<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tips on Arguing About Feminism on the Internet: Revolutions vs. Coping Strategies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.harpyness.com/2009/09/23/tips-on-arguing-about-feminism-on-the-internet-revolutions-vs-coping-strategies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.harpyness.com/2009/09/23/tips-on-arguing-about-feminism-on-the-internet-revolutions-vs-coping-strategies/</link>
	<description>As narrated by five of the most charming and vicious women on the internet</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:50:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joan Kelly</title>
		<link>http://www.harpyness.com/2009/09/23/tips-on-arguing-about-feminism-on-the-internet-revolutions-vs-coping-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-15597</link>
		<dc:creator>Joan Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harpyness.com/?p=10395#comment-15597</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Sarah.  :)

Becky - I didn&#039;t know most of the writers were women on that show.  I did know it was based on Candace Bushnell&#039;s work, but haven&#039;t read her (yay ignorance!) and didn&#039;t know if her work was just that misogynist or if TV had perverted it a lot.

Also for honesty&#039;s sake I will admit that when I first saw the show a few years back (I think I first caught it a couple of seasons in), I was moved by some of the storylines and writing.  

And even though it bugged and still bugs the hell out of me, I Netflixed the movie.  Some petty part of me sometimes enjoys watching or reading stuff that makes me go &quot;holy shit that&#039;s horrible!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Sarah.  <img src='http://www.harpyness.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Becky &#8211; I didn&#8217;t know most of the writers were women on that show.  I did know it was based on Candace Bushnell&#8217;s work, but haven&#8217;t read her (yay ignorance!) and didn&#8217;t know if her work was just that misogynist or if TV had perverted it a lot.</p>
<p>Also for honesty&#8217;s sake I will admit that when I first saw the show a few years back (I think I first caught it a couple of seasons in), I was moved by some of the storylines and writing.  </p>
<p>And even though it bugged and still bugs the hell out of me, I Netflixed the movie.  Some petty part of me sometimes enjoys watching or reading stuff that makes me go &#8220;holy shit that&#8217;s horrible!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mackey</title>
		<link>http://www.harpyness.com/2009/09/23/tips-on-arguing-about-feminism-on-the-internet-revolutions-vs-coping-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-15553</link>
		<dc:creator>Mackey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:23:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harpyness.com/?p=10395#comment-15553</guid>
		<description>This post encapsulates well a number of fallacies used in the interwebs (and else where for that matter). Feminist or otherwise.
Arguements about a point or points that aren&#039;t mentioned in the original post, and not even give the person&#039;s (in this case woman&#039;s) argument charity in the understanding (the straw person).
There is the either/or option despite there being other options available (the false dilemma). 
For example, Either you are not feminist because you are shaming someone, or you are so recant what you said (this is the double banger of the false dilemma and straw person fallacies).
Then there&#039;s the tu quoque - disregarding the argument because of writer is accused of some hypocrisy thus the original argument is rejected without looking at the merits.

As PSoul suggested there are assholes no matter where you go, regardless of basic comprehension and things like the rule of charity these types of fallacies (and many others for that matter) are bound to continue.

And it helps to find spaces that are into things like the principle of charity, and understanding the context in which find ourselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This post encapsulates well a number of fallacies used in the interwebs (and else where for that matter). Feminist or otherwise.<br />
Arguements about a point or points that aren&#8217;t mentioned in the original post, and not even give the person&#8217;s (in this case woman&#8217;s) argument charity in the understanding (the straw person).<br />
There is the either/or option despite there being other options available (the false dilemma).<br />
For example, Either you are not feminist because you are shaming someone, or you are so recant what you said (this is the double banger of the false dilemma and straw person fallacies).<br />
Then there&#8217;s the tu quoque &#8211; disregarding the argument because of writer is accused of some hypocrisy thus the original argument is rejected without looking at the merits.</p>
<p>As PSoul suggested there are assholes no matter where you go, regardless of basic comprehension and things like the rule of charity these types of fallacies (and many others for that matter) are bound to continue.</p>
<p>And it helps to find spaces that are into things like the principle of charity, and understanding the context in which find ourselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BeckySharper</title>
		<link>http://www.harpyness.com/2009/09/23/tips-on-arguing-about-feminism-on-the-internet-revolutions-vs-coping-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-15547</link>
		<dc:creator>BeckySharper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:36:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harpyness.com/?p=10395#comment-15547</guid>
		<description>Well said, Joan. 

Although I feel compelled to point out that SATC was produced by Darren Star, but the entire writer&#039;s room was composed of single women, with the exception of one gay man. And, of course, it was based on the work of Candace Bushnell, who is is one of womanity&#039;s most undermine-y frenemies. I&#039;d put her out of the sisterhood entirely if I could.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well said, Joan. </p>
<p>Although I feel compelled to point out that SATC was produced by Darren Star, but the entire writer&#8217;s room was composed of single women, with the exception of one gay man. And, of course, it was based on the work of Candace Bushnell, who is is one of womanity&#8217;s most undermine-y frenemies. I&#8217;d put her out of the sisterhood entirely if I could.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SarahMC</title>
		<link>http://www.harpyness.com/2009/09/23/tips-on-arguing-about-feminism-on-the-internet-revolutions-vs-coping-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-15542</link>
		<dc:creator>SarahMC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:06:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harpyness.com/?p=10395#comment-15542</guid>
		<description>Joan, you are the bomb.  I am almost *ashamed* of how inferior my response is to yours.  You have said it perfectly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joan, you are the bomb.  I am almost *ashamed* of how inferior my response is to yours.  You have said it perfectly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joan Kelly</title>
		<link>http://www.harpyness.com/2009/09/23/tips-on-arguing-about-feminism-on-the-internet-revolutions-vs-coping-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-15536</link>
		<dc:creator>Joan Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:30:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harpyness.com/?p=10395#comment-15536</guid>
		<description>@baraquiel - I appreciate what you&#039;re saying, and sorry my first comment was - dare I say it - shaming towards anyone who hadn&#039;t told thatguy off.  (Sorry I couldn&#039;t resist.)  Seriously though, I think I did sound unnecessarily accusatory.  What I was reacting to wasn&#039;t just people ignoring him though - a couple people had seemed to just say &quot;if women should be shamed for promiscuity, so should men.&quot;  Which, were I a longer-time reader here, and not just-woken-up at the time, I might have understood as containing the idea &quot;which means nobody should be shamed for it.&quot;

Lord the off-topic-ness, but - also on the Jenna Jameson/SATC weird reference:

I don&#039;t know JJ personally but I&#039;ve seen her in lots of interviews and as a person on the planet, I think you&#039;d be hard pressed to find her as any kind of asshole.  So I don&#039;t know why people feel so free to throw her name around as &quot;example of bad-person-ness.&quot;  

She has benefitted from and promoted pornography (or more succinctly, branding herself, before anyone else in that business really did on that scale).  I find pornography to be largely woman-hating, both in production and depiction, and I have issues with it on those grounds.  I don&#039;t see why JJ herself though is more of a colluder than - well, me, you, anyone else who isn&#039;t a separatist.  I definitely don&#039;t like men, of all people, thinking *they* have the right to look down their noses at her.

SATC was created by a man and has quite a lot of misogyny in it as well.   And yet what thatguy was critiquing in it was the sex the female characters were having.

For both porn (which by the way, Jenna Jameson is not porn, she is a person) and a dumb ass sexist TV show, the problem with it is &quot;slutty chic?&quot;  Not the woman-hating, or the woman-exploiting, or the messages of same.  It&#039;s that any of the women in it are getting laid.

I know, waste of time belaboring the point.  I felt compelled, sorry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@baraquiel &#8211; I appreciate what you&#8217;re saying, and sorry my first comment was &#8211; dare I say it &#8211; shaming towards anyone who hadn&#8217;t told thatguy off.  (Sorry I couldn&#8217;t resist.)  Seriously though, I think I did sound unnecessarily accusatory.  What I was reacting to wasn&#8217;t just people ignoring him though &#8211; a couple people had seemed to just say &#8220;if women should be shamed for promiscuity, so should men.&#8221;  Which, were I a longer-time reader here, and not just-woken-up at the time, I might have understood as containing the idea &#8220;which means nobody should be shamed for it.&#8221;</p>
<p>Lord the off-topic-ness, but &#8211; also on the Jenna Jameson/SATC weird reference:</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know JJ personally but I&#8217;ve seen her in lots of interviews and as a person on the planet, I think you&#8217;d be hard pressed to find her as any kind of asshole.  So I don&#8217;t know why people feel so free to throw her name around as &#8220;example of bad-person-ness.&#8221;  </p>
<p>She has benefitted from and promoted pornography (or more succinctly, branding herself, before anyone else in that business really did on that scale).  I find pornography to be largely woman-hating, both in production and depiction, and I have issues with it on those grounds.  I don&#8217;t see why JJ herself though is more of a colluder than &#8211; well, me, you, anyone else who isn&#8217;t a separatist.  I definitely don&#8217;t like men, of all people, thinking *they* have the right to look down their noses at her.</p>
<p>SATC was created by a man and has quite a lot of misogyny in it as well.   And yet what thatguy was critiquing in it was the sex the female characters were having.</p>
<p>For both porn (which by the way, Jenna Jameson is not porn, she is a person) and a dumb ass sexist TV show, the problem with it is &#8220;slutty chic?&#8221;  Not the woman-hating, or the woman-exploiting, or the messages of same.  It&#8217;s that any of the women in it are getting laid.</p>
<p>I know, waste of time belaboring the point.  I felt compelled, sorry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baraqiel</title>
		<link>http://www.harpyness.com/2009/09/23/tips-on-arguing-about-feminism-on-the-internet-revolutions-vs-coping-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-15532</link>
		<dc:creator>baraqiel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:48:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harpyness.com/?p=10395#comment-15532</guid>
		<description>&quot;Don’t bother boring us this way, thatguy.&quot;

That&#039;s exactly it.  Joan, this is why I didn&#039;t bother responding even though it was obvious where this conversation would go from thatguy&#039;s first comment.  The arguments used by antifeminists are, by and large, SO boring and SO unoriginal that it&#039;s just not worth the effort to refute them a lot of the time, especially on a site like this where almost everyone commenting knows what&#039;s up (although I admit to being guilty of trying anyway sometimes, but I just came off a long stint of refuting antifeminist arguments at The Sexist and frankly I&#039;m bored out of my mind with them).  I don&#039;t think there&#039;s anyone reading this that might read thatguy&#039;s comments and think, &quot;Oh, maybe there is something to this shaming women for having sex business, after all!&quot; and thatguy himself is clearly not going to be convinced.

That, I think, is the reason you were noting a lack of opposition, not from any sense of agreement with thatguy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Don’t bother boring us this way, thatguy.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s exactly it.  Joan, this is why I didn&#8217;t bother responding even though it was obvious where this conversation would go from thatguy&#8217;s first comment.  The arguments used by antifeminists are, by and large, SO boring and SO unoriginal that it&#8217;s just not worth the effort to refute them a lot of the time, especially on a site like this where almost everyone commenting knows what&#8217;s up (although I admit to being guilty of trying anyway sometimes, but I just came off a long stint of refuting antifeminist arguments at The Sexist and frankly I&#8217;m bored out of my mind with them).  I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s anyone reading this that might read thatguy&#8217;s comments and think, &#8220;Oh, maybe there is something to this shaming women for having sex business, after all!&#8221; and thatguy himself is clearly not going to be convinced.</p>
<p>That, I think, is the reason you were noting a lack of opposition, not from any sense of agreement with thatguy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SarahMC</title>
		<link>http://www.harpyness.com/2009/09/23/tips-on-arguing-about-feminism-on-the-internet-revolutions-vs-coping-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-15526</link>
		<dc:creator>SarahMC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:39:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harpyness.com/?p=10395#comment-15526</guid>
		<description>Haha @ &quot;Unhealthy,&quot; PSoul.

Obviously cheating on a partner is harmful to that partner, and that sort of behavior should be discouraged.

Who said Jenna Jamison or the SATC women should be role models?  I&#039;m pretty sure most of us would agree that the &quot;chic to be slutty&quot; trend is uncool.  We might disapprove for different reasons than you though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Haha @ &#8220;Unhealthy,&#8221; PSoul.</p>
<p>Obviously cheating on a partner is harmful to that partner, and that sort of behavior should be discouraged.</p>
<p>Who said Jenna Jamison or the SATC women should be role models?  I&#8217;m pretty sure most of us would agree that the &#8220;chic to be slutty&#8221; trend is uncool.  We might disapprove for different reasons than you though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BeckySharper</title>
		<link>http://www.harpyness.com/2009/09/23/tips-on-arguing-about-feminism-on-the-internet-revolutions-vs-coping-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-15524</link>
		<dc:creator>BeckySharper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harpyness.com/?p=10395#comment-15524</guid>
		<description>Oh for fuck&#039;s sake, thatguy....go police your own goddamn sexual behavior and quit worrying about the rest of us. 

Really, we don&#039;t need your manly help, I promise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh for fuck&#8217;s sake, thatguy&#8230;.go police your own goddamn sexual behavior and quit worrying about the rest of us. </p>
<p>Really, we don&#8217;t need your manly help, I promise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pilgrim Soul</title>
		<link>http://www.harpyness.com/2009/09/23/tips-on-arguing-about-feminism-on-the-internet-revolutions-vs-coping-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-15523</link>
		<dc:creator>Pilgrim Soul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harpyness.com/?p=10395#comment-15523</guid>
		<description>Yeah, Unhealthy, I&#039;m not gonna delete, but I don&#039;t see how thatguy is going to answer that question productively.  I&#039;m expecting a google search will be hastily undertaken and we will be presented the results as proof positive of the underlying prejudice.  Don&#039;t bother boring us this way, thatguy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, Unhealthy, I&#8217;m not gonna delete, but I don&#8217;t see how thatguy is going to answer that question productively.  I&#8217;m expecting a google search will be hastily undertaken and we will be presented the results as proof positive of the underlying prejudice.  Don&#8217;t bother boring us this way, thatguy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Unpossible</title>
		<link>http://www.harpyness.com/2009/09/23/tips-on-arguing-about-feminism-on-the-internet-revolutions-vs-coping-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-15521</link>
		<dc:creator>Unpossible</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:12:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harpyness.com/?p=10395#comment-15521</guid>
		<description>@thatguy:  Why did you have to go and do that?

I would like to know what, exactly, you think is &quot;unhealthy for society&quot; about adults of any age and gender having all the consensual sex they want.

(PSoul, if I&#039;m just feeding the troll, please feel free to delete this comment or tell me to stop)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@thatguy:  Why did you have to go and do that?</p>
<p>I would like to know what, exactly, you think is &#8220;unhealthy for society&#8221; about adults of any age and gender having all the consensual sex they want.</p>
<p>(PSoul, if I&#8217;m just feeding the troll, please feel free to delete this comment or tell me to stop)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
