@stuffisthings He actually is representative of a broader trend. Or, maybe not "trend" exactly, but tendency - the tendency that some men have to make every conversation All About Them, even when their perspectives aren't needed, wanted, or useful. Perhaps especially then. That's important and when one of the most high-profile practitioners of his extra-gross brand of exploitation leaves the Internet, we're allowed to celebrate it. Publicly speaking as a feminist when you aren't actually a feminist really is a serious problem for feminism, especially when the speaker is a dude, because by virtue of his gender he will be taken more seriously by more people who are more willing to listen to him than will any dozen actual feminists who happen to be women. It's naive at best to pretend that this doesn't happen.
I think most of us have met that guy City_Dater mentions at the top of the comments, capital-F Feminists who can't stop talking about their own feelings and thoughts and can't be bothered to listen to women or give a shit about any of us, in particular. They're constantly trying to redirect conversations to center themselves, or the Extremely Clever Points they want to make at the expense of listening or engaging on anything that might make them uncomfortable, or might mean that they have to acknowledge that a woman might know more about a particular subject than they do.
I don't mean to be a jerk, because I like your comments and think you're generally a thoughtful and interesting dude, but making jokes comparing feminists who don't like male faux-feminists who cheat on their wives, try to kill their girlfriends, and attack women of color to intraparty anti-fascist fights in the Spanish Civil War (because you...like making Spanish Civil War jokes? Even when they have nothing at all to do with the subject at hand?) is in my view not a bad illustration of that dynamic, actually.
Don't let the door try to kill in your sleep on the way out.
@kfizz Sensitive? The guy who literally just described cheating on his wife as "very off-brand for me"?
@kfizz did you have a chance to read his interview? He straight-up said that he was scared of women's anger. I'm in agreement that the patriarchy hurts all of us, but he blames his hurt on women's anger. Women's anger! Now that is some deflection.
By whizz_dumb on Friday Open Thread
I'm excited to be meeting melis tonight for the first time outside of the internet before she moves across the country. I'd say there's a 42% chance of me making an ass out of myself.
@olivebee But, like, real question: Do you believe these ghosts are the departed immaterial remains of people who've died? Or just, like, weird energy manifestations? Or what? I've always been curious about people who are otherwise mostly skeptical but believe in ghosts. If you believe they're willful, animate agents, what is the source of their apparently conscious behavior?
Ugh, through the Hairpin I got to become IRL friends with melis, and through the Atlantic I get to go to her moving away party this week. THE INTERNET GIVETH, THE INTERNET TAKETH AWAY.
@wee_ramekin That's such a nice way of putting it. But there was no vitriol at all there! Sadness for Jolie leaving, and a few boos to Jezebel maybe, but not even vitriol towards Gawker in general.
@HeyThatsMyBike & @Jolie Kerr
Man, it makes me sad that those comments were taken to be vitriolic. I just re-read that thread, and my impression was not that people were angry at Jolie, more just that they were sad that one of their favorite writers was leaving the site. Jolie, I'm sorry that you felt attacked :(.
@wee_ramekin What you said. It absolutely is our business. We're the people who come back every day and make the site money. If the site is going in a different direction, it makes a lot of sense that we would want to know about it.