Some of the items remind me of what my brother was saying about racism the other day - he's currently having a disagreement (http://puremyth.deviantart.com/journal/5885314/) with some of the deviantART admins about their lack of action about some racist abuse over the site's private message system. On to the quote:
"Anyway, tolerating racism IS racism. There are a lot of situations in life where you hear a passing comment that you know is wrong, and you have to make a splitsecond decision to either let it go, or to take issue with it. If you take issue with it, you're going to start an argument, so sometimes it's just easier to let it go. I'm not much one for letting it go. Anyone that makes a remotely racist comment in my house does not just get criticised, they get physically ejected. I feel that I have to make up for all those people who let it go." - Jeremy Phillips, DA Journal, July 2005
Just as soon as she learns to use lj-cuts, or as soon as I get around to doing a layout that lets me show her posts as subject lines with a link to the content :)
But yes, I do wander over there every few days to see what she's written - it's decidedly deserving of an audience.
What do you think of her stance that any advice to people about (eg) not drinking to excess in the company of strangers (which I would have thought sensible advice for people of either sex) constitutes victim-blaming? I agree with most of what she says about not blaming victims, which makes it all the more frustrating when she says things that have the potential to decrease her credibility.
Just as soon as she learns to use lj-cuts, :) LOL I think you're hoping. :-)
What do you think of her stance that any advice to people about (eg) not drinking to excess in the company of strangers (which I would have thought sensible advice for people of either sex) constitutes victim-blaming? I agree with most of what she says about not blaming victims, which makes it all the more frustrating when she says things that have the potential to decrease her credibility.
I don't see your problem with it. I disagree that it decreases her credibility at all. :-) So I'm not sure what to say at this point!
Sometimes I don't agree with everything she says though. But she posts these things to make people think, not to have them just swallow what she says thoughtlessly. It's making you think, isn't it? Then I'd say her aim is being accomplished. It's making me think. It also gives me the words to use when I need them because sometimes I just don't think as clearly as she does.
I guess it was more that, having just read this thread (http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/473395.html?thread=12170547#t12170547), I could see where harmonyfb was coming from.
Her posts and the discussions that spring from them are certainly thought provoking - I think I'll be picking up words to use from both her and from some of others involved.
You'll notice that Ginmar does go off in comments like that - that's not the only time I've seen her do it. And you think every one else is completely fair and wonderful in their treatment of people?
It's her blog after all. I just like to point out she has interesting posts and views. How she handles comments and things like that, well, it's her play ground, and people are invited for as long as they play by the rules. Her rules. No one else's matter on her own blog. At least she warns people (usually) before she starts freezing or banning them. Have you read her bio yet? She also gives fair warning there.
Sometimes she goes off, sometimes she doesn't. I like the fact she's unapologetic. For too long, I've been apologetic for even feeling unacceptable emotions. Good on her for doing what she wants to.
I always enjoy both the posts from ginmar, and the arguments/fights/comments/discussions that occur afterwards. And yes, she does smack down people who don't see eye to eye sometimes. Sometimes in harder ways than others. She's been banned from various feminist communities because she'll take an argument as far as she can.
And you think every one else is completely fair and wonderful in their treatment of people?
Of course not :)
it is indeed her blog, and of course her rules apply. Yup, read the bio.
I'm amused at the banning - my brother's just been suspended from DA without any reasons given yet, but presumably over his criticisms of the site admins..
One of the best things about this post of course is that the poster understands the distinction between sex with consent and sex with consent as being clear and individually determined. A few other comments on the way have also clarified any ambiguities.
Of course, there is a body of feminist thought (thankfully small) that considers that all heterosexual sex or "insertion" of any sort is a form of rape - seriously, these people exist - and even with consent, because of the "power structures affecting mental states". In other words, social constructivism taken to an absurd conclusion.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2005-07-16 02:05 am (UTC)From:Some of the items remind me of what my brother was saying about racism the other day - he's currently having a disagreement (http://puremyth.deviantart.com/journal/5885314/) with some of the deviantART admins about their lack of action about some racist abuse over the site's private message system. On to the quote:
"Anyway, tolerating racism IS racism. There are a lot of situations in life where you hear a passing comment that you know is wrong, and you have to make a splitsecond decision to either let it go, or to take issue with it. If you take issue with it, you're going to start an argument, so sometimes it's just easier to let it go. I'm not much one for letting it go. Anyone that makes a remotely racist comment in my house does not just get criticised, they get physically ejected. I feel that I have to make up for all those people who let it go." - Jeremy Phillips, DA Journal, July 2005
no subject
Date: 2005-07-16 04:10 am (UTC)From::-)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-17 03:53 am (UTC)From:But yes, I do wander over there every few days to see what she's written - it's decidedly deserving of an audience.
What do you think of her stance that any advice to people about (eg) not drinking to excess in the company of strangers (which I would have thought sensible advice for people of either sex) constitutes victim-blaming? I agree with most of what she says about not blaming victims, which makes it all the more frustrating when she says things that have the potential to decrease her credibility.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-17 04:04 am (UTC)From:LOL
I think you're hoping.
:-)
What do you think of her stance that any advice to people about (eg) not drinking to excess in the company of strangers (which I would have thought sensible advice for people of either sex) constitutes victim-blaming? I agree with most of what she says about not blaming victims, which makes it all the more frustrating when she says things that have the potential to decrease her credibility.
I don't see your problem with it. I disagree that it decreases her credibility at all. :-) So I'm not sure what to say at this point!
Sometimes I don't agree with everything she says though. But she posts these things to make people think, not to have them just swallow what she says thoughtlessly. It's making you think, isn't it? Then I'd say her aim is being accomplished. It's making me think. It also gives me the words to use when I need them because sometimes I just don't think as clearly as she does.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-17 07:40 am (UTC)From:Her posts and the discussions that spring from them are certainly thought provoking - I think I'll be picking up words to use from both her and from some of others involved.
Happy anniversary, btw :)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-17 10:39 am (UTC)From:You'll notice that Ginmar does go off in comments like that - that's not the only time I've seen her do it. And you think every one else is completely fair and wonderful in their treatment of people?
It's her blog after all. I just like to point out she has interesting posts and views. How she handles comments and things like that, well, it's her play ground, and people are invited for as long as they play by the rules. Her rules. No one else's matter on her own blog. At least she warns people (usually) before she starts freezing or banning them. Have you read her bio yet? She also gives fair warning there.
Sometimes she goes off, sometimes she doesn't. I like the fact she's unapologetic. For too long, I've been apologetic for even feeling unacceptable emotions. Good on her for doing what she wants to.
I always enjoy both the posts from ginmar, and the arguments/fights/comments/discussions that occur afterwards. And yes, she does smack down people who don't see eye to eye sometimes. Sometimes in harder ways than others. She's been banned from various feminist communities because she'll take an argument as far as she can.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-18 06:19 am (UTC)From:Of course not :)
it is indeed her blog, and of course her rules apply. Yup, read the bio.
I'm amused at the banning - my brother's just been suspended from DA without any reasons given yet, but presumably over his criticisms of the site admins..
no subject
Date: 2005-07-16 04:27 am (UTC)From:One of the best things about this post of course is that the poster understands the distinction between sex with consent and sex with consent as being clear and individually determined. A few other comments on the way have also clarified any ambiguities.
Of course, there is a body of feminist thought (thankfully small) that considers that all heterosexual sex or "insertion" of any sort is a form of rape - seriously, these people exist - and even with consent, because of the "power structures affecting mental states". In other words, social constructivism taken to an absurd conclusion.