I put up another comment over at Hugo’s place. I am copying it here because basically I dislike having any substantive text of mine only existing in someone elses database. Anyway, go over and read it there.
My comment on my blog: p.s. The mere fact that I quote Rand will be enough to send them into a spasm. Watch and see ๐
evil_fizz: You know, this sounds suspiciously like trying to pick a fight and start a flamewar.
I don’t think so. The quote was used because it was accurate and applied to my point. The acknowledgement of how badly many extremists of the radfem community react to Rand is simply an expression of a reality. Since the extremist end of feminism overlaps strongly with anti-capitalist sentiment it is obvious that Rand will not sit well. Add in Rands views about the victim mentality and it is fairly clear things won’t go well.
That’s not a flame war attempt. It’s commentary.
Rad Geek: You know, whether this is a fair representation of what the specific folks you’re referring to say and do (I don’t think it is), you haven’t actually offered anything, other than the tone of facile sarcasm, to show that there’s anything wrong with conducting yourself like this.
Personally I think the “wrongness” of irrational hatred for a group simply based on their gender is self evident. That some of the extremists feel they have evidence of a vast anti-woman movement among men really doesn’t change the irrational part because they standards for proof are so low in that camp.
Besides, it wouldn’t be useful to discuss reasons when the whole point of the discussion in some cases here is that the use of logic and objectivity instead of emotional responses based on perceived hostility is itself an act of hostility.
In other words, any attempt at rational discussion of reality and facts is an act of anti-feminism according to the extremists. So what’s the point in offering proof or discussing it rationally?
Ampersand: I was the person who said that on Feministe (I was asking Robert to leave the thread be). Do you really think that “one of those yelling loudest” is a fair description of my posts there? I thought I was pretty restrained, under the circumstances.
My apologies Amp, I mis-remembered who made the request.
Ampersand: the best situation, therefore, is to have a variety of blog comment environments available. In my opinion.
I agree entirely. Blogs are an extension of personal domain. One of the advantages to a blog as opposed to a shared mailing list or shared forum is that specific point – as authors we get to control it.
I DO agree that ones moderation policy is also part of the content of the blog. The decisions we make in moderation do obviously tell our readers more about ourselves and our views. Some allow it wide open, others allow no comments at all… some only allow people who agree with them and others try and walk a line of open discussion. Each of these choices is communicative.
Ampersand: There’s nothing irrational about thinking hostile people are, in fact, hostile.
Of course not. The thing is to realize that this believe is not always accurate or based on anything objective. It is almost always subjective. That’s OK, subjective judgments are fine. The thing is that when someone is on the extreme end of feeling that just about everything in the world is hostile or somehow aimed at them their credibility in this regard drops dramatically.
The Gonzman: It does break from the mold and rubric, and moves out of the comfort zone of being able to slap a stereotype on and treat us as less than human, ehwot?.
Not at all. All it took was to define the very fact that your not screaming and yelling as an act of hostility. it’s a perfect circle of being able to find offense. If your uncivil then your a bad person. If your civil, your a bad person. If you disagree in any fashion, your a bad person.