However, as far as I can see, that doesn’t entail posting on the poster’s blog. Posting there is a function of their policies, not Amp’s.

Daran, I think he’s suggesting that people say on this blog if it’s okay to leave rejected comments on their home blogs.

It still took me five minutes to figure out what you meant. :-)

The suggestion is that posters should say on this blog if it’s OK for commenters to leave rejected comments on the poster’s home blog.

What I though you mea… Oh, what does it matter what I thought?

I am curious, re: blog policy, thread locks, and similar, what the precise semantic definitions of feminist and men’s rights activist are. Of course, since semantics are consensus, and consensus is made up of a lot of people piping up, I am not asking for The Word Handed Down From Amp so much as an idea from lots of people on what these words mean.

I am curious because I don’t usually fit political profiles so much as develop interests in issues central to my life. Dealing with the problem of gender policing, on both sides, both external and internal gender policing, is one of those issues, which puts me firmly in line with certain feminist goals and certain men’s rights goals.

(I’ve seen feminist-written men’s rights activism texts, not of the school of macho but of the school of minimizing gender policing and related repression. This is what I am talking about here when I say my goals are in line with __. I suspect the policy may be using a different definition, which is exactly what I’m curious about, and I’m sure there are as many different definitions for feminism as there are different feminists — which is why I am asking this open-ended, semantic question.

What’s the bottom line, if there is a bottom line? If not, what has been decided upon to stand in for the bottom line? Example, for exampling purposes only: If I see a “feminist only” post regarding gender policing, and I make a comment regarding gender policing of men, it’s probably a rude digression, and that makes worlds of sense. Not because male gender policing is not a problem, but because it’s not within the focus of the issue, and I could just as well be making an analogy about dump trucks and wombats. But is there anything wrong with my expression if I make a comment in gender-neutral language?)

I am asking not because I feel…let’s try uncertain of what admitting myself to a space means, precisely, exactly — but mostly, rather, because I think semantics and language are vastly interwoven into every power dynamic and gender dynamic in existence, which makes them deeply fascinating (and sometimes too subconscious to be discussable, but that’s the fun in trying.)

Ms Robyn, I agree it’s a bit dicey. But I think the alternative works even less well.

Here’s a request for people creating those posts - clarify whether it’s OK to comment at your own blog in the case of cross-posts, the way Amp does.

Good God, Robert. Since when did posters here have any say about what people do on their own blogs?

The date and time line (in dull red) underneath the commenter’s name and the comment name is a hyperlink to the comment itself, so right click and copy the link and send that, and no searching is required.