…Having just made my post below I looked at the pingbacks to the Foot of my Stairs where I was directed to Un-Cool and yet another blog post dissing and ridiculing radical feminism.
To think that I once thanked the person who writes that blog for including me in the carnval of feminists… anyway, RE has stated in the comments there that “witchy trolls my blog”.
WHAT THE FUCK IS SHE ON??
Does she think it’ll give her some kind of cred to say that? Does she think anyone outside her deranged gaggle of groupies would believe it anyway? How does she imagine that I’d troll? Leave a fake ID? hah! Like that’s possible.
RE: I sometimes read your blog, yes. I haven’t left a comment there for more than a year, ok? And I don’t “troll” anywhere.
Get a grip, woman.
15 responses so far ↓
Pippa // June 8, 2008 at 12:40 pm |
I haven’t been to Uncool before. What a treat. The author’s post on ad hominem attacks was going reasonably well until she (perhaps unwittingly) resorted to just that action. In fact, her entire post could be construed as an ad hominem attack on radfem thinkers/commenters… Or, it’s just a discussion between her and her pals about their perception of radfems, much like the comments BY radfems that she has chosen to illustrate her fallAcious point. What I mean to say is, her post is redundant (and she admits as much). She’s trying to be clever while at the same time being mean, and trying to disguise her own ad hominem attack within pseudo-intellectual linguistic and philosophical criticsm. Not that I care, really. How’s you? xx
Laurelin // June 8, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
It sounds like she’s using you as a handy scapegoat for anonymous comments…
pisaquaririse // June 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
Interesting. The quote of mine is being *fantastically* distorted. Bravo to that!
Is there a long fancy Latin term for “cannot stop mis-characterizing radical feminist statements”?
Laurelin // June 9, 2008 at 5:27 pm |
on the Uncool post, she quoted something I said about the language used by male sex-poz, and called that an ad hominem attack, which struck me as strange. Now if I’d said that X was wrong because he had blond hair, or something, then that would have been an ad hominem attack. But the language people use speaks volumes about them, and it is absolutely necessary to analyse patterns of speech. That these guys have no other language other than that of the conventionally sexualised to discuss politics, that they use terms which when aimed at women are supposed to intimidate and belittle, is of the highest importance when considering their ability to empathise with women and understand the physical and mental harms w0men suffer as a result of such worldviews. After all, it is much easier to go around using sexualised language to show how cool and sexay one is, to prove one’s modernness and liberty, and to throw terms such as ‘agency’ around as if they neutralise male violence towards women than to actually address the fact that one’s own actions are harmful.
The word ‘agency’ is one of the most misused- to say that a woman is a victim of something does not deny the fact she has ‘agency’- it rather puts into the context the facts about her life. The problem is in that we regard being a ‘victim’of something as an insult, as if having suffered something bad that was not one’s own fault is a moral failing- it is not.
My language was picked up on by a blogger a few weeks ago, who claimed that I was ‘genteel’. While this was no doubt in part a cheap swipe at my Britishness and ability to turn a sentence(and I laughed when I thought of how truly genteel Brits w0uld see me… not as genteel, I’ll tell you that much!), it was an interesting comment in that the language I use is that of someone in a position of relative privilege and who does not need to struggle for the basic necessities of life.
But anyway, I guess I derailed the thread to stress the importance of noting the language and speech patterns that people use, and that it is particularly pertinent when considering male reaction to female protest.
CoolAunt // June 10, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
RE has a blog?
Polly Styrene // June 10, 2008 at 9:46 pm |
I am confused (ok it’s a perpetual state). All I can see is pictures of some bloke who used to go out with Kelly Brook…Oh and apparently he was in a rubbish film directed by Guy ‘fackin’ Ritchie…
Pisaquiririse – subsisto falsidicus super radicalus feministus.
(that’s probably wrong BTW I used one of those online translators).
pisaquari // June 11, 2008 at 10:11 pm |
“subsisto falsidicus super radicalus feministus.”
Sounds about as legit as the original accusations. It’s a go from me.
“I used one of those online translators”
Even better if it was free. Which I imagine it was–explains all the “us” endings.
Polly Styrene // June 13, 2008 at 10:42 pm |
Well obviously the radicalus feministus bit was made up by me. You don’t think I’d pay for stuff on t’interweb do you?
witchywoo // June 15, 2008 at 5:06 am |
“You don’t think I’d pay for stuff on t’interweb do you?”
*chuckling*
stormy // June 15, 2008 at 1:13 pm |
*yawn*
At the thought radfems “trolling” sexpozzie blogs. They wish. The majority of radfems avoid them like The Plague. Methinks a serious amount of projection behind the accusation.
For if the sexpozzies didn’t troll and monitor the radfems blogs, they’d have nothing to write about. The basic blog content of a sexpozzie blog without trashing radfems would be:
I like sex
I am sooooo cool and hip
That about covers it.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // June 15, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
Pay? When there’s a free version? Why would you?
thebewilderness // June 17, 2008 at 6:34 am |
Pisaquari, I think the technical term for that is pantson fireitus.
Laurelin // June 19, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
The basic blog content of a sexpozzie blog without trashing radfems would be:
I like sex
I am sooooo cool and hip
That about covers it.
I read a sexpoz blog: I like sex, these are the sex acts I like, stop oppressing me evil feminists, this is how you do random banal sex act, vanilla, did I mention I like sex?
Then I read an account from a survivor of pornstitution.
Puts everything into persepective. The latter breaks the heart, just as pornstitution breaks the heart and bodies of its victims.
It’s no revolution to demand that women have the right to participate in various sex acts. It’s old as grit. Unfortunately, it is still revolutionary to point out harm inflicted, lives ruined and women silenced by their NOes being ignored.
Sexual freedom means nothing without the freedom to preserve one’s bodily integrity, to have one’s NO heard and obeyed.
I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.
Maggie Hays // July 9, 2008 at 1:15 am |
RE has a blog?
Yep, and I’ve not looked at it for fucking ages and ages!
If she, Kennerson, and Un-Cool whatever think I’m gonna pay attention to their pro-woman-hatred, pro-sex-slavery, anti-radfeminist places ever again, they can wait for a long time.
It such a fucking relief when you’ve not have a look at those rabid pro-porn anti-feminist blogs for ages, Witchy. I swear it’s like breathing, it’s like you almost forget that the damn places even fucking exist!
These people can keep trolling my blog, etc. I don’t give a flying fuck.
I completely ignore them. I suggest you do the same. . . but it’s ultimately up to you. . .
Amananta // July 20, 2008 at 6:54 am |
Heh… it was either her or maybe belledame, I forget which (they seem so much alike to me) who – well someone had pointed out to me something nasty they wrote on their blog about me and being stupidly curious as I am I had to go look. There was this long ranting diatribe about me in the post and in the comments and finally I saw her write about some anonymous commenter that oh it was probably her as are all these other anonymous comments. Such arrogance, to think I hover around her blog to comment anonymously on it. It’s all about her.