a woman, or is a radical, that they're right. Cf. a lot of the reaction to second-wave feminism, which has been criticized as a movement that was all about white, upper/upper-middle-class straight women. Lesbians had some trouble with them for a while; a broad spectrum of people of color felt that they weren't being listened to (and still don't. yippee). Take the theme of women being allowed to work outside the house. How many poorer mothers were unemployed? Was the single-income family ever universal? Take the controversy over veils in Islam-- is it an attempt to liberate women from repressive cultures? Or a colonialist attempt to force women into their own problematic stereotypes? Or both? Was the whole debate founded as an attempt to twist stirring English feminist movements into aiding in colonialist oppression?* Does the anti-trans* strain in "radical feminism" showcase its gender-essentialist roots? Conversely, is a strict "all gender essentialism is bullshit" approach also problematic to trans* issues? Or is that just if you choose to make it so?

Yeah-- look. If it helps you, which I'm really not sure it should, but based on your reading list, it well might, take it from a woman, with a BA in Women's Studies: Feminism? Shit is hard. Shit is constant effort to reevaluate one's thoughts and behaviors and actions. I think this is one area where Yoda got it backward-- there is no do. There is only, try. And keep trying, and keep thinking, and keep learning.

Everyone is. It's okay.

Anyone who does claim to have a fully-consistent set of feminist beliefs that will not need to be revised as new problems and new experiences present themselves is, imo, probably wrong in significant ways. I want to say "full of shit," but I'm sure they have interesting ideas that are worth considering. Maybe even a large proportion of the time. But you always have to think for yourself, and you can always disagree.

So yeah, IMO you should diversify your reading list a bit. Ever read any bell hooks? As I recall, she had some markedly different views on the role of men in the movement, and I'm sure there's a lot of people who agree. Ever looked up 'womanism'? There are any number of alternatives to and criticisms of "radical feminism" out there, and if you need some further permission to go out and explore them? Go forth, bro. Escape your shackles. Find something that is actually a radical brand of feminism instead of a regressive conglomeration of the worst flaws of second-wave feminism-- shit, my ideology is showing. Go forth.

Anyway, this is all reminding me of Feminist Standpoint Theory and this really frickin' painful paper I had to write for my Philosophy of Feminism class (when the other frickin' professor who taught was assigning papers on frickin' Girls Gone Wild instead of frickin' obtuse 30-page dense philosophical turns of rhetorical bullshit that read like they were meant to be unreadable, frickin' hell), which are not my favorite memories, so best of luck, and please excuse me while I GTFO.

*This assigned reading, while rather hard to get through at the time, has stuck with me:

Spoiler:

Whether such proselytizers from the West were colonial patriarchs, then, or missionaries or feminists, all essentially insisted that Muslims had to give up their native religion, customs, and dress, or at least reform their religion and habits along the recommended lines, and for all of them the veil and customs regarding women were the prime matters requiring reform. And all assumed their right to denounce native ways, and in particular the veil, and to set about undermining the culture in the name of whatever cause they claimed to be serving—civilizing the society, or Christianizing it, or saving women from the odious culture and religion in which they had the misfortune to find themselves. Whether in the hands of patriarchal men or feminists, the ideas of Western feminism essentially functioned to morally justify the attack on native societies and to support the notion of the comprehensive superiority of Europe. Evidently, then, whatever the disagreements of feminism with white male domination within Western societies, outside their borders feminism turned from being the critic of the system of white male dominance to being its docile servant. Anthropology, it has often been said, served as a handmaid to colonialism. Perhaps it must also be said that feminism, or the ideas of feminism, served as its other handmaid.

[Xeio]

This is an example of the kind of stuff I was reading a lot of for the past several weeks (and also assuming that some of the more...extreme claims made by the so-called 'Men's Rights Movement' (like Men are somehow at a disadvantage to women /Ican'tseehowIbenefitfromsociety) are false). Sometimes I agreed with/was sympathetic towards the stuff I was reading (such as this entire blog), but on other occasions...

Trans is a growing movement and it is no longer only focused on trans sex and trans gender. New trans movements focus on trans abled and trans age, and any day now I am expecting to see the emergence of white men who claim to be trans race

*headsplode*

[brakos82]

F/R/T: My boss at my last temp job... I'm pretty sure he's a ninja.

Always wore black, sneaks around everywhere, his name's Kenji (total ninja name)... and he has a samurai sword-handled umbrella.

Yep. He's a ninja.

[Menacing Spike]

and any day now I am expecting to see the emergence of white men who claim to be trans race

So we'll be able to fuse racist and trans-phobic slurs? "Aw, did you take your bike stealing hormones today, trapigger?"

[Triangle_Man]

Well, thank you for that response, Ameretrifle. I kind of forgot about the 'always read a wide variety of ideas' principal recently due in no small part by the fact that this choice of reading (skimming and in depth) was a bit obsessive compulsive in nature. Pretty sure that this stuff will echo in my head when I read other feminisms, but...

It should be worth it in the end.

My only regret was that I didn't focus on stuff like the media analysis or the violent sex crimes stats; even with the bias, those sorts of things would've been more interesting then the really, really bad stuff I zero'd in on.

As you said, though, Feminism isn't easy and its probably not a good thing to assume you have all the answers (is that right?).

Also, Ninjas tended to wear very dark blues at night and street clothes during then day...I think.

Edit - By the way, I should mention that I'm not perfect. I have used porn before, but have been trying to stop viewing it because any physical pleasure gained from it is short term and outweighed by guilt and concerns about what this material is doing to my mind. I because I have certain urges doesn't meen that I have to act on them, right? /thingsIhavelearnedfromtheOCD

[suffer-cait]

i'm from hawaii and never got burnt till i moved to seattle. also i always forget how attractive STC is.

[TimelordSimone]

Pretty sure I've managed to burn just my knees. I don't understand how. (No, I was not wearing jeans with holes in the knees or anything like that.)

[Triangle_Man]

You think friction burns had anything to do with that?

[elminster]

Maybe from delivering flying knee strikes to a burning villain.

[Shivahn]

Although maybe I'm just doing this because it's on my mind again and I wanted to see what people thought of it. If so, I've done a terrible job at being unbiased as, from what I can tell, the conduct of Trans-Activists in regard wasn't exactly that rosy either and if I lack sources from that side of the fence it is only because they haven't been the focus of my batshit-insane levels of obsession as of late.

Ok, so. I am at work and can't give this the full attention it deserves. Or maybe, I'm giving it more than it deserves. But, what I am seeing from browsing there, is "trans women have poor conduct with respect to cis women who are excluding them from women's spaces."

I don't quite know how to reply to something that comes across as "Hey, super-oppressed minority - stop being jerks when we exclude you."

The author also takes the time to note that it's leftover male privilege making trans women feel like they are entitled to women's spaces. I'm having trouble coming up with a concise way to say how wrong this is. I guess the best I can come up with is pointing out that the behavior is analogous to a Mexican-american woman being excluded from a women-of-color group for not having been perceived as "of color" enough. Of course she's going to be pissed that people think her experiences don't count, and of course she's going to try and be accepted. I guess she has lots of male privilege too.

The author also brings up fear of rape as a legitimate reason to exclude trans women. That's fair, but only if you accept unfounded fears as legitimate reasons to exclude people. Now look at how that's gonna play out when race is involved at certain events. Is that ok? If you're consistent, then it is. If you're inconsistent, then hey, I guess I found some bigotry for you to think about.

The author hits every single trope they could talking about this. They allude to a "shared womanhood", as though growing up a black girl in on a farm is the same as a white girl on a farm is the same as a Mexican in an inner city. They assert that letting trans women into women's spaces is like putting pre-op trans women in male prisons. I guess trans women rape on the same scale as male prisoners would rape a pre-op trans woman?

The author's last paragraph literally contains the advice "Hey, if you don't like not being accepted, go off and make your own club, by yourselves." I mean, jesus. Who knew being a social outcast, and a member of a hated minority was so easy? It doesn't matter if you can't hang out with the majority (because they don't want you anyway), you still have your kind! You should stick to them anyway.

[The Great Hippo]

They allude to a "shared womanhood", as though growing up a black girl in on a farm is the same as a white girl on a farm is the same as a Mexican in an inner city.

This is a thing I like to call 'the myth of collective experience'; i.e., given a set of the population united by one property (sex, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference), we expect all members of that set to have a singular collective experience which creates grounds for instant (or at least semi-instant) rapport.

I've always found this mentality to be an inappropriate one. Not only is it factually incorrect (are our imaginations truly so limited as to be incapable of producing a woman who's experiences are not similar to another's?), but it's unproductive--it leads to ideas like this. Imaginary boundaries between groups based on some mystical, poorly defined 'property' that changes to reflect whatever is necessary to exclude you from that group (to clarify, I'm fine with concrete boundaries, but I find poorly defined ones do not serve us. Exactly what sort of experience is required to be 'included' in the set of women? ).

I suspect it's also a major factor in race-traitor/sex-traitor narratives ("You betrayed your culture! Why? You're one of us; you have the same experiences--and therefore should have the same views on this issue!"). If I am a woman, but I'm against feminism, that is sometimes taken as a greater fallacy than being a man who is against feminism--because by some magical, unexplained process of alchemy, my experiences are supposed to 'make' me pro-feminist, and by not being pro-feminist, I'm rejecting my own experiences.

Which, yeah. Fuck that noise.

[Shivahn]

Yeah. It also is used to marginalize many people - look at the complaints of women of color with regards to feminism benefiting white women while ignoring the issues of women of color, yet claiming to speak for them. The arbitrary nature can lead to easy doublespeak - as you alluded to, being "one of us" means you should have the same experiences as us and should clearly support us on this. Yet, when your experiences differ from our imagined universal narrative, it's that narrative which is the reality, which we should address. Your experiences aren't universal to us, but ours are to you.

[The Great Hippo]

The arbitrary nature can lead to easy doublespeak - as you alluded to, being "one of us" means you should have the same experiences as us and should clearly support us on this. Yet, when your experiences differ from our imagined universal narrative, it's that narrative which is the reality, which we should address. Your experiences aren't universal to us, but ours are to you.

God, yes. I try not to get indignant on other people's behalf but there have been times when I wanted to reach through the fabric of the internet and just headbutt somebody for erasing a group of women's experiences even as they claim to represent the interests of those very same women.

Where the fuck do you get gall like that? Can you order it online?

[Shivahn]

Oh man, if you can't, I have a great business idea.

[torontoraptor]

I should try and find a new avatar...this one has been around for far too long.

[Triangle_Man]

Actually, I've read some posts from that part of the net that basically accuse people who make that 'you aren't taking the differences into account' claim of deliberately trying to divide women by making them focus on their differences rather than their similarities, thus preventing them from unifying into strong communities (or something to that effect).

Except that I guess the differences would still be there and would still need to be addressed at some point, right? /mustdomorefeministandgeneralphilisophicalreading!

...Also, TR, may I suggest getting an avatar that has nothing whatsoever to do with your name?

[Giant Speck]

So... taking care of someone else's dog kind of sucks.

[Shivahn]

Actually, I've read some posts from that part of the net that basically accuse people who make that 'you aren't taking the differences into account' claim of deliberately trying to divide women by making them focus on their differences rather than their similarities, thus preventing them from unifying into strong communities (or something to that effect).

Except that I guess the differences would still be there and would still need to be addressed at some point, right? /mustdomorefeministandgeneralphilisophicalreading!

See, that's the thing - you can accuse people of saying that of doing that, but what you're saying is "Hey, those issues aren't our issues, stop talking about them, let's talk about our issues."

And when the person says "no seriously, those are our issues as a group, the stuff you're talking about is important for you, but it doesn't help all people of our group; it mostly just benefits the people like you," the response is "No, our issues are your issues too, stop talking about your other issues - you're deliberately trying to weaken us."

It's a silencing tactic. Stop talking about your issues and deal with mine. If you don't, then you're directly opposing progress - you're one of them if you bring up issues you face as a group when I want to talk about the ones affecting me.

I'm sorry if this is coming across as aggressive, but I don't think there's a nice way that's still true to get it across - people who say that are silencing the issues of other minorities (using standard silencing tactics, I might add) in favor of dealing with the issues that they stand personally to benefit from. It's an attempt to get someone to support you while simultaneously throwing them under the bus. One should think very hard before they tell a minority to stop advocating for themselves, 'for the greater good.' And one should especially stop to think about what's going on when they tell a minority with grievances to stop advocating for themselves and then accuses them of being the divisive ones, the ones preventing unification into strong communities.

Edit: I am really not trying to be aggressive here, and I can see that point of view. I just think it's hurtful, misguided, and ultimately a tool of oppression, and I cannot stand for those things.

[emceng]

Hmmm. So are my cookies betraying me? Is so that has me worried. Yesterday I visited $local_sports_team's website. Since then I've seen two ads online for tickets for them.

Now do I see the ads because I visited their site? Or are they starting to aggressively advertise because they're terrible?

I have to think the first one, as the most recent ad was on fml.com.

[The EGE]

Or it could be a third - their advertising is just plain terrible.

Boston and New York are rivals in basically every sport. At least once, I've seen ads for the New York Yankees.... on the website on Boston's subway system.

[Hyphe]

I have bought copies of Where The Wild Things Are, and Not Now Bernard. Rereading the latter, I find it to be far, far more unsettling than I recall it being from my childhood.

[TimelordSimone]

I have bought copies of Where The Wild Things Are, and Not Now Bernard. Rereading the latter, I find it to be far, far more unsettling than I recall it being from my childhood.

Not Now Bernard is the greatest children's book oh my goodness.
(I couldn't let this pass without comment.)

[ArgonV]

I'm really curious who once looked at a lamprey, went "sure, looks perfectly edible" and proceeded to make pie out of one...

[poxic]

Being a hunter-gatherer for a living can push one outside of one's comfort zone to find enough to eat. Then your kids and great-great-greatⁿ-grandkids remember where to get lampreys, and they serve it to their kids, and cuisine is born.

[Giant Speck]

I brought the dog I'm sitting over to my apartment. I'm totally breaking the rules, but I'll deal with whatever consequences arise later. I'm actually surprised that the dog is taking to my apartment so well; I was afraid that he'd run around barking and whining the whole night.

[The Great Hippo]

Actually, I've read some posts from that part of the net that basically accuse people who make that 'you aren't taking the differences into account' claim of deliberately trying to divide women by making them focus on their differences rather than their similarities, thus preventing them from unifying into strong communities (or something to that effect).

Except that I guess the differences would still be there and would still need to be addressed at some point, right? /mustdomorefeministandgeneralphilisophicalreading!

To further add to what Shivahn said, if unifying into a strong community means putting aside my issues, then fuck unifying into a strong community. There are people who have done this willingly (Bayard Rustin comes to mind; a gay civil rights organizer who stepped out of the American civil rights movement in the 60s because he's a gay black man and he realized that talking about homosexual issues--or even being present in a fight for black people's rights as an unrepentant homosexual--would interfere with the fight for legal equality between black and white Americans), and bless them for doing so, but that's their choice, never ours.

Anyone who demands that I put aside what's important to me for the greater good is demanding that I give up a crucial part of who I am to support the whole. That is the very essence of fascism. I mean, not to pull a 'evil by relationship' here, but that's what fascism literally is: "Your issues are not as important as our issues. Stop caring about your issues and care about our issues instead". It's evil, vile, and perverts everything that social activists should actually be fighting for (the right to be independent; the right to be an individual; the right to express your identity without fear and without persecution).

I don't even think throwing certain people under a bus in activism is necessarily a terrible thing; you can't fight all the battles all the time. All you can do is fight the battles that are important to you and hope others can take care of the rest. But there's a world of difference between "We're fighting for our issues right now, not yours" and "We're fighting for our issues, so shut up and get back to supporting us". The latter is absolute bullshit, and I see it happening all the time.

[Kewangji]

So. Ghouls are going to be the next big thing. Trust me. I just spent six hours writing about ghouls: http://zombiesintelligently.com/2012/05/28/hunger-idea/

I might be sleep deprived and very strange but I'm also right.

[Hyphe]

Not Now Bernard is the greatest children's book oh my goodness.
(I couldn't let this pass without comment.)

Good, since it was your avatar that sparked the conversation that led to me wanting to buy a copy of the book in the first place!

I must find that I disagree with you, though. I am in torn between proclaiming the best book to be Where The Wild Things Are, or My Cat Likes To Hide In Boxes (both of which happen to be vastly less terrifying).

[TimelordSimone]

Heh, I get overexcited and tend towards hyperbole, sorry.

[Dr. Diaphanous]

Does anyone here know what the view count on youtube means? Sometimes there are 300 views and 1000 likes. Also, what counts as a view? Is it unique views or could it be one person who watched it hundreds of times? Do you have to watch it all the way through for it to count?

Also where does Google get the number of search results from? Sometimes it gives you a number, and when you go to the next page the number has changed.

[Hyphe]

YouTube caches the 'view' count quiet heavily, and sometimes caps the count at 300 while it waits for a more accurate recalculation. It happens quite a bit on suddenly-popular videos, because the view count just can't keep up with the number of hits. (I'm not too clear on the actual mechanics of this.) I'm pretty sure 'likes' are counted once per user account.

[Shivahn]

I *think* that it actually updates view count live until some low number, and then it starts caching and updating once every <longer time period>. So when it first hits that and explodes, you get weird numbers. After that, when the numbers get big enough, it is less obvious that the view count is slightly lagging.

[UniqueScreenname]

An answer on Jeopardy was "This goes around the sun every 484(?) days." The question was "What is Uranus?" Alex Trebek goes, "Yes, the planet."

[e^iπ+1=0]

Wikipedia says 30,799.095 days, so I think you're a bit off.