|
Post by Sargassosea on Jun 25, 2010 12:10:05 GMT -5
KM - I have removed myself from the membership here and this is why: I started out trying to explore why “emasculation” is such a Big Stick with men (AS A CLASS) and asking the question, “So: What is less than a man.”, using part of Cherylannhannah’s first comment (the part about steer-baiting) as a fine example of one of the ways in which men (AS A CLASS) wield this emasculation threat over each other and just what the hell that means. (As an aside: the *tiny wee-wee* “joke” that Maicde made [and took credit for!] is along the same lines - men [AS A CLASS] use penis size as a barometer of each other’s *masculinity*.) Then, I went on to agree with Humbletigger - and Bananacat - that, yes, patriarchy does hurt men (AS A CLASS) too and attempted to further bolster (by way of MacKinnon’s quote) my steer-inspired argument that this is where men (AS A CLASS) are coming from when they are vying for dominate positions within their own hierarchy; the Real Man is the one who does all the *masculine* things best, like proving that his *tools* work and that he can keep his chattel in line. In between my two comments you said this (emphases mine): “humbletigger: I get where you're coming from, and I basically agree with you. However, SargassoSea identifies as a radical feminist and quotes people like MacKinnon and Dworkin. These kinds of generalizations are sort of par for the course in this kind of feminism.
Sea, not wanting to sound patronizing here. It's just that I knew from the time you identified as a radical feminist here that there would be things that I (as another kind of feminist) would disagree with. The tendency to make sweeping generalizations about patriarchy is one of them.
On the whole, I've avoided conflict with you because I just know that I'm not going to be swayed around to the radical feminist perspective on this forum by you, and your mind won't be changed by me... So, I haven't seen the point in arguing. Plus, I know, I've not exactly been conflict-free on these boards, so I'm...avoiding conflict for the indeterminate future. I'm not arguing here either. I'm mostly just stating that... Yeah, I know we differ on a lot of issues, even to the point that many radical feminists would be uncomfortable calling me a feminist. Possibly you, possibly not.
In any case, for people who are not as familiar with the various schools of US feminism, I mostly thought it would be helpful to explain this. Me, I'm a third wave feminist.” So, fabulous! You knew that you’d have problems with me because I identify as a radical feminist? Oh no! And that making “sweeping generalizations” about ENTIRE CLASSES OF PEOPLE is not a cool thing to do? Who knew?! I wish now that I’d followed my first instinct and responded this way: You don’t sound patronizing at all. You sound rather level-headed and thoughtful to me. Thank you for *respecting me* by not assuming that I’m trying to *convert* you and then making a point of saying so. /sarcasm Instead of this way (in which I capitualated because I wasn't up for any backlash that may have headed my way): “You don’t sound patronizing at all. You sound rather level-headed and thoughtful to me.
Thank you for respecting me by not assuming that I’m trying to *convert* you.
(You aren’t trying to *convert* me though, are you?! OMG!)” ******** I’ve realized that it’s probably still not clear why I’ve resigned my membership on the forum: 1. I want, in absolutely no way, to jeopardize the integrity of the Take Heart Project and its directive. 2. I admire Vyckie’s determination to do Big Things for the world and do not want potential contributors to that goal thinking that my voice is somehow hers if it is any way deleterious. 3. I am, like, so totally used to being a pariah (of sorts) for my *unconventional/radical/crazy/thiskindoffeminism* way of being, but I will not be held up, yet again, as the Token Rad-Fem Spokesbitch here.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 25, 2010 12:52:31 GMT -5
OMG drama. I hate drama. um... what else to say? I don't really know how anyone's supposed to respond to this. Hope you feel comfortable coming back eventually? Haven't a clue. Hope you do well in all your happy internet travels away from here?
What kind of reply are you *expecting* here anyway?
And these are, of course, all rhetorical. Though those good wishes, are, of course, well wished on your behalf from me.
Edit to add: and no, I'm not going to come back later and say I meant my good wishes sarcastically, because I don't. Though I suppose if you want to read it that way this guarantee won't do any good either.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 25, 2010 13:16:51 GMT -5
Jemand! Only yours, dear, only yours! ****** And this: AS A CLASS, men make more money than do women for equitable work AS A CLASS, men are the leading cause of murder AS A CLASS, men have dominate positions in government in the USA AS A CLASS, men are the leading cause of murder for pregnant women AS A CLASS, men have dominate positions in publicly-held corporations AS A CLASS, men are the primary consumers of pornography AS A CLASS, men are the primary producers of pornography ****** AS A CLASS, women make less money for equitable work AS A CLASS, women are the least cause of murder AS A CLASS, women have subordinate positions in government in the USA AS A CLASS, women are murdered while they are pregnant (get it?) AS A CLASS, women have subordinate positions in publicly-held corporations AS A CLASS, women are the primary objects in pornography AS A CLASS, women are not the primary producers of pornography ****** Is there room within a CLASS for Individuality, and Special Circumstances? No. Freaking. Way. Full. Stop. /sarcasm
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 25, 2010 13:52:55 GMT -5
My first thought is that even though we are discussing serious subjects perhaps we should not take ourselves quite so seriously? And when the '-ists' and '-isms' of our belief systems start preventing us from relating to each other respectfully as fellow human beings then perhaps it's time to take a step back and reevaluate? So much drama. This one's a Christian, this one's Jewish, this one's Pagan, this one's an atheist, this one's a feminist (first, second, third...), this one believes aliens walk among us and this one sees unicorns in their sleep... I don't care. I really don't. Everything that we've experienced and our underlying belief systems inform all that we now are and give meaning to our lives and how we interpret them so that we can be whole people who can have these kinds of conversations about things that are important to us. Whole people. Not analyzed and deconstructed into parts so that we can determine what we are supposed to think about anything and what we predetermine the person next to us is supposed to think about anything. I’m a Christian who has a soft spot for Taoist philosophy and some feminist leanings and a love of fantasy and sci-fi which all goes to make me …Nikita. I won’t be bound by anything more than that. After a lifetime of people trying to put me in a box of ‘should thinks’ I won’t be stuffed in anyone’s box any more. I've always thought that Stephen Gaskin summed this up rather well for me: "I think each of us has a non-shirkable obligation to figure out the world on our own as best we can. The way we treat other people as a result of that investigation is our true and practiced religion. Any paint-by-numbers system that figures it out for you is an imposition on your intellect. Many people are driven crazy trying to integrate some indigestible dogma into an otherwise clean mind." I don’t want to see anyone silenced or leave. It diminishes all of us.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 25, 2010 14:06:45 GMT -5
Regarding classes of people and what they are prone to, I think each gender has its own tendencies towards certain weaknesses and character flaws that the other gender deplores. The reason we can make stereotypes is precisely because people *do* tend to act in ways that are recognizable patterns. Where I think the problem comes is when we think that the particular weakness we are prone to is not as bad as that other person's over there. THEY are much worse than we are. Kind of reminds me of motes, logs and beams in the eye.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 14:13:10 GMT -5
wuh....? Huh? I don't understand this at all. I had intended to explain to others (who might not be as well-versed in different types of feminism) that your perspective was not the only feminist one and that I had largely chosen to agree to disagree with you about various issues. I should probably go into more detail in explaining what I was trying to say because... I'm confused. I'm deliberately not wanting to argue with you despite the fact that we've both argued with others here... And that's out of respect for your role on this forum and the drama-fatigue I'm feeling in general. So, I find your decision to leave or whatever this is particularly confusing, as I wasn't even aware we'd had drama... I was trying to sort of distance myself and go, "This is one feminist position, but as another kind of feminist, I don't want those who feel alienated by this sort of statement to feel it is the only feminist position." Which I think is a relatively inoffensive thing to do. In an attempt not to derail too badly, I identified the terms "radical feminist" and "third wave feminist" in case anyone felt like googling and reading more about the topic.
I didn't assume that I disagree with you about a number of things because you identified as a radical feminist. Perhaps I gave the wrong impression about that in what I wrote. I know that I disagree with you about a number of things based on your participation in some threads here. These include: wholesale condemnation of BDSM and of pornography, and endorsements of MacKinnon and Dworkin.
I have, on the whole, chosen not to argue with you over these things because (1) I know that you are strongly invested in your opinions on these issues and (2) I am not strongly enough invested in either to spend a lot of time/energy arguing about them (And I have limited energy, and barely enough to argue about the things I care most deeply about.).
I came to feminism through transnational feminist movements in African countries (where I have lived), not through US-based feminism (which I never related to). I was not even aware of US splits in feminism until I became an adult. It's not even completely true for me to call myself a "third wave feminist" because my feminism (while largely of the opinion that what consenting adults do is none of my business) is more invested in issues like poverty and economic marginalization than in porn or BDSM. Probably identifying with "transnational/postcolonial feminism" is more accurate for me, though fewer people know what that means in US discussions of feminism. Also, I often feel pressure to fit into the radfem/sex pos dichotomy. When forced to choose, I probably agree with more positions held by the sex positive third wavers, but neither side describes concerns that have been central to me personally--or my feminism in general.
Basically, I'm kind of alienated by US-centric arguments about feminism in general, in addition to not feeling seriously invested in them. Which is why I've chosen not to get involved in arguments with you about them. Along with appreciating your role on the forum in general. These particular issues--the ones on which we diverge--are not worth the energy that it would require (for me personally) to engage. We all care about different things to various degrees, right?
I hope this clarifies where I was coming from. I hope you'll come back and read responses, and I certainly hope you'll come back to the forum. I wasn't even under the impression that there was bad blood between us, so I'm totally surprised. Anyway... I remain confused and disappointed by this. That's about it.
ETA: Edited for clarity.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 14:30:50 GMT -5
Also, Sea, I have to say that I feel that I am being dragged into an argument between you and jemand that I have not been involved in--and that I do not wish to be a part of.
Whatever feelings you may have about jemand (And I have honestly not read your arguments closely enough to have a strong opinion about them or to know much more than the fact that you've argued... And you take the radical feminist position, and jemand takes the third wave position when this happens. Did I mention about the drama fatigue? Not to mention, fatigue over US-centric arguments about feminism.)...
I have to say that it hurts my feelings that you seem to be taking this thing with jemand out on me or in some way involving me in something that appears to me to be a troubling interpersonal dynamic that exists between two people.
ETA: Even if I do tend to agree with jemand's position more often. Until now, I hadn't had issues with either one of you and thought I was peacefully existing with you both... Another reason this is so confusing for me.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 14:36:55 GMT -5
My first thought is that even though we are discussing serious subjects perhaps we should not take ourselves quite so seriously? And when the '-ists' and '-isms' of our belief systems start preventing us from relating to each other respectfully as fellow human beings then perhaps it's time to take a step back and reevaluate? I wholeheartedly agree with this. I don't want Sea to leave either. Or to be associated with causing someone to leave when I don't even have drama with that person.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 25, 2010 14:41:12 GMT -5
sorry km, but I'm about as lost as you when it comes to this, I don't really think this is my argument with sea we're talking about here.
Except apparently I was the only one she expected to post in this thread. So maybe she *does* think this has something to do with me?
Color me totally confused.
I've disagreed, a LOT with sea before, but I usually can figure out *WHAT* she's talking about, and even why, usually, even though I vigorously disagree. Here? I can't figure out what is going on at ALL.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 14:47:25 GMT -5
Also, Sea, I don't really understand the bit about feeling like a pariah. In my (in this case, I think) somewhat objective opinion, I don't feel that you've been treated that way at all. It seems to me that you've been treated with respect and goodwill, generally speaking.
I sometimes feel like a pariah on online forums. This happens when one has a strong opinion that is in opposition to the majority opinion. While this feeling sucks, I don't necessarily think it's indicative of a broader feeling that "the group" has about you (or me or whomever we're discussing). The group seems to like you on the whole, from what I've observed.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 25, 2010 15:29:06 GMT -5
Nikita - “I don’t want to see anyone silenced or leave. It diminishes all of us.” I agree and that’s exactly my point NOW because my original point was so mischaracterized by KM. And far from feeling dramatic, I feel like shit just like the other women who have left or “just shut it” because we don’t want to upset others, or for any other reason, say, like not wanting to sound like Sea or for just not wanting our asses to be chewed by someone who hasn't been careful about they way they read comments - not taking a minute, let alone a day, to think about it. I haven’t left, obviously. I’m right here as always except that I don’t have to carry a big green mantle of perceived dominance anymore; I can say just exactly what I want, when I want, the way I want to say it (just like a troll!) in this here Guest venue, right? Cherylannhannah - “Regarding classes of people and what they are prone to, I think each gender has its own tendencies towards certain weaknesses and character flaws that the other gender deplores. The reason we can make stereotypes is precisely because people *do* tend to act in ways that are recognizable patterns. Where I think the problem comes is when we think that the particular weakness we are prone to is not as bad as that other person's over there. THEY are much worse than we are. Kind of reminds me of motes, logs and beams in the eye.” Agreed, of course, yet that’s just the top of it. What I always am - and still am - trying to examine here is WHY there are “recognizable patterns” when each and every one of us is nothing but an Individual; HOW is it possible for Individuals to produce a pattern? WHO decides which recognizable behaviors are *weak*? ****** I see now that KM and Jemand have had much to say while I’ve been meticulously crafting this *rant* so, until I’ve read their bits with a fine-toothed comb…
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 15:37:27 GMT -5
Huh? I'm still confused, Sea. I tried to clarify by explaining my position more clearly. I think you misunderstood me. I can see how you might have read what I said the way you did, but you definitely did not interpret it in the way that was intended.
Far from an attempt to get you to shut up about it, it was an attempt to get me to shut up about it so I wouldn't feel tempted to get into a drawn-out argument about various kinds of feminism that would've derailed the thread.
At the same time, I just wanted to note to others that there were other kinds of feminism, that we are not all represented by one point of view, etc. That was really the whole aim of that one comment. I deeply regret that you interpreted it as you did, and you're right that I could have clarified it more meticulously. I apologize for that. I was not careful enough with the words I used, and I left too much room for interpretation.
What hurts my feelings now is your refusal to presume goodwill, and the fact that you've resorted to sarcasm. When I have never treated you this way at all.
And I write professionally, which means I have to write quickly, generally speaking... I didn't see your post until I noticed it several hours after it was sent, so it felt germane to respond with haste, particularly as I didn't even know whether or not you were reading anymore. Seemed like the most polite thing to do. I didn't want you to feel ignored (even though I missed your post for several hours b/c I rarely check the open forum).
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 25, 2010 15:39:45 GMT -5
Aw geez gimme a break until I can actually read the things you have to say?
Come on!
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 25, 2010 15:42:24 GMT -5
What I always am - and still am - trying to examine here is WHY there are “recognizable patterns” when each and every one of us is nothing but an Individual; HOW is it possible for Individuals to produce a pattern? WHO decides which recognizable behaviors are *weak*? In an earlier post you had listed things that men as a class to to women as a class, ie kill pregnant women, produce pornography, etc. I was under the impression that you didn't think these were good things and that it was men who typically had these gender based behaviors. General consensus in society seems to indicate that these are not good behaviors and as to why society believes that, you would have to dig into things like presuppositions, worldviews,etc. As to why men, as a class, behave certain ways and women, as a class, behave in other ways, despite individuality, I think neuroscience and the very definite differences one sees between the genders in the hardwiring of the brain accounts for a lot of that.
|
|
|
Post by Mergina on Jun 25, 2010 15:43:31 GMT -5
Well. Sea is not the only one who has felt that maybe it's better not to be a forum member.
I used to post under a different name, but left because atheistbb insisted on telling me what was what and attempting to delineate my own ideas for me, which doesn't work out well.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 15:45:39 GMT -5
Well. Sea is not the only one who has felt that maybe it's better not to be a forum member. I used to post under a different name, but left because atheistbb insisted on telling me what was what and attempting to delineate my own ideas for me, which doesn't work out well. And once again, I do not appreciate the fact that I am being included in a dispute that has nothing at all to do with me. ETA: One (dispute, that is), that I have no recollection of having engaged or even read at all. I miss a lot of things on this forum. I don't read/engage everything that happens. Furthermore, I probably disagree with atheistBB about just as many issues on which I diverge with Sargassosea. Among other things, I'm not an atheist. I am trying to be as clear about this as possible when I say: I am not now--and have not been--involved in the dispute that you are talking about. If this is about the atheism/theism debate, well, no I wasn't there either since I identify with neither position (as a Christian and agnostic). I do not even know where/what/when it was. I do not wish to be spoken to as if I am tag-teaming with and/or am the Same Person as jemand or atheistBB or anyone else just on the basis of being a "younger feminist." Or whatever is causing this to happen. I am an individual. I am sure I don't agree with any single person here 100% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Jun 25, 2010 16:12:11 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I did not see km's post as antagonistic toward sea, nor have I observed the two to have any ongoing dispute. This 'open letter' seemed to come totally out of the blue to me. I certainly didn't see anything escalating (or existing, for that matter) to the point where I expected someone to delete her account.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 25, 2010 17:17:16 GMT -5
Quickly, and until tomorrow when I have the time to do the meticulous comb : First - I really didn’t expect anyone to comment on this folly of mine #1 Commenter, Jemand, but thanks for completing me… Second - I am not surprised that you are confused, KM. And I really don’t mean to go completely off on you but that sweeping generalization of radical feminists as sweeping-anti-male-generalists kind of did it. You were just my *last straw* as far as the punching-bag thing goes. (You did read that bit about the Punching Bag, right?) Third - I’ll see y’all in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 17:52:05 GMT -5
And I really don’t mean to go completely off on you but that sweeping generalization of radical feminists as sweeping-anti-male-generalists kind of did it. You were just my *last straw* as far as the punching-bag thing goes. (You did read that bit about the Punching Bag, right?) Okay, but I don't see why you took it as a pile-on? When I didn't actually say anything negative about radical feminism? Or you? The fact that I disagree with some of the major ideals of radical feminism is not tantamount to saying anything negative about anyone or anything. It's simply stating, "I know I disagree with some bits of it." And I've based my knowledge of where I disagree with you based on your specific involvement in threads. Which, again... Not sure why this seems offensive? Basically, I feel like... This was nothing but me trying to be diplomatic, and being a little clumsy about it. I'm trying not to disagree with people as...loudly as I did with Vyckie's friend who posted here, and I'm also trying to stay out of conflict without keeping my mouth shut when something that really matters to me comes up. So, I think maybe... What you read in my post was maybe written in an unusual tone for me, but it was seriously... Meant in good faith, without an insult at radical feminism intended, and as gently as I could figure out how to say what I meant. It's ridiculous if you're going to let that be a "last straw." It was a simply a clumsy attempt at stating disagreement without turning anything into a pile-on and also trying to make room for other schools of feminist thought. You and I have never argued. We've always been able to respect the other's disparate views and have agreed to disagree in the past. There were no sweeping generalizations about radical feminism. No interpretations of what you believe not backed by actual data on this forum. Basically, though, I feel about as frustrated as you indicate feeling yourself at this point... And am thinking why bother, really, when it appears that I offend people in my bloody sleep, no matter how tactful and respectful I feel I'm being.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 20:18:41 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I did not see km's post as antagonistic toward sea, nor have I observed the two to have any ongoing dispute. This 'open letter' seemed to come totally out of the blue to me. I certainly didn't see anything escalating (or existing, for that matter) to the point where I expected someone to delete her account. Well, yeah, this was my interpretation of things until today as well, and it remains my interpretation of things up until today, honestly. Also felt it came totally out of the blue. I've never been involved in any of the conflicts that Sea has been involved in on NLQ. Ever. Sea, I'm honestly wondering, at this point, if you're thinking I'm someone else? Or mistaking me for some other forum member? Because you and I have simply not fought. I have never once said anything negative about radical feminists as a group on this forum either. And your sense that I want you to leave feels totally off-base. I don't. I don't want you to leave. I'm surprised that you feel this way, or that you feel that I've contributed to writing you off as a "pariah." Neither could be further from the truth. It seems like this is a simple mis-communication that doesn't deserve this kind of big announcement/Open Letter to me. A simple mis-reading of what I said that, btw, could've been easily cleared up in a simple PM or even on that particular thread. I am very disappointed that you didn't afford me the opportunity to smooth things over via either. And surprised, too. I frankly thought you were more invested in this community than that; that is/was the basis on which I have (had?) so much respect for you in the first place--that is, your commitment to this community and your support and encouragement of it. There's not much that I can say at this point. I do not accept your suggestion that something minor that I said was a last straw (when it was no kind of "straw" at all); it was barely even an expression of disagreement. I regret that I didn't state what I meant clearly enough to prevent you from associating it with a sexist and anti-feminist perspective, but it kind of ends there. And I don't take responsibility for your decision to leave. No one will ever find a harsh word between you and me anywhere on this forum. And neither have we ever so much as exchanged a PM or an email (I've never sent one to you, nor received one from you.). ETA: Given all this, it would kind of be the decent thing to do to take me out of the header here.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 21:39:38 GMT -5
AS A CLASS, men make more money than do women for equitable work AS A CLASS, men are the leading cause of murder AS A CLASS, men have dominate positions in government in the USA AS A CLASS, men are the leading cause of murder for pregnant women AS A CLASS, men have dominate positions in publicly-held corporations AS A CLASS, men are the primary consumers of pornography AS A CLASS, men are the primary producers of pornography ****** AS A CLASS, women make less money for equitable work AS A CLASS, women are the least cause of murder AS A CLASS, women have subordinate positions in government in the USA AS A CLASS, women are murdered while they are pregnant (get it?) AS A CLASS, women have subordinate positions in publicly-held corporations AS A CLASS, women are the primary objects in pornography AS A CLASS, women are not the primary producers of pornography These are pretty straightforward and uncontroversial points of fact. Have you seen them disputed here? ETA: Okay, I mean... Maybe I'd have slight qualms with some of the language you use here, but not the facts. Specifically, I have some friends who do porn. Porn is unequivocally Not My Thing and wouldn't be even if I were thin and conventionally attractive. That said, they (the friends and acquaintances) don't really see themselves as "objects" anymore than the rest of us become "objects" of capitalist growth when we work for other people. I wouldn't use that term to describe them. I would say that they can be objectified in porn, but I would not feel comfortable with unequivocally calling them "objects." Furthermore, I have a bit of a dispute with the term "class" that may be nothing more than semantic. I think you're talking about male privilege here, and it makes more sense to me to call it that. Class is associated with economic inequality, and it's certainly true that women are disproportionate members of the working poor. There are more women who are poor than men, so it makes a lot of sense to talk about class here, though not necessarily elsewhere. In any case, I don't understand the point of calling the oppression of women a full-on class issue when that muddies the waters a bit w/r/t economic class structures, and it's much simpler to speak in terms of privilege. It's not that I haven't thought about these things, Sea, or that I haven't done a lot of my own introspection and thinking. It's just that I have preferred not to argue with you on this forum. Far from trying to get you to shut up, as I said, I was trying to avoid getting into a drawn-out debate like the one I fear I'm getting into now.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 25, 2010 21:49:14 GMT -5
/long quote snippedThese are pretty straightforward and uncontroversial points of fact. Have you seen them disputed here? Well I remember a couple or three hyperventilating, pearl-clutching comments about man-bashing which I for one found a bit out there in the context of the thread. I could probably look it up, but I don't care that much.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 21:55:49 GMT -5
/long quote snippedThese are pretty straightforward and uncontroversial points of fact. Have you seen them disputed here? Well I remember a couple or three hyperventilating, pearl-clutching comments about man-bashing which I for one found a bit out there in the context of the thread. I could probably look it up, but I don't care that much. You might be right. For me, personally, I was concerned that some of the generalizing comments about men could alienate the mostly-straight, mostly-married demographic here (I belong to neither.). And I was not pearl-clutching, but speaking specifically about Maicde's (sp?) comments, not Sea's. Specifically the ableist one about being "mentally imbalanced" and the one about "small wee-wees." Mostly, I think there are more helpful--and better--ways to talk about male privilege. And I think it's important to be able to do that in a place like this without alienating people who are newly out of QF.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 21:56:20 GMT -5
But, no, I didn't read Sea's citing of the facts as man-bashing at all.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 25, 2010 22:04:29 GMT -5
Are you saying that "mentally unbalanced" is not a permitted observation? Would you prefer "loony" or do we just not talk about it?
|
|