14 March 2009

So much for the blokeosphere...

As most of you know, there was a bit of a "Cif tiff" over at Cath Elliott's blog this week.  Coming hot on the heels of Rowenna Davis's assertion that the blogosphere is a boys' club, the experience was interesting, if not downright surreal.  Kiz and I decided that we should relate our experience in the "safe" atmosphere of a women's issues blog.  Therapy for us - entertainment for you.  First, here's Kiz:


Cath’s Blog Debacle
When I first saw what was going on with Ciffers on Cath’s blog my immediate reaction was; there’s been a misunderstanding (resulting in some quite unpleasant comments from the fems and ciffers.) but, perhaps, there is a chance to get a decent debate going. So I decided to stick my oar in with the intention of trying to get some dialogue going on a different footing.
Big mistake.
I was determined not to get into any name calling and set out just to suggest, seeing as Cath explicitly welcomed men on to her site, that there was room for all of us to get talking. I also tried to point out that AllyF and Jay weren’t misogynists. The reaction I got from the rad fem posters was jibes, sneers and outright derision. Assumptions were made about my age, sexual history and aspersions were cast on my validity to call myself a feminist and even my sex (woman) was called into question.
Still, I foolishly tried to keep a dialogue going. I was accused of being smug and I in turn accused them of being condescending and well… bossy! In the end, I got a lot of comments about how I can’t do anything without a man telling me what to do and that I was simply the kind of woman looking for male attention, which was a shame because I would suffer emotionally when I discovered that men actually despised me (I paraphrase for brevity). So, not surprisingly, I decided that the forum wasn’t really conducive to debate and I left.
Now, I didn’t really think that the radical feminists were going to welcome my opinions with open arms, but neither did I expect to be ganged up on in that way. In fact, I was really shocked. It’s a feminist site that is supposedly a place for women to meet up and discuss feminist issues. I expected, if not respect for my opinions, at least, a willingness to debate them. But I found that the only women who are welcome are ones who hold the same opinions as them. It is, in fact, an exclusive club and one that is rabidly defended from any outsider regardless of their biology. CiF is not perfect and there are more than a few idiots on the threads but I’d rather be there where I can find people to engage in debate, even when they really don’t agree with my views, than on a site that just attacks with such spite and venom. So, the next time I hear a feminist say the internet is intimidating to women I shall point out that the most intimidating place
 for a woman to be on the internet is just as likely to be a feminist site as anywhere else. It’s a shame, because I do not in any way blame Cath, and I’d love to comment on her site but I think I’ll stick to CiF, which, as it turns out, really is a broad church.


Now it's my turn.  Looking back at my initial post over at Cath's, I was perhaps not as diplomatic as I could've been.  I did tell them that it seemed to me that they were more interested in mutual masturbation than actual debate.  But lord love a duck, by the time I got over there, they'd already savaged Ally, Jay, Dot and Kiz!  I tried to point out to them that there was nothing inherently sexist in suggesting that perhaps current models of DV services aren't working terribly well.  The reaction?  According to someone called stormy, I'm sucking up to men.  She proceeded to make what seemed to me to be a non sequitur comment about the suffragettes and then told me that I need to think more deeply.  The tone was so condescending that I'm afraid I couldn't come up with a better riposte than to refer to her as a bovine with attitude.  I'm deeply ashamed of that.  I feel like I let the side down.  

As the exchanges went on, we were repeatedly told that we were more interested in sucking up to men than we were in feminism.  One poster seemed to accuse us of having "internalised misogyny" and using "abusive language" to defend men.  I was asked how old I am and there were more wild assumptions made and more words put in my mouth.  I was accused of thinking that radfems were sexually repressed prigs and one told me she'd done things with men that would make my eyebrows curl, but this same poster turned around assumed that Kiz and I were both "solo-partnered" types (as if that somehow made us less qualified to decide whether or not men are all bastards).  Honestly, the arrogance and condescension shown to us because we did not share their radfem outlook was just astounding!  Not once in all my years of joining in on-line discussions, first on Usenet starting in the late 80s/early 90s, and now on Cif - have I ever been subjected to that much vitriol.  (Not even when I dared to suggest once on soc.culture.british that some English men seem to have an unhealthy fascination with train timetables and rolling stock!)  At the end of the day, in the "safe" environment of a blog on women's issues, I was told that I was an emotionally immature, sexually inexperienced, male-worshipping teenybopper.  Just because I dared to suggest that Ally and Jay were pretty reasonable men and that they might have something worthwhile to say.

Suffice it to say, I won't be venturing off into the world of the radfems any more.  I shall wear my emotionally stunted man-worship like a badge of honour.

290 comments:

  1. As a feminist I'm appalled by you two traitors. Teh menz will be pleased though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're doing it again! You're engaging with menz! Traitors! Collaborators! You disgust me!

    PS Fancy a drink some time?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh wow. Just read it. Amazing stuff. Thought about going in under cover to see how long it would take them to expose me. Can't decide if it would be way too easy or they'd spot me at once. Things aren't looking too good on cif. Two deleted already on PT thread. They seem to have cottoned on to this acrostic approach.

    ReplyDelete
  4. elementary_watson15 March, 2009 10:39

    kizbot, Montana: The way you behaaved on that blog has to be the most heroic thing I have ever seen on the internet. You did not defend "teh menz", you defended non-hate-filled feminism.

    I tend to be quite critical of feminism(s), but now, when I grow up, I want to be a feminist such as you two.

    And now, I'm off to write an epic poem about your travails in the shadow of radical feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shit...10 posts...4 deletions...back in premod. I've had enough of this crap.

    ReplyDelete
  6. monkeyfish - two down on PT, but I'm still alive. Why are you in pre-mod again?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Perhaps if you refrained from calling contributors "cunts" and "talentless, pretentious, nobodies" you'd spend less time in premod?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jesus wept MF how the hell do you manage it!
    Not on my puter so not blue just yet...
    Just wanted to say that at one point last night after several single malts (and after I'd sent my half off to wildhack) I had a crisis of confidence and emailed her to ask if it was, after all, a good idea to stoke this fire?
    Ever since I first started posting on cif I've made it a policy to never be vicious with other female below liners (above liners of either sex fair game) because I thought it would just be grist to the mill for anti fems and guys with 'issues'... So even when 'some' of the more radical cif fems got on a mad one I was always careful to kick the ball and not the fem... I thought this was an unspoken policy amongst all fems because... seeing as we 'get' it from all sides as it is... best not to be too harsh on each other... which is why I really couldn't believe it when me and wildhack were rounded on in that way... So... my point? Woke up hangover...grumpy and glad to see wildhack put it up... I'm sick of keepin my mouth shut just to be pc... and it's about time the egalitarian feminists amongst us started fighting back... the gloves are off..

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh Monkeyfish! After all that tireless campaigning on your behalf. I haven't felt so disappointed since that little toerag George Davis let us down so badly.

    PB: come on, he practically invited us to call him a cunt. and 'talentless, pretentious nobody' seems fairly mild compared to a lot of things I've read on cif.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Spoke too soon - mine's gone too now.

    Here is the last chance for Labour

    Another last chance - how many is that then? Same old, same old. It's tiring intially to hear every time - until socialism can attract new younger voters in left-behind Labour areas, targets will inevitably tank. Historic aim - hubristic ambition.

    I still wonder how this contravenes the guidelines.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not saying I agree with it Martillo, but if staying out of premod is your concern, posting stuff like that is pretty unlikely to work in your favour.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm not sure MF wants to stay out of pre-mod, PB. BTW, great post on Cohen's thread, Monkeyfish. I think I'll clip it and quote it every time I see either of those two terms. Can you do 'misogyny' next?

    Lovely column, ladies and I love the duet idea.

    ReplyDelete
  13. just went over and lurked on 'that' thread... and found bitethehand trying to curry favour with the rad fems... tosser...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually...I have a theory here. More than a theory really and if I'd bothered to keep a log over the years, I'm sure I could back it up. Clealy the entire media is infected but the Guardian seems to be a particular hotbed of nepotism. They are very sensitive indeed.

    Virtually every time I've alluded to nepotism in the media, the post vanishes pronto. Rayner's little rant, which is effectively asking how dare the great unwashed challenge his professional opinions, was too much for me. Whether he believes his position is due to his unique talent rather than his mother's influence (OK luvvie?) is his business but every time I see a Rayner, Coren, Gogarty et al pontificating it really boils my piss.

    What's equally galling is the patronage and networking. How the fuck did Julie Myerson ever get the parenting gig for instance? Obviously because she's in that self sustaining, incestuous little group that chuck each other work and, in doing so, restrict the breadth and originality of opinion. Since their offspring will, in their turn, be given the next leg up, the whole thing becomes an insidious threat to free speech. It's a sordid and vicious circle. So when one of them comes out with a pile of self-pitying shit like Rayner did or Giles Coren has a tendency to do I bite.

    Anyway, I always have. From as far back as I can remember my schooling, career (sic-LOL) and choice of drinking establishment have always been adversely affected by a tendency to shout 'bullshit' when I hear it; particularly when it emanates from a pontificating no mark.

    I apologise to nobody-although thanks to anyone who spoke up in support of my reinstatement.

    And..I was not the first to call him a cunt (ironically) which he virtually begged for anyway.

    Also, you might have missed it but I quite innocently posted a link (in response to a request from skimmer) to a story about Inayat's arrest. Unfortunately, only the Mail was carrying it at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. PB said...

    "Perhaps if you refrained from calling contributors "cunts" and "talentless, pretentious, nobodies" you'd spend less time in premod?"

    If I were you I'd nip down to Sainsburys and get a pack of scouring pads. Last time I looked, your kettle was looking a little 'off white'.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm sure nobody here expects you to apologise, Monkeyfish. You are, of course, right about nepotism but I hope you're not including Vicky C in your list of untalented offspring.

    You seem to know who PB is. Care to share?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I assumed it was Pike Bishop. No?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Pike Bishop? Don't recognise the style or sentiments there. Patrick Bateman? A moderator?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, here's the post btw.

    It's still in my comments section:

    What just goes to show you can't be too careful?

    @JayRayner

    It just goes to show you can't be too fat.
    (Particularly if you're a talentless, pretentious, nobody who will never be free from suspicions of nepotism given that you're yet another media personality's offspring who just happened to get the job. Do you and Giles Coren get together and tell 'war stories' about your struggle to make it?)

    @David Mitchell

    Actually, mate you could do with losing a few pounds. Oh yeah...and maybe stop being so much of a cunt.

    Recommended (3)

    See...no mention of the delightful Vicky. I know you have a bit of a thing for her martillo and... to be fair, a lot of her stuff is good and, a real rarity on cif (marina excluded), funny.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "It's still in my comments section"

    Not any more, it ain't: you copied it just in time. Also they just hit spiggy, taking your reply with him.

    Come on PB, who are you?

    ReplyDelete
  21. just put this on the birthday thread... I don't give it long...
    '1) Free Monkeyfish
    2) only allow comments with the word 'Tuscany' in them on Polly Toynbee threads
    3) Put back the top ten list, the five thingy is just rubbish'
    Where is the Rayner thread? I can't find it!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not sure it's Pikey, he tends to believe that there should be no censorship at all. Even if I don't agree with pretty much anything he says, he does at least have the virtue of consistency.

    Room in the cell, for me, mf? I lost the plot on Friday night with peitha and his/her gang of mealy-mouthed Islamophobes.

    Am getting to the point tbh where I probably need to take a break from CiF. Getting too riled by the abuse of a liberal website by posters whose views are illiberal at best, racist and inflammatory at worst.

    I know CiF needs rules, but why is personal abuse deemed to be so much more serious than spouting stuff which would get the cowards arrested if they were ranting away in the market square?

    Anyway, for a proper piece of journalism, read the Hillsboro story in the Mag. Heartbreaking stuff, angry and deeply moving.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think the moderation's gone fuckin nuts. They've lost the plot.

    They seem to think that any comment aimed at the author, their background, their suitability as a writer or the quality of the article can be deemed off topic if it suits their purposes. In such cases, they seem to be implying that only discussion or argument based on the content of that particular article is relevant. It's as though, at a stroke, we are suddenly sucked into a deconstructionist "there is nothing but the text" wormwhole.

    That simply isn't how the world works. Sometimes before I read a word I have a "who the fuck are you to be writing about that" thing going on, which generally remains and is often reinforced. Personal comments are frankly unavoidable if ones real opinion is to be offered. Sometimes to avoid them is a dishonest omission.

    I'm probably going to give cif a miss for a bit as well. It's just too up itself at the moment.
    I just dropped a suggestion onto the open thread suggesting that they might like to try premoderation. I'm guessing it didn't go down too well.

    kizbot
    thanks for the mention. The Rayner thing wasn't a thread. He posted a comment on the David Mitchell piece. tbh if there's any justice, they'll have deleted it. It was a craven and disgusting piece of self puffery and whingeing.

    Hank
    I'll have a look. Are you actually premodded too then?

    ReplyDelete
  24. That Hillsborough piece was well upsetting...The bit that really floored me was adrian describing looking into a copper's eyes and mouthing 'help us' and the copper shaking his head, SMILING and walking off!
    Christ on a crutch, how can anyone be that evil, how the hell did he live with himself after that..? and how can survivors like adrian carry on knowing that the utter bastards who LET people die got off totally scot free... no words will suffice...

    ReplyDelete
  25. I was standing on the Kop that day, kiz, watching it all unfold and knowing that someone very close to me was in the thick of it. Shouldn't allow ourselves to apply generalisations from particular situations but I've never trusted the police since.

    No, would appear not, mf, but jaded nevertheless. To be completely honest, I let myself get wound up, end up saying stupid abusive things and hate myself for it afterwards. Maybe a week or two off would do me good.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 'here..Dave, i don't suppose you or any of your mates has got a villa in Tuscany, have you? i could do with a holiday...'
    can't help living dangerously... but couldn't resist popping that on Mitchell's really fucking stupid thread... Total Tosser... can't stand his writing...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hank

    It helped confirm my attitude to the police as well although by that time, the miners strike and the attitudes of Merseyside Police had pretty much sealed the deal. It's hard writing this without sounding jaded and blase about the whole thing but, harrowing as the article was, I'd been told similar and worse at the time. I went to two funerals myself; one a very good mate and the stories in circulation were horrendous.

    With the odd exception, the police were justifiably completely slated for their responsibility, attitude and competence. The fact that the enquiries more or less let them off the hook was an insult. A real slap in the face; almost on a par with the Sun's behaviour. Course a lot of it was put down to the whinging, chip on the shoulder, self-pitying scouser trope so beloved of the MSM. Perish the thought that the city might ever have had the odd real grievance over the years.

    Glad to hear you're not banged up anyway. Do you think PB was a moderator then? Wouldn't they have just emailed me?

    kiz

    Yeah, Mitchell has the mannerisms and speech patterns of just about every smart arsed student I ever come across. It's a shame because every so often he makes the odd good (although rarely original)point. I know just what you mean.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Re montana's deleted comment (15 March 2.24pm) on thread "Comment is Three", as follows:


    "Seriously, folks, Free monkeyfish!
    Martillo - Spain would be wonderful, I'm sure - if I were a younger woman, I'd be pulling out all the stops to convince a certain Galician I know to take me home as a souvenir, but I'm old enough to be his mother... Frankly, just about anywhere in Europe would be fine with me. But again, how do I do it legally?
    And I'd like to third (?) Kizbot's suggestions.
    re: browsers - Is Chrome better than Safari?"


    Why was this deleted? Answers on a postcard, please. Fifty pence postal order and a years supply to the "Beano" for the best answer.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sherfig wondered: "Why was this deleted? Answers on a postcard, please. Fifty pence postal order and a years supply to the "Beano" for the best answer."

    Because it was there?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I might be getting paranoid but I think the reference to the freeing of a certain recidivist, vexatious poster might have been a factor. Such posts do tend to go pop.
    Possibly my finest hour: 'Monkeyfish', 'Tuscany' and 'cunt' all on an equal footing. I really should bow out now while I'm at the top.

    ReplyDelete
  31. BTW, hank, monkeyfish, I think I'll follow your lead and refrain from posting on Cif for a few weeks (at least). It winds me up too much and we all know that RESISTANCE IS FUTILE (imagine Dalek voice here).

    I had to restrain myself from reacting today when ultimathule said on the Joan Smith rape thread "I'd rather have that one innocent man behind bars than let 10 rapists go." I know you have defended her, kiz, but this is the nutty hate-filled extremism that you and montana experienced on Cath's thread. And last night someone equated "violence against women" (honour killings, FGM, beatings etc) with Western society's elective vaginal surgery! And was defended.

    I'm all for a broad church and all that, but I no longer see too much intelligent discussion on Cif, there is incomprehensible moderation, and it just doesn't seem worth the effort any more. The Guardian's own agenda seems paramount - to the detriment of free comment.

    I would much rather discuss issues here than on Cif, and will continue to do so.

    I'd also be happy to write something to kick a discussion off, so if anyone is interested in that (montana?), let me know. Topics under consideration - the fall of Byzantium, Victorian flower-pressing, was Darwin gay?, the minimum wage is too high!, God? sky pixie or omnipotent being? - you decide, Toynbee and Tuscany - a political love affair, and was Steve Forbert really the new Dylan?

    Just kidding! (apart from the flower-pressing obviously).

    ReplyDelete
  32. Q How many mods does it take to Screw up a light-hearted thread?

    A. Only one, but they have to be a miserable fucking no-life wanker.

    Just hought I'd save that little gem from martillo from the cif three thread..
    scherfig- I'd love you to do a piece on flower pressing! Sort one out....

    ReplyDelete
  33. Iknow she drives you mad scherfig= And sometimes even I don't know why I have a soft spot for her.. but even though she can be aggressive and says things without thinking them through... she has put up some really good posts at times and is, occasionally, willing to revise her comments and engage in debate. She's a hothead.
    And elective vaginal surgery 'is' sick...

    ReplyDelete
  34. ha ha kiz - open thread, Tuscany pies - loved it. I couldn't resist replying, but I don't think our posts will last long. Missed martillo's - time is apparently short.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I just read through the Cath blog.

    What.
    The.
    Fuck.
    Was.
    That.
    All.
    About?

    I am still trembling. I don't get it at all. There are sentences which a satirist couldn't inflate any further without seriously risking an explosion. Ranging from,

    "It took [the suffragettes] decades to get the vote. Campaigners died. Campaigners were seriously in ill health and imprisoned, to get women the vote. The opposition, were basically writing what the CiF commenters write now, although with slightly different points."

    (Which is a valid transhistorical point if "slightly different" means something along the lines of "not really the same in a kind of not at all the same way")

    through

    "Basically, I test-drove lots of men, and found most to be defective from the factory. I wanted my money back."

    to the frankly despicable:

    "And I presume the reason you helped your girlfriend get over rape WAS to your benefit. You wanted to go on shagging her basically. And/or feel important/needed/wanted."

    Cath and I've occasionally locked horns, but, aside from some hiccups early on, avoid vitriol and - don't know about her - I find much to chew on in her thoughts on things. (Warning: a soppy bit). Even in the midst of radical disagreement, you can get to see things in a different light. Disagreement can be enriching and doesn't have to be as melodious as two monoliths scraping against one another. Don't know if it works the other way round for her - maybe I just give her gristle.

    Considering a modest contribution on the Cath blog, as a sort of retrospective cool-down.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Update: thought against it for the simple reason that

    "Hey womenz! I send you tidings of peace from the not completely horrible menz! Please don't cut off my johnson!"

    might inflame, rather than relieve, the tensions, despite my best intentions. Sorry, intentionz.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks, scherfig, for preserving that post of mine from the birthday thread. I was stunned just now to check back into Cif to find it gone. How on earth did I manage to violate any community standards there? Effing hell, there's not a Tuscany reference in sight and martillo's riddle is still there, two hours later. Now, I'm happy that his is still there, but does it make any sense that my post gets zapped and one in which the mods are referred to as "fucking no-life wanker" stays put? Honest to god, I'm almost livid right now.

    I read the Joan Smith thread - decided not to wade in. At the point when I read it there was some ugliness from both ends - but the comment that it's better to send an innocent man to prison than to let 10 rapists go was pretty harrowing. We in the US consider our criminal justice system to be a direct legacy from the British system, so maybe that's why we're seeing things differently, but I was always taught that the worst miscarriage of justice possible in a free society was for a innocent man to be wrongfully convicted.

    Also, scherfig, contributions on anything gladly accepted at theWildhackATgmailDOTcom any time.

    Stevie might not have been the new Dylan, but he did do one of my all-time favourite songs.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ3zuiCmf8w&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hey - it just occured to me! You don't suppose that my reference to a certain Galician and being old enough to be his mother makes them think I'm referring to someone who's underaged, do you? Maybe they're afraid I'm hinting that I'd like to have sex with a minor??? I think I just might ask over there.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Yeah, Romeo's Tune. I had that album - Jackrabbit Slim - terrific stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Nostalgia kick now. Nice one here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlU97spZiS8&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  41. @monkeyfish - heard a lot of the stories as well, myself, and as someone who had a foot in both camps had to deal with a lot of prejudiced wankers who took their lead from the Sun editorials, despite being old enough, and close enough, to the "Truth" to know better.

    Have had my say about this on one of the Forest forums tonight and won't be going back again. Am sick and tired of the "democracy" of the internet atm.

    You'll understand my anger when you bear in mind that I was a Forest season ticket holder back in the day with a younger brother I wanted to educate.

    Until the anger subsides, I'll steer clear of CiF and the righteous indignation of the middle classes whingeing on about the poor return on their ISAs.

    See you all in a week, or two...

    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Nice link, Montana, sorry about the injustice - maybe they know they're miserable fucking no-life wankers.

    A naughty boy called Gilles left this on the same thread, I see:

    "Happy birthday cif!!!

    By the way, who's this cunt Monkeyfish who keeps going on about Tuscany?"

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hello... I'm new here... I'm AllyF's other half...

    I've just been reading Cath's blog and having a good old giggle. I also left a comment, although God knows why, I'm sure they'll have fun accusing me of all sorts.

    I was a lesbian back in the mid 80s when this kind of thing (separatist feminism) was rife, so I've been through it all before - not least when I had to give in and admit that I was bisexual, and started sleeping with the enemy again (horrors!). It's such old hat that I mostly find it amusing now, although I'm amazed this kind of nonsense is still being spouted. And couldn't resist sticking up for my poor old maligned Him Indoors. Bless him.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Nice one, Clare, good post. Now get your head down - those women are really mean! (Although I thought sparklematrix took it rather well considering you are a disgrace to your sex!) :o)

    ReplyDelete
  45. I just saw your post over there, Clare. Very moving I found it too (though that may be because I've just been watching 'Volver' again). Now I'm going to be scared to have a go at him. For a while...

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hello Clare! Great post over at Cath's. Don't think it's going to do much good, though. They've already got you pegged as a collaborator, I'm sure.

    martillo - yeah, I don't get it. It's okay to call monkeyfish a cunt, but I committed some sort of sin without any off-colour language whatsoever. Someone called Malchemy suggested it was because I was off-topic, but I pointed out that several equally off-topic comments were still there. I would seriously like a definition of what the Guardian means when it refers to something as an "open thread". I can see no difference in the way "open threads" are handled and the way your garden-variety threads are handled. "Open" to me would denote that either there will be no closing time for the thread (which, of course, it doesn't) or that there will be no such thing as an "off-topic" comment (which, of course, there is). So, what's the difference? Anyone know?

    scherfig - Thanks - that is a nice one. I had "Jackrabbit Slim" myself, but back when I lived in Seattle, my apartment was broken into and all of my cds were stolen. (I was back here in Iowa for my grandmother's funeral.) That's all they took - it was pointed out to me that they probably took them to get quick cash from a used cd store. Rat bastards even got my TV2 cds! How much demand for Danish pop do you suppose there is in Seattle? My guess is, not much.

    ReplyDelete
  47. montana

    Fuck me! TV2? How'd you get hold of those? And what about the (very important) lyrics? "Kys det nu (det satans liv)" and "Der trænger til at blive skovlet noget sne" Ha ha.

    You surprised me there, so now I'm listening to "Manden der ønskede sig en havudsigt". (The man who wanted a view of the sea.) Not much of that in Iowa, I imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Well, an ex (he was Danish - probably still is) introduced me to them and I had "Rigtige Mænd...", "Nutidens Unge" and "Slaraffenland". I bought "Rigtige Mænd..." on vinyl while I was an au pair in Skåne. Had "Nutidens Unge" on tape that the ex made for me while I was at his place for Christmas (he'd put Gnags' En underlig fisk" on the other side). Later, back here in the states - the cassette the ex had made broke. There was an address for a TV2 fan club on the sleeve of "Rigtige Mænd...", so I wrote them a sob story about how much I loved it and how I didn't know how I could ever get ahold of it in Ames, Iowa (this would've been in the early 90s). A few weeks later a padded envelope arrived. It was from Sven Gaul. He'd re-recorded "Nutidens Unge" for me and put "Slaraffenland" on the other side. I don't actually remember when I became separated from my vinyl copy of "Rigtige Mænd...". Anyway - while I lived in Seattle, I found a website based in Sweden from which I ordered those three albums on cd. Laid out a pretty good chunk of change for them and only had them a little over a year. Still have the tape that Sven Gaul mailed me, but I don't play it much just because I'm afraid it'll break one of these days. As for the lyrics - some of it goes right past me, but I used to know enough Swedish that I could pick quite a bit of it out. Of course, I'd figured out all of the lyrics off of "Rigtige Mænd..." because they were on the sleeve, so I was able to see it written & look up what I didn't know through Swedish. I'll confess I've just cheated in translating "Kys det nu" and "Der trænger.." But yes, I do love the sense of humour in their lyrics. A Danish woman I knew at Iowa State was impressed that I'd figured out that "Kvinner jeg beklager" was tongue-in-cheek. She said a lot of Danes didn't seem to be able to figure that out.

    Sadly, you are right. Precious little Danish pop available in Iowa.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @martillo - 41st minute. Andy O'Brien had just suffered a massive brain fart. Dammit.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @martillo again - Have I mentioned lately how much I love Kevin Davies?

    ReplyDelete
  51. @montana - were/are you watching a rerun of Bolton v Fulham? (And without knowing the score? Don't want to trample dogpoo into my host's home).

    Of course, being an arsehole, I'm not allowed to like Kevin Davies.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @ChooChoo - I'm in Iowa and there's a local station that shows whatever the most recent Wanderers match was on Sunday evenings at 9:15 pm. It's the only real football I get to watch and I've fallen in love with them. C'mon though, even arseholes can love Kevin Davies.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dogpoo, indeed. 1-3 to Fulham??? Dammit.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Montana - wasn't clear.

    Didn't mean arsehole - though I am one - so much as an Arsehole. We're supposed to see ourselves as sophisticats bothered by barbarians, as aesthetes whose easels are knocked over by football philistines like Davies. It's ludicrously hammy. Maybe we're more sophists than anything else. But that's the script.

    It's a silly script. Not least cos I started up with the Arse when they were even more boring and painful and clumsy and boozed up than my forays into speed dating. Well, I've never been speed-dating, but the imagination can be a terrifying thing. I remember losing to Bolton in the FA Cup in the early or mid 90s. They were in the division below at the time. Before your wandering days? Maybe the tension started before I got the script.

    Sure, I can muster up a I'd love him if he was on my team (or, to add a patronising touch, perhaps even on another team, a Wigan or something). But I've learned the lines. They're silly lines, but you can't unremember things just like that.

    That said, if I were in Iowa and a local station showed Bolton games every Sunday, maybe I'd have fallen in love too. But I fear it's too late. Call me old-fashioned (or a "solo-partnered type") but I'm a little Mosaic when it comes to the law. No divorce. And certainly no remarriage. In sickness and in health, for better or (frankly) for worse, I'm resigned to being an Arsehole til I die.

    ReplyDelete
  55. @ChooChoo - ah. Capital A. Now I understand. Well, we all have our crosses to bear, I suppose. Yes, up until this year (early last September), I'd have claimed to be Toon Army. The only professional match I've ever been to was to accompany a Geordie of whom I was inordinately fond to a match at Stamford Bridge in 1985. Standing in a cage full of Geordies at Stamford Bridge is (was) a bonding experience. But the Geordie is long gone and, well, watching the same bunch of guys week in and week out - they grow on a person, even if they do break a person's heart a bit too often.

    ReplyDelete
  56. nice one clare ... where's yr blog... address?
    Very brave choo choo....

    ReplyDelete
  57. ^ Am I allowed to be a proud partner, or will that just be cover for my patriarchal possessiveness?

    Do love that woman.

    Kiz, her blog is at http://www.boobpencil.co.uk

    ReplyDelete
  58. Oh AllyF, you are such a condescending wanker.*

    You can get to my blog (BoobPencil.co.uk) if you click on my name in most comments boxes, for future ref.

    Thanks for the nice responses all, but don't worry, I can guess what kind of reaction my comment on Cath's blog will get - I wasn't really expecting to convert anyone. Just jumping in for the fun of it really. Hmmm, must find new definition of fun.

    *that was a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Choo-choo... the Arse? How could you? Still, I can admire the loyalty.

    Montana I think your post was just unlucky and that the mod dropped off/went home/gave up soon after that last act of vandalism. I imagine there'll be a flurry of activity soon.

    Clallyf (That's a joke, by the way). I think I'm going to join monkeyfish and hank on holiday. Thanks for reminding me that there's a world which is not inhabited by mouth-foaming lunatics and crazed censors. I should get back to it for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Whoops! That 'thank you' was meant for everyone who posts here.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I was late to this party, i completely didnt realise there were other threads on this page (very, very stupid).

    Firstly Kiz and Montana, good job! Good thread here and i thought you both did well to keep pretty reasonable on THAT thread itself, you kept your dignity, you did CIF proud! The "bovine with issues" made me laugh.

    But it really is funny, Rowenna swears down that the nasty menz (anyone know where this stray Z came from?) are keeping the ladies off the net with their intimidation (and my CAPITALS), yet i really have never seen on CIF the sort of poisonous bile on that blog of caths, there wasnt even attempt at debate, just straight into vile adhoms. And that Pollys comment to Ally, my goodness....

    "Q How many mods does it take to Screw up a light-hearted thread?

    A. Only one, but they have to be a miserable fucking no-life wanker."

    I enjoyed that one.

    I know you're always very patient with Ultima, Kiz, and occasionally i do feel for her a bit, and have often tried to mend bridges with her and try and calm down our 'volatile' relationship but the final straw was last week when she twisted a personal tale of mine, about something that happened to me, to make me look like the villain, and claiming that when teen pregnancies were being discussed i should "just shut up and hide." This was out the blue, i hadnt spoke to her on cif for weeks, so there was no obvious provocation, she just came out with that out the blue. That was the final straw for me, just sheer dishonest nastiness. So if she riles me again, the gloves are coming off (will keep the mods busy at least). What also bugs about ultima is that the mods virtually never mod her, even though she is prob the most abusive ciffer there is. In fact thats what really made me lose my rag, after ultimas smear i responded quite, erm, robustly - that got deleted, but her dishonest smear remained untouched. Though i did complain to mods (with a rather colourful email) and 'Todd' deleted hers too. Todd is quite reasonable, my favourite Mod (how sad, i have a favourite mod, jesus, i need a new life...)

    ReplyDelete
  62. Well, kiz and I were deleted from the "comment is three thread" - no surprises there.

    Kiz mentioned "pies from Tuscany"

    So I said:
    "Now you're talking - best pies in the world! Sometimes, when I'm re-hashing a particularly difficult article (or thinkpiece, as we say in the trade), I find it helps to jet over to my villa and scoff a load of pies. If I was in charge of Cif I'd make that compulsory (for everybody that failed the 11 plus and still went to Oxbridge, that is).
    Oh, and also I would make Marina Hyde write loads more articles.
    And I would serialize Julie Myerson's fab new book.
    That's three things isn't it? Roll on Monday!"

    Don't know if I'm in pre-mod again, and couldn't be bothered even checking. Cif sabbatical for me.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "but I was always taught that the worst miscarriage of justice possible in a free society was for a innocent man to be wrongfully convicted."

    Yeah as far as i know thats why we have 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal convictions, for exactly that reason. The likes of Ultima would happily lay waste to much vaunted legal systems and centuries of principles if it soothed their ideological needs a tad.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I was told that this was where the cool kids hang out. I've brought some of my parent's sherry and two low tar B&H if I need to buy my way in.

    ReplyDelete
  65. You'll have to guess the password.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Yeah but we're also the hard kids, ca1eb. If you want in you'll have to scribble some rude words on cif first.

    ReplyDelete
  67. lol

    I see Cath has stomped into the row herself by posting a Blokeosphere article on her blog in response to this row. Unsurprisingly it seems it was me that was the main villain. She's made clear which side her breads butter on....

    ReplyDelete
  68. Has anyone else noticed that Tuscany is an anagram of "say cunt."

    Is there a connection between the fact that you apparently can't say cunt or Tuscany?

    I think we should be told.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Neither cunt nor Tuscany is acceptable. As for the two together...

    ReplyDelete
  70. Just saw Cath's blog. Not going to succumb to the temptation to post there, but I couldn't help cracking a smile at this example of the abuse she gets:

    “I am a frank person. I think your homosexuality makes you think funny. I know you have to be very careful about discussing reality these days, but homosexuality will alter the thinking of a human being from normal straight thinking to other kinds of mixed up thinking. It is my opinion you have these extreme reactions and radical opinions because you don’t think straight because you are homosexual. I am not trying to be mean or hurtful. I am trying to be factual and diagnose you like a doctor. Please don’t take what I say in a negative way.”

    That was a true classic. I presume that came from the same erstwhile Cif regular who used to post under every Peter Tatchell article or any other gay contributor with his theory that anal sex caused paralysis down one side of the body causing gay people to all have lopsided faces. He had a load of other quasi-medical theories about homosexuality too, and used to boast proudly that he'd worked them out all by himself.

    Can't remember his name, but he was a true comedy gem. I presume he's banned now.

    I also presume all the other arseholes who left the other comments Cath posts are also now banned, which kinda puts a different complexion on things. Ho hum.

    ReplyDelete
  71. The bloke you mention Ally sounds a little mentally ill maybe. Its hilarious, but you have to wonder about his mental health. Lopsided faces? There are some funny people out there...

    ReplyDelete
  72. Well Martillo, I did get a post deleted because I was rude about a Balamory character. And I once drove my car in a bus lane, and I shouted "you're bloody useless" at a football match back in the 80's.

    ReplyDelete
  73. AllyF - wow! At a rather hair-splitting level, the comment is more bizarre than anything else. It's lop-sided thinking, in all sorts of ways. But is it as malicious in intent, as opposed to malodorous in effect, as some of the others?

    Still, next time someone mentions Oscar Wilde's family, I'll be sure to mention that he had a lop-sided face.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Caleb

    "Well Martillo, I did get a post deleted because I was rude about a Balamory character."

    You obviously didn't read the charter. Shut the door on your way out.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "Well Martillo, I did get a post deleted because I was rude about a Balamory character."

    Look, we've all heard the rumours about threesomes involving PC Plum, Spencer and Archie, but there's no need to go spreading them all around the internet.

    Oh, and calling Edie McRedie an bug-eyed fat cunt was probably a bit beyond the pale too.

    (I do love this swearing with impunity thing!)

    ReplyDelete
  76. Actually, I think the poster referred to above is not banned, but still around.

    I could be wrong (and apologies if so) but I'm pretty sure it was Nunovalente.

    He still posts weird Christian stuff about sex and adultery and all of that, but he would appeared to have upped his medication of late, since his posts have mostly crept back within the broad realms of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  77. To be honest, I'm all for leaving Cath's blog well alone. It's a bit like turning up on a Man U forum and trying to convince them that Chelsea are a better team.

    Back in the day I used to visit the 'Ms' forums to try and debate feminism, but the torrent of abuse was awful, and it looks like Cath's blog attracts the same types. You're not going to win over anybody who thinks men only show empathy to get a shag...

    "Well Miss Jones, as your doctor it's my sad duty to tell you that I'm afraid you've only got a couple of weeks to live. I'm so sorry. If there's anything I can do to make it easier for you please let me know. Now, how about a shag?"

    But that also means if you say to a radical feminist "yes I empathise with your points" you're also trying to get a shag! That's probably why I've never managed to sleep with a radical feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Favourite insult: Dullard

    I frequently use this whilst gaming online. Most of the 14 year old tough guys then presume I'm French and ask me to 'learn English'. Gawd bless them.

    And might I add: arse, bollocks, wee wee, jism, poo, wank-stain and front botty.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Ca1eb - you're fooling no-one.

    Your self-conscious distancing from the idea that men only show empathy to get a shag is, of course, nothing more than a strategy to get a shag.

    Ditto for your Balamory point.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I've been wondering where the CiF regulars have been....I read Cath's blog and was highly impressed by the valiant efforts of Kizbot and Montan, (hugely disappointed of course by some of those posting).....and now this....I'm only echoing others, but congrats on the blog....

    Thanks Ca1eb...have the theme to Balamory playing out in my head now!

    ReplyDelete
  81. you've never managed to sleep with a radical feminist, Ca1eb? That's it, you've got no chance. Why don't you try the Poetry Club?

    ReplyDelete
  82. If you think women will fall for that ChooChoo you're completely bonkers. Those claiming to 'out' others as sly shag hunters are simply the more sophisticated variety of shag hunters themselves. It might work with cheap tarts but not enlightened radical feminists.

    My favourite new line from the loonblog:

    "I hadn’t even noticed you ChooChoo. Just so you know I don’t come here to talk to CIF misogynistic men. If I wanted to do that I’d comment at CIF itself. So there’s not much point in addressing any comments to me because after this I won’t be responding."

    I like the last bit - dont bother talking to me cos im going to ignore you.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I've just read Cath's most recent article. It's nice that she singled you out, Jay. You must be very proud.

    Some observations about that stormy thread:

    As far as I could see, 9 Cif'ers contributed - 6 male, 2 female and dot.

    There were 70 "Cif" comments out of a total of 254: 33 from men, 34 from women, 3 from dot.
    Few, if any, of the comments were personally offensive. Slap on the wrist for montana who got edited for calling someone a cow - it would apparently have been OK if she had said fucking weirdo, complete prick, testosterone fueled penis waver, arse, complete and utter idiot or paedophile. Those endearing terms may stand.

    The reaction to Ally's initial post certainly seemed disproportionate, but what the hell! Ally's purpose was only "patronising bigging up of himself as a philanthropist". It is also worth noting that the many disgusting comments which Cath quotes in her article never made it onto Cif or were deleted quickly. The disgusting comments and accusations made about Ally have not been deleted by Cath. However, she does say "Incidentally, I’m not defending some of the comments that have been made on this blog in recent weeks" - so that's all right then! Pop back whenever you like and read what a total hypocritical duplicitous bastard Ally is. It's a laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  84. JayReilly -

    Nice try.

    Outing another male as a 'shag-hunter hunter' is the oldest trick in the metronormative rulebook, which is not only unwritten but is also unspoken and unheard of, rendering it all the more insidious and powerful a mode of domination.

    ReplyDelete
  85. ChooChoo - you must me be a dreadful misogynist if you think women are so stupid they still fall for the triple bluff shag hunter routine, honestly...

    Scherf - i know - how did i end up the villain in all that?

    And the other point is one i made myself on her article - the abuse she points to was deleted, Pollys etc hasnt been which makes her appear to implictly condone it. I have asked her to confirm if she thinks pollys comment acceptable. All very strange.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @JayR

    Ouch. You've got me. I try not to think about my pathetic existence as a superficial clown who always relies on the triple bluff shag hunter routine. Your expose comes at a difficult point in my life. I hope a confessional tone is not too cringeworthy for y'all to read.

    Just last week I had a painful, but life-changing, discussion with a female friend. I say friend. Really she's just someone against whom to define my masculine identity.

    Anyway. We were talking about how men use empathy to get shags. Ca1eb's example, above, is classic material. My identity-forming non-person, whose name is Pair O'Tits, said,

    "Don't get me started on palliative medicine".

    Anyway. We then moved onto another kind of men who use a self-conscious awareness of how other men use empathy to get shags in order to get shags. We both lamented this fact. Of course, I was just saying this in order to get a shag. But it wasn't working. So I went on,

    "But, Pair, there are these other men, right, who use a self-conscious awareness of how other men use their self-conscious awareness of how still other men use empathy to get shags, in order to get shags, simply in order, of course, to get shags."

    "Whoa." she said, startled.

    "See what I mean?".

    "Yeah. This is a whole new paradigm layer. Never thought of it."

    "Exactly."

    At this point, I made a classic patriarchal error. I assumed that her agency had been completely effaced by subliminal messages from her reading of the unwritten laws of phallocentrism. I raised one of my eyebrows in a (this may sound arrogant, but it's true) rather sensuous, even sexy way, and said,

    "See what I mean?"

    "Hold on," she said. My face was wiped clean. "If you're right, then how do I know that you're not using your self-conscious awareness of how other men use their self-conscious awareness of how some men..."

    "...I think you missed out a layer of self-conscious..."

    "Shut the fuck up and listen...of how some men use empathy to get shags, in order to get shags, simply in order to try to shag me?"

    "Well, hold on a..."

    "Hold on! Don't try this patriarchal tenure shit on me. You're pathetic."

    At this point, I broke down. The emptiness of my life was suddenly uncovered and revealed to me with an intensity I've never experienced before. Was my whole life just an attempt to get a shag? Was this my lot for the rest of my life? Am I writing this just to get a shag? There was a long silence. I had shut the fuck up. And I had listened. And I had not shagged. At length, I whispered,

    "You're right. I am pathetic. After you said that, the emptiness of my life was suddenly uncovered and rev-"

    "And now you're just using this pathetic schtick to try to get a shag, right?"

    "No!" I protested. I closed my eyes and wept into my hands. I opened up my fingers slightly, and peeped at Pair, to see if I was having any effect. Her socially constructed and oppressively elicited - high five, patriarchs! - sense of empathy kicked in.

    "Look I didn't mean to upset you so much," she said.

    "I understand," I sobbed back. "Hey, Pair, can I ask you something? Honestly."

    "Go on," she said.

    "You know how I've realised my own pathetic state?"

    "Yep"

    "And realised how I was just using my own pathetic state as a way of trying to get inside your bra?"

    "I don't wear a -"

    "Inside your top."

    "Yes."

    "Does it...in any...does it, sort of, you know, turn you-"

    She rose up and stormed off. We've not spoken since. Though part of me wonders whether she might, you know, when she reads this.

    This is the depth of despair to which I've sunk...ladies.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Sooo close, choochoo. Although perhaps next time a somewhat simpler approach could be something to consider. Best of luck!

    ReplyDelete
  88. "Ally's purpose was only "patronising bigging up of himself as a philanthropist"."

    Well that's probably fair criticism.

    Actually, in all the madness that ensued, I never really explained my motivation for posting on that thread in the first place.

    It was quite shameless self-pluggery. Not because I particularly wanted to massage my own ego, but actually because I was trying to reel in some criticism onto the accompanying Cif thread I had that day.

    One thing I find really quite frustrating about writing constructive criticism (as I see it) of feminist ideology, is that it usually goes completely unchallenged.

    When I wrote about abuse of statistics, not a single one of the regular offenders or their supporters attempted to deny it or dispute it. They just ignored it.

    When I write about DV or other 'gender violence' issues, it is incredibly rare that a proponent of gender-based theories will come on to argue the opposite case. (To her credit, on a previous DV thread, Cath made a spirited effort.)

    On the one last week, it was only right at the end when 'matfem' appeared to challenge the research I quoted and then the thread was closed before I could properly reply - it was only at that point that I felt the debate was actually going somewhere useful.

    Instead, I just end up in incredibly esoteric debates with sarka (bless her) about socio-cultural meta-narratives and stuff, which is all very well but doesn't really get to the meat of the issue.

    I actually want to debate these issues. I'd be delighted if some informed, intelligent rad-fem would do her best to demolish my argument, because it would make for a great thread and it's quite likely that I would learn a lot - which I'm very happy to do.

    Instead I get landed with Bitethehand's relentless ad-hommery, which I struggle (and usually eventually fail) to keep patience with, and beyond that, an eerie, echoing silence from the radfem corner.

    So last week, when the article went up, I dropped by Cath's blog (and also the F-Word*) and left a comment and a link, basically just as bait. I'd hoped they might want to come by and argue with me (or at least insult me in an amusing fashion.)

    What is becoming increasingly clear is that these people don't actually want to debate the issues. They just *know* they are right and so anyone who tries to challenge the basis of their beliefs is clearly a raging misogynist who is not worth talking to.

    * Talking of the F-Word, I have to say, I quite like that blog. There's a really good range of feminist opinion in there, and a few people who actually are willing to engage in debate. Credit where due. Needless to say, some of Cath's regulars will have nothing to do with the place as it is infested with liberals, humanists** and collaborators.

    ** Did anyone else notice the way 'Humanist' gets used as an insult on Cath's blog? I'd never seen that one before. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with secular moral codes, so presumably a 'Humanist' is someone who believes in human rights rather than just women's rights. The horror...

    ReplyDelete
  89. @AllyF - completely. There was just no room for a discussion. It was staggering and disappointing. Most of all because - in a CiF context - none of those who contributed could in any plausible measure be considered among the 'misogynists'. Doesn't everyone think domestic violence - for sake argument, men beating women - is a bad thing and that, arguments over its incidence and origin aside, it would be worth countering? And can't people have some semblance of unity even where surface and roots are completely different? (If not, then London based homelessness charities - with the array of people involved - wouldn't and couldn't be run).

    For instance, some people think 'gendered violence' works, others don't. It's not really helping your notion of 'gendered violence' - or the practice of countering it - to declare that all those who don't think it works are patriarchitects or misogynaecologists or whatever.

    I must confess that, even if I disagree with what Cath says here and there in both substance and emphasis, I've always felt it possible to actually have a dialogue, even illuminating ones, with her. Really quite fond.

    @scherfig - will stick to the eyebrow-raising from now on.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Ally said :"Ally's purpose was only patronising bigging up of himself as a philanthropist".
    Well that's probably fair criticism."

    I can't see that as fair criticism at all. It strikes me that whoever it was who said that on Cath's blog simply needed to say something/anything that would explain your attempt to get involve and discuss issues in a patronising and negative way. You being a man, they felt it necessary to ascribe some sinister and anti-women reason to your comment. The shag comment was simply a more extreme version of this.

    The logic seems simple over there - any man who helps/identifies with/supports women, being male, MUST be doing it for himself because no males ever really give a fuck about women.

    It's a deeply depressing world-view.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Oh. My. God.

    There are normal people here. *Looks around blinking*. Excuse me while I lean against a wall after my long journey. I can shortly start lurking in what appears, at first glance, to be an eminently sensible place.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Oh, sweet jeezus, ChooChoo! After I get some clean undies on and the laughter-induced ache in my sides goes away, I may just hunt you down and shag you senseless. Being an emotionally stunted man-worshipper, there aren't too many things sexier to me than a man who can make such a momentous leap in self-awareness and then have the courage to admit to it publicly. Coming from an Arsehole, it's especially impressive.

    Jay - I agree with you about the deleting that went on at Cath's. If you ask me, most of what got slung at us was far worse than "arrogant cow" but it all got left out there. I kept giving Cath the benefit of the doubt and assuming that she wasn't deleting or editing because she was busy with her conference, but it's pretty clear now that she did feel it was acceptable to treat us that way.

    Ally - yeah, I noticed the 'humanist' taunt, too. I nearly commented on it the first time I noticed it getting thrown out as a pejorative. I mean, how can wanting all humans to be treated fairly be a bad thing? Still, I'm finding myself tempted to go back over there to take a gander. Kinda like not being able to take your eyes off a car crash, I guess. Or is it more like a little kid who keeps pulling the plaster off to look at the scab?

    And scherfig - *Sigh* Got the title wrong. "Det er mig du drømmer om". And it's one of my favourites - how did I get that wrong?

    Two final points for all you menz and a question:

    1. What the fuck??? I get a week off work where I have at least some hope of being in on threads while they're in full swing and you lot decide to 'take a break'? Thanks.

    2. I thought getting shagged was pretty much the only thing any man ever thought about (apart from whatever sport predominates the culture from which a given man comes).

    3. How do I turn off the spell checker in Chrome? So far, I'm liking it as a browser, but the squiggly red lines annoy the crap out of me.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Hit the 'post comment' button and three new comments show up with mine.

    Can I just say that, maybe I'm the moron, but I don't really get the whole 'gendered violence' thing. I guess what that's meant to be getting at is the notion that men who abuse their female partners are doing it out of a conscious belief that, because they are male, they have the right to control the woman's behaviour. Am I right? Well, if that is what the phrase means - then I've got to say I don't agree with it. I'd say most of the DV that I dealt with at the crisis centre stemmed from insecurity and an absolute terror on the part of the 'perpetrator' that he (forgive me for using the masculine pronoun here, guys) would lose a woman he genuinely believed that he loved. I mean, that was part of what always seemed so sick about it to me. You'd talk to the men and everything they said just seemed like they couldn't imagine how they would ever be able to function without this woman. In their minds, they really did love these women so much that they were willing to do whatever it took to keep them from leaving. That is, after all, when most of the violent episodes took place - when the woman was exerting some sort of independence that the men perceived as a possible end to the relationship. The only man I ever heard articulate a belief that it was a man's right to beat his wife to 'keep her in her place' was a religious nutjob who was a student in a class I was invited to speak to. He kept interrupting and citing Bible verses to justify it. (Well, I did hear Sean Connery say it in an interview once - but he didn't quote any Bible verses. He just said he thought once in awhile a woman needed a good smack. The interviewer thought he was joking, but he insisted that he wasn't.)

    ReplyDelete
  94. Hi it's me kiz... can't be blue as am not at home and fucked if I can remember my password.. A link to this space has been posted on Cath's new blog so maybe some of the fair-minded lasses will turn up for a chat and a cup of tea...
    I hope to hell Cath doesn't delete the exchanges between me and wildhack and the ladies as that would be censorship... and I wouldn't be pleased.. but I've copied them anyways....
    I sent her an email too, as I don't really want to post on her site if I'm going to be subjected to the kind of bile we got on friday night... just saying briefly that I wasn't happy about what happened and telling her about the piece me and wildhack wrote.. (it wasn't cath but another ciffer that posted the link, though)

    ReplyDelete
  95. Just got an Email from the mods:
    "I agree with you that it does not seem to breach our community standards and, for that reason, I can only assume that it was removed by mistake. I have reinstated it into the discussion and apologise for the error."

    My comment was (I've added caps here):

    Another last chance - how many is that then? Same old, same old. It's tiring INITIALLY To Hear Every Time - Until Socialism Can Attract New Younger Voters In Left-behind Labour Areas, Targets Will Inevitably Tank. Historic Aim - Hubristic Ambition.


    A small victory, but a victory, nonetheless. :o)

    ReplyDelete
  96. What the fuck??? I get a week off work where I have at least some hope of being in on threads while they're in full swing and you lot decide to 'take a break'? Thanks.

    Fair point, Montana. My own case, which I mentioned in my mail, was that I'm involved in a difficult project in which I'm getting further and further behind. I'll keep recommending your posts, though.

    Well done, scherfig

    ReplyDelete
  97. Matt Seaton really is an arrogant piece of shit, isn't he?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Re Humanist

    I'd have thought humanist was a pejorative term since it stresses a reliance and faith in rationality and is linked with 'scientism'. This kinda precludes a belief in 'wise' women, earth mothers and a special kind of 'knowing'.

    Enlightenment thinking is an especially vicious weapon of the patriarchy. It's tendency to spit out rational thinking, statistics and logical conclusions makes it anathema to all sorts of self-identifying cultures who prefer to pursue alternative, socially (self) constructed realities.

    I'm still in pre mod anyway and I'm boycotting the site.(They won't be able to hold out for long-they'll have to come on bended knee with free beer) Cif is anything but humanist. It's belief systems, ethics and penal code are arbitrary, discriminatory and illogical. They have become a self affirming cult.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I think 'humanist' is used by a few radfems as an insult on Cath's site because they contrast it with 'feminist'. As in "I'll care about humans when women have achieved their goals". It's a misuse of the term, fairly obviously, but there you go.

    I'm pretty happy to say I'm a humanist. But I think it was a bit 'wishy-washy' for certain people. I also said I tried to approach people as individuals, rather than mere examples of a particular race, sex, religion or sexuality, and that was, again, greeted with scorn by some. "Well, that might be acceptable on a libfem blog!"

    ReplyDelete
  100. I've just finished reading Cath's piece about the Friday night free-for-all and the ensuing comments. ChooChoo, Jay & Damagedoor - you did us proud. I'm slightly tempted to post a comment, but I'm going to have to work out in my mind what I say before I start typing anything in the comment box over there, if I do. Cath has disappointed me tremendously with the way she's handled things - she does indeed make it pretty clear where her chips fall. To imply that Ally has anything at all in common with this jerkwad Kyle Payne* just floors me. This case received next to no attention in mainstream Iowa media. I had to Google his name to find out who he was. That she would need to refer to an obscure case a quarter of the way around the world to find an example of someone who'd posed as a sympathetic male and then sexually assaulted a girl says quite a bit about the commonplace nature of the situation, n'est ce pas?

    And she completely glossed over the treatment that Kiz and I received, which leads me to believe that she felt it was acceptable.

    *Article from the Spencer Daily Reporter for anyone unfamiliar with this case can be found at:

    http://www.spencerdailyreporter.com/story/1456091.html

    ReplyDelete
  101. I do love the way a comment from Ally here which starts thus:

    ""Ally's purpose was only "patronising bigging up of himself as a philanthropist"."

    Well that's probably fair criticism. "

    ...has now been copied over onto Cath's blog (minus the intro quoted above, naturally) and used as yet more proof of what a misogynist bastard he is. My God, he went there and debated with them in a deliberate attempt to get people to debate with him! He really is unspeakable. My eyes have been opened. I'm leaving him right now. I might even kick him in the balls on my way out.

    As somebody said above, when people believe so strongly that all men are bastards, and are so determined that they will turn all behaviours (including a man attempting to help a female victim of rape) into proof that men are bastards... then debate with them is pointless and unrewarding. Which is why I'm leaving well alone, although I have to confess to some lingering oh-my-god-now-look-what-they're-saying lurky goodness.

    ReplyDelete
  102. The thing about Matt Seaton, montana, is he's 'only doing his job'. The Guardian feels more 'corporate' (you know what I mean) these days and his job (whatever it is) involves defending corporate policy. That's why his only real arguments are 'read the guidelines' or 'send us a mail'. This was the last mail I received: "Hi Tony,

    Your posts are being pre-moderated following a series of personal attacks on an author.

    As soon as the moderation team is satisfied that your posts consistently meet our community standards, your full posting rights will be returned. Please find the community standards here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/talkpolicy

    Best wishes"

    The series of attacks was my one Tuscany effort. Really, I love CIF, but I'm so tired of the inconsistency and lack of interaction at the moment. This is much more fun, even if it doesn't have the variety.

    Sorry about the Trotters. We managed a stultifying draw tonight...

    ReplyDelete
  103. Honestly, Clare! How do you put up with the oppression and objectification? You must be another emotionally stunted man-worshipper!

    Last time I looked at it, delphyne & sparklematrix were consoling/congratulating each other about the whole thing. Too funny, really.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Oh... are you up, montana?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Don't worry about Ally, Clare, it's probably good for his karma to be treated as a vile misogynist from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I suppose you're right, martillo. Maybe I am being a bit too hard on the boy. I mean - he probably doesn't kick puppies for fun. So how is it that one Tuscany reference gets you in pre-mod and gets bupkis for me? I will say, seeing as how my most recent Tuscany reference read like a glowing bit of support for Polly, I was surprised it didn't last. Maybe the niceness of mine kept me out of the sin bin? Or maybe my sex really does work in my favour and men get sent there more frequently. I say it's high time for the sin bin to be sexually integrated. This is just another example of the patriarchy keeping women down. Women can never truly be equal to men until they, too, are sent into pre-mod in an arbitrary and unfair manner. Maybe I should e-mail Bidisha.

    (comment above @ 21:59 was reaction to the end of the min-by-min. Still a scoreless draw is better than 1-4 at home. Just ask a ManU supporter.)

    ReplyDelete
  107. Am I up?? It's only 5:20 pm here, sweet pea!

    ReplyDelete
  108. 5:20 pm. I'll never get the hang of these here time differences. I'm starting in 8 hours, so I have to go to bed soon. When are you coming over to the old world?

    True what you say. On the other hand, a post of mine which is less than flattering to yesterday's mod is still there. Also, just to check, I posted something on Matt S's latest. Not in pre-mod. So inconsistent...

    ReplyDelete
  109. I will arrive in the Old World just as soon as I figure out how to make sure that once I'm over there I won't ever have to set foot in the New World again. If I didn't have the sprog to worry about, I'd probably be happy to just buy a plane ticket and take my chances. I have a friend from uni who lives in Paris. I've thought about telling him he needs to marry me so I can live there, too (he's gay - not likely to be getting married any time soon).

    We're 5 hrs behind GMT right now (did our time switch last weekend - I believe we'll be 6 hrs behind again in a couple of weeks).

    ReplyDelete
  110. ChooCHoo

    I feel your pain, i really do. A homeless woman asked me for change, i gave her some - she headbutted me. She spotted my shag hunting a mile off. Some of them are clever, not so easily fooled, and i never see it coming...

    "I'd have thought humanist was a pejorative term since it stresses a reliance and faith in rationality and is linked with 'scientism'. This kinda precludes a belief in 'wise' women, earth mothers and a special kind of 'knowing'."

    That cracked me up. It brought back memories of a social science module i endured for degree, it featured a lengthy attack on the maleness of science and the aggressive attack on womanly gaia it entailed.

    "That she would need to refer to an obscure case a quarter of the way around the world to find an example of someone who'd posed as a sympathetic male and then sexually assaulted a girl says quite a bit about the commonplace nature of the situation,"

    Thats what that bloke did!?!!?? Oh my goodness, what has happened to cath...

    "Last time I looked at it, delphyne & sparklematrix were consoling/congratulating each other about the whole thing. Too funny, really."

    Yeah i have to say im gettig to the point where i just find them funny, cartoon radfems spitting unquenchable anger at the evil men.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I actually wrote down a phrase from one of delphyne's early comments - it was just too precious! She referred to the burden of having to live with the "never-ending tirade of hatred from men." Isn't that sweet?

    ReplyDelete
  112. elementary_watson17 March, 2009 08:09

    I would offer my consolation for her to better be able to cope with this never-ending tirade of hatred from men, but she would probably read this as trying to get a shag.

    Which, of course, would be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I'd warn her of your sinister intentions, Watson, but then she'd see straight through that too and my own shag hunting would be laid bare...

    ReplyDelete
  114. If it makes you feel any better folks they seem to be rude to every single newcomer they get, including feminists. ON the 'Big Man' thread there are two fairly reasonable sounding feminists getting an earful, "fuckwit".... What an unpleasant, rude little blog that place is... you should have a read of the other threads, quite funny seeing how much bile flies around.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Jay, go back to February and a thread called "me me me."

    It was a very revealing discussion. Brutal.

    ReplyDelete
  116. I've had it bad on two other threads there, although admittedly, re-reading them, it does appear as though I may have been a little drunk and lacking in clarity. It was interesting to see intelligent, well-meaning people go through the same process as me: a desire to engage and be polite; a bemused shake of the head; a frown; more attempts to be polite; slow bafflement; rising anger; disbelief; sheer disbelief; suppressed anger; one last stab at being polite; eruption/disengagement.

    Reassured me slightly.

    Montana - "And she completely glossed over the treatment that Kiz and I received, which leads me to believe that she felt it was acceptable."

    I don't think you should read it that way. Cath has always seemed reasonable and intelligent, and I imagine she read that thread with the same sense of mounting horror any sane person would feel. You can't look at the things stormy and sparkle were saying towards the end and see anything other than utter bollocks. I suspect - may be wrong - that there is a fair amount of slightly desperate doublethink going on right now.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "Jay, go back to February and a thread called "me me me."

    It was a very revealing discussion. Brutal"

    Without wanting to belittle the underlying issues, is it wrong of me that I found Zenobia's Feb 11, 9.24 am post rather pleasing? No messing around there - straight in with the boot:

    "Look, I don’t especially give a fuck about your opinions about stuff. As far as I’m concerned, you’re all internet whackjobs"

    Zenobia has talked with these people before.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Trouble is damagedoor that if you've got your own blog or forum it's quite hard to build up a following of regular visitors. Once you do you need to look after them and keep them coming back for more. Cath's position isn't one I'd envy, particularly when people who know her as a more reasonable person over on CiF drop by.

    She could either moderate the comments of her regular visitors, who use it as a haven against the 'never-ending tirade of hatred from men' and risk losing them to sites like feministing, or she can do so to 'misogynists' who visit to stir things up for self aggrandizing purposes.

    Either way Cath's going to get it in the neck eventually. She'll blog about rapists getting chemically castrated and how she agrees with it (or some such subject) and then someone'll pipe up with "just kill them", "cut off their willies" or "make them get raped by a brontosaurus". Cath might think "hmm... two of those points are going too far and the third isn't possible, I shall let them know." And before you can say "men only act nice to get laid" she'll be shouted down as a misogynist.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Sooooo...

    I've been here a while, acted nice and courteous, agreed with what people have been saying and generally just come across as a nice guy.

    When do I get my shag?

    I mean, it's not as if I've wanted to be so bloody agreeable, and I've got urges you know? And that Poetry Club Martillo suggested was rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Don't worry, Ca1eb, you do get your shag. Several, in fact. You start with Monkeyfish and then work your way up the chain.

    I've been looking at Cath's blog. Just one tiny criticism of ciffers over there: could we have a little less of the 'nastiest thing I've ever seen' type of hyperbole? I don't like it from Bindel, either. As for being offended, I thought most of us here didn't believe in a right to be spared offence.

    Apart from that, well done everybody. Good show!

    ReplyDelete
  121. Oh yes, and a confession. I've just posted on ZW's thread. This time off is going to be hard. Maybe I'll wean myself off slowly...

    ReplyDelete
  122. Yeah, I thought some of our (by which I mean to take sides without actually having done anything) responses were a bit prudish, but I must say that the comment made me gasp just by how low the poster had stooped to say it. I've read worse, but that was mostly by kids who thought I was French. The little shits.

    And no offense to Monkeyfish, but a cross twixt primate and fish is no place for a man to put his tallywhacker.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Nor is a damagedoor, for future reference.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Now I'm wondering how door became damaged.

    ReplyDelete
  125. He was visiting Cath's blog, and unfortunately became completely unhinged.

    ReplyDelete
  126. That's because he was framed: injustice will often do that.

    ReplyDelete
  127. "Jay, go back to February and a thread called "me me me."


    Jesus. I really dont know why anyone would want to post on that blog, i really dont. Its all just so unpleasant, so sneering, so quick to attack people, so spiteful. I cant believe thats Caths blog.

    ""Look, I don’t especially give a fuck about your opinions about stuff. As far as I’m concerned, you’re all internet whackjobs""

    My thoughts exactly.

    "When do I get my shag?"

    Oi, get in line!

    "could we have a little less of the 'nastiest thing I've ever seen' type of hyperbole?"

    I think someone made an important distinction between what you have seen from intelligent, articulate posters online, and trolls. And from trolls ive seen far worse, the things cath quotes are worse, but for an articulate poster who is not clearly a troll, it really is one of the most unpleasant things i've seen online. If ultima said it i would be shocked, which is saying something. If someones partner has had an experience like that, its clearly going to be a serious thing for that person, to accuse them of mere shag hunting is just so, so low. But you're probably right, we probably overstated the case, i probably have seen worse, i just cant recall it (trolls aside).

    ReplyDelete
  128. "That's because he was framed: injustice will often do that."

    And all because I have a knob. (Sad, pouty face).

    ReplyDelete
  129. "I think someone made an important distinction between what you have seen from intelligent, articulate posters online, and trolls"

    I'm sure Stormy and co will be very flattered by your distinction, jay.

    I don't want to speak for Allyf, but I think he got some fairly unpleasant accusations from the source you mentioned...

    ReplyDelete
  130. Well, maybe intelligent and articulate is too much, but probably 'educated' and not intentionally trolling. The comments cath got were only posted to abuse and annoy her, presumably, whereas the likes of storm seem sincere (and mental).

    I really hope M Seaton comes back on that thread, would be nice if we could have a bit of a quick chat...

    ReplyDelete
  131. I don't think you'll get a response, Jay. He's busy defending the rights of cyclists to do whatever the fuck they like.

    ReplyDelete
  132. God damn, i just wanted a brief conversation with him, he's effectively slandered me a someone it would be 'ill advised' to make common cause with, i've responded politely and now hes ignoring me. The guardian does my head in sometimes.... frequently actually....

    ReplyDelete
  133. You haven't been banging your head against a certain 'door', have you?

    ReplyDelete
  134. The impenetrable door of CIF dialogue, yes, they ask our opinions, then ignore us and/or tell us our opinions were rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  135. In case you missed it Kiz, ultima has just had a post removed which claimed:

    Me and Len should be banned.
    I have 'hideously abused' Cath and Bindel.
    You and Annetan are 'backstabbers', you have abused Cath with me, and we all giggled about it like little girls.

    Classic thule.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Sounds fair enough to me Jay.

    I see Ally's braving Cath's blog again, but I reckon he's wasting his time. They're looking for the smallest thing to knock him down on.

    Does anyone know of any moderate feminist forums or is Cath's blog par for the course? That might be a better place to try and start a worthwhile debate?

    ReplyDelete
  137. Yep, it seemed that Cath wanted to have another try to have a sensible, constructive debate. Under the circumstances I felt I couldn't really refrain from contributing.

    Can't see the conversation going anywhere fast, but it would seem rude not to.

    Jay - I thought your comment on Matt's birthday thread, where you talked about the left's fear of making common cause with 'the bad guys', was quite outstanding.

    Would have been nice to see a response.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Cheers Ally. It annoys me a lot because i think most of the shortcomings of the left stem from that, or a good deal of them at least, that sort of sloppy thinking and tribalism is a gift to the right, and to bigots. But no response from Matt, which i find a tad annoying to, he seemed to have a sly pop at me in his response to you, i took time to reply and he has ignored me.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Jay - in which thread did Ultima's comment appear? I've just been reading the Seaton thread. It would seem that he's deliberately ignoring you.

    ReplyDelete
  140. What thread was the thule on?
    Cath has actually modded some of that thread now so it kinda makes it look like me and wildhack have been exaggerating... but I've got all the comments directed at us in their unedited form..
    scherfig- managed a joke at yr expense on the hungover thread...
    it read "if scherfig was here i could report him for having a villa in Tuscany'
    doubt it'll last...

    ReplyDelete
  141. It was on the Smith rape thread, what annetans done to deserve her wrath i dont know, or you for that matter:

    Anyway, my response is still there so i can use it to quote some of it, it was all in one bizarre post which was promptly deleted, which made me smile:

    "Annetan; It's disgusting the way you collude with Kitz and Reilly in abusing Cath."

    Then she said of me and Len,

    "They post hideous abuse about all the feminists like Cath and Bindel"

    Theh she praised feminist posters but -

    "the exceptions are Annetan and Kiz who tend to agree with everything they say. They rather like stabbing other femis in the back, though, so beware there, as well."

    I know you said you try and go easy on her Kiz, and i used to, but im sure one day you'll reach breaking point like me. I will never be civil with that woman again. Anyhow, i spoke up on behalf of everyone and so did another poster (maybe another 2), so i dont think any misonceptions have been left lying around.

    I feel like a little tell tale running over here about ultima but any morality i have is completely absent where she is involved so i feel no guilt...

    And yes, still no response from Seaton, i tried my hardest to ask nicely and not get stroppy but still not a word, but he has since responded to about 4 other posters, so he is on there.

    ReplyDelete
  142. "And yes, still no response from Seaton, i tried my hardest to ask nicely and not get stroppy but still not a word, but he has since responded to about 4 other posters, so he is on there."

    To be fair, he responded to the crack someone made about cycling, which is clearly of far greater use to the world.

    ReplyDelete
  143. ooher Jay I'm off to sniff out that then...
    and just a thought folks... is it not time to stop the baiting of the rads on cath's blog.. I doubt there's anyone who is as hopping mad at them as I am... but I just don't want to end up alienating cath... it's her blog space... I did tell her about mine and wildhacks post here in an email and hoped she'd come for a chat over here but prob too busy... or even just doesn't want to go down that road... fair enuf... I'd be willing to discuss it anytime she is... either here or on cif..
    but as for the radz
    not worf it... so leave it now, I say...

    ReplyDelete
  144. You're very sensible, Kiz, and quite right. My wife is also shaking her head at me.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Yeah, I saw that, kiz. Since when was having a villa in Tuscany detrimental to being a socialist? You are a jealous classist!

    BTW - I've already fucked up my sabbatical by commenting on the rape thread - couldn't let the ultima thing lie. (And I copied her deleted comment.) She's doing her usual thing of writing garbage and/or lies, and then either running away or claiming that she was misquoted and other people are are dishonest blah blah blah, So I re-posted her original comment on innocent men going to jail. She has not reappeared.

    However, no doubt flushed by ultima having told him to keep up the good work, BTH has just challenged me on an comment I made on another thread a week ago - off-topic or what? He walked right into it - see Joan Smith's thread for my reply and then probably .....nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  146. go on then scherfig- post it here then... I saw the bit in one post where she said it was disgusting the way me and annetan collude with reilly to abuse cath and posted a reply to that... but I'd love to see what else she said..

    ReplyDelete
  147. kiz,not sure if either of these survive now. Interesting footnote - her comment from three days ago has disappeared in the last few hours! Presumably because it was being discussed, and she was lying about what she actually said. So someone (herself?) has got it deleted. Anyhow, read'em and weep -


    ultimathule's comment 17 Mar 09, 2:34pm (48

    minutes ago)

    cnimo and icz85 Good posts! And Bitethehand as

    well! Keep up the good work!

    Why has feminism come under attack in the

    context of an article about the rapist Worboys

    Reilly and Len are hopeless cases. I 've quit talking

    to them. They post hideous abuse about all the

    feminists like Cath and Bindel : I fail to see why they

    have not been banned. Jay can fake a good

    argument but plays tricks ,so beware, and is total

    chauvinist at heart. The exceptions are Annetan and

    Kiz who tend to agree with everything they say.They

    rather like stabbing other femis in the back, though,

    so beware there, as well. I 've sometimes wondered

    if they are women since they seem to accept

    amazing things...but maybe they are, all women are

    not made of the same wood.

    Recommended (2)


    Soft on rape, soft on the causes of rape

    ultimathule's comment 17 Mar 09, 2:20pm (about 1

    hour ago)

    girlfrommarz: I was not suggesting that the

    presumption of innocence is thrown out.That is a

    misquote of my post. Nowhere do I suggest throwing

    out the presumption of innocence. You will see in,

    fact, if you bother to check, that I advocate bringing it

    in for women. You will see, though, that I do say the

    burden of proof is much higher in rape case than it is

    on other crimes.This is incoherent and tells of

    injustice within a system. There is nothing to explain

    this but attitudes.

    I said I do not accept letting ten rapists go in order to

    free one innocent. To say such things is

    irresponsible rhetoric and implies only that the

    person who says so thinks, that the suffering of one

    man is more important than the suffering of ten

    women. The rape victims who are real and who fail

    to get the justice they deserve are forgotten to attend

    to this imaginary ill. The whole concept of innocent

    men going to prison is another rhetoric device to

    render men who are in fact guilty rapists into

    innocent protagonists.
    And to those who have said letting rapists go hurts

    no one : what about the next victim? 70% of sex

    offenders renew their act.

    To Jay Reilly who claims that the whole world envies

    the justice system the British have. Not really, Reilly.

    Other countires have working systems of law and

    are quite happy with them. I rather regret myself that

    we abandoned the standing Scandinavian Viking

    system in force in here in the Midle Ages (brought to

    here by Swedes): according to it, if a woman

    stabbed a man, who tried to rape her, she was not

    punished.The Scandinavian tradition also took it to

    be acceptable to punish a person for a crime, even

    when there was no evidence, if it was the only

    conceivable explanation. "Progress" , and

    "civilization" can go backwards sometimes. A wry

    smile.

    So now we have degrees of rape which some have

    wondered about.There are three degrees of rape
    1) sexual abuse
    2) forced intercouse
    3) rape
    One and two do not involve physical violence and

    carry lighter sentences.1) can occur with a minor (

    for me it is not particularly clear why is it more

    acceptable and carries a lighter sentence to rape a

    minor). 2) is when you drug or threathen the victim

    (again to me not acceptable because drugging

    requires premeditation and planning and to me is

    more, not less, condemnable) 3) is rape with

    violence
    In practise it has lead to many cases being judged

    either as one or two as it is easier to get a conviction

    in these and thus it has lead to a rape proper

    conviction to be quite hard to come by. Also it has

    lead to rape convictions being lighter, sometimes

    even suspended sentence. I admire seven or eight

    year sentences the Brits give, when they do reach a

    sentence. To me that should be closer to the term

    justice. But The Finnish justice system generally

    carries lighter sentences for everything, and that

    might be worth noting in this context. Many people

    here are unhappy with that state of affairs,

    particularly when it comes to violent crime. There

    have been calls for stiffer sentences.

    Annetan; It's disgusting the way you collude with Kitz

    and Reilly in abusing Cath. I cannot believe you

    giggle there like silly children at insults and abuse

    thrown at her. Look at yourselves! How immature!

    ReplyDelete
  148. Sorry about how came out - makes reading it even more painful. Some nuggets of gold amid the dross though. :o)

    ReplyDelete
  149. 'I 've sometimes wondered

    if they are women since they seem to accept

    amazing things..'
    Freakin heck... we's deh menz!

    ReplyDelete
  150. kiz, it's a bitter thing to have to say, but I never could understand why you ever defended ultima, and a lesser man would now say I told you so. But I won't ...I won't......the hell I won't!

    The pies are on me :o)

    ReplyDelete
  151. well scherfig- I've always defended her because I think she says things first and thinks later... but she'll get the rough edge of my tongue when I get hold of her that's for sure...
    are the pies Tuscan?

    ReplyDelete
  152. I'll get the cook at the villa to knock up a batch and ship them over. You can much them while you're waiting for ultima to show up again. I'll order loads, shall I?

    ReplyDelete
  153. Should I be feel hurt that Ultima didn't include me in her rant? I'm a bit worried that my credentials as a man-worshipper might not be up to snuff.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Wow, a blog about blogging about blogs! I thought I had a slight Internet problem, but you people scare me...!

    ReplyDelete
  155. "Should I be feel hurt that Ultima didn't include me in her rant? I'm a bit worried that my credentials as a man-worshipper might not be up to snuff."

    Dont take it personally Montana, its ultima, your time will come, really it will. It comes to everyone in the end...

    "The whole concept of innocent

    men going to prison is another rhetoric device to

    render men who are in fact guilty rapists into

    innocent protagonists."

    Now she has said some things in her time, but this is right up there.

    As for caths blog i am trying to leave it alone now, the rads seem to have laid down their arms which is enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Bloody hell.

    Outbreak of reasonableness and decency over at Caff's Caff.

    Couldn't resist the challenge, but I'm knackered now. It's actually much less demanding just sitting back and being kicked around like a sack of hay.

    And I have a deadline at work this week, so if anyone spots me here or there or in the other place during working hours, do me a favour and kick my arse and send me away...

    ReplyDelete
  157. @Jay - do you get the feeling that Ultima's one of those wimmin who sees all het sex as rape? (I've just noticed my lack of proofreading my earlier comment - /Should I be feel hurt Aargh!)

    ReplyDelete
  158. I have no clue where that forward slash came from.

    ReplyDelete
  159. "Wow, a blog about blogging about blogs! I thought I had a slight Internet problem, but you people scare me...!"

    Wooo! WOOOO! I'm a ghost!

    Sorry, this is my first time intimidating somebody, and I really want to milk it.

    Woooo! WOOOO! Repent!

    ReplyDelete
  160. Hi all,

    Really busy at work so I've only been skim reading the comments (here and CIF and Cath's).

    Wanted to say:

    Wow, well done Ally over at Cath's!

    Wow, I've never seen ultima self destruct quite like that, wish I had the time to try and talk her round again, but just don't.

    And finally, can someone save me a Tuscan pie? There's a cup of tea in it!

    ReplyDelete
  161. Stop it, ca1eb, you're scaring me too.

    Thing is, Damntheral, it's a chance to talk about things without being controlled by someone else's (arbitrary) rules. Which reminds me... remember your dismay when you had a joke cut on a thread by Ariane Sherine? I asked about it on the thread (here) about moderation.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Montana,

    Ultima seeing het sex as rape? Wouldnt surprise me in the slightest, though maybe she's not quite that far gone.

    "And I have a deadline at work this week, so if anyone spots me here or there or in the other place during working hours, do me a favour and kick my arse and send me away..."

    I found the ellipsis at the end of his comment a bit sickening actually, full of self important and swagger.

    I just read a nice work of fiction from bitethehand, apparently the fems were polite to ally and ally became 'more aggressive' in response. I dont know how people can be so shameless as to lie on forums when things are so easy to check, its all there, recorded, in black and white, quotable, i dont understand it at all.

    ReplyDelete
  163. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  164. You're wrong, Jay. The ellipsis is, essentially, feminist expression: it expresses doubt; possibility, unlike male 'Science' discourse with its phallocentric certainties and imperious, rule-bound full-stops.

    ReplyDelete
  165. I stand completely corrected martillo. But i must say, looking at it this way he's even worse, he is trying to adopt the language of his victims for his own ends, to show he's on their side, one of them, just to gain their trust and eventually get a you know what out of it. Sick. He's certainly an abuser, thats very clear now.

    ReplyDelete
  166. I certainly can't argue with that analysis, sister!

    ReplyDelete
  167. Yeah, Jay, BTH twists and turns and lies with the best of them. He finally replied to the asperger comment (sort of). As the thread is now closed, there's no comeback. He manged to give the impression that it was my comment, he said he thought it was insulting, couldn't understand that it wasn't deleted, didn't refer to the original comment that I'd used (millytante btw), waffled on about autism and spastics and somehow it all came out as me being a terrible person. Which I am. So he got one thing right - there's a first.

    BTW If the ellipsis is feminine and the full-stop phallocentric, is the semi-colon bisexual?

    ReplyDelete
  168. Yeah the final little dishonest attempt to still claim the insult was yours really grated. Theres quite a few liars on CIF, sadly. I have quite a lot of respect for quite a few posters who i argue with bitterly on almost everything, but my feelings for the likes of BTH and Ultima who just make things up are probably too coarse to publish even on this unmoderated utopia...

    ReplyDelete
  169. No. It's clearly post-feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Jay: your boss has asked me to tell you not to even look at cif this afternoon. With the current offering, you'll never get out!

    ReplyDelete
  171. "like why AllyF's article on men getting more severe sentences was vetoed by the Cif editorial board. (I mean, it's not as if anyone has ever written anything similar on the site so far)."

    Is this true Ally? Did you submit an article on sentencing?

    ReplyDelete
  172. Martillo - 3 fem rants in a row, christ!! I need to do some work...

    How do i post a new blog here? I have had a deletion, the mods kindly emailed me back the offending comment and it is a pristine example of partisan modding. I would quite like to post it as a new blog for peoples thoughts, and for posterity.

    ReplyDelete
  173. send it to Montana. Her mail's here somewhere...

    ReplyDelete
  174. theWildhack@gmail.com


    Reilly, if it's your usual misogynist, sexist, offensive rubbish, I for one, will NOT be reading it or engaging with you! You menz fucker!

    Yours disgustedly, stormy (and her mate sparklematrix)

    ReplyDelete
  175. "like why AllyF's article on men getting more severe sentences was vetoed by the Cif editorial board. (I mean, it's not as if anyone has ever written anything similar on the site so far)."

    Oh FFS - where was that written?

    This has got me into so much trouble already!

    The whole story is that late last year I offered CIF an article about a couple of cases of child abuse, one of which was the infamous story of a middle-aged woman who had an affair with a 14 year old friend of her son, and also procured cocaine and stuff. The judge told her that the boy had led her on and that it was all the boy's fault, or words to that effect and she got a suspended sentence. The other case was a bloke who'd had a similar affair with a girl and had the book thrown at him.

    It got knocked back, with some reasonable criticisms (which I didn't entirely agree with but hey.) I know that Cif get many more submissions than they can use, usually they take mine, but not always. No complaints, it's part of the game.

    However the same week someone mentioned the precise same issue, and I made a throwaway remark that I'd offered Cif an article on it but it hadn't made the cut. I wasn't complaining, I only mentioned it because it came up in conversation. I knew immediately after that it was a mistake to say it, as Cif commissioning editors make their own decisions on what goes up and what doesn't, and that negotiations over commissioning are between Cif & the writers, not for public consumption. Understandably they don't like being bullied by either contributors or commenters. That's how it should be.

    I had to swap several apologetic emails with the editors in which they said (and I believe them) that they have no problem with anyone making the argument about gender bias in sentencing, I was welcome to resubmit any time, and it was just that one article that hadn't made the grade. I have no problem with that.

    Since then a couple of posters keep dragging it up as evidence of Cif's pro-feminist bias (which I never claimed) and every time they do I get more grief from HQ!

    But of course every time it gets mentioned, the posts get deleted without any real explanation, which just reinforces the conspiracy theories!

    Damn and buggery. Probably more grovelling required.

    Oh, and I'm not really here OK? You ain't seen me, roight?

    ReplyDelete
  176. I shant say another word about it Mr Fogg, sounds like you've had your fill already.

    And i agree regarding the editors, they shouldnt have to defend their choices to the mob. Seems a bit of a mountain from a molehill, though not of your creation obviously..

    Scherfig

    Well, it will be full of hatred, but i want it to be focused hatred. I cant write it right now, i am engrossed in some exceptionally violent porn which i imported from Africa, the death toll in it is higher than Rambo. But at some point i think i may cobble together a few words of choice misogyny to send to Montana. I cant be bothered actually, im just gonna post it here:

    "Dear JayReilly,

    The comment was removed as the implication that feminists are predominantly concerned with women's superiority over men was considered offensive.

    Best,

    Community Moderator "


    Here's the actual post (they sent it back to me which was good of them actually):

    "Why is it so many men find comfort in branding the highly desirable aim of achieving equality for women"

    I think, BTH, most adults can see quite plainly that feminism is not simply about 'equal rights for women'. Some feminists are interested in that only, many arent. If you think the likes of Bindel just want 'equality' then i dont know what to say really.

    I'll ask you as well, BTH, if 'feminism' is so worthy and noble and just has the decent aim of equal rights for women, why do 90% of women reject 'feminism' now? Please i really would like to hear your thoughts on that (im not being facetious, not intentionally at least). Surely such a thing as you describe, this noble little goal, wouuld be shared by, well, at least 90% of women? So why the mismatch? What explains this jarring discrepancy? What is it about 'feminism' that 90% of women now reject?"


    Now, i might have been a little more delicate and diplomatic, but essentially it is a polite critique of certain elements of an ideology - feminism. I also stressed that some feminists were genuinely only after equality, didnt want to make unreasonable generalisations. And it got deleted. I asked the mods why an ideology should be exempt from non abusive criticism but they said they didnt have the time to discuss it further.

    As i say, it could have been more delicate, but at heart it is a non abusive criticism of a political ideology. Newspapers shouldnt be deleting that sort of comment, it is very clearly a partisan deletion. Criticisms of neoliberalism, fascism, nationalism, socialism, whatever, none of them are protected like this.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Yeah, Jay, can't see it myself. They seem to have missed the point of the comment - although the phrase that they use, "was considered offensive", might imply that someone else reported it as "offensive" and they just caved.

    "implication", "predominantly concerned" and "superiority" - I can understand their reluctance to discuss it further. Their adjudication is a hell of a stretch. Could be that they're all Derridaean deconstructionalists.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Blimey, Jay. I might disagree with some of your points and would probably challenge that 90% figure, but thanks for that glimpse into the mind of a mod. And I really do feel the reason the whole thing feels so arbitrary is that the brief is not (as I'd originally imagined) 'if you feel a reasonable person would be offended by this comment, delete it', but 'if you are personally offended or even if a small part of you suspects it might possibly offend someone, somewhere (apart from Christians or white middle class heterosexual males, obviously), then delete it'. No wonder it's too 'boring' to discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  179. There are several posters in particular on Cath's blog who seem to be borderline psychotic. I'm sure they're perfectly normal, if slightly bitter people in "real life" who simply fall foul of penny arcade's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

    I've never seen anything like it, and I hang about on emo forums.

    Rob (oneinten)

    ReplyDelete
  180. Scherfig - but i think this is where the modding becomes partisan, because if i reported a comment offensive, you can bet they wouldnt delete it. Though it seems to require a report abuse for most things to be modded, if the comment is against the Guardian line then the mods seem to comply and delete the message. If the comment is in tune with the Guardian i suspect the 'abuse report' would be ignored. Also in the guidelines doesnt it say no 'abusive' comments? Even if someone took offense, i think it would be a push to call that 'abusive'. Its all very tiresome...

    Martillo,

    Im not certain bout the 90% but i suspect its very very high and i have heard 90% quoted a few times. Though of course if you ask a woman on the street "are you a feminist?" that isnt the same as saying "do you support equal rights for women?" Thats my point. 100% of women would say yes to the latter but, apparently, about 90% answer no to the former. So there must be a perception thing among women as well that feminism isnt just about wanting equal rights.

    I feel a bit unfair with that line of attack because i dont think its very fair to fems who really do just want a bit of fairness and equality (and theres plenty of them on cif), because it implies that their views are shunned by most women, which they arent. But, i think it is useful to support the point that 'feminism' cant simply be said to be about equal rights, i think it needs a bit more clarification and precision, as there are some things considered definitely 'feminist' that are quite clearly not remotely to do with equality.

    Good point regarding 'a reasonable person'. It is one thing to offend one person, but quite another to be reasonably considered offensive to the average person. The world is full of loons, if we allowed them to get anything they removed they fancies there would be no debate at all. The mods need to be tougher with these abuse reports.

    ReplyDelete
  181. As an emotionally stunted man-worshipper, I find nothing in what you said to be offensive, Jay. Like martillo, I'm a bit doubtful if 90% is an accurate number, but it would, no doubt be a very high percentage. The sad fact is, the word 'feminist' has come to connote the sort of women you find over at Cath's. It shouldn't - but it does. I still refer to myself as a feminist because I think it's important to try to show that it can be a rational movement. As I've said before, it's one of the reasons why I end up participating in feminism threads on Cif even though I'm not as concerned with women's issues as I am with economic issues. Someday these women need to wake up to the fact that they're never going to achieve 'equality' (and I'm not even sure if they have a picture of what that would look like) without the support of men. They're never going to have the support of men as long as they keep up this culture of victimhood. As far as I can tell, the legal changes have, for the most part, been made in Britain and the US (and most other 'Western' countries). I think there are still cultural changes to be made, but that is a matter of education, not legislation. How are you going to change attitudes if you can't even see that most men are decent people?

    Race relations in the US is what keeps me honest in this regard. Every time I've started succumbing to the "all men are bastards" line of thought, I've been (I can't resist using this phrase) bitch-slapped back into reality by some astounding bit of thinking on race relations and I realise that my reaction as a white person to being told that my living-below-the-poverty-line, working-class upbringing self is more privileged by dint of my white skin than any black American is akin to what a good man feels when he's told that his maleness somehow makes him privileged.

    Damn, that's a long sentence. I hope you can sort it all out, 'cos I'm not gonna try to re-write it!

    As for the mods, what do you suppose would be the matter with them occasionally e-mailing the person who reports a post as abusive with a polite little note saying, "We cannot guarantee that opinions expressed on Cif will never cause offence. With all due respect, this post does not violate community standards, therefore it will be allowed to remain." I know I wouldn't have a problem with that - but then, the only time I've ever reported something as out-of-line was a particularly crude remark about what some guy wanted to do to Ariane Sherine. I'm sure in his warped little mind he thought she should've been flattered.

    ReplyDelete
  182. I would still call myself a feminist.
    I read a lot of feminist literature when I was a student (it had nothing to do with my degree but I read widely at the time - don't know where I found the time to do it).
    At this point in my life I find that having a ten year history of a mental health problem holds me back far more than my gender. I don't know if I will ever get another job and it's quite depressing. I don't want to lie on another health form as I have in the past. If I get found out it stuffs up any work related pension and makes me even less employable.

    I suppose feminism has dropped off my radar because of other things going on in my life, but I still think it's a valid movement and that there are still inequalities around that need sorting out.

    I don't think some of the radfem brigade realise just how off-putting they can be to both men and women (they might say they don't care about the men, but they should care about the women). I've never known a group so good at alienating people who could quite easily be on their side.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Just read the last few posts on the Smith thread. Smug little wanker.

    ReplyDelete
  184. While I know Cath's blog is becoming a tiresome subject, it's worth pointing out Delphyne's recent contribution to The Blokeosphere thread.

    Rather than engaging with the discussion on the other thread, it seems she spent a fair amount of time measuring the various onscreen posts there with a ruler and then collating the figures, all to show how men were dominating the discussion. She invites others to check her working.

    It's lucky she adds another post to clarify how many were there when she did this, as otherwise she might have looked stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Oh, dammit, I'm gonna get something off my chest. I don't care how many rapists go free - one, ten or one thousand! An innocent man in prison for a crime he didn't do is absolutely unacceptable in our legal heritage. Full stop. How the hell does anyone ever make up to Sean Hodgson the 27 years of his life that he lost???? How was any woman in Britain made safer by his being behind bars? It absofuckinglutely enrages me that anyone would say that this is acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Biskieboo - do mental health issues have to be disclosed on employment apps? It is legal in the US to withhold that information precisely because of the continued stigma and the hindrance that it imposes on someone's chances of employment. That is a shame. I wish you the best.

    ReplyDelete
  187. @Martillo

    To be honest with you, no, I have completely forgotten it. What the hell was my joke? It was probably not memorable.

    But a year ago, on the jokey thread that resulted from the first CiF meet-up, there was quite a lot of mod-baiting going on. I joined in by writing:

    *removed by moderator, and if you keep this up we'll break your legs, son*

    I was banned entirely from the site as a result! I guess the joke must have gone way above someone's head and they thought I was threatening someone...

    ReplyDelete
  188. Montana/Biskie and co

    I hope i havent been 'clumsy' with my comments here but just in case i will try to tidy a few bits up because there are certain types of feminist who i have nothing against whatsoever and wouldnt want to give the impression i am attacking them:

    "The sad fact is, the word 'feminist' has come to connote the sort of women you find over at Cath's. It shouldn't - but it does. I still refer to myself as a feminist because I think it's important to try to show that it can be a rational movement."

    I agree wholeheartedly and i think proper feminists really do suffer unfairly at the hands of the relative few.

    "I realise that my reaction as a white person to being told that my living-below-the-poverty-line, working-class upbringing self is more privileged by dint of my white skin than any black American is akin to what a good man feels when he's told that his maleness somehow makes him privileged."

    Again i completely agree, its part of the problem with the whole identity industry, people are more complicated than boxes.

    "We cannot guarantee that opinions expressed on Cif will never cause offence. With all due respect, this post does not violate community standards, therefore it will be allowed to remain."

    If i ever heard of these words coming from a mod i would die a happy man.

    "I would still call myself a feminist. "

    I hope i havent given the impression that i think thats a bad thing, i dont.


    "Rather than engaging with the discussion on the other thread, it seems she spent a fair amount of time measuring the various onscreen posts there with a ruler and then collating the figures, all to show how men were dominating the discussion. She invites others to check her working.

    It's lucky she adds another post to clarify how many were there when she did this, as otherwise she might have looked stupid."

    Made me laugh intensely.

    Montana - you're not alone, whether its rape, murder, even Fritzl type incidents, it is still the greatest injustice to imprison innocent people, and civilised countries have recognised this for a long time. Luckily its only a fairly small number who seem to be creeping towards an outright challenge of this over rape.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Oy! Reilly! Wildhack! Do you realise how many centimetres you're taking up on this thread? Selfish, dominating, manipulating, controlling bastards! That's "political terrorism against women". (thx delphyne, luv ;o))

    ReplyDelete
  190. sneakilypostingatworkmartillo18 March, 2009 19:21

    Damntheral

    something like "pinks better than browns? That's a whole other question". I'll leave you to work out what lead to it.

    ReplyDelete
  191. I'm gonna say it again here (just said it on hungover thread).. If there was ever any point to posting on that blog... it's long since gone... and the more people go back the more it looks like they have a point...

    ReplyDelete
  192. Yeah, I agree, kiz. Time to move on. What should we whinge about next? I deplore the complete absence of pies where I live - can any reader beat that?

    ReplyDelete
  193. I'm kinda sorry I asked now.

    (Though at least I didn't make that joke on Cath Eliott's blog...)

    ReplyDelete
  194. Aw, c'mon, scherfig! Neither one of us has resorted to all caps - it's not our fault we're not as good with the one-liners as delphyne & co.

    martillo - I have no clue what you're on about with 'pinks and browns', since that was before my arrival at Cif, but it reminds me of a 'conversation' I once had back in my usenet days with someone on soc.culture.british - we decided that, perhaps race relations would be a bit better if we would refer to each other as browns and pinks instead of the more oppositional blacks and whites. (He's brown - I'm pink, so it was an across the spectrum decision.) Since pink and brown is actually a very nice colour combination, we thought maybe that would ease some of the tension.

    Sorry, scherfig. Centimetre hogging again, aren't I?

    ReplyDelete
  195. Montana Wildhack said...

    Biskieboo - do mental health issues have to be disclosed on employment apps?

    Not on application forms, but every job I've ever had I've had to fill in a health form, and one of the first questions is "have you ever suffered from a mental illness". Last job I had I just never sent the health form back, and because the admin was terrible they never noticed! (it was only a temporary contract so I didn't feel too bad doing it).
    The irony is that now I'm being sensible and taking my anti-mania meds every day I'm unlikely to get ill again. The downside is I'm sometimes still half asleep for the first part of the morning.

    ReplyDelete
  196. I deplore the complete lack of pies, curry, jaffa cakes, proper live football and available, age-appropriate heterosexual men who don't consider NASCAR a good afternoon's entertainment where I live.

    ReplyDelete