especially since there was no such telltale language in comment #3, where you first made the claim.

There wasn’t. I still think Hugh deserves the credit if it was he who brought New to your attention.

And I find it… bizarre… that you even imagine I could think that way.

I should have thought my reference to “precious bodily fluids” was an obvious hint that my tongue was somewhat laterally displaced.

I have no objection to linking to F.C. I’ve linked to it once this week, which is possibly as often as I’ve linked to anyplace this week. Possibly this month.

I didn’t link to you on this post not because I maliciously withhold links, because I didn’t remember where you had suggested that (or if you had). (I could have linked to “Feminist Critics” generically, but I didn’t think of it at the time.)

I’m sorry you imagine I sit around twirling my mustaches while chortling “I’ll link to Daran’s blog once today — but not twice! Because I must preserve my precious precious google juice! Yah-hah-hah!”

But really, I don’t think that way. And I find it… bizarre… that you even imagine I could think that way.

A link in the post would have been nice, given the level of credit due, but perhaps two links in two consecutive posts is just too much.

:rolleyes:

What’s the objection to linking to us anyway? Are you worried about your precious bodily fluids? I suspect some of those “in your camp” would prefer it to go to us than to the alternative*.

By the way, we get barely any incoming linkage at all (except for privilege checklists. We really must produce a few more.) That neither antifeminist nor MRA sites link to us much is an indicator perhaps, that we’re not really in their camp.

*Links in comments do not transmit google juice, so don’t anyone have a go at me for that link.

I really regret writing “in our own camp”. I meant it in the sense of their having pitched a tent in our yard, i.e., present in the comments. In the same sense, I’m in your camp.

I did not intend to imply philosophical affiliation.

Until I start writing as if I believe that feminists are evil and caring about women is wrong — and I will never start writing that way — they will never be satisfied. And neither, in my opinion, will you be.

I have not been arguing that feminists are evil or that caring about women is wrong, so this is (yet again) a strawman. Rather I believe that feminism is 1. deeply flawed in theory and execution, and, as a consequence, 2. harmful. This is not to claim that feminism hasn’t been beneficial in the past, or it isn’t beneficial in other ways now.

I am under no illusions about my inability to persuade anyone mindlessly committed to their position, whatever that may be. I do not, however believe that you are mindless. To the contrary, you are, at heart, a rational person who is amenable to reason, despite the strength of your emotional investment in feminism, which is what causes you to react with such hostility when that investment is subject to a challenge that you can’t defend against rationally.

Well, that’s the second half of Bulver’s edict fulfilled. I’ve explained why you are so persistently and stubbornly wrong. I will continue to fail to fulfill the first half, though.

[Rest of post deleted by Amp.]

I call your posted-then-deleted snark, and raise you a snarky comment I deleted before I even posted it. ;-)

[Rest of post deleted by Amp.]

Until I start writing as if I believe that feminists are evil and caring about women is wrong — and I will never start writing that way — they will never be satisfied. And neither, in my opinion, will you be.

:rolleyes:

I also think you may be missing the “unalterable” aspect: there are groups of people (the “skin baby animals alive society”) who would meet your technical definition of being oppressed, but who are theoretically in control of it, so don’t beling in that category.

Next: Oppression seems more… objective, I think, than privilege. Or, perhaps, less malleable. A given person can be privileged or underprivileged in a particular day, in a different way for almost each person they meet. But it doesn’t seem oppression works that way. Privilege can be individuals, while oppression isn’t really as much, is it? i don’t know if the “direct opposite” thing works.

….are having an influence on your thinking. Perhaps this will help to sway the doubters in our own camp about the wisdom of our strategy of trying to engage with feminists.

Until I start writing as if I believe that feminists are evil and caring about women is wrong — and I will never start writing that way — they will never be satisfied. And neither, in my opinion, will you be.

A link in the post would have been nice, given the level of credit due, but perhaps two links in two consecutive posts is just too much.

:rolleyes:

2) The distinctive traits of group “A” are viewed as exceptions to the “unmarked” or “default” traits of a “normal” member of society, if not erased outright.

Subject to the observation that one of the distinctive traits of group “A” is that it is group “A”. So treating its members as exceptions (or erasing them completely) falls under this criterion, even if no explicit trait is referenced.

So for example, imagine a world in which white upper class-women were excluded entirely from leadership positions, being confined, as it were, to the drawing rooms of the nation. Would you seriously claim that those women did not enjoy privilege over their black working-class sisters?

Credit where credit’s due: I think Daran of “feminist critics” may have suggested this to me at some point.

I did. Also, credit where credit is due, it was my co-blogger, Hugh Ristik, who drew Caroline New’s work to your attention. I’m glad to see that we are having an influence on your thinking. Perhaps this will help to sway the doubters in our own camp about the wisdom of our strategy of trying to engage with feminists. But then again, maybe not.

A link in the post would have been nice, given the level of credit due, but perhaps two links in two consecutive posts is just too much.

It’s different at the individual than the large-scale level, of course. But I think it’s counterintuitive to raise one consequence to that level, even if it’s a consequence that helps perpetuate the system, because the nature of the system is that its consequences perpetuate it.