An open thread, where at your weekend leisure, you can discuss anything you like.
165 Responses to “Long Weekend Salon (Anzac Day edition)”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Good grief. Food rationing in the United States:
TO ARMS!
Capitalists, Parsons, Politicians
Landlords, Newspaper Editors, and
Other Stay-at-home Patriots
YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU IN THE TRENCHES
WORKERS
FOLLOW YOUR MASTERS
This is worth another look.
Indeed Helen. As fresh as the day they were written. I was surprised when it said at the bottom ‘comments are currently closed’. I thought they’d been written today!
Well, one year on from the ‘Lest We Forget’ post, Jack Robertson’s words still dazzle, while JG’s are so much blumpf.
As for the idea – “To connect with this place is to feel fully Australian” – there’s something very mystically-shamanic odd in our modern secular times that spilling blood on foreign territory somehow transforms it into an extension of our land. All very dreamtime, if you ask me.
At any rate, the only place I ever feel fully Australian is out in the bush, which is another of our myths, so whoop-de-doo.
Although reading Jack’s tracts always gives me a profound sense of Australian-ness. Must be the larrikin nature of the language – his experience is to be very much part of the established order, while giving it the surreptitious finger at every opportunity – another part of the Aussie myth!
Down and Out … @ 1.
Australia doesn’t seem to be on the list of countries affected – US, Europe, Haiti, Venezuela, various African countries, etc, etc. But I would imagine it is only a matter of time. This is serious stuff, so I’m not being entirely flippant, when I say as some-one on a very low budget if it starts to affect pasta my fortnightly budget could be in deep trouble. The price of pasta has gone up, in this part of the bush, anyway. Would like to hear from other LP-ers how they think they are being affected by world food shortages, if at all.
Its quite clear governments are going to have to focus on long-term food security, under a unified international regime.
Yeah, Hardin for the win Lefty E.
BTW, anyone read Thomas Pogge? Thoughts? Just encountered him..
Oh, and re DaOiSG @1, my cousin just back from 5 years in the US tells me there’s a boom market in tents for the tent cities developing there.
I don’t think that environmentally speaking this is a good time for high international prices to encourage investment in rice production in Australia. Similarly with wheat, though maybe the most environmentally degraded land is not currently producing anything. I would be interested in the opinion of people who actually understand farming…
On the other hand, a sudden leap in rice prices might force a rationalisation of Japanese agriculture, which could result in a significant increase in Japanese rice productive capacity. In the long term I suppose that could be good for the world.
Helen,
That post you linked-to by Jack Robertson is inspiring.
Fact of the day:
The 1995 awardee of the Olympic Order of Gold for eminent contribution to Olympic Ideals
His Excellency Mr Robert Mugabe.
Here are some pics of his modest home: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article555089.ece *ahem*
SG wrote:
It isn’t so much environmental degradation causing problems, it’s the cost of fertiliser and a lack of rain. Some parts of the (incredibly productive) wheat belt in Western Australia are basically big paddocks of sand. They have relied on cheap fertiliser and regular seasonal rain to produce bumper crops of wheat with agriculture that more resembles hydroponic farming than anything else. When one or the other goes missing (or both), they won’t plant as they can’t even cover the costs of seed.
Rice is different though – it needs water in the places we usually reserve for high quality grazing (dairy etc). We have bits of land suitable for rice, but not enough water near them. Our overall problem is that water isn’t distributed in the bits of the country that could use it, but shifting the water there is either impractical or incredibly expensive.
These words below are taken from the New Zealand website, An Alternative Anzac Day Commemoration – http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/AlternativeANZACs.pdf.
For me, they completely sum up why I have never felt comfortable with the Anzac tradition – either as an Australian, as a woman or as a human being:
“Most ANZAC ceremonies around the country usually:
- only remember the men and women who served in the military
- suggest that participation in war is one of the most important things that
our ‘peace’ and ‘freedom’ are built on
- suggest that national identity is intimately connected with
religion, patriotism and war
- promote nationalism and patriotism (which are often ways of seeing our
place in the world that lead humans into conflict to ‘defend’ our nation,
ideology, culture, beliefs and values)
- do not acknowledge the role of empire and access to resources that most
international wars in the past 100 years have really been about
- do not acknowledge that ‘history belongs to the victors’ and the way
‘we’ interpret historical events will be skewed to make ‘us’ look brave,
heroic, just and right
- do not acknowledge that peace is active not passive
- do not acknowledge the cultures of violence that still pervade our society
through the media, arts, sports, religions and popular culture
- do not suggest that peace making is something we should all be involved
in at a personal, family, community, national and international level
- do not acknowledge the role that diplomats, politicians, activists,
conscientious objectors and others who have lived their lives for the
cause of peace – many being killed, wounded, ignored, mocked or
dismissed in the process of waging peace – men and women who have
sacrificed their lives in non-violently struggling to make the world a
more peaceful, free and equal place for all people.”
There was an article in the Fin Review the other day pointing out that the Australian rice crop normally feeds 40 million, so it’s absence is quite significant in the world market.
I don’t know enough to make a final judgement, but I understand that rice is a crop you don’t grow unless you have the water. With dairying, by contrast, you have to commit yourself to the cows and very expensive infrastructure and conduct your business on a perennial basis.
In the longer term, if farmers can get better profit by growing something else, or by selling their water to someone else, then that’s what will happen.
David, correct me if I’m wrong but I think that your reply kind of makes my point – if demand is driving up wheat prices, it might encourage farmers to return to wheat-farming in areas which have been suffering environmentally under current farming practices. The same for rice, which as I understand it can be very bad for the river systems near where it is grown. If increased rice prices make it feasible to draw water from further away, rice farmers can expand their crops and drain even more remote river systems than they already are.
This might be a good thing for the poor in the Phillipines if it drives down prices, but I can’t imagine it will do any favours for our environment.
Can anybody verify what is going on with Griffth’s VC? Has really been done for plagiarism about this new Islamic Centre?
Oh dear! If that’s right, then maybe Wikipedia is not the VC’s friend.
Lyn at Public Opinion has been following the story:
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/archives/opinion/2008/04/edited.php
Gotta love those European Hypocrites
wow – thats an interesting story about ian o’connor. He was a lecturer when i went through the sw faculty at UQ from 89. I hadn’t made the connection with Griffith till now.
From a distance i’ve observed some interesting and useful work thats being done to build greater understanding of moderate islam coming from the Griffith centre, which i percieve to be a good thing.
However, without knowing any more than a few sketchy details I would be rather concerned that Ian, who has/had a good understanding of social justice and human rights, would unwittingly become entangled with a country with very dubious human rights record, particularly in regard to the rights of women and children.
If its a genuine quote the Unitarian/wikipedia angle to this story is utterly bizarre.
sublime cowgirl
It seems the ABC has now read that blog and is distancing itself from O’Connor. What is going on?
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2226078.htm#comments
The real story here, of course, is that universities are always abasing themselves to donors and rarely stop to think too much about where the money’s coming from. That’s the legacy to the academy of the Howard government’s funding squeeze.
That note from the moderator on the ABC thread surely just relates to legal liability the ABC might have for an allegation against O’Connor of plagiarism, which one would imagine might be legally actionable.
Mark,
Yeah, its the semi-privatisation of unis that is the story – and how it can leads to the lowering of academic stands. If this is what has happened at Griffith.
Interestingly, Eric Hobsbsbawm, in his The Age of Revolution, describes Wahabites as Muslim puritans (p.274) who were fighting [in the 19C?} 'for the simple faith of Allah and the simple life of the herdmaan and raider against the corruption of taxes, pahas and cities;'.(p.172). He also observes that Arab nationalism, [the source of much of today's Islamic terrorism] arose out of the cities, not the nomad Wahabites, who, according to him, were mostly Bedouin.
Just sayin’.
here’s the follow up story confirming the mistake.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23600451-2702,00.htmlWhen are enough people going to realise that the vast majority oif the wheatlands of the country yield significantly less than an Iraqui farmer behind his bullock & angled stick. Last time i looked, admittedly in the 80s, OZ average yield was about 1.7 tons per acre (4.25 per Ha)just about the bottom with the average Iraqui yield 1.8 tpa(4.5 p Ha). As for grwoing rice, what sort of insane logic is to use what little water we have (highly subsidised until recently and still to a large degree)to grow a crop which at best yields about a quarter of natural rainfall asian crops?
Australian (european) agriculture is wildly inefficient, whether beef, mutton or grains, but because of the vast acreages available to abuse this rerality is not recognised.
It became something of a cliche during the height of the recent drought to watch some whining cockie complaining that his stock/crops are failing whilst in the background mobs of roos bound happily.
Tis passing strange, apparently, that Ovis & Bovis don’t do well on 98% of this landmass yet macropods are more numerous now than in 1770 due to provision of surface water where once there was none.
As for that methane thingy, roo’s produce none and could provide carnivores with cholesterol free flesh to rend.
Sorry to cross-thread on you Mark, but I take issue with that because an avowed antifeminist announcing his guilty pleasure at friction in the feminist blogosphere is not light-hearted to me. It was deliberately inflammatory. Telling people not to respond in kind is rather unfair unless you direct the same frowning at him, which you weren’t.
This is your blog. I respect the intent of the thread. I am pissed off, but I will wear it.
Oi vey- in case that came off as some sneaky kind of thing, I didn’t want to post it on the Sunday thread so took it to the thread you suggested. You know me- trying to be polite but muttering mutinously all the way.
su, I’m not aware of SG either being male or being an “avowed anti-feminist” so perhaps there’s some back story and context I’m also unaware of.
Ps – thanks for taking discussion to this thread. I should point out that we also don’t normally discuss moderation decisions publicly – but I thought I’d make an exception on that one – for reasons which I think I made relatively clear.
Possibly. A couple of threadsworth. Keep your nose to the Phd grindstone, it isn’t a huge deal.
Ok cool. You’ve sucked me back into the blogosphere for the moment though and am writing a post! But don’t worry – the PhD related book I was reading was exacerbating my flu headache! 11pm must be knock off time I reckon even for theses with a June deadline!
Commiserations. And to Casey too and anyone else on the last legs of a thesis. Drove my sister and brother temporarily barmy from lack of sleep.
Thanks, su!
A lot of the lack of sleep comes from writing it in your head at 2am! It’s that horrible choice between getting up and actually writing it down and going to sleep and potentially forgetting the *great new idea* and all the quotes, words, phrases, etc. Some sort of cyberpunk style download jack would be an immense aid to research students everywhere I feel!
(Not discussing the moderation decision here – when I’m civilly told to shove off, I shove off – but making the actual point I was trying to make.)
Reading/representing the acute-on-chronic storm in the feminist/women’s blogosphere as being about Feministe, Pandagon, and Twisty reproduces the exact problem that the storm is about. Three white-woman-headed blogs being placed at the centre.
And I’ve got no idea why any reasonable non-antifeminist should crow about getting any sort of pleasure out of watching it. Real people are badly hurt, for real reasons. How is that fun?
If anyone who considers themself as outside feminism is trying to assume that the problem of ingrained racism is somehow confined to feminism, or worse in feminism than anywhere else, you need to look in the mirror. Feminist spaces are actually talking about it, and that’s a damn sight better than most ‘places’.
Just to let people know, use of the word “moderation” catches you in the moderation filter. To discourage debates about moderation.
I agree with most of that, Lauredhel, but would you agree that the way those debates are being conducted is very particular to the US and American culture? Just askin…
To make a long story short, racism in Australia doesn’t mean the same thing it does in the US.
As far as I could tell, anyway, there were some resonances to the particular way the American debate about the inclusion of women of colour in feminism was played out in Australia in the 90s, but I don’t see the same concerns being expressed regarding Indigenous women in the same way, and the category “women of colour” isn’t used (or wouldn’t be particularly meaningful if used) in the Australian context. Just as “Asian women” means something very different in the UK.
While there are some real issues at stake that ought to be in play here, there’s also a lot more going on – about inter-blog hierarchisation and the restaging of some old antagonisms with added affect – that make the debates very local rather than global imho.
“Regarding”, or “by”? That one word holds a big part of what I’m trying to express here. Why are there few concerns being expressed BY Indigenous women in the Australian blogosphere?
The conversations don’t play out in the same way here, but the reasons for that aren’t that the same issues don’t exist here, they’re that there are very, very, very few women of colour (I recognise the USAn origin, but have no better term right now) in the Australian blogosphere. If you can name more than three, one of them being Fire Fly, I’ll be impressed. If you can name one Aboriginal woman blogger, just one, you’re way ahead of most people.
The issues, however, about being talked ‘about’ rather than being talked ‘with’, about othering, about invisible racism and the ways in which white privilege plays out, are very much here at home. If there are few protests and discussions about it, it’s not because the discussions aren’t there to be had. And yes, I’m including myself in this.
Australian feminists join in USAn-centred race/feminism discussions because that’s where the discussions are, not because that’s where the racism is.
Not in the UK or Canada for instance? I wonder. Or is it where the action seems to be?
That’s my question, too.
But it’s not just about numbers. And who has a blog. You have to be attentive to different styles of talking and relating. A hyper-individualist American culture – black and white – is going to take to this medium in a way that a lot of Australians don’t, and Australian Indigenous cultures are very different indeed from American cultures.
No, I don’t think so. It’s here to be sure but the way it plays out is very different indeed and hardly analogous. The understanding of Indigenous culture is markedly different, the history’s different, multiculturalism has had its own effects, etc, etc. But basically our manner of understanding and speaking and analysing is different.
I’d much prefer to see the Australian blogosphere analyse these sorts of issues in terms of our own culture. I have an abhorrence of the idea that social structures and problems in America are directly translatable to ours. They aren’t. Hence we get the absurd culture wars, but we also get a diversion of political energies which might have more impact if applied locally rather than in the US. The US isn’t “global”. Talk “with” and talk “about” aren’t incompatible. You have to start a conversation to find an interlocutor. The ethical choices and decisions that need to be made, and thought and talked through, are a lot more complex than the grooves of identity politics and standpoint epistemology that characterise US discussions. The way those discussions play out is wholly predictable because their conditions of possibility prevent an open discourse, rather than enable it – because it collapses all too quickly into claims about the right to speak, and the false dichotomy speak/spoken, and then doesn’t get resolved politically but morally – through apologies, acknowledgements, recognition, etc. In fact a lot of the scrutinising of the self for “hidden racism” is a disavowal of the real work that racism does – and the damage it does to the ability to enunciate and find a speaking position which enables political movement rather than restarts yet another cycle of identity claims, boundary policing, etc.
Indigenous Australians who want to have a yarn aren’t hard to find. Maybe they don’t have blogs, but maybe that’s not the point. And some times they want us to step out of the way, but it’s useful to ask.
And there’s talking “about” on the side of the Other too. Othering works both ways. You can’t have dichotomies without an assertion on both sides. One of the reasons I like reading Twisty is that she gets all this in a sense that very few of the other Americans do – their understanding of structure is very shallow, as is their understanding of class and privilege generally. Because they’re really quite unable to transcend a white American way of looking at the world.
We’ve occasionally linked to blogs like Brownfemipower here, btw. But generally I think almost all American blogs are a massive waste of time from our point of view. They’ve got an allure, I think, because of a sense that it’s all happening over there. Maybe it is, but its impact on anything happening here is minimal, or counter-productive, and our impact on what happens over there is a waste of energy, I believe.
That’s not meant to be critical of you or anyone else. It’s an observation. Whether anyone wants to take note of it is entirely their choice.
I also have the feeling that the politics of race – and discourse about and between “races” – is far more intractable in America than it could potentially be here. I’ve been involved in anti-racist politics in this city for a very long time – a couple of decades. I still have a lot more hope that we can get somewhere than the Yanks are likely to, if we’re aware of the specificities of what goes on right here in our backyard, and don’t get tempted by alluring big time stuff over a pond somewhere else. It’s not as though we’re anything other than a drop in the ocean in that context in any case. I really do feel strongly that one needs to focus on what’s immediate and local if one wants to have any effectiveness.
A caveat to all that would be that the structures of sexism generally are more common between Australia and America than those of race, but even there, in a lot of instances I don’t see a lot of the grounding of the discourse in rights claims rather than in collective action as being all that useful for people in this country. To the degree that we focus more on rights claims, and less on collective action to reconfigure gender relations, then I reckon we’re all headed down a big dead end. The story of issues like pay equity in this country – a lot more won by union and feminist struggle than legal recognition – should be an object lesson.
I’m sorry if that sounds like a lecture – it’s honestly not intended to, but I’m conscious that it might come across that way. Wasn’t meant to be an essay either!
It does feel like a lecture, but you knew that already.
Since it’s addressed at me personally, if you’re interested in why I engage with the USAn femiblogosphere more than I do the Australian “progressive” political blogosphere? It’s because I, as a feminist and as a woman, just plain don’t feel welcome here. For months, every time I venture over to LP, I have to put up iron defences up before coming, and I fully expect to see antifeminist, anti-woman sexist shit all over the place. And I’m pretty much never disappointed.
Forget my post, or whatever. I really don’t have the energy right now, and I shouldn’t have continued something I’m probably not going to carry through on. I’m not well and am on edge right now after reading all the plucky-courageous-hero-mascot shit in the Bone thread, and it’s bleeding over the way I’m talking about this as well. If you want to talk about this by email, I’m here.
Mark, I think su has decided I am “anti-feminist” because I happened to mention once that sexual assault on Japanese trains has been declining, and over-stated in western media reports. Or because I object to the use of the empty phrase “objectification”. I certainly hope su hasn’t decided that I am avowedly anti-feminist because I don’t like Twisty’s blog.
I’m amused by the characterisation of comments about alcohol or tattoos (I can only assume it is that) as “wittering” (Helen) or “wankery” (su) when they are presented on a “lazy sunday afternoon” thread. The thread opens with the reminder that we cannot live by politics alone, and attempts to discuss anything personal attract scorn and sneers…? This is cheap, and highly ironic from so-called “feminists”.
For those who are interested in a response (which I presume is no-one) I get a guilty pleasure from reading this blog bustup because a) it is so terribly counterproductive, so watching it is like watching an accident happen and b) it is such a clear reminder of how shallow American politics and the American left can be. It really has nothing to do with feminism or women. I was interested to hear local opinions and raised it in what I hoped was a casual way – and yes Lauredhel I was using the pandagon/feministe contrast as a shorthand, as Mark said.
As for Twisty – this is a woman (I assume it’s a woman) who only recently discovered that the banana industry oppresses third world farmers, and felt the need to write a terribly didactic post on the matter, telling all us innocent naive kiddies the benefit of her great wisdom. A woman who presents child abuse in Aboriginal communities as an Australian problem completely ignorant of any comment on the racial issues contained therein, as if she’s doing the world a favour. A woman who sneers and condescends to young women more thoroughly and viciously than any 50-something man could ever manage to do, and certainly more than I ever have or would do. Her scorn for women who enjoy having sex with men is palpable. If ever women needed a reason to hate feminism, Twisty is the woman to give it to them. And she is like that nasty little man in Asterix, whenever she rears her ugly head her sycophantic fans become scornful and sneering, as evidenced by Helen’s comments here (see above) – the green eyed monster follows her around. She has nothing to add to an argument that couldn’t be achieved by tipping a bucket of puke on the anatagonists.
And in conclusion, no I am not an “avowed anti-feminist”. But I like to hope I have little time for wankers, and there is some prime bullshit being paraded in some of the comments I missed over the last 2 days.
Speaking as a young woman, SG? (again) I would say you know a lot about sneering and condescending because your salon comments and the above fairly drip with it.
Just someone who takes pleasure in painful arguments amongst them, drops snide remarks about them and pleads to be spared feminist analyses.
lauredhel, SG, su, this exchange shouldn’t have happened here after Mark’s comment at 39. I’m closing the thread until he get’s back.
Sorry for an old bloke’s confusion. I was rushing off to a doctor’s appointment. I thought we were on the Lazy Sunday thread. So I’ve opened it again.
FWIW I think that discussing feminist issues in a relatively open context is almost impossible. A couple of years ago on this blog I made a comment which I thought was supportive and got firmly ticked off by the thread-owner (no longer with us, but someone I respect) and was accused of presuming to speak for the young woman who was subject of the post (not true) and hence silencing her voice.
The net effect of that was to silence mine, and while I have since read many of such posts I don’t think I’ve ever commented again. I decided I’d only do so in the company of people I know and only face-to-face so I could be aware of their body language.
I’m truly sorry if lauredhel doesn’t feel welcome, but I haven’t read enough of the recent threads to make a comment.
I’m amused by the characterisation of comments about alcohol or tattoos (I can only assume it is that) as “wittering” (Helen) or “wankery” (su) when they are presented on a “lazy sunday afternoon” thread. …
That is true, SG, however I’m a commenter – as others will know – who always (until now) knows not to post anything controversial in a Lazy Sunday thread. However, I was really knocked sideways / off balance by seeing your comment about Twisty. I don’t often see, well I have really never seen, a comment on a blog along the lines of “Ah gosh I hate XXX’s blog, he/she is so superior etc etc.” While Twisty may well come across that way to you (and I guess some guys can’t handle the fact that she is a gay radical feminist, but many get over it and participate happily in the discussion), I just don’t get the value of making a bald statement like that. What good does it do? How is it interesting, or valuable? There’s a blog that most people here *cough* dislike, but we don’t come out with bald statements of “Jeez, I hate that B. Liar’s blog.” If you have your own blog, then make some argument against one or more of Twisty’s on some topic, but that sentence just stood out like a sore thumb of incivility for no purpose.
If I were to come out with a naked sentence like “Gosh, my Brother in law’s a tool”, it would be true, but would it be of any value or interest to the reader?
Sorry to be a derailer, Mark. I’ll go back to the Lazy Sunday thing (if I ever manage to have a lazy Sunday
)
As I indicated before, I don’t think describing SG’s comment as “wankery” got any of this off to a particularly good start, and I’ve already made the point about the context of that thread. SG’s not being awfully helpful either by returning the compliment.
Lauredhel, believe it or not, I was trying to be helpful with my comments on how race manifests itself differently in the US. It just does, and I don’t think that asserting otherwise changes that. It’s something I know about as a sociologist.
I’m happy to make the assumption that you’re a person who wants to act to bring about change in the world in good faith, and I’ve offered my two cents worth on where I think such efforts might be best directed. Perhaps that’s not for me to say, but it’s not unusual to say it, I think, in the context of a discussion of political action. FWIW, I’m not suggesting that you or others should spend your time engaging here, although personally I’d like it if you did. I’m sorry if you don’t find it welcoming, I’ve always enjoyed and welcomed your contributions, but there’s not a lot that I can do about that.
And FWIW, I don’t think that this blog is full of “antifeminist, anti-women shit”. As far as I’m aware, we’ve all always tried to work towards the contrary. I didn’t find SG’s comments about behaviour on Japanese trains etc. to be that myself, and I think those issues were pretty well thrashed out on that thread.
What I’d prefer to see is an expansion of the Australian feminist blogosphere and a concentration on building its momentum and reach and dealing with issues that engage us in this culture. I really don’t think it’s controversial to suggest that might be more effective than a diversion of energy into reproducing and intervening in American debates.
I don’t think it would be productive for me to engage in further discussion of particular American bloggers.
I’d close by saying that a bit of civility in the face of disagreement is a good thing all round.
Helen, crossed.
No probs – maybe it’s for the best that these issues get talked out.
Also, re Helen’s point, generally I think it is best to avoid discussion of other people’s blogs. It rarely takes us down a good path.
The posts are never that way, and most commenters are not either but enough are to make the comment threads frequently full of it IMO. It is like wading through an acid bath at times and I’m surprised you don’t see it. Hardly a week goes by when someone doesn’t drop the humourless prude references. The very first comment on the Bone thread for example. The comments on the Peta thread were awash with the same kind of bull. Someone very recently jokingly typed a performer’s surname so that it sounded like a common derogatory word for prostitute. I notice these things because they bite. My stomach falls each time I come across yet another example. I’m not saying that stuff should be moderated but I am sure that you see what kind of effect this may have on some women reading it.
I am a bit surprised that you do not see that SG was being deliberately inflammatory. He wasn’t returning the compliment, he’d already had a bit of a dig. We either ignore the constant stream of backhanders, putdowns and insults (SG was kind enough to make insulting comments about my male friends on Robert Merkel’s thread), disengage completely, or get a little uncivil ourselves in what is an unpleasant environment (I agree with Lauredhel on this). I still think that incivility is being noticed in some cases and let by in others but I apologize for calling SG a wanker. Sorry SG.
I read all of your comments on the harassment thread and found them all interesting and insightful, Brian (and have followed up on the links you left because that is a real area of interest for me, and ties in with my studies). I don’t think falling silent is the answer either. I am really quite happy for people to disagree with me violently or pull me up on my tone because, despite appearances, my opinions are constantly shifting or refining on the basis of what other people say- especially those in furious disagreement. I only ask that if someone takes a swipe, that I am not obliged to go silent. That is not helpful. Also I kind of like a bit of conflict but I certainly don’t want to be disruptive. There you go. Probably should take a break now.
su, most of the time, I don’t have the time to read all the comments threads. I don’t recall having looked much at the PETA thread at all, for instance.
I’m sick with the flu at the moment so I’m on here more than I might otherwise be. I’d be genuinely very grateful if anyone who saw anything they thought was misogynistic emailed us to alert us.
Ps – I did see the Jackie O comment and I was going to respond, which I’ve just done.
We really have tried pretty hard over the years to try to make this a good place to chat for all sorts of folks. Maybe this should be a bit of a wake up call to all of us to take more time to consider what sorts of remarks might discourage the broadest possible participation.
I just wrote a long, carefully worded comment on all this and then deleted the lot, because I didn’t feel like putting up with the sexist/misogynist/barking hostility I knew it would evoke from certain well-worn commenters. I rarely if ever find the actual posts ‘antifeminist, anti-women’, but the real problem is in the comments threads: that you’re stuck between the rock of anti-m*deration and the hard place of femmobolshos who have better things to do than get into pointless and unwinnable bingles.
Well once again, Dr Cat, I really do think it would be great if people felt free to say what they like. We don’t, I think, tend to do as much moderation as we used to, for a whole range of reasons (time being a big one), so any assistance in pointing to what might be considered objectionable and discouraging of participation would be most welcome indeed.
You’ll note that not 100% or 50% or even 25% of my posts are about stuff that happens in the USA that doesn’t happen here. My feminism and my friends and networks are, however, there as well as here. (Unsurprising given that I have lived there twice and have a huge number of friends there; my identity is not unalloyed “Australian”.) Both of us also are making strong efforts to link and network with the growing (and very high quality may I say) Australian femiblogosphere.
The rest of it – your dismissal of standpoint theory and identity politics as useless and “unhelpful” and so on – is really hard for me to interpret in any way other than “you’re doing feminism wrong”, which is, very obviously, completely unhelpful in itself. With an added spicy little kick that it’s a man telling a disabled woman that standpoint theory has nothing to offer, when it’s the cornerstone of my feminism/(growing) disability activism. (That you have not acknowledged that there was potentially anything problematic with that bothers me.)
In return, I’ve offered you something I think is very important, albeit difficult to hear, information about the space that is being created and held right here, about a “progressive” space that feels feminist-hostile, and I’ve got a “shrug, bad luck, nothing we can do” response. By that I’m reading that you believe your (individual? collective?) efforts and energy are best directed elsewhere. If that was intended to help me feel _more_ welcome, it’s not having that effect.
Sorry, Mark, our earlier comments crossed. Re assistance — erm, what if I send you a nice email …?
(After I come home from teaching.)
Lauredhel, if I’ve offended you in any way, then I apologise. I was really just trying to state my own point of view with regard to political efficacy. It’s not intended to be dismissive of anyone else’s, and I’ve tried to take some care to convey that. Perhaps not enough. I’m very sorry if that’s the case.
Standpoint epistemology has its uses, but it also does certain things – it makes it more difficult, in my view, to achieve a resolution of some of the underlying grievances and issues, and to form a common political position that facilitates both the recognition and acknowledgement of difference and the creation of a fairer society. I’m not trying to be flip. I’ve honestly been wrestling with such issues in terms of thinking and talking about them and puzzling out how they effect political efficacy and ethical discourse for a very long time.
I think you’re misreading what I’ve said regarding discussion here. I’m genuinely concerned. That’s why I’m saying that this interchange might be a very useful wake up call for us. Because of both time constraints and the desire to allow – to the fullest extent possible consistent with open participation – reasonably free discussion, it’s not been possible for us to micro-moderate the joint. That’s why I’m saying we would very much welcome any guidance and assistance in that regard. I also don’t know to what degree others share your view that this is a “feminist hostile” space. The contrary has been stated by a number of people on several occasions, and it’s very far from my intentions that it should be in any way hostile, because I’ve long tried to practice a pro-feminist politics.
I’d also appeal to you to have another read of what I’ve been writing perhaps without some of the preconceptions that the context has generated.
I won’t be able to participate further in this discussion for a while, because I have a doctor’s appointment.
Crossed again!
Sure, thanks. Please forgive me if I don’t get back to you immediately, though. I’m crook and off to see my gp, and I’m probably going to turn this computer thing off and not turn it back on again for some time so I can get on with being sick.
“I think maybe the Chaser should adopt an open source approach to their disruption of the Popefest, joe2!”
Indeed, the freedom to dress up for all, should be enshrined in any bill of rights.
However, you would not want to rock the boat too much. Five Public Opinions
http://fivepublicopinions.wordpress.com/
alerted me to this story…
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/vatican-beckons-for-bruiser-pell/2008/04/24/1208743154323.html?page=2
Hell, George Pell is needed at H.Q.
This is a movement you would not want to clog up.
joe2, are you on the right thread?
And Mark, congratulations on arranging an appointment with a gp.
A bit like winning tattslotto, these days.
Get well soon.
We’ve got heaps of gp centres in this neck of the woods, joe2. Just none that bulk bill. That’s inner city livin for ya.
“joe2, are you on the right thread?”
I hope so Kim. I just moved over to the general thread because my comments about the Popefest seemed to be going off topic, there.
Cheers.
Here’s my two cents worth on the race/feminism question.
Speaking as an Australian/American citizen, who’s lived on both sides of the Pacific as an adult, I’d endorse the point about race. The sorts of discussions going on in the US femiblogosphere do reflect a big difference from what happens here. There is this big tension between recognition and common political action – and it tends to slide very quickly down the slope towards the former. It’s pretty negative for everyone. The whole plight of the US left and American feminism is on display in those sorts of stoushes – and it is about individualism and identity work much more than formulating a negotiated and common position which engages with the broader society in an attempt to change it. Part of the problem also is that there is no broader society in any real sense. Either disengagement or carving out self-reflecting communities of the same. I’ve said over and over again with reference to Obama that identity politics in the US is positively poisonous. Manipulation, rights talk, loud denunciation – it’s all happening over there.
Imho, Feministing shows how it can be done – but also the limitations of what common ground can be summoned up in a deeply fractured landscape.
I really hope we never get to the point they’ve got over there over here.
What we need are more movements like “queer” – blurring the boundaries and finding common points of identification while remaining open to difference but constructing the resources for action. That’s originally what American feminism was about. Standpoint theory does have its uses, but speaking as someone with a disability who’s also a feminist, the two standpoints are not identical, and there are other aspects of my identity which – if I choose to regard myself in that way – create tensions and cross-pressures. We’re all better off, I reckon, starting from where we see the world and then extrapolating to how others see it. It’s a better result to change minds rather than reinforce identities that have their own traps and limitations. Other-directed in all directions is the ideal. Lots of complications, of course, but that’s where I think we should be coming from.
On this blog, I’m also limited in the time I can spend in moderation. But I would point out that sometimes it’s useful to point out to people who make dodgy comments why they are dodgy. Sometimes it’s not. But I’d certainly endorse any initiative to wards making this a place where as many people of good will as possible can feel comfortable. Having said that, it’s good to stretch your comfort zones a little, as well, but rudeness, denigration and incivility shouldn’t be part and parcel of that.
“On this blog, I’m also limited in the time I can spend in moderation. But I would point out that sometimes it’s useful to point out to people who make dodgy comments why they are dodgy. Sometimes it’s not. But I’d certainly endorse any initiative to wards making this a place where as many people of good will as possible can feel comfortable. Having said that, it’s good to stretch your comfort zones a little, as well, but rudeness, denigration and incivility shouldn’t be part and parcel of that.”
Sounds good to me.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is “standpoint theory”?
Try wiki, Darlene:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_feminism
There’s probably a better definition on the intertubes somewhere, but that might do in the absence of hunting around too much!
Lauredhel: “For months, every time I venture over to LP, I have to put up iron defences up before coming,”
Pavlov’s Cat: “Just wrote a long, carefully worded comment on all this and then deleted the lot, because I didn’t feel like putting up with the sexist/misogynist/barking hostility I knew it would evoke from certain well-worn commenters”.
Su: “The posts are never that way, and most commenters are not either but enough are to make the comment threads frequently full of it IMO. It is like wading through an acid bath at times and I’m surprised you don’t see it”
I agree with these three statements Mark. I also see less and less of the women I really admire commenting and posting these days.
Mark I hope you get better.
Well, casey, can you suggest how that could be turned around?
We have decided to throw a couple of well-worn commenters in the spam bin, btw, as a result of this discussion.
I’m assuming, in asking that question, that those making these points would like to see things change. I think it’s useful to remember that there’s not some big thing called “LP” that isn’t malleable or responsive, but that we’re all in this together, and if we want to make it work for all of us, we all need to work on that.
Also, it should always be remembered that people adjust and vary their posting and commenting according to a whole range of factors – enthusiasm, time, other commitments, etc. Plus we all get sick of it all occasionally I think, and then get another burst of enthusiasm. But I don’t think there’s a straight line between a perceived absence of one or more voices and some political shift or whatever.
I always want to read more Anna Winter and tigtog, but think they’ve got other demands on their time.
On standpoint theory, Darlene, casey would remember her and my hydra-headed nemesis who was an example of this taken to its extremes: “You are not x or y and therefore you can’t speak for me.” Now that’s true. But it doesn’t mean that you might not be able to speak about problems you identify in common, without any disagreement being perceived as an attack, a sleight on the authenticity and wholeness of that identity, etc. The weaker version has great value – there are different ways of looking at the world shaped by where you stand in the world. The thing is, though, to build bridges across them. It shouldn’t be used to refuse critical reason and debate, but to enhance it.
The problem in the US is a tendency that’s always been there in American culture – having a lot to do with its colonial and religious origins. The tendency to create ever more fissiparous ideal(ised) communities of the same, and refuse to participate in common institutions. You can see that in the bizarre home schooling movement, but you can see it too in the demands on the California history curriculum for x% of class time to be spent on discussing the perspective of ethnic group y according to its exact representation in the population. It becomes absurd, because politics is displaced into the demand for recognition, and any wider social formation is just collapsed into a range of isolated and internally riven ideal communities – because you can’t actually live like this (just as an Italian-American, or as a person with a disability, or as a seperatist lesbian, or whatever) without doing real damage to yourself through subsuming your whole persona in one politicised aspect. It’s totally antithetical to any real movement for social change, because it denies the social bond.
In the current stoush in the US, you don’t get any politics as such because it gets displaced onto individuals asserting a certain identity. People are called upon to do ethical work on themselves, becoming more vigilant for the markers of privilege, and to apologise, make reparations, acknowledge and accord recognition. All this leaves the Other firmly in place as an Other. It gets people precisely nowhere towards any democratic form of negotiating and debating and resolving differences in order to adopt a common position which could genuinely challenge the structures which create privilege and problematise difference in the first place. In fact it reinforces those structures through the effective assertion that “race” is an essential quality, even though that’s in theory denied. The practical effect is to say that talking about race belongs as a particular domain to those from the Other race, and the implications of that are obvious. It also creates – in those who transgress this commandment – what Nietzsche called ressentiment. It goes nowhere towards holding out any hope of change.
That’s why I have a problem with identity politics.
I agree Kim. The danger is that you cut yourself off from any constructive dialogue with those outside your group. Which, as you say, is self-defeating politically.
It can work for people up to a point, wbb, as a personal or lifestyle choice. Only up to a point. But that’s so much of what the US is about – not politics.
“We’ve got heaps of gp centres in this neck of the woods, joe2. Just none that bulk bill. That’s inner city livin for ya.”
Kim, that, of course, is the deal almost everywhere. You pay the dollars, up front, after having sat around in a surgery for an hour or two, then need to queue up again to get the bloody money back.
And they wonder why the punters have opted for personal medication techniques.
Not everywhere in the outer suburbs or regions, joe2. The deal there is that you can’t even find a gp that you can see when you’re actually sick rather than in 2 months’ time let alone one that bulk bills.
That is why I didn’t really think that harder moderation was practical and perhaps not desirable. I feel like I have one of three options; wear it and ignore the overt sexist comments, the subtle and not so subtle digs and smackdowns, disengage, or kick back. I did the first for a long time after I began reading here, but I feel that that is hugely problematic and just perpetuates the same old crappy situation. Numbing out in the face of misogyny is situation normal. Number three is not working out either, clearly.
If there are other options that don’t involve allowing sexist stuff to go unchallenged then I would like to know. Playing ‘reasonable’ when others sling around stereotypical antifeminist slurs is not an option either. I think that plays straight back into typically gendered roles of peace-keeping and straight-talking. On the other hand, I understand that you don’t want it to degenerate but (and I know I am repeating myself) I detect a significant difference in the attitude towards borderline insult from the dudes and from the not dudes.
We don’t always know who’s a dude and who’s a dudette, su.
Every time there’s ever been a concern about moderation on this blog right from the start, there’s always a perception that different rules are applied. I think there’s a fair bit of perception in that, depending on what one doesn’t like. Because the truth is that most of the time rules aren’t applied at all, because we don’t have full time moderators, and it’s really a matter of what catches someone’s eye when it’s on a thread. I think the best way of proceeding is the suggestion that when something appears to have crossed the line, for an email to be sent to the moderators. It may not be that we’ll always agree, but at least we’ll know, and hopefully everyone will also know that that option exists and moderate themselves accordingly.
As I said before, we’ve already consigned some of those I think Dr Cat was alluding to as the worst offenders/usual suspects to the permanent purgatory where they swim with the spam in response to this discussion.
There’s no easy answer to these things as you’ll never please all the people all the time, and there are diverse ways to approach comments. One way isn’t necessarily better than the other (no one way of being a feminist either, I might add).
It’s interesting to read this thread, and I say that as someone who is not supporting the view that this blog has anti-feminist tendencies or think that you have to wear an armour to read the darn thing (gosh knows, there are plenty of times when we’ve been accused of being feminazis and the rest).
It’s instructive and helpful to learn that some people find the comments threads “unfriendly”. I have always had a hands-off policy when it comes to comments because life’s too short and the world is diverse and being called a “luvvie” is the least of my worries. However, I should take other people’s feelings into account more, so I will endeavour to view comments more critically and moderate accordingly – albeit moderately (with the time constraints we all have).
As for the admirable nature or not of certain female bloggers, well, all I can suggest is that if anyone isn’t happy with the product, pitch in and have a go.
Yes, I can see that you are right about perception, Kim.
Thanks to you and Mark for discussing this.
Well, thank you su, too. I’m mostly with Darlene – different people have different levels of tolerance and different things get up different people’s goat, but it is really useful to know all this, and to work out a way we can act on it to make everyone’s LP experience better.
All the nice kids, that is. Those who don’t use “luvvie” as an epithet.
well, when I made my throwaway comment about the controversy I hadn’t envisaged any particular responses, but if I had been interested in seeing a discussion about it on LP this would have been exactly what I would have asked for – a comparison of political styles in the two countries without getting bogged down in the specifics of the particular debate. I don’t know much about this stuff but I am really suspicious about identity politics as it appears to be done in the US and what I saw on Pandagon/feministe seems to be a good example of where that stuff leads (leavened with a good dose of internet flamewar stupidity, of course).
I can see that my comment about a certain blog must have stuck out like a sore thumb, and shan’t say further on the matter. I understand Helen’s point about not raising anything controversial on lazy sunday threads too, but I didn’t really realise I was. And I am kind of satisfied with the result since I got some rather erudite theorising from Mark and Kim, which is what we come here to read, right?
As for your assertions, su, I can only ask that you give me my apparent anti-feminism the benefit of the doubt for a little longer. Or at least try to remember that those of us men who believe men cannot be feminists are still able to have a sympathetic view of some aspects of feminism and criticise others, and just because we disagree with yours that doesn’t necessarily make us anti-feminist. But in the meantime you will never have to apologise for calling me a wanker, which I undoubtedly am. Which is probably why I was posting tattoo and alcohol-related wankery on the lazy sunday thread.
I feel it should be pointed out here that the spaminator also occasionally takes against our most delightful commentors on occasion for occult reasons of its own. If you are not a disruptive commentor and you find yourself consigned to the spam bin, blame the Akismet-bot please, and shoot us an email.
Thanks for that SG. Hopefully this has been a useful exercise in clarifying where people are coming from, erudition aside.
I should add, SG, that I hope my analysis of the US scene is drawn from experience and not just teh theorisin’. There was a reason (well a few actually) I decided to move back here. Others will have a different take, but I think what I was trying to do was elaborate on some of Mark’s points about race and culture by adding my own reflections drawn from being involved in stuff in California.
Those sorts of things are also among the reasons why I hope no one gets too excited about Obama. The American “power structure”, or elites, or ruling class if you like give very little ground to any progressive movement, and the Democrats at the top are in those ranks. Although I wouldn’t take a Marxist line, there’s some truth in the claim that the US has two capitalist parties.
What really makes me cry in despair is how progressive folks in the US constantly reinforce the traps the culture lays in wait. But culture is a very powerful thing, and American culture in particular. It’s a very weird joint.
A little off topic, but its my reasonably extensive reading of American revolutionary history that has confirmed my suspicions about republicanism which is one of the reasons I’m an anti-republican, though by no stretch of the imagination a monarchist.
I’d be interested to know what you’re thinking of, Paul. The tendencies towards a suspicion of any common purpose and extreme anti-statism were certainly there. Also the reaction against “faction”. The anti-democratic nature of US republicanism too.
This review essay by Tom Mertes in New Left Review is very good background for anyone trying to understand contemporary US politics:
http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2710
In the longer view, like Kim, I trace a lot of what I find negative (and a lot of what I find positive too) about American culture to the voluntarist reaction against state establishment of religion which led to the various exoduses in the 17th century. That’s where you get both the intense insistence on moral self-fashioning and the tendency to split apart into small communities. Race as an overlay works with that grain, because African-Americans share a lot of the Americanist ideology (and here histories of the civil war and reconstruction are very interesting).
Oh and on the moderation thing, su, I’m glad we had this discussion. Hopefully it will help us to move forward.
Thanks to all those wishing me better health! I’ve been to the doc, been packed home with some antibiotics and told to rest and stay away from work til Monday. Secondary infection from the flu. Yuck!
Thanks for that discussion about identity politics.
I am going to print it out and take it home and read it.
Identity politics can be very prescriptive and proscriptive, but it still has its uses.
Maybe Darlene you have hit on a big difference between the US and Australian political environment with that last sentence. “It still has its uses” seems to be an idea more commonly applied in the social democratic world than the world of US politics. There seems to be much more of an inclination to pure theory or ideology in the latter.
For feminism this means a combination of ideology, personal relations (feminism being often about the personal) and moral judgement which seems very toxic. There seems to be less of this in Australian public politics, and I’m sure we’re all better for it.
Only at LP could a feminism stoush turn out so satisfactorily.
This is a pretty neat distillation what keeps me coming here – teh wimmins, lively debate, engaged and responsive admin, weighty issues, and above all the capacity for reasonableness in the face of disagreement.
Well played everyone.
Coming straight after another antifeminism slam by SG, and knowing that you haven’t canvassed the people involved, a declaration of “satisfactory” outcome seems premature to me.
Honestly, lauredhel, I don’t see how what SG wrote could in any way be fairly characterised as an “antifeminism-slam”. If feminism to you means a sort of wounded identity where any intervention (particularly by a male) that even mildly criticises or questions the premises of the feminist project/s is characterised as misogynist and/or personally hurtful, then you and I aren’t living in the same world. It seems to me that your manner of discussion parallels almost exactly what I was being critical of in previous comments. That being the case, I doubt very much we have much to say to each other since I don’t intend to tread on eggshells when you appear to take anything that departs from your conception of what’s appropriate as a personal attack. I’m sorry, but that’s how it seems to me.
Note as well, that’s not a personal attack. But it appears to me that the conditions of possibility of having a conversation with you that would not be characterised by personalising and taking personally what I want to say don’t exist, for whatever reason. That’s a pity.
Kim:
Also there’s a difference between misogynist – hating a woman just for being a woman – and not liking a woman for her political views or unethical/criminal behaviour.
“Just because someone’s a member of a minority doesn’t mean they’re not a nasty small-minded little jerk.”
– Feet of Clay, Terry Pratchett
He ascribed characteristics to feminism as a whole and described it as “very toxic”. That sounds like a slam to me. If SG means to ascribe characteristics to only some parts of feminism then SG ought to make efforts to write in a more nuanced fashion.
As I read it, tigtog, the reference was to feminism in the context of the sorts of negative features of American politics and culture that I’ve been outlining. I think that’s clear from the first paragraph. Maybe it’s not expressed as clearly as it should be, but the intent is clear to me.
I think a basic condition of any sort of ethics of reading is to look for cues as to tone and context. SG, as I read the context, wasn’t trying to slam, but to comment, and referring back to a previous discussion.
What I don’t think we need is a race to jump to conclusions about the intent of every comment. That’s really destructive of participation and freedom of expression, which isn’t just a one way street obviously. I’m sure you’d agree. Perhaps it’s understandable that those conclusions are being made in the context of a discussion that’s obviously emotional. But I think we owe it to ourselves to pause and think before we do take a jump.
In fact, rereading the comment, it seems to be summarising a lot of what I had to say about what I see as the toxicities of strong versions of identity politics in the American cultural context. And I’m certainly not trying to do an “anti-feminism slam” but rather to point out what I see as unproductive about the strategies and cultures of the prevailing views and practices in US feminism (and politics more generally) and what I hope we can avoid in Australia.
Let me add that I’m often guilty of reading too quickly and jumping to conclusions myself. In the spirit of what Darlene said, I’m gonna try to be more careful from now on.
Apologies for yet another comment, but there’s one more thing I wanted to get off my chest.
I’ve been thinking about this and one area where I get really annoyed is the constant anti-Christian stuff – without any discrimination as to different types of belief and faith and often couched in extremely offensive terms. Going back to what su said in terms of different options, I’ve tended to give up on even trying to get my point of view across except when I’m really riled, and then it hasn’t always come out in the right way because I’m really riled. So it would be wrong to think that it’s just comments perceived as misogynist or antifeminist that are at issue. Mark used to post a lot about religion which is one of his big interests. I’ve noticed that he doesn’t any more. That’s probably because any sensible attempt to raise issues is often drowned out by bleh. I really do think we all owe it to each other to think about all this stuff – in all its manifestations – and how it works against constructive engagement and open discussion.
Ok, enough thread hogging. I’m outa here.
“As for the admirable nature or not of certain female bloggers, well, all I can suggest is that if anyone isn’t happy with the product, pitch in and have a go.”
I presume you are addressing me. If so, spare me the didactic response and leave out the thinly veiled sarcasm please. There was no “or not” in my original comment. I very much admire Tigtog, Anna Winter, Laura, Kate, Weather girl etcb. But thats all over it seems, you, Kim and Tigtog aside. If you disagree with my admiration of female bloggers that I have not read in a while, then say so without conflating the “or not” with my comment – that one is yours. I made a valid point. You are the only female blogger from the LP collective regularly posting these days. Tigtog only occasionally and Kim only a little more regularly (and Im thankful for that). That says something as far as Im concerned. Kim, you asked what to do – I am for affirmative action in regards to this. I like affirmative action. More women blogging on LP.
“I’ve been thinking about this and one area where I get really annoyed is the constant – without any discrimination as to different types of belief and faith and often couched in extremely offensive terms.”
Kim, can you give any examples of this “anti-Christian stuff” that you refer?
Quite frankly, i think there is a good modicum of respect and disrespect for all religions on this blog.
Please tell what has pissed you off.
Kim [99] and Mark too:
Please please do not give up on discussing religion [or any other topic for that matter] …. even if you do find you have become the starring attraction at tonight’s Auto da Fe’. Where else but on Larvatus Prodeo would we find an intelligent discussion of fiddle-back chastibles and papal footwear in make-him-go-faster racing red?
Paul Burns [85]:
Hey, check out the long-enduring Venetian Republic and other equally imperfect republics in history. And check out some successful modern republics too: Finland, Ireland, Singapore, Costa Rica, India.
That’s true and I am quite guilty of that but then I do have to say it is a reaction to rather less than open discussions I’ve been subjected to in the past in the name of Christianity. Just sayin’.
Yes, Kim. I was one who used to couch my anti-religious position with a surfeit of glib offensiveness. It was an habitual rudeness that had grown like a moral carbuncle.
Gradually, after much exposure to other viewpoints, my problem has eased.
casey at 100, I think Darlene was referring to whether people found Twisty Faster admirable, which was what started the whole thing off. I’m not sure how that affects the premise of your post, and like I said, I want to read more Anna Winter and tigtog, but I’m pretty sure she wasn’t addressing you or discussing female bloggers on LP.
I might be wrong, though. I dunno. I don’t think Darlene has internet at home so we might have to wait til tomorrow to find out.
Kim, I’m sure you’re trying to pour oil on troubled waters here, but my first reaction was extremely negative to a perceived patronising tone, and although I want to overcome it because it’s you, it’s hard going.
The context for this is that every time su or lauredhel has criticised SG’s statements they have essentially been shut down. The tone here is SG being repeatedly snide about feminism and then backing away from it with claims of being misread, yet SG can phrase commentary on other matters precisely enough.
It’s hard not to see a bias here.
joe2, just about everything silkworm has ever said when he’s discussed Christianity.
Well if I have misread Darlene then I apologise to Darlene.
But I would still like to see more women blogging as part of the collective here.
tigtog, I am trying to pour oil on troubled waters.
But to be frank, I don’t agree that any comment that criticises feminism is out of the ballpark. Just as I don’t agree that any comment that criticises Christianity is. It has a lot to do with intent and nuance, and maybe there is nuance in SG’s comments that I’m not picking up, which might account for my reaction, and also my frustration with some of the comments here. If that’s the case, and if I’ve lost it a bit, I’m really sorry. I’m not finding this discussion easy going.
I’ll just call for general niceness again, and try to practice what I preach!
Me too, casey.
I’m sure if there are any applicants, we’d be happy to interview them!
I suspect that the fact that some of the men who blog here are able to devote more time to it consistently than some of the women is explicable via a rather simple gender analysis btw!
Thanks for that reminder. (and I hope I didn’t slip into offensive territory when discussing ID because I was trying to make it just about that project, not christianity or religion in general.)
At some point I would like to hear anyone’s thoughts on positionality, which I read about in a Linda Martin Alcoff article. I understand it differs from standpoint theory but I don’t have the theory background to see it in context.
Yes but Kim, regarding Silkworm, you must admit, its quite an extraordinary talent to read any post about anything ever posted on LP ever as a covert attempt to support religion – any religion. all the time. any post. any year. Just pick one. Silkworm will be in it muttering about religion. He’s so cute. Hitler the christian was gold. But his tour de force was of course the torch relay and the evils of the Dalai Lama. Thats when I knew he was really quite a genius.
( should have refreshed my browser, sorry; I was responding to Kim @ 99 and the discussion has moved on!)
Oh Lordy yes, casey.
su, I think positionality is pretty neatly summed up here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-self/
If I could parse that a bit, the problem with strong standpoint theory is that it tends to dissolve a collective identity into individual identifications.
For instance, I could indentify as bisexual, queer or lesbian on one axis, as disabled or differently abled or an amputee on another, as American or Australian on another, as Catholic or descended from Marranos on another, as a woman and as a human being on yet another. All are aspects of my identity, and all are positions I negotiate – I think the emphasis here is on negotiation. If I privilege one over all the others, I both tend to lose sight of what holds me together, and also I lose the ability to act in common and discuss with others.
I’m not sure if that makes sense?
But there’s another aspect to this – what I’m also resisting is the positioning that’s done to me by others.
Casey, to be fair to silkworm, he’s got a thing for Catholics in particular, and it’s a *very* long way from cute. Sectarianism’s an ugly festering sore on Australian society, and covering it up with a general atheism doesn’t fool anyone.
Though I’ve nothing constructive to add to the discussion of feminism(s), I *would* like to join the chorus demanding to see more of the all-seeing Eye of Winter. So you have a job? Your audience demands you bludge from it and post your thoughts here, Anna.
Word, Liamista.
silky is a very Protestant atheist.
I want haz more loud denunciations of the Rev. Ian Paisley!
Sorry I took the comment as a personal slight, Casey. I just read it and went off half-cocked. I’m a bit stressed about other things at the moment (and I had acting class tonight so I was probably being dramatic all day in preparation). Also, I thought you were inferring that it was my fault that other women weren’t blogging (of course, canuse it’s all about me, me, me, me, me
. And I was very hurt by that. So, I’ve made a dingleberry of myself.
Apologies and I would like to see more women blogging as well. I don’t know who Twisty Faster is. I honestly don’t get the chance to read many blogs, feminist or otherwise. I don’t feel like I’m posting that much (once or twice a week, I thought), but perhaps when it seems like more…I don’t know. I’m tired and can feel one of those pesky migraines coming on. Anyway, I’ve made a silly bugger of myself. Ahhh, blogging can be so much fun (have we had a call from The Age yet, Kim?)
Sorry Darlene I think I snuffed out your chances by rubbishing their op/eds and Sam & the City too often! Oh well, it’s the price we pay for being the independent meejah!
Well I am sorry that you felt hurt. I really meant that there should be more like you and Tigtog and Kim. Honest there was no other inference other than there are not enough of you.
I dont know what a dingleberry is but it sounds like a delicious fruit. er, Not that you are a fruit though……oh fuck it, Im going to shut up now. I hope your headache gets better and you become a world famous actor, renowned for your interpretations of Ibsen’s Hedda. Or at least a gig on Neighbours. A commercial for softly tissues? Anyway, let us know.
Liam: When I say “cute”, I really mean ” I cannot believe this genius just interpreted a thread about climate change as a discussion on the hidden evils of the vatican, or whatever it is he gets out of any various thread.” But thats too long. So, you know, its shorthand for wtfx25,0000.
tigtog at 95, I don’t see the word “toxic” on this page at all.
Sorry I’m drunk right now (another farewell party, goddamn it) so not qualified to comment but I don’t think I said “toxic” anywhere.
Please explain?
You did at 89, SG.
Let’s just leave it though, hey?
I’m the person who started it by referring to exaggerated forms of identity politics and some (but not all) forms of discussion and practice in American politics (which also find their reflection in some (but not all) forms of … etc. in American feminist politics) as toxic. Maybe it was a dumb choice of words on my part. I’ve been known to do that.
Be nice if we could all start with a clean slate and move forward.
More of Kim’s “if only we could all be nice together” gospel!
The “find” function in my browser quickly located it for me at comment #89, SG.
Like I said, tigtog, I was the first to use it, and the context was what I said before about being really distressed at the way I see so much good passion trapped into unfruitful paths and discussions. But like I also just said, it was a dumb and possibly inflammatory choice of words, and I wish I had chosen better.
[apologies Kim - our comments crossed - ~ tigtog]
oh look I did too… I must have been using the special search function for drunk people. That post (89) clearly is about American identity politics, not about feminism specifically. Since feminism concerns itself with the personal, personal judgements intrude into political discussion and when combined with unwaveringly ideological viewpoints and moral judgements, this can be nasty. Because Australian politics is not so consumed with ideology, it seems that it functions better to me. This is not a comment on feminism.
That was the point of 89. I hope I put it better when I’m drunk.
I think you did, SG. Thanks for clarifying.
I am not so sure the issues of the U.S. feminist blogosphere is not directly relevant to Australia. The main difference a I see it, and others have noted, is that there are very few indigenous women bloggers so the dynamic of blog wars has not erupted. However Aboriginal women academics have certainly raised these issues, e.g. Aileen Moreton Robinson who says in her book “Talkin’ Up to the White Woman: Indigenous Women and Feminism”, UQP, 2000
http://reviews.media-culture.org.au/words/waking-c.html
“Whiteness remains invisible in these analyses because these women have a consciousness that they live in gendered bodies, but they do not have a consciousness that they live in racialised bodies. Fundamentally this is because they construct their oppression in opposition to white men on the basis of gender. White middle-class feminists utilise race privilege to write about their gendered oppression, but whiteness remains invisible, unnamed and unmarked in their work. The values and assumptions that make whiteness invisible, unnamed and unmarked to white people in society are enmeshed in the epistemology and knowledges with which white feminists work (42-43).
Moreton Robinson’s (and many others) point about the invisibility of whiteness is of course relevant to all progressive social movements, not just feminism. Australia’s socialist movement has been particularly ethnocentric, creating a standard of racial equality as equal with the white man. The history, rights and interests of Aboriginal men and women have been invisible to the trade union movement, Even during the highpoint of union support for equal pay for Aborigines, Aborigines were defined as workers, not landowners and the consequence of the anti-racist equal wages campaign was the mass disspossesion of Aboriginal people from their land into town camps and welfare dependency.
Just sayin that so you dont think I was having a dig at feminism.
Wot? The punchup’s over?
You mean I’ve donned this Brian Blessed “Flash Gordon” leather codpiece and flight harness system only to arrive too late?
*stands around awkwardly. Wings flap in desultory manner like a drunken crow*
Hmm…yes…well…quite seasonable weather, hey? How about the Pies?…ummm…
*Exeunt, pursued by a bear*
Pies? Tomato sauce? Is that a footie thing?
John, I agree with Moreton-Robinson about the repression of and blindness to whiteness, but something different is going on than in the US. I’d have to read the book to see if she teases this out more, but I don’t see anything in that that goes to the particularity of Australian discourses of race. It seems to me to be a standared re-statement of a prevalent view articulated in American theory. You might find it interesting to consult British authors on this issue – for instance Lynne Segal, who’s an Australian expat. In Britain, as I think was mentioned earlier on this thread, “Asian women” are the referent against which whiteness in this context is defined or disavowed. In the British context, my own olive skin and Portuguese/Jewish ancestry gives me a different set of positionings within both social structures generally and feminist circles in particular than it does here or than it did when I lived for 6 years in the States.
I’d be more interested and convinced if Moreton-Robinson had turned her attention to Native American women, which is a much better parallel because there the absolute forgetting and erasure characteristic of far too much of the treatment of Indigenous people in Australian culture is comparable. Perhaps she does later in the book, but that passage doesn’t convince me. There’s a different shaping to it all here – multiculturalism, original and prior Indigenous possession, and settler mentalities.
I also think your construction of “invisibility” does an injustice to some women in Brisbane whose names I could mention, but won’t, because I don’t want to do so just to make a point. The middle-class/working-class tension which was so important to these analyses with regard to Black and white women in the US doesn’t play out in the same way here, not at all. Nor is there the history and the relationship to the land in the US.
You yourself have pointed to “women’s business” and other cultural patterns and norms in Indigenous societies on other occasions, and Mark referred earlier to different understandings of self and negotiation in Indigenous cultures. It’s worth recognising that whitefella culture in this country is not American culture, and theorising and working from a standpoint that tries to make sense of what is here and what’s gone on here rather than looking to America. That’s my argument, at any rate.
And now I’m going to go to sleep.
On the Marcotte stuff, comprehensive outline of what went on, and some discussion from Deborah, a NZ blogger newly moved to Australia:
http://inastrangeland.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/whats-a-white-woman-to-say/
She notes the different patterns of race and gender history in America and New Zealand in the course of her commentary.
And a perspective from a “a South Asian Australian woman who problematically identifies as queer, feminist, Hindu, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist.”:
http://shewhostumbles.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/the-revolution-will-not-be-published/
My comment at #127 crossed with your #126, Kim. I wasn’t repeating the information to be bloodyminded, I just didn’t see that you’d already provided it.
Kim,
I am a bit confused by your dismissal of Aileen Moreton Robinson’s perspective as relevant to Australia. (or did I misread you?) I did mention earlier that she was an Aboriginal academic. She is from from Brisbane.
The woman of colour (BFP?) at the centre of the U.S. controversy is an indigenous woman. The line drawn between Mexico and North America is a colonial imposition, a key pillar of her perspective along with the sexualisation of border control.
I have not read any African American Feminist perspective on the issue but the perspective of BFP(?), is, I believe, very relevant to the Australian situation – not just on questions of appropriation and non-acknowledgement which she seems less concerned about, but more importantly the structural barriers to women (and people) of colour from engaging with white feminist (or environmental, political or community) organisations and agendas despite these organisations rejecting racism and proclaiming solidarity with the excluded ones. e.g. the Seal press in the U.S.
I know there are less publicised paralells in Australia (that i wont gossip about) which is why my attention was drawn to the discussion, I don’t make a habit of surfing feminist blogs usually..
John Tracey: “The line drawn between Mexico and North America is a colonial imposition…”
No it isn’t. That’s an exceedingly stupid, silly thing to say. It’s also an anti-intellectual and anti-historical thing to say, as well as being an un-intellectual and non-historical thing to say.
It’s also racist, for good measure, — gracious heavens, would you believe the things that you kids get up to these days.
Which is as much to propose is, (well whaddaya know?) It’s a leftist thing to say.
I guess us sane people just wouldn’t understand.
Bfp’s main concern, as I read it, was that talking about immigration purely from the non-immigrant perspective, without an explicit inclusion of the history of the work of immigrant people on that very issue meant that people from that set of communities might be deterred from engaging with immigration politics. And that it was therefore a lost opportunity. It was nothing at all to do with simple citation, nor was it solely or even primarily about feminism.
And I would think that that wide angle view is very relevant to Australia.
(Side, possibly irrelevant note: SG said, “personal judgements intrude into political discussion”. Don’t personal judgements form an integral part of all political discussion. To say otherwise would seem to be subscribing to the myth of the purely objective view. Isn’t the problem rigidity of perspective rather than the intrusion of the personal? When saying that the personal is political, I would argue that feminists articulated something about all political discussion, not just feminism.)
Casey, I resigned from LP late last year, but I wish Anna would post more here (or somewhere, anywhere) too.
su re: your side note, yes the personal should intrude into the political beyond the realm of feminism. In fact the last time on LP that I was involved in a serious discussion of the personal as political – the PETA thread – we were in almost equally contentious ground, and a lot of non-vegetarians’ complains about the issue seemed to be “you can’t tell me what to do”. Whenever judgements about peoples’ personal behaviour enter the political debate things turn nasty. But in the case of feminism the personal judgements in question tend to have a lot to do with our behaviour towards other human beings (e.g. re: patronising women, choice of language) and/or in the area of sex, so they tend to get quite a lot more personal than “oh, you should install solar panels” or “you should drive less.” (And sparks fly when “safe” topics like climate change come around to debates about personal decisions too).
I get the sense that, as if this weren’t enough of a minefield, in the US these judgements about others’ actions seem to be tied in with judgements about their identity and the identity of their antagonists, along with that peculiar level of moral outrage which accompanies US discourse. And then there is the tendency of a lot of American political commentators of all stripes to be ideological, so their moral judgement is being made from some kind of “objective” theory of everything. Often with a religious or anti-religious basis. It’s a nasty mix, methinks.
No worries, tigtog.
John, that’s the thing – I was thinking the book illustration was central to it. I came in on the end. I think we’re talking about different aspects of a very complicated stoush. But as I said, I don’t think it’s particularly useful to intervene in it or comment on the whole thing from this distance.
I think some of this has to do with a certain shock that there really is no such thing as politics-free space. To take the example of sexual politics, historically men objected to the loss of a domain (the domestic one not just in relation to sex itself) in which they had maintained an effective dictatorship, often not a benevolent one. To be accountable and made to negotiate beyond those restricted limits not only with those sharing that domestic space, but with the rest of society was considered an affront.
A guess you could say the same for the ethical arguments about vegetarianism and animal rights. Sometimes people resort to “it’s my choice, I will do what I like”, not seeing that that is not an argument but a refusal to allow argument to intrude upon their personal practice.
I don’t know a lot about the US but the sad thing in this recent debate was that what I consider the central point ( Bfp’s), was very quickly diffused into claims about citation. And I guess that what Mark and Kim were saying was that the divisiveness of identity politics is at the root of it. Trouble is that on-the- ground activism often has some kind of identity politics as an organizing principle because it is a very solid basis for drawing membership.
That’s well said, su.
su, further up the thread you said you followed up the links I gave on the harassment thread. I can’t remember what that was all about, but thanks for the feedback. I sometimes enter these threads late, leave a comment I’ve put a fair bit of effort into and then – nothing! But I tend to think that if one person finds it useful or interesting that’s OK by me.
One of the reasons I don’t contribute to feminist threads is that I don’t have enough time to get my head into the literature and the issues sufficiently. There are other reasons, but one has to narrow the focus to achieve anything worthwhile at times.
Now you say that “there really is no such thing as politics-free space.” I’ve never studied political science as such, but I did a bit of sociology many moons ago. I recall a bloke called Haralambos saying that there are two essential elements in politics. One is power and the possibility of contestation for same. The other is human relationships. So all you need is two people.
I feel sure Mark would have a more nuanced and sophisticated explanation, but that description of the bare bones elements has stuck with me.
Is it refusal to allow the argument, or a refusal to accept the assumptions that the argument is based on? If one rejects the assumptions of a political argument, then the argument itself is essentially irrelevant. If broad consensus can be reached on accepting certain assumptions (e.g. unnecessary harm to animals is wrong), then the political discourse can be productive. Where it comes down to “It’s my choice” is where political arguments or positions are constructed from assumptions based on a personal preference of how the world is or should be (e.g. animals should be treated as equal to humans). While an argument may be rationally sound (e.g. animals are equal to humans -> vegetarianism), if it’s based on assumptions formed from personal views, the argument caries no more weight than the personal views of others and can be reasonably countered with the simple expression of a contrary opinion.
Verily, a valid argument does not a true conclusion make.
Desipis, the distinction you draw doesn’t matter if people are so bogged down in moral judgements and identity arguments that they can’t have the debate fairly, or they judge the activist on the basis of their political assumptions. I think there are good examples of that kind of problem scattered all through American feminism. You can see it on a more trivial level whenever you go read the comments at the big feminist blogs in the US, where name-calling and moral abuse are thick on the ground. It’s pretty common for example to see someone called a “rapist enabler”, or a sick bastard who [fill in the blanks]. I don’t think I have ever seen that here. It’s as if the assumption of good faith on the part of the interlocutors is generally withheld.
Bad, bad naughty feminists! Oh Wicked feminists! You’re letting your monomania show; none of what you say is not equally true in other parts of the US blogosphere.
What I meant, Desipis, was when people thought that “my choice” was a stand alone argument and would not see any need to interrogate their own assumptions or anyone else’s, as if their behaviour was politicaly neutral. (if that is the right phrase for it).
SG, I think a much more pertinent example is the label of “anti-feminist”. The core philosophy of feminism deals with the equality between females with males. It takes a great deal of extra assumptions to progress from that through to the wide variety of feminist policies that are being pushed. If one disagrees with one of the auxiliary assumptions then they can reasonably disagree with the conclusions drawn from those assumptions; yet I’ve seen that quite frequently that such people are labeled “anti-feminist” as a result of their conclusions in spite of the fact that they accept the core principles. It’s as you say, they withhold the assumption of good faith and assume the worst possible reason why someone would disagree with them.
I think this is partly driven by something that would impact on all political movements. The issues that create the attraction between the movement and its members causes an inherent bias within its membership, creating trends within the membership that differ from the wider community and causing a distortion on the members’ and movement-as-a-whole perception of what is going on in the wider community. This would lead to the normalisation and acceptance of certain experiences and assumptions within the community and the perception that these assumptions must be linked to the core philosophy of the movement. This can lead to the alienation and ’silencing’ of supportive voices within the political discussion, as can be seen in the relationship between “Women of Color” and the mainstream feminist movement.
“anti-feminist” is a bit like “right winger”, “left-winger” and “moral panic,” it can be used advisedly or abused. It can become shorthand for “You are disagreeing with me and that’s pissing me off.
It is better not to abuse it obviously.
.
Also sometimes the disturbing prospect of that conclusion can make one very resistant to accepting the assumption.
The reverse of that is also true that people will support an assumption because of the benefit or convenience of the conclusion.
While interrogating your assumptions is a useful tool in gaining understanding, at the end of the day you really only end up with more assumptions, or possibly a grand theory of everything. Within the scope of a particular discussion it is often unreasonable to go past a certain level of assumption interrogation with the reasonable outcome being acknowledging the difference in assumptions, agreeing to disagree. It’s in this way that I read the “my choice” stance in that is less a claim that “my choice” is a valid argument and more a claim that there is no valid/winning argument at all and therefore “my choice” is a reasonable option for “me”.
oh come on su, you know I’m not talking about feminists only, it just so happens that the clear example of the last 2 weeks concerns feminism. Obviously it’s happening on a nearly daily basis with the Obama presidential candidacy, but not as spectacularly and not particularly this weekend (which was when I put up my original comment). There’s no monomania involved. The last time I even thought about this aspect of politics in the US vs. here was during the controversy over “Gedo Senki”, which didn’t register in the blogosphere as far as I know and has nothing to do with feminism.
Just because we disagreed about a train and a semi-naked vegan girl doesn’t mean I have a feminist monomania!
Strethers first question @ 138,
A Chicano in the U.S. trying to maintain family and traditional connections to Mexico may not share your perception of the border and the restriction of movement accross it. The border has no indigenous meaning, it is a product of colonial wars.
The difference between an indigenous Mexican and an indigenous North American is not a matter of lines on maps, especially in the southern U.S. states. Migration from further south through Mexico is similarly a product of colonisation in both the construction of poverty in South America as well as the constant lure of exploitation in the U.S. as cheap labour, especially women as BFP points out.
The explotation of “migrant” indigenous labour by those of a predominantly European Heritage in the U.S., as BFP writes, is indeed a colonial imposition no less than any other colonised indigenous people.
Kim,
I agree that we need to focus here rather than the U.S. which is why I mentioned Eileen Moreton Robinsons perspective. I do not concur with any assertion that the dynamic is unique to the U.S.
John, perhaps you should go back and read my comment more carefully. I’m saying the dynamic exists here too, but its cultural context and the way it works is very different.
I compeletely missed the semi-naked vegan girl, my bad, and reading your statement above, there is not one single qualifier :
I am taking you at your word, you are not an antifeminist but you are exceptionally careless about generalising. Same bad faith happens-daily-at broadly liberal blogs or their polar opposites where an interlocutor who takes against the prevailing wisdom is mercilessly attacked. That is not, to quote you, “American feminism”, that is the blogosphere. Whatever the issues with american feminism, with identity politics, they can’t be distilled down into what one angry commenter called another on a blog. That, by the way, is why there is the Feminism 101 blog. There you can go and talk out whatever burns you about aspects of feminism and you won’t be run out of town.
I don’t know what’s happening; whenever I vow and declare to leave this alone I don’t. Must try reverse psychology.
But I’m not sure that’s as true of the Australian blogosphere as of the American blogosphere, su. The better bits of the former anyway that is!
I also think the Australian blogosphere would be better off trying to work on establishing our own folkways and practices and modes of interacting rather than seeking to reflect those that prevail all over American political blogs of whatever kind – which are really pretty negative.
Oh yes I meant the US blogosphere.
It is true that GMB is a lone voice in the wilderness here and it would be good if it stayed that way!
I don’t read many of the US sites and I agree with you about not adopting their style. Which is why Anna Winter must start blogging again! And Casey must finish that thesis and then start blogging too!
su, I like vindaloo curry sauce, and you will find that kind of sauce all through my dinner. When I last checked though, you could also find vindaloo curry sauce in restaurants.
So, American politics seems to have less assumptions of good faith, more moral judgements, and more posturing about identity than Australian politics does. You can see examples of that kind of failing all through American feminism, it being part of politics. Today we are talking about feminism, but were we talking about a blog storm in some other area – race politics, something about food, that crazy thing that happened a few years ago where that woman lost her job because those guys called her work – I might suggest that you can find the same thing all through those aspects of the US blogosphere too.
Also, thinking back to some pandagon threads about free markets a while back, I remember the same kinds of combative argument tactics there too. But in those threads, there was no identity to draw into the discussion – no-one (yet) defines themselves as a person in terms of their free-market credentials. Inasmuch as this is a problem particular to feminism and race politics in the US, I imagine it is only a problem because one can identify as a woman, a man, a black person etc. One does not yet identify as a “labour unit”, so the economics arguments maybe aren’t as fraught. Perhaps that’s why one sees less of that sort of extreme arguing in less feminist-focussed threads. Saying that the effect of identity politics maybe particularly corrosive all through American feminism doesn’t necessarily mean its a consequence of feminist theory per se – just the way that feminist theory in the US has been affected by these strange cultural dimensions.
In fact I bet neo-nazi race politics, men’s rights blogs, and a lot of born again christian movement blogs in the US suffer the same spazzes from identity politics. But today I was talking about feminism.
Have you been to Catallaxy, SG? Or noted the Ron Paul fans who are creating their own separatist community – Paulville?
su, Anna’s promised us another post soon. And second the suggestion re Casey!
This discussion is interesting. I haven’t got much to say cause I’m overworked now. But the relationship between Absolute Morality and political philosophy is evident everywhere including feminism. The free market idea is also no exception altho’ it’s normally a package of something else. Steve Fielding for example think markets are pro-family hence Godlike.
I’ve been to Catallaxy SG. Come on over more intelligent lefties needed. You’ll take some hits tho’ they have an open door policy on online pugilism: no law in the Arena, almost. Anyway I wouldn’t say any of the Catallaxy commentors (nor Ron Paul) would be defined strictly by the advocacy of free markets. Freedom to trade is central to their philosphy, but freedom to do other things is likewise. And they’re all pretty short on secular theological discourse. Which is why I like ‘em. Naturally there is quite a bit of that amongst the commentors sometimes resulting in ‘I’m more libertarian than thou’ type stoushes which are both amusing and tedious.
.
>
Graeme is the Catallaxy court jester likewise amusing and tedious. (I know you’re reading this Graeme.)
>
The generalisation of American feminism as somehow puritanical is not widely applicable. It describes a significant minority. However there is an infantile bitchiness which disappoints me.
Hooray!
Thirded!
Only if there’s justice in the world.
Could someone tell me, or did my eyes deceive me, that ABC TV, has begun to run commercial advertisements? We reckon there was a skin care advertisment amongst the usual in house promotions on the ABC 1.
If so, how was this plan sneaked through?
Chill. Its probably an interstitial for this:
http://business.smh.com.au/another-denton-first-screening-ads-on-the-abc/20080430-29tb.html?skin=text-only
Ta, Casey, i am vaguely reassured and frozen. Man!