Okay, okay, this is the final thought on the topic

I know I recently said this was my final thought on the silly sort of sexism that Suzanne Franks and co promote, but I just can’t resist two more things.

First, I think most people know about Poe’s Law.

Similar to Murphy’s Law, Poe’s Law concerns internet debates, particularly regarding religion or politics.

“Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”

In other words, no matter how bizarre, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

I want to extend this law to deep-end, crazy feminism. This isn’t just the regular ol’ feminism that’s all about equality and all that good jazz. I mean the real crazy stuff. I’m talking about the sort of stuff that makes for terrible sitcom caricatures of the average feminist. Some of this stuff is so far out there, it must be fake. It just must. So just as when someone declares Poe’s Law on a possible fundie, I shall henceforth declare Hawkins’ Law on fundie feminism. There’s just no way to tell if these people really believe the sort of junk they crap all over the Internet or if they’re just trolling for their own laughs.

Second, I am having a ball* reading the freak outs of one feminist.** To watch all the false bravado fall into ruins is hilarious.

*Was that sexist? Probably.

**Remember Hawkins’ Law. It’s entirely possible everyone has been duped given the high caricature toxicity.

Update: Apparently Franks is freaking out too because I won’t participate in her Internet fantasy and call her by her play name. Not as entertaining as the other caricature’s meltdown, but vaguely interesting.

About these ads

42 Responses

  1. I’m not going to get into the whole sexism debate because I’ll just get in a mess, but I would just quickly like to say that it does seem a bit rude to insistently keep using a name that Zuska doesn’t want you too. Generally if someone prefers to be called a certain name (or title) it’s polite to do so, rather to consistently refer to them by something else.

    It’s also a pseudononymous issue. OK, Zuska’s real name is on her blog, but it’s not generally known (I wasn’t aware of it before you posted!).

    It’s weird, because you’re impressively polite and well-written usually, but I’m baffled as too why you insist on calling her something she really doesn’t want to be called. I personally really don’t like my full name, and much prefer my (shorter) nickname and I must admit I would be pissed if someone continually used my full name despite repeatedly being asked not too.

  2. I was calling her Franks originally because I didn’t know anything about this Zuska business; I don’t follow bad blogs. She only insisted I call her by this Internet fantasy of hers that one time in the above link – and she did so by making petty threats (Oh no! I can’t post on her blog any longer!*).

    *I actually had already planned on making just one last post at the time when I read her comment anyway.

    Edit: I took one last look at a couple comments. It’s like each individual Hawkins’ Law feminist over there is having a conversation in her own head.

  3. If you don’t “know anything about this Zuska business” than why did you go onto *her* blog to demean *her* post? You just acted out the definition of trolling and, of course, Zuska and her friends/following got riled up. It’s like you walked into a stranger’s house, ate their food and told them it sucked.

  4. You people are incredibly dense.

    1) The fact that I said “I don’t follow bad blogs” should have indicated to you that “this Zuska business” did not reference her blog in general but rather her name specifically.

    2) I don’t know what her name references, why she likes it, or why it is important to her that strangers indulge her in her childish Internet fantasy.

    3) Her post showed up on the “Now on ScienceBlogs” link at the top of all the ScienceBlog pages.

    4) I demeaned her post because it’s fundamentally wrong. It objectifies fat people, not women. Of course, she’s welcome to go ahead and claim that all those news reports which show the mid-sections of men are also sexist if she wants to at least be consistent in her silliness.

    5) Yeah, I get what you mean about going to blogs and leaving comments. It’s so rude and absurd and just like walking into a stranger’s house.

  5. Who exactly is “you people?”

    1) (Thus Spake) ZUSKA is name of the blog so, yeah, I thought you were talking about the blog and you admit you don’t read it so what’s your point?
    2) She told you her preference re: her name, that should have been enough since you were commenting on her site.
    3) Oh, good, so you know how clicking links work.
    4) Any -ism is prejudice + institutional power. Kind of impossible for a woman (no institutional power) to be sexist to a man (institutional power).
    5) You INVITE derision.

    Also, you write like a sexist, pedantic asshat.

  6. Oo, numbers are fun.

    Pre-1) You deep-end caricatures of feminists who undermine all the good things about that philosophy. Also, more specifically, the people who post at TSZ.

    1) I guess that you shouldn’t have thought what you did.

    2) She told me after about a dozen posts. Of course, I still don’t care about indulging her Internet fantasy. But if you’re so into calling people by what they arbitrarily demand, then please refer to me as The Greatest, Least Sexist, Most Awesome, Totally Perfect Man Who Can Do and Say No Wrong. Thanks.

    3) This is the sort of thing that is all to pervasive over at TSZ. A rather straight-forward point is made but rather than address or cede it, some snide remark needs to be made. I mean, I’m all for snide remarks, don’t get me wrong. But they need substance behind them.

    4) It’s terrible for you to try and pigeon hole the definition of sexism as only possibly being a one-way street (and TSZ proves it isn’t), but I could cede that all -isms are as you say and it doesn’t make a difference. That sexism may be defined by prejudice and institutional power does not mean that you’ve shown how that CNN image is an example of that. All you’ve done is give a (bad) definition of sexism. It’s hand waving.

    5) Sure, what with all my public blog posts. I mean, Franks is entirely different in that regard.

    Post-5) Clarity is easily confused with a number of things the reader or listener wishes was there.

  7. False bravado? You altered your post and her comment to obscure your error and produce one of hers. She documented this. The whole world can read it. The only “false bravado” is you linking to the documentation, thinking that this somehow vindicates you.

    You are a coward and a hypocrite, and you lose even the pretense of acting like you’re a victim when you alter the evidence to fit your premise.

  8. I don’t know. I’m not in meltdown mode. I think that’s a win by Internet standards.

  9. You think she’s melting down? On what do you base that impression? That she made a post documenting your manipulation of her comment and the circumstances around it? I’d bet she’s laughing her ass off at you, and so is everybody who reads her blog… which now includes everybody who reads your blog.

    Way to be credible, guy.

  10. Talk about hand-waving, you keep heading back to the OP about CNN as if I came hear to tell you how wrong your position was when I only came over to tell you what a sexist asshat you are. And you posture as if you actually are The Greatest, Least Sexist, Most Awesome, Totally Perfect Man Who Can Do and Say No Wrong. Are you scared to lose a little bit of your power that you can’t ever admit to being wrong?

    You are most definitely sexist and it IS a one-way street. Maybe you could READ a little about it before you declare yourself the expert?
    I think you need some 101 (don’t bother to have a “discussion” over there, they don’t take kindly to misogynists):

    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2004/10/feminism-101.html

    Re: Post-5: That is a word salad, asshat.

  11. That CPP actually tried to make a post with content is a good indication that he’s losing it. He did say “fuck” a lot, though. Edgy!

    I am enjoying these extra hits I’m getting from all this, though. While they’re primarily coming from people who are setting up and defining a term in such a way that as long as any man for any reason disagrees with them, he must be wrong (substance be damned), it is bumping my profile in other areas on WordPress.

    Of course, now I know that’s no good because everybody (just everybody!) is laughing at me. Because you really think deep-end feminism is that bag of popcorn everyone really wants? Really?

  12. You employ so many rhetorical fallacies it would be hard to treat anything you say as serous. Any man for any reason disagrees… No. No one has said this. No one has behaved in this way.

    But it’s convenient for you to pretend that it’s the case, far easier to do so than to examine what you’re doing and see whether or not the actual objections have any merit.

    This is supposed to be some kind of science blog?

    I also find it funny that you think that “edgy” language alters the validity of a point. 2 +2 = FUCKING 4. Oh, I said a dirty word. I guess math is wrong now.

  13. Thanks, Lolwutnow, you’ve hit a point I meant to make earlier, that Hawkins couldn’t stop to think for one split second that he could be, *gasp*, wrong.

    Also, it IS really cute when anyone objects to profanity as if it completely invalidates the person and hir points. FUCK OFF.

  14. You employ so many rhetorical fallacies it would be hard to treat anything you say as serous. Any man for any reason disagrees… No. No one has said this. No one has behaved in this way.

    Really? Or how about this one?

    Mansplaining is when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do, or how you are wrong about something you are actually right about, or miscellaneous and inaccurate “facts” about something you know a hell of a lot more about than he does.

    The definition presumes the woman is already correct or already knows more than the man. That is often what is trying to be determined one way or another when two people get together for a discussion. But I know it must be convenient to whip out this trivializing term whenever one is too lazy to actually parse out a topic.

    But it’s convenient for you to pretend that it’s the case, far easier to do so than to examine what you’re doing and see whether or not the actual objections have any merit.

    Are you serious? All I’ve been doing is trying to have a discussion. Why would you possibly think making declarations and trying to define obviously sexist words would get anyone anywhere?

    The truth of the matter is I actually have been picking up on sexist attitudes and instances over the past couple days. I know, I know. You want to jump down my throat because you think I’m trying to show you just how not sexist I am right now (because you’re oblivious to the fact that this inherently would force me to just sit and nod quietly, as if there are no problems with feminism or what individual feminists may say). I’m actually not interested in demonstrating how well I fit into your deep-end in-group, high school clique. What I am interested in doing is pointing out that a fruitful discussion is possible, but not when everyone insists on carrying on these conversations they have going on in their own heads about what men are really like.

    I also find it funny that you think that “edgy” language alters the validity of a point. 2 +2 = FUCKING 4. Oh, I said a dirty word. I guess math is wrong now.

    I find it hilarious that you think I was addressing the validity of anyone’s point, especially after I posted the third point of this comment in this very thread.

  15. Thanks, Lolwutnow, you’ve hit a point I meant to make earlier, that Hawkins couldn’t stop to think for one split second that he could be, *gasp*, wrong.

    I consider that I could be wrong on nearly everything every day. In most of my posts and outside discussions, there are people willing to flesh out why I may or may not be wrong. I haven’t seen that level with you deep-enders yet.

    Also, it IS really cute when anyone objects to profanity as if it completely invalidates the person and hir points. FUCK OFF.

    It’s far cuter when someone does not realize that I have strong opinions on language and writing and I think profanity’s strength comes from its sparsity.

  16. Are you serious? All I’ve been doing is trying to have a discussion. Why would you possibly think making declarations and trying to define obviously sexist words would get anyone anywhere?

    Sir, I think what has you really confused is that you think anyone but you is interested in you’re highschool debateteam argue games. Pretty much everyone else is in this for the shear comedy gold entertainment value of mocking the living sh!t out of your object douchbaggary. Dont they have any decent f@#king wead in Maine?

  17. The Greatest, Least Sexist, Most Awesome, Totally Perfect Man Who Can Do and Say No Wrong, your great. Do you really think people dont know that Comrade MeltDown has impaccable spelling and grammer? Do you really think people are doing anything other than laughing their assess off at your hilarious antics? Do you really think that people dont understand that never touching my comments on this better-than-anything-I-can-do blog is the behavior of a perfectly reasonable man whom I am angry at for no good reason?

  18. Michael, d00d, you are giving mansplainers a bad name. If you are going to mansplain, try to do it in a way that people can follow your logic. And be a little less hysterical and whiny. Sack the fuck up and call that bitch Zuska. The way you keep obsessing over her name makes it look like you are in looooove or something. It’s so grade school. It definitely ain’t pretty.

  19. Whoa, whoa, whoa, Dick. Did you just call me “Michael”? That’s offensive. I’ve already demanded you arbitrarily call me The Greatest, Least Sexist, Most Awesome, Totally Perfect Man Who Can Do and Say No Wrong. Please respect my request. Thanks.

  20. [...] on I Have Been Wrong All AlongIsabel on I Have Been Wrong All AlongOkay, okay, this is the final thought on the topic « For the Sake of Science on Debate-Team Champeen Also A Sleazy LiarEl Picador on I Have Been Wrong All AlongEl [...]

  21. Also, d00d, I am pretty sure I pointed out to you on Jan. 25 that the bitch’s name is Zuska. http://forthesakeofscience.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/expanding-on-sexism/#comment-2398

    On your own blog here. And you responded to my comment. So, like pretending you didn’t know nuthin’ about no “Zuska” name is…uh…disingenuous, no?

  22. I was calling her Franks originally because I didn’t know anything about this Zuska business…

    Emphasis added.

  23. Okay, so by my count there are at least 4 people who have come here to tell you the many and varied ways you could be wrong and, still, you stick to your story. Where are *your* allies?

    Here, let me make this easy for you (c+p): Oh, hey everyone, Michael here, there seems to be a copious amount of scholarship on Feminist Theory (gobs of it, really) and I have to admit my grasp of the material might not be as firm as I had originally thought. I’m going to take a break from all this and do some reading at http://www.feministing.com/ and http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/ and get back to you with a better answer.

    Just read, d00d, *read*.

    Also, stop trying to make “deep-enders” happen.

  24. One thing we do know, CPP ain’t never misspelt weed in his life.

  25. carinamarie,

    Well, I only occasionally read Frank’s blog and have never seen Hawkins’ blog before this little spat. IMO, Hawkins initial response to the OP had a legitimate point. The conversation since has just been silly yet entertaining.

  26. Okay, so by my count there are at least 4 people who have come here to tell you the many and varied ways you could be wrong and, still, you stick to your story. Where are *your* allies?

    You’re right. Even though this blog got 400% more hits over the past 24 hours than it usually gets thanks to a couple feminist blogs, I should expect to have several allies supporting me if I’m right. And you’re even righter that this lack of support is evidence for your position.

    Here, let me make this easy for you (c+p): Oh, hey everyone, Michael here, there seems to be a copious amount of scholarship on Feminist Theory (gobs of it, really) and I have to admit my grasp of the material might not be as firm as I had originally thought. I’m going to take a break from all this and do some reading at http://www.feministing.com/ and http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/ and get back to you with a better answer.

    Again, you’re right. I need to know “gobs” of Feminist Theory (no lowercase lettering here!) before I can point out that most news stories on fat people will show images of their mid-sections.

  27. You keep going back to CNN but we moved on from that a long time ago or are you not ready to? Okay, well, the “fact” (quotes because your evidence is anecdotal at best) that many stories on obesity often feature prominent mid-sections doesn’t make it right but I think you know that. Bigotry is a freaking institution, after all.

    Are you scared to read any Feminist Theory? You are a student so, again, *read.* And thanks for reposting my entire comment, that was sweet.

    Asshat.

  28. A high volume of stories on fat people which prominently feature mid-sections does not make objectification okay. That is besides the point and not something that was ever raised. What was raised, however, was that this instance of objectification was directed toward fat people – just as it is done in stories about men. The focus is obesity, not sex.

    There’s this notion out there that because I’ve pointed out Franks’ terrible example of sexism that I must be sexist. The ad hominen aside, couldn’t this be settled by pointing out some other form of sexism to see what I think? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say, “Hey, look at what they have X Female Sitcom Celebrity wear in the beach scene while the guys are relatively covered. Is that sexist?” This shouldn’t be that difficult.*

    *That isn’t mansplaining. That’s one individual explaining something obvious to another individual. But you don’t like it. So I guess it is mansplaining?

  29. I officially have no idea what you’re talking about with the beach thing. If this is actual mansplaining, I think you should know that you suck at it as any effort to explain would, hopefully, dispel confusion. But your rhetoric might be to much for my ladie branez.

    Been to Shakesville or Feministing yet?

    Oh! And where is that list of feminists with whom you agree? I’ll wait here.

    Asshat.

  30. Oh Slapnuts, you are one nutted up cracker. o_O Maybe you should take a nap. That might help. I hear getting regular sleep helps the mentally ill.

  31. Oh, and I’ve liked everything you’ve said; it’s been a shit-ton of lulz this evening! (Asshat.)

  32. Are you STILL TALKING about this?

    Zuska must really have bruised your manly ego.

    Here’s a hint: just because you are still overcome with joyous awe that you have a penis, doesn’t mean the rest of the world is impressed by it.

  33. [...] by Comrade MajorMeltDown on January 28, 2010 Poor widdle Hawkd00dche is still sputtering and fuming: You’re right. Even though this blog got 400% more hits over the past 24 hours than it usually [...]

  34. Stop trying to make Hawkins’ Law happen. It just sounds stupid.

  35. Mylittleflower, yeah, for a science major, Michael doesn’t seem to know how a law is established.

    Still waiting for that list of Asshat Approved Feminists. Or have you abandoned this thread out of embarrassment?

  36. Michael Hawkins:

    Yes, really. Neither of those sites you linked to in your reply to me say that any time any man disagrees for any reason with a woman, it’s mansplaination. Nothing remotely like that. Is your reading comprehension permanently borked?

  37. I officially have no idea what you’re talking about with the beach thing. If this is actual mansplaining, I think you should know that you suck at it as any effort to explain would, hopefully, dispel confusion. But your rhetoric might be to much for my ladie branez.

    I get it. You’re having a conversation in your head with me where you think I’m saying all the things you wish I would say so you could show me just how misguided my deep, latent, even explicit sexism really is. Oh, and I wouldn’t understand the sarcasm if you didn’t intentionally misspell a couple key words each time.

    The beach example is easy to follow. Read the sentence right before it.

    …couldn’t this be settled by pointing out some other form of sexism to see what I think?

    I offered one easy example: women on sitcoms are dressed more scantily than men, especially where the opportunity presents itself (such as a beach). You can feel free to present some alternative example if you don’t like mine, but it would be helpful if you actually wanted to make a point (as opposed to declaring an opinion). Give me some example, whether a thought experiment or something real and specific. If you’re right about just how CRAZY BAD SEXIST!!! I am, then that sexism should show up in other places.

  38. LOL, you’ve proven in this thread that you are a lazy thinker, a bigoted asshat, and a disingenuous, mansplaining d00d but now you want me to quiz you?? Too much! Lulz, for serious!

    How’s the reading going?

  39. If you search “bigotry” on this blog, you’ll see where I’ve described it plenty of times. Buried somewhere is a place where I’ve even explicitly defined it. This is one version of my definition from a private conversation away from this blog.

    Bigotry, n: actively seeking or supporting the restriction of rights of an individual or group without showing how said individual or group infringe upon the rights of others.

    I suppose “agitating for the restriction of rights” could also be added in light of this deep-end, caricature ideology that goes out of its way to define things men can and cannot say if they want to be tolerated, but regardless, nothing I’ve done, said, or supported fits the above definition.

    Of course, that was a serious comment in response to someone who actually uses Internet jargon, so I don’t suspect to see much come from this.

  40. That seems to be the deep-end, caricature motif: We’ve already settled all questions and all discussion, so if anyone disagrees with us, we only need rhetoric and empty jokes. Just look at how right we always are!

  41. [...] was also the month when I was attacked by a bunch of caricature feminists. The whole issue arose over my position that a picture of two fat women on CNN was an [...]

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers

%d bloggers like this: