Well, so far this is my favorite response to Jaclyn Friedman’s American Prospect piece on the Men’s Rightsers and that woman-hating problem of theirs. Because what better way to refute charges of misogyny than by declaring derisively that you “can usually spot whether or not a woman wrote a piece by the first few sentences?”
Let’s let rjworks13 explain just why Friedman lacks the intellectual heft to be taken seriously by serious men with credentials — sorry, CREDENTIALS — like him:
Oh boy.
I have to say that very favorite sentence of all in this wondrous bit of HeManWomanHatersplaining is this one, if it can even be called a sentence:
CREDENTIALS: I’m a long-time trained technical and creative writer from male-based military training and put to use over 20 years.
Oy. I can only assume from the evidence of this, er, sentence, that as a technical writer his job is to make sure that instruction manuals are as unreadable as possible. And that his “creative” writing most likely consists of many volumes of self-published Gorean porn.
If you want to compare Jaclyn Friedman’s CREDENTIALS with his, you can always go to her Wikipedia entry. I looked around a bit for rjworks13’s Wikipedia entry, but he doesn’t seem to have one.
rjworks13 was evidently so proud of this bit of writing of his that he deleted it. Luckily, I grabbed a screenshot beforehand. ABS: Always Be Screenshotting.
PS What’s “indifference propaganda?”
What the video doesn’t show (because apparently my phone does not record sound) is that Pan–the tabby who is getting licked–was purring like a vacuum cleaner the entire time.
Here. A conversation between me and my brain:
Shhhhhh
“But!”
Shhhhhhhhh
“But what about?!”
Shhhshshshshshshshshs
“Seriously stop that what about the logical inconsistency of…”
Sssh. Sh. Let it go. Just… let it go.
“But he’s not! You can’t! Words are now officially meaningless and there is no up, no down, no left, no right! We have all become Humptey Dumpteys! We are in a Lewis Carrol poem! RIGHT NOW!”
Shhhhhh. Just stop. Let it go.
“But if he can’t get a girlfriend and his problem is not having sex but he has sex so he can have sex but he is still celibate so how does his problem mean—”
Let
it
go.
Stop. It’s only going to get worse from here. I’m sorry to pretend to be some kind of omniscient narrator by indicating your imaginary responses come with dialogue markers, and I realize it’s really, really disrespectful, and sorry for that too, but in this instance it really is better to just let it go. It’s not the kind of thing that means anything, because it’s not the kind of person that cares about such thing as that. The complaining is the important bit, and thinking about this makes it worse. The guy is doing all this on purpose. All of this. Every instance is another manifestaiton of his need to go on and on and on about some pet issue, and it’s either a troll job of astute, epic dimensions or some thing I really can only think of as particularly odd.
Have a ferret space marine.
http://th05.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2012/018/f/b/mass_ferret_by_amales-d4lpuz7.jpg
It’s like that Buffy message board with 40.000 posts by one user And no other users or the darker parts of YouTube. It feeds and lives of of our attention.
So terrifying.
“Her writes are propaganda in style”?
I’m not sure who provided the extensive training in technical and creative writing of which our angry friend speaks, but they owe him a refund.
Ophelia – One can never have too many hugs, I say! *nod*
Reblogged this on iheariseeilearn.
Yep. “Alone” is usually preferable to “in a relationship that’s a bad fit”.
(I mean, I don’t think there’s a single woman alive who’d be a good fit for GGG, but that’s a different issue.)
I know I’ve said it before, but the problem is that he’s built his identity around being incel: He’s literally defined himself by his problem. So he’s forced himself into a corner: If he solves the problem, he actually loses his identity. That’s one reason why incel types spend so much more time commiserating with other incels and so little time actually, you know, dating or trying to solve his problems (and why so many of his attempts to solve it are so “out there,” like begging his mom for sex: it allows him to show to what pathetic depths he’s been driven without actually risking having sex). And that’s why, any time he’s apparently solved his problem, he redefines it so that it becomes broader, so that he can have his cake and eat it too.
It’s like if someone had defined their identity around not being able to swim – they’d fight like hell against any offers to teach them, because “person who can’t swim” is who are, and if they learned then all their other unable-to-swim friends might not want to hang out with them any more.
Who they are.
Since we’re sort of on the topic of women in the media here, what do people think of the new Feminist Times in the UK? So far I can’t say I’m impressed, based on everything from the fee-based structure to the initial decision to call it Spare Rib without bothering to consult any of the Spare Rib founders. The actual content so far has not exactly allayed those initial concerns.
Haven’t heard about it, so can’t comment. I take it it’s online rather than print?
It’s online but they say they want it to feel like a print magazine, which is yet another problem. The Guardian has been all over it, since the founder used to work for them. The original founders of Spare Rib are not amused, and blocked the new entity from using the name.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/spare-rib-grassroots-feminism-not-brand?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
Rosie Boycott at least seems to have come around to where she’s supportive of the project, but based on the actual content I’ve seen so far I can’t say I feel the same. A new mainstream feminist magazine sounds like a great idea! But not with this editorial team, imo.
Rosie Boycott?
Suddenly I feel like I’m in Ankh-Morpork.
This article goes into the content and fee structure a bit more.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2013/oct/03/charlotte-raven-feminist-times-controversial
That’s a good article. The thing that strikes me is that setting up the new magazine as a user-pays thing, when it’s presumably being aimed at women with internet access anyway, is why anyone would bother with it when there’s so much free info available.
There’s that and also the question of what a feminist magazine is for and who you’re trying to reach. It’s already enough of a problem that people who don’t have internet access are excluded from the conversation, adding a fee-based system that’s charging enough to make it out of reach for a lot of working class women, and for most high school kids, is just making things worse. That’s the part that made me go “wait, something isn’t right here” from the first time I heard about it.
So, let me get this right – first Raven wanted the title of Spare Rib and to essentially recreate that magazine. But was it a satirical thing at all? It doesn’t sound like it, just from that first article. Now she’s put out a piece on forced sterilisation, which has been pretty well booed off, made all the usual editorial mea culpa noises, and is saying she wants Feminist Times to be like an updated Private Eye, complete with men going on about porn?
Is it just my extremely limited knowledge of this, or is she doing the “It was satire!” line, or just doesn’t really know what sort magazine she wants?
Yeah, she seems to be going purely for wage or salary earners who’ve got spare cash and computer access, or with the print version (IF she ever gets it going) even more spare cash, since magazines are so damn pricey. Way to go in aiming at middle-class women who’ve already got plenty of material to access if they want to.
@ kittehs
Yep, you seem to have the gist of it there. Kind of makes it obvious why they aren’t being allowed to use the name “Spare Rib”, isn’t it? There’s another article where Raven is whingeing about that too.
I’d be a lot happier about this whole project if it had a different editor. Raven…well, here she is going on about how Liverpool is “milking” what happened to Jamie Bulger, complete with potshots at his grieving mother.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jun/26/bulger.comment
I admire her for criticizing the manoshpere while having her name and info public. I would be too scared, and have reason to be seeing how they treat anyone that opposes them. I hope she’s not getting too many death/rape threats and stays safe.
Shit, she’s got a right hate going for Liverpool and Denise Fergus, hasn’t she?
Also Manchester – apparently people there think it’s no big deal if their kids are murdered. So, two cities way north of London, and a working class woman…I think I’m seeing a pattern to the targets here.
She’s starting to sound like a middle-class version of Alf Garnett, who was forever on about his SiL being a “Scouse git”.
I mean, okay, death threats or implied death threats, not cool, but James Bulger was so horrifically murdered, can Raven not see how utterly traumatic that is? Does she expect Fergus to say “Oh well, they served their time, they were just kids, good luck to ’em!”
And FFS, Venables has since then done time for downloading child porn. I wonder if Raven’s changed her mind since that happened.
Not to mention that EIGHT YEARS for torturing a child to death is wholly inadequate, even if the murderer was a kid.
Yeah, I’d be totally behind pointing out that vigilante justice is not OK, but making fun of a grieving parent is just not on. The more of her stuff I read there more I see a sort of sneering attitude towards people who she sees as less than herself in various ways, and when those ways include classism and regional conflicts…does feminism really need more of that? I don’t think so.