Comments on: In which “sexual politics” make me feel stabby

By: BeckySharper

BeckySharper — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:10:49 +0000

@Craig: The answer to your question is abundantly clear if you read for context. The author of this post is mocking the juvenile, offensive ideas in Kelly’s original piece by co-opting juvenile language. It doesn’t “juvenilized” the whole post—you’ll notice she chooses to use it only when she’s mocking the ideas that are retro and stupid.

/readingcomprehension101

By: Craig

Craig — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:13:26 +0000

Why do you juvenilize an otherwise cogent discussion with lolspeak (OMG!FEMINISM, TEH SEX)? The writer you are critiquing doesn’t write that way and inserting it into paraphrases of her ideas discredits you rather than her.

By: Helen

Helen — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 08:38:13 +0000

I guess she learned that pissing people off by writing shite generates page views.

Yup. That’s how writers like that thrive. That’s all it is.

By: Marco Almeida

Marco Almeida — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 01:50:00 +0000

What I find a tad undisturbed, is my own view related to the argument.

(Is anti-theoretical) approaches in a – new wave of anti-feminist thought unheard of before any, if any, of this happens in today’s world??

Honestly, there is relevant dichotomies to be had in such circumstances of reverse psychology. Example: reversing the roles of gender stereotypes. Problem solved (unfortunately enough. . .) there’s nothing but a Mel Gibson movie for maladaptive stereotypes.

Where does this fit on an ethical plain?? Let alone any plausibility in both sides used terribly bias response(s).

By: annajcook

annajcook — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:58:36 +0000

@tylrjm

I like the idea of “extra invalid” arguments. Is that like getting an extra shot of espresso in your morning coffee?

By: Ms. Pinot

Ms. Pinot — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 04:31:24 +0000

Did anyone ask her co workers to kindly remove the Bible Of Idiocy shoved up her ass?

By: tylrjm

tylrjm — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 03:51:14 +0000

Well, I have a girlfriend /and/ a boyfriend, so her argument is extra invalid.

By: JT

JT — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 23:12:54 +0000

Cimorene, because women buy into the Madonna/Whore complex, too. They think themselves “Madonnas” and must trash the “whores”, because they’ve been duped into thinking that womens’ worth should be measured that way.

By: Cimorene

Cimorene — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:19:43 +0000

I find women, who are no longer high school-aged, who write about other women’s sex lives with this kind of attitude really mystifying. It’s like, I understand that if someone says “So what do you think about women who have casual sex?” then plenty of people will answer “they’re miserable sluts/wannabe dudes/misogynist platitude,” and though I obviously think those opinions are misguided and thoughtless I still understand why people think them.

But it’s different when someone writes something actively, instead of in response to a direct question; or when they feel so fired up about other women’s sex lives that they feel like they need to write about it publicly in order to condemn the practice. (NB: I did not read the original article because I am learning to control myself and limit my exposure to things that lead me to hate the universe.) It’s just like–you’re not a dude so terrified of losing his own status that he’s spouting anti-woman bullshit in order to control women’s sexuality and autonomy: what do you get out of this obsession with other women’s lives? If the women aren’t being exploited? Why do you even give a shit?

By: Marie Anelle

Marie Anelle — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:00:03 +0000

Funny, I met my husband at the height of my promiscuity. That, and I’m totes the deathfatz while he’s quite handsome and we kiss in public.

….Must find and traumatize Maura Kelly with my presence…..