Cisgender: The opposite of transgender–feeling that you have been gendered correctly, that you have been raised in the right gender and there is no serious disconnect involved.
Feminism: The international conspiracy of hairy-legged lesbians to destroy all men. Or, for those who can read, the broad social movement toward gender equality, traditionally focused on improving the traditionally-shitty lot of women in society. It is useful to note three distinct waves of feminism, as these waves are a common part of feminist discourse. The First Wave was the 19th and early-20th century movement for women’s rights that, among other things, won women the right to vote. The Second Wave arose in the 1960s in response to the stifling “feminine mystique” of the postwar era, and made great strides in economic and personal freedom for women, while being legitimately criticized for focusing too narrowly on white middle-class women, and for being overly prescriptivist in its notions of what women “should” want. The Third Wave is characterized by concern with issues of intersectionality and sex-positivity, which lead toward a broader social justice agenda of which women are an important part.
Femmephobia: The hatred, fear, and denigration of things generally coded feminine, such as softness, emotions, beauty, caretaking, gentleness, weakness, and the color pink.
Genderqueer: Refers to a person who is a gender other than the two primary genders. This person may identify as both male and female, as moving between male and female, as having no gender, as a third gender, or something else. Ozy, the comod of NSWATM, more-or-less identifies as genderqueer, though zie prefers the term nonbinary.
Good Consent: Our preferred term for what is sometimes called “enthusiastic consent”, a model for sexual consent that places primary value on both (or all) partners affirmatively consenting to whatever hijinks they are getting up to. Amazingly, this is controversial.
Kyriarchy: Somewhat newer term for the system of interlocking oppressions, both gendered and otherwise, in society. It is intended to acknowledge that different forms of oppression interact in a wide and complex system of interactions, in which a person can simultaneously be privileged in some dimensions and oppressed in others. Sometimes abbreviated as “the system of everyone oppressing everyone.”
MRA: This term stands for “Men’s Rights Advocate”, but in practice has come to refer to any of a loose coalition of groups based primarily in opposition to feminism. A few also advocate for men’s gender issues, but as antipathy toward feminism is the required ideological stance for anyone calling themselves an MRA, it is fair to regard that as their essential ideology. Many advocates for these same issues decline the MRA label for fear of being associated with the knee-jerk anti-feminism that the acronym is understood to indicate.
Myth Of Men Not Being Hot: Our rather awkward term for the broad societal assumption that men are intrinsically not attractive or sexy. It arises from a variety of sources, such as the male gaze, the assumption that all images must be presented for a male viewer. Thus, images of sexy men will often be described as “homoerotic” because it is easier to imagine the viewer as a gay man than a straight woman. It also arises from the denial of female desire: women aren’t really into sex, so of course they could never look at a man with lust. This toxic myth means that many men go their whole lives without feeling desirable or sexy, because they’ve been taught that that’s impossible.
Ozy’s Law: The principle that it is impossible to form a stereotype about one of the two primary genders without simultaneously forming a concurrent stereotype about the other. Or, more simply, misogyny mirrors misandry.
Patriarchy: Somewhat outdated term for the system of gendered oppression in society that defines gender roles and punishes those who fail to conform. Referring to the male-dominated nature of society when it was coined, it has since been criticized for implying a unidirectional oppression that fails to accurately describe the complex nature of the problem.
Privilege: The phenomenon of not experiencing a given form of oppression or marginalization, thus ensuring that you can’t understand it firsthand and can, if you wish, pretend it doesn’t even exist. Having privilege does not make you a bad person, and someone pointing it out or telling you to check your privilege is not attacking you. It just means that there are some things you don’t get, having never lived with them.
Success Object/Success Myth: Our term for the pervasive social idea that a man’s value is defined by how successful he is in money and career terms. Just as women are too often reduced to “sex objects” in society, where their value is judged in terms of their sexual attractiveness, so are men often made into “success objects”. This despicable societal myth makes it possible for a man to be a happily-married, well-loved pillar of the community with tons of friends and perfect health, and still feel like he’s a loser.
Transgender: The state of identifying as a gender different from the one a person was assigned at birth. Many trans people feel discomfort with their bodies or the way they are gendered, which is called gender dysphoria. Trans people may use surgery, hormones, or a variety of non-surgical means to cope with their gender dysphoria. It is very rude to not call a trans person by their preferred pronoun.
Zie: A gender-neutral pronoun for use in cases where “he” or “she” is not appropriate. Such cases include sentences where the gender of the subject is not known or not specified, or where the subject prefers to eschew gendered pronouns. Examples: “If a person wants to buy a hat, zie has the right to do that with zir own money.” “Ozy had better finish that post if zie knows what’s good for zir.”
I lament the demise of the singular “they.” Example: “If a person wants to buy a hat, they have the right to do that with their own money.”
@Ramesses: Singular ‘they’ is not dead! It is my preferred pronoun, for example.
@author’s of the glossary: I actually take issue with genderqueer being used as the umbrella term for non-binary genders. Genderqueer is *one* gender that is outside the gender binary and itself falls under the umbrella of non-binary gender identity. (For the record, I identify as genderqueer). Many people who are agender, bigender, neutrois, or other non-binary genders emphatically do not identify as genderqueer.
urk, I have a stray apostrophe there. I meant, of course “@authors-of-the-glossary:”
Does “zie” rhyme with “sigh” or with “see”? I’m guessing the former, but I’ve never heard anyone use it (I rarely have conversations in English).
Why were you careful to include the criticisms of Second Wavers, but include NO criticisms of the wonderful perfect Third Wavers? Let me guess: Because of course THEY GOT IT RIGHT.
How about: Third Wavers have been criticized for having their heads up their asses and mostly talking about lipstick, TV and above all, why they aren’t personally responsible for anything that happens, anytime, anywhere. Also, for getting all self-righteous about social justice although most of them act like they have never marched for anything (and how could they, in those shoes?) and look utterly terrified if you hand them a sign and scream “But I might get my PICTURE TAKEN HOLDING THIS SIGN!!!!!! MY DAD MIGHT SEEEEE ITTTT!!!!” and break into tears at the moral confusion that ensues.
I mean, I know its incomplete, but at least its a start.
Monkia: it rhymes with he and she (so, also with see).
Daizy Deadhead, your tirade about lipstick and shoes is femmemisic* in the extreme. This may come as a shock to you, but a lot of women “in those shoes” are doing a lot of great social justice work–much of which is far more effective than standing around waving signs.
A lot of people who consider themselves third-wave feminists have serious problems when it comes to acknowledging their own privilege, and their own complicity in the kyrarchy. So do a lot of people who pat themselves on the back for taking a walk with a bunch of like-minded people in some public place. If you’re judging people by their willingness to participate in pep rallies, which is all that most marches are, then you’re pretty far disconnected from reality when it comes to what constitutes effective advocacy.
Political signs are every bit as much a fashion accessory as a pair of cute shoes. Both get appreciated by people with similar taste (and either mocked or ignored by everyone else). There the similarity ends, however, because my cute shoes actually serve a functional purpose.
*I have a phobia. When triggered, I scream, shake, cry, have panic attacks, and can’t sleep for days. While I acknowledge that there might be people with an actual disability of homo- or femme-phobia, the way the terms are commonly used is ableist. The greek element -mis, meaning hatred or disgust, better serves the common meaning.
@Annalee, I’ve been wanting an alternative to -phobe for a long time (for the reasons you stated), thanks for bringing that up!
A surprisingly small number of these things have much to do with the issues men face, which seems odd, given the original purpose of this website.
Puck: The categories in general are somewhat fuzzy. There are people who identify as nonbinary but not genderqueer, genderqueer but not nonbinary, agender as a subset of genderqueer, agender not as a subset of genderqueer, and on and on… Basically I just picked the umbrella term that seemed to be most common. 😛
Ramesses: Lots of people use “they”! I use “they” when I’m writing around gender! We have to define “zie,” though, on account of it is my pronoun. 🙂
Annalee: Yeah, I am deeply uncomfortable about the ableism in the -phobics… I use them because they are commonly used and generally understood (and because I had not seen the different term, which, thank you for that 🙂 ), but I’m definitely not okay with it.
Woop: So, uh, men can’t be trans or victims of the kyriarchy or worry about good consent?
@Ozy, @Annalee: In my “discussion” with Fnord in some whatever thread about appropriate response to perceived threats and personal safety, I got the very very distinct feeling that the discourse surrounding that subject is deeply mired in ableism for the reason that it doesn’t really want to acknowledge real phobias and anxiety disorders. I wholeheartedly support getting this language changed, because there is a huge difference between something that scares you that you do/have/can not assign a moral value relative to your fear of it, and something you fear BECAUSE of your bias, hate, loathing, etc. We need to realize that “this is bad for me” does not mean “this is bad for everyone”.
An interesting issue is that homophobia might be a better word for gay panic (which can be a major psychological secondary harm to homophobic men who are raped by men) then it is for the bigoted hatred or disdain for homosexuals.
I also really like the singular they, and basically never use any other non-gendered, bigendered, or neutral pronoun unless I am quoting somebody verbatim. Although a modified form (theye is/theyere possessions/)? might be better. One reason for my preference is that using the recently constructed pronouns mark you when you use them, and sometimes it’s better to just subtly be inclusive of all genders.
@Daisy: Maybe they haven’t criticized the third wave because there is no fourth wave to criticize it from yet? Not to mention that you are sounding like the sort of person who claims to be more revolutionary than thou.
As I understand, a main problem with 3rd wave includes a ton of trouble with blindness to race privilege like in the last wave.
Annalee: your tirade
Wow… you really consider that a tirade? Goodness mercy. That was just some kidding around. I guess I need to write a real one so you will know the difference.
Speak English, hon, I don’t do trendy words until they reach critical mass, and I never heard that one. (Invented last week, one assumes.)
PS: One reason Ozy found it necessary to do a glossary is because Third Wavers constantly throw around trendy language around nobody heard of and then roll their eyes when we say “what?”
This may come as a shock to you, but a lot of women “in those shoes” are doing a lot of great social justice work
I have found that most of em show up a few times and expect a merit badge. They seem to believe social justice work is about being credentialed and getting a social justice job. In fairness, the Third Wavers I *do* especially like are the Occupiers and the Animal Rights activists, but the rest seem to prefer to attend conferences (that regular people can’t afford to attend) and talk to each other about job openings, rather than organizing the dreaded rabble.
BTW, speaking of which, you might want to ask Blackamazon and Brownfemipower, for starters, about how wonderfully inclusive the Third Wave has been in comparison to the Second Wave.
There is also a passive-aggressive streak, for instance: deleting all Second Wave guest-posts off a big feminist blog (including irreplaceable photographs of women), without even telling the author (raises hand), and totally ignoring her when she asks the reason why. Whereas the Second Wave loved confrontation, the Third Wave hides under the floorboards. Maybe the next generation will reach the happy medium.
A lot of people who consider themselves third-wave feminists have serious problems when it comes to acknowledging their own privilege, and their own complicity in the kyrarchy.
nah, go on. You mean like having expensive conferences nobody can afford to attend and then congratulating themselves on how much fun they had?
If you’re judging people by their willingness to participate in pep rallies, which is all that most marches are, then you’re pretty far disconnected from reality when it comes to what constitutes effective advocacy.
Well, I have been doing advocacy, effective and not, for 40 years. The fact that you think you can preach to me like this, tells me YOU are pretty far disconnected from reality.
And speaking of privilege, this is Jim DeMint’s old congressional district; liberal/progressive marches of any kind are still a dangerous thing to attempt in rural parts of the south without a permit. You do know this, right? Occupying houses being foreclosed on is not an easy task, and it can also get fairly dicey.
Political signs are every bit as much a fashion accessory as a pair of cute shoes.
Has somebody threatened or shoved you on account of your shoes? Really? And how many times? When did you get arrested for your shoes? Did some man ever grab your shoes and dump them into a waiting garbage can with a dramatic flourish? Did someone ever accuse you of treason and scream in your face you are going to hell for all eternity, over your shoes? WOW! I had no idea shoes were so controversial!
Please come on down to Fountain Inn, SC, tomorrow, so I can put you on my radio show–my producer is facing a $135 fine –for carrying a sign in front of the Federal Bldg. (He could get a really nice pair of shoes for that.) You can explain to him on the air, that he really had a fashion accessory. And you can tell the judge too.
Both get appreciated by people with similar taste (and either mocked or ignored by everyone else).
Has anybody pointed a shotgun at you, over a sign? How many times? You are joking with this, I hope. Otherwise, dear God, we are in some major trouble if people are this naive about the rural USA (Midwest and South). Where are you that you don’t get people screaming at you over your signs, much less threatening you?
Please do not assume the nice, well-populated, liberal area you live in, is where we all live, okay?
There the similarity ends, however, because my cute shoes actually serve a functional purpose.
So you don’t think it can be inspiring when they yell or threaten the person with the sign and the protester manages not to yell back? See, I believe it does. Their behavior is what first inspired ME.
I do not expect you to understand this, however, since you obviously have it all figured out already.
How about you come down here and give a workshop explaining how its done? Us dumb rednecks have been doing this for so long, we obviously need some young yankee Third Wavers to come down and show us the errors of our ways.
When can we expect you?
ik: Not to mention that you are sounding like the sort of person who claims to be more revolutionary than thou.
How sweet! Thanks so much for the compliment.
But really–you claim *I* am sounding more revolutionary than thou, when Annalee just told me everything us dumb Second Wave southerners are doing is wrong? Our signs are just like SHOES! Didn’t you read?
But *I* am the bad one. In addition, any work I have done in the past 40 yrs is bullshit. Just ask Annalee, she has proclaimed that my 40 yrs of political work shows I am actually disconnected from reality. (who knew?)
One thing that gets me, the Civil Rights veterans are honored, even if young people disagree with their ideology or methods now. Even if they were troublesome and widely disliked. But old feminists? Lied about, talked shit about, criticized. Not honored. I think that is what upsets me most. Women have not learned to honor their own.
I was unexpectedly overwhelmed with emotion when Patti Smith was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and I realized I could not remember another ground-breaking woman of my time that has been honored. Made me cry even more.
@Daisy: Totally behind Annalee here; I am not unbiased but that was for one very anti-feminine (hey guys you don’t need to use greek roots!) and for two just petty. The third wave really hasn’t come into its own yet but it totally has made some real gains, and conducted at least one very famous march with signs. Not to mention TONS and TONS and TONS of organizing on the internet, which has some real advantages over a demonstration in meatspace. (Or do I have to remind you that technically Ozy and Noah are third-wavers?)
I am hardcore about “they” as a singular pronoun. I use “themself” as though it’s a normal word.
“Privilege” may not be intended as an attack, but it can certainly function as one.
“anti-feminine (hey guys you don’t need to use greek roots!)”
“anti-” is Greek. Sorry, couldn’t let that one slide.
@Eli: You know what I mean. 😛
I use “ey” for unknown/unspecified gender (such as: a person, the customer)- the singular “they” occasionally yelds weird results; and “zie” specifically for people like Ozy.
Jolie: I usually call people by the pronouns they prefer, defaulting to gendered ones because those are the ones most people prefer. If someone asks me to use other pronouns, then I just do so. “Zie” and “zir” does not “feel just right” to me either – probably much like it does not for Jesus_Marley – but if people prefer to be called by those pronouns, then I really do not think that it would be very considerate of me to not do so.
An amusing subversion of gendered pronouns for people of unknown gender is used by the computer scientist Andrew Tanenbaum in his books. He consistently switches the gender every second pronoun, leading to amusing and sometimes slightly confusing sentences like “He would take her punched cards from his compiler output stack, and then she would run his program”, referring to a single hypothetical person. 🙂
Black Humor, if I think too much masculinity is bad (and I do), then I have to be honest and say I also believe too much femininity is bad. We can’t criticize one without the other; they are mirror images and make each other possible. This didn’t used to be a controversial position…. but I think many of the MRAs have a point (((gasp))) when they point out that many modern feminists criticize masculinity ruthlessly but then give traditional femininity/passivity a pass. The two developed in tandem, to “support” each other… if we believe this gender-system is now obsolete, that means the whole system is, not just the male behaviors.
If we want to ‘soften up’ men, then we also want to ‘toughen up’ women (yes, gross generalization, but you should know what I mean). If its okay for men to share their feelings, it also becomes okay for women NOT to share ours constantly or get told what ours should be (“give us a smile!”). Etc. And toxic femininity, like toxic masculinity, needs to go. Now.
The pertinent question of course, is which parts are especially toxic and which should be jettisoned.
@Daisy: “Black Humor, if I think too much masculinity is bad (and I do), then I have to be honest and say I also believe too much femininity is bad.”
For sure, significant parts of traditional femininity, for example “barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen”, require an unmentioned guy to a) marry her, b) make sufficient cash to support a very large family on his own, and c) have significant amounts of unprotected sex with her. A lot of other similar things of traditional femininity require male support as well. Which is fine if there is a guy who is willing to preform it for you, but if not we need to oppose the expectations it places on the guy.
Whenever I hear sentiments that basically say “we want to allow women to have choice, they should totally be able to choose if they want to keep the old roles” it bothers me to some degree. On one hand it might be saying, “people should get what they want, sometimes it might not be possible with the constraints of reality, but we wish for a world where it all worked out somehow”, but it always feels like the undertone is “we should change society, so its possible for a women to choose either a career or choose the traditional role..” Well I’m sorry, but the traditional role puts burdens on others. Men shouldn’t be expected to fulfill that requirement.
*Scare quotes are there for a reason. I can’t really think of a better word, or short phrase. The-role-of-career-person-and-breadwinner-without-raising-children-or-other-similar-things, was the closest, and that didn’t really work…
@Daisy: I find it amusing that when you defended the efficacy of your marches and protests, that you talked about being arrested and beaten and insulted and essentially having a hard time. And you will to destroy your enemies with Turning The Other Cheek Power. In fact, you did not defend your efficacy.
This is not to say that neither passive-aggressive coercion nor the embarrassment from violence peaceful protests are effective tools for pressuring people to submit to demands. However, your attitude confirms to me aspects of annalee’s comparison between dissident political propaganda and fashion. Not all aspects. But the comparison is confirmed.
Confrontation is not always good. Many people who describe themselves with the word revolutionary fail critically to understand this. Many who do understand still it as a choice between confrontation and conciliation. This is a naive view, more relevant to a superior or equal party than a marginal one.
I would warn you that currently, I know much more about your political ideas, assumptions, methods, and goals than you do about mine. And I don’t even know much about yours.
As to BlackAmazon and BrownFemiPower: I unfortunately haven’t read much of them, not to mention that they tend to overload my tolerance for certain things very quickly. Unfortunately, most angry criticism of the Third Wave has seemed quite vague to me. Occasionally I smell derailing. OTOH, people marginalized by race face a lot of threats other than rape, many unchallenged. So, I don’t really know what is going on and I am skeptical of both sides. It is my hope that a certain unexpected solution to racism will appear in this or the next century, and the things that form the kyriarchy will be engineered away.
On rejecting part or all of feminine/masculine system: Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. Stopping doing anything is also not intelligence. Not everything is symmetrical and even if there is a sense of symmetry to the problem, that doesn’t mean that the solution will have it.
I actually wish there was a workshop on how to do it. However, that would be very weird and unlikely to exist in real life.
@RocketFrog- clarification: this is what I tend to use sort of by default; I tend to use “zie” about people I happen to know are nonbinary/genderqueer without knowing exactly what specific pronoun they prefer used about them. If any of them makes zir preference known, I change to preferred pronoun when refering to that particular person.
Atahtlso @RocketFrog, about the subversion of gendered pronouns: social scientists quoting R.W Connell (the author who came up with the concepts of “hegemonic masculinity” and “emphasised femininity”, which, due to NSWATM you may be quite familiar with 😉 ) often face the same kinds of issues.
Connelll is male-to-female transgender. Quoting articles published in the 80’s, signed “Robert W. Connell”, while the author was “oficially” living as a man, a lot of academics choose to refer to Connell as “he”; when discussing articles published more recently (after 2001, I think) signed R.W.Connell or Raewyn Connell, everyone agrees to reffer to the author as “she”. Which can result in expressions such as “in 1987 he argued that x, but in 2002 she revised her theory”.
*also. Sorry, dubious keyboard.
ik, who as we see, knows just about everything:
@Daisy: I find it amusing that when you defended the efficacy of your marches and protests, that you talked about being arrested and beaten and insulted and essentially having a hard time.
And I guess you think all that is pretty funny, huh?
And you will to destroy your enemies with Turning The Other Cheek Power.And you will to destroy your enemies with Turning The Other Cheek Power.
I had no idea Marx said this is what we should be doing… (((reads Communist Manifesto again))) Which page is this?
In fact, you did not defend your efficacy.
That’s because history has shown me that we don’t know our efficacy until years later, of course.
This is not to say that neither passive-aggressive coercion nor the embarrassment from violence peaceful protests are effective tools for pressuring people to submit to demands.
I guess this is “iksplainin” –right?
However, your attitude confirms to me aspects of annalee’s comparison between dissident political propaganda and fashion. Not all aspects. But the comparison is confirmed.
What comparison? Huh? No college degree here, could you dumb it down please?
Confrontation is not always good.
Nah, go on.
I figured this out when I was 14. (Actually, in my 20s, after the Seabrook nuke was built and I realized our work had delayed but not stopped it.)
Many people who describe themselves with the word revolutionary fail critically to understand this.
So are you some kind of teacher or professor or professional revolutionary? You sound much smarter than ordinary people… but you obviously know and enjoy this pedantry, preaching to me about my life and ideas. (I would never presume to preach to you about yours.)
Can I ask if you are a white male?
Many who do understand still it as a choice between confrontation and conciliation. This is a naive view, more relevant to a superior or equal party than a marginal one.
You assume I do political things for some party, etc, rather than because I feel compelled and need to do them for my own peace of mind. I do things for myself and my own conscience.
But you know everything of course. DO go on.
I would warn you that currently, I know much more about your political ideas, assumptions, methods, and goals than you do about mine.
And I care about this why?
And I don’t even know much about yours.
You can say that again.
As to BlackAmazon and BrownFemiPower: I unfortunately haven’t read much of them,
This doesn’t surprise me at all.
not to mention that they tend to overload my tolerance for certain things very quickly.
Just as you are overloading my tolerance for um, splainin and arrogance very quickly, so YMMV.
So, I don’t really know what is going on
But this little fact, your total cluelessness, doesn’t stop you from endless splainin, does it?
(shakes head in amazement)
It is my hope that a certain unexpected solution to racism will appear in this or the next century, and the things that form the kyriarchy will be engineered away.
Well, there you go. History has shown us that the powerful always peacefully concede their power without a hitch.
On rejecting part or all of feminine/masculine system: Reversed stupidity is not intelligence.
Are you talking about yourself here?
Stopping doing anything is also not intelligence.
Who said it was? I am talking about common decency, not “intelligence”. All people are not intelligent, and I am talking about everyone in the world, not just the smart people.
But I don’t expect the arrogant, college-degreed splainers to get that. Concerns over morality and ethics indeed seem to be confined to us lower classes.
Not everything is symmetrical and even if there is a sense of symmetry to the problem, that doesn’t mean that the solution will have it.
But I thought you said you didn’t know what was going on? Yet you think you can opine about it anyway?
I actually wish there was a workshop on how to do it. However, that would be very weird and unlikely to exist in real life.
Thanks for playing.
Lamech: Whenever I hear sentiments that basically say “we want to allow women to have choice, they should totally be able to choose if they want to keep the old roles” it bothers me to some degree.
It bothers me a *lot*.
Okay, there, I said it.
Men aren’t allowed to “keep” their brutishness (without criticism), so women shouldn’t be allowed to “keep” the passive aggression (without criticism). I see these specific coping-methods as basically symmetrical (sorry ik, I know, I am engaging in the dreaded “reversed stupidity”–better go get Judith Butler and beat me up with her like a good college kid should) –one causes the other, and they are caught in a sort of loop. Lets stop arguing over “who started it” and agree to stop these modes of communication, period.
But you’d never get the Third Wavers to agree to that.
By contrast, it was Second Wavers who first realized the two were connected.
@Daisy: I find it amusing that when you defended the efficacy of your marches and protests, that you talked about being arrested and beaten and insulted and essentially having a hard time.
I don’t recall defending any efficacy, I specifically said EFFECTIVE AND NOT. For a college person, your reading comprehension is damned lousy.
I was arguing that a sign is not the same as shoes. Period. If you want to go further and develop this metaphor, well, that’s something else again, but I wasn’t–I was attacking her direct metaphor, which I consider a reactionary attack on progressives, extending all the way back to the Civil Rights and anti-war movements, as well as Second Wave feminists. Nobody ever beat me up for my shoes, OR my fashions. Really.
But you glide right over that little fact and assure me, in arrogant college-kid fashion, this makes her metaphor even MORE true, not less! (boggle)
This is obviously why I could never get a degree, I simply can’t swallow bullshit… and then, endless DEFENSES of bullshit. (And you PAY for it!)
Pingback: Toxic femininity? « Ed Sparrow
“Well, there you go. History has shown us that the powerful always peacefully concede their power without a hitch.”
Of course not. Unexpected, yes. Easy, no, not for everyone.
As to reversed stupidity, your comment on passive aggressiveness in femininity is completely correct. No comment about any other idea of yours in that direction.
I am in college, but I am studying how to build things that literally blow up or collapse if you use bullshit in their design. Years of training my mind for this have made me suspicious of radical politics and all movements that have names. As well as mainstream anything.
The question is probably not whether I am a white male. It might be about whether either of us will be white males in the future.
Have read Judith Butler, only a little bit. Not seeing a comparison or an enmity between you and her. My only impression was that she was ultra confusing, in a different way from how http://www.st.com/internet/com/TECHNICAL_RESOURCES/TECHNICAL_LITERATURE/REFERENCE_MANUAL/DM00031020.pdf is confusing. 3rd wavers are also sometimes confusing, in roughly this way.
ik, first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
It might be about whether either of us will be white males in the future.
Ah. Well, you can count me out.
Okay, have fun with your stratospheric nonsense that has no meaning in the real world. But as Woody Allen once famously told Christopher Walken, I am due back on Planet Earth.
A somewhat philosophical, maybe semantic, question. Regarding some of the more worn-out debates here as of lately.
Does the Kyriarchy theory also include entitlement or “priviliege” along an attractive/non-attractive axis as well?
First of all, thank you for writing this. I would like to quote it in one of my seminar essays, but do not know who to attribute the quote to. Do you have a preference of how I cite you guys as a source?
Khroma: The authors are Ozy Frantz and Noah Brand; the name of the site is No Seriously What About Teh Menz?.