|
I was curious about the impact of Gawker and how many people actually visit the site. According to Quantcast Gawker had 538.2 million visits in a 365 day period. That averages out to about 1.4 million visits a day (not unique visits, just visits) By comparison, Super Bowl 50 had 111.9 million views. More people probably saw that Lynx ad than Gawker. The last episode of Seinfeld had about 76 million. America's Funniest Home Videos averages about 5.2 mil for season 26. More people tune in to see people get hit in the balls than Gawker. I'd imagine the former has a larger negative impact on the cultural perceptions of men and their tolerance for having nasty poo poo happening to them.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
E^ I agree with that, I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive. Who What Now posted:No it doesn't. The only people that get that impression already had it in the first place, without fail. They wanted to see it and Lo and behold they did. No they don't, with fail. I think that feminism is needed and that gendered arguments about how women are treated in our society are necessary. But these particular women writers are all about lifestyle. They see a lovely system and think that the only problem is that women aren't running it. There is a strain of feminism that has been recognized as a useful tool for capitalism and that is what were are seeing in mainstream media. And thankfully it is constantly being called out by radical feminists, almost all of whom I agree with--LIza Featherstone, Rania Khalek, Amber Frost, Yasmin Nair to name a few. menino fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
menino posted:When what you see as feminism is just topics that make educated women in Manhattan angry, or signalling from Everydayfeminism on how to appear like a more enlightened liberal (EDUCATE YOURSELF!) it leaves you with the impression that feminism is a crock that is confusing egoism with a concern for egalitarian principles. See: most Hillary pieces by Amanda Marcotte, Sady Doyle, and Jessica Valenti. this is a really convincing and well sourced argument that in no way reflects some weird hangup about women who have opinions that you dont like I can see how you are totally justified in getting pissed at cosmopolitan for not focusing on male sexuallity while ignoring the maxims of the world. i am confident that you have an accurate perception of the media landscape that is not at all shaped by your personal and emotional biases menino posted:I think that feminism is needed and that gendered arguments about how women are treated in our society are necessary. But these particular women writers are all about lifestyle. They see a lovely system and think that the only problem is that women aren't running it. jezebel - a lifestyle blog with a predominantly female readership - is focused too heavily on women's lifestyles??? perish the thought can you demonstrate that jezebel is actually some kind of font of active feminism, and not just a blog about fashion and current events and other topics young women are interested in which you are weakly confusing for feminism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:this is a really convincing and well sourced argument that in no way reflects some weird hangup about women who have opinions that you dont like Again you're projecting. I think Maxim is far worse than Jezebel. If push came to shove I'd go with Jezebel over any of those lad magazines. So quick to jump in with some dogshit false equivalence psychoanalysis, it's like you just have a quiver of crappy arguments to just throw out and fail to read. God forbid I disagree with woman's opinion, I must be basing that on the time I didn't get laid for 8 months when I was 23! menino fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
menino posted:But these particular women writers are all about lifestyle. They see a lovely system and think that the only problem is that women aren't running it. Yea, these particular unnamed and ambiguous women sure are a big problem all right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
menino posted:Again you're projecting. I think Maxim is far worse than Jezebel. If push came to shove I'd go with Jezebel over any of those lad magazines. So quick to jump in with some dogshit false equivalence psychoanalysis, it's like you just have a quiver of crappy arguments to just throw out and fail to read. much like i'm not sure you know what 'feminism' actually is, i don't know if you know what 'projecting' or 'false equivalency' actually is either feminism is a set of political and social ideologies that focus on equality between the sexes. jezebel is a lifestyle blog published by gawker media with a predominantly female readership. wonkette is a satirical political blog founded by a woman. if anything written by women, for women, is actually at the forefront of feminism, what does that say about the majority of media out there written by men, for men? the fact that you cannot honestly answer this question without getting extremely upset with me for asking it says all that anyone needs to know about your opinions re: women's media or women's opinions Who What Now posted:Yea, these particular unnamed and ambiguous women sure are a big problem all right. somewhere on the internet, a woman is wrong, and this is a huge stumbling block for feminism because
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Extremely upset? Already going to 'you mad' huh? When have I claimed men's media is better? You are clearly prosecuting previous arguments because this is just knee jerk
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
really i'm just making fun of you for confusing blogs that say things you don't like with feminism, and then getting mad at feminism for not talking about issues that matter to you, which is clearly evidenced by the absence of material acceptable to you on blogs for which you are not the target audience it's just a really breathtaking, airtight argument
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
hey OP misandry is v. triggering to me pls lock the threadmenino posted:Extremely upset? Already going to 'you mad' huh? When have I claimed men's media is better? You are clearly prosecuting previous arguments because this is just knee jerk Can you define "men's media" for me? Are the newspapers sold in a tree fort that says NO GIRLS ALLOWED?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:45
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
menino posted:When what you see as feminism is just topics that make educated women in Manhattan angry, or signalling from Everydayfeminism on how to appear like a more enlightened liberal (EDUCATE YOURSELF!) it leaves you with the impression that feminism is a crock that is confusing egoism with a concern for egalitarian principles. See: most Hillary pieces by Amanda Marcotte, Sady Doyle, and Jessica Valenti. Oh my god yes. A lot of the popular feminism stuff is really ends-justify-the-means type arguments for policies that promote the social status of women. It's totally self-serving. They make it sound a lot more noble though by co-opting egalitarian language and by obfuscating ugly aspects of the ideology with jargon terms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:hey OP misandry is v. triggering to me pls lock the thread Maxim, Askmen, SI half of Esquire. They're garbage and portray women poorly
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:really i'm just making fun of you for confusing blogs that say things you don't like with feminism, and then getting mad at feminism for not talking about issues that matter to you, which is clearly evidenced by the absence of material acceptable to you on blogs for which you are not the target audience I'm not indicting feminism as a whole. I cited specific sites and writers. Again-- you're not reading only commenting. Interchangeable sick burns that are tangential to what I'm saying menino fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
menino posted:I'm indicting feminism as a whole. I cited specific sites and writers. No, you're not. You're creating gotcha scenarios and using them to uphold your own personal narrative. Jezebel is a woman's lifestyle blog. It primarily deals with female lifestyle and its readership (mostly composed of women) go there for woman-related news. Why would they focus on male issues? That's not what their audience is there for. Using such focused news sources to support your views is disingenuous as hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
menino posted:I'm not indicting feminism as a whole. I cited specific sites and writers. and i don't see how those sites can be accurately described as 'feminist' in any way other than the people who read and write for them are generally accepting of feminism. you then dinged websites which write about celebrities, fashion, viral videos, and other stuff in addition to political current events for not writing about male issues as if that's some active exclusion on ideological grounds instead of, you know, not one of the hundreds of topics the blog generally doesn't cover by your extremely low standard of what is representative of gender politics, i could equally describe ESPN as masculinist for its lack of focus on female issues. you immediately rejected this reflection of your argument because you don't realize your argument is absurd
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:No, you're not. You're creating gotcha scenarios and using them to uphold your own personal narrative. Jezebel is a woman's lifestyle blog. It primarily deals with female lifestyle and its readership (mostly composed of women) go there for woman-related news. Why would they focus on male issues? That's not what their audience is there for. Using such focused news sources to support your views is disingenuous as hell. I'm not expecting them to cover men's issues. I'm expecting less contempt and derision. E: Same from NYMag, Slate, Guardian. Now you can play no true Scotsman with these sources and say that they are not actually feminist and in some ways I would absolutely agree. But for better or for worse these are actually very popular feminist branded portals with certain classes menino fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
menino posted:I'm not expecting them to cover men's issues. I'm expecting less contempt and derision. E: Same from NYMag, Slate, Guardian. Now you can play no true Scotsman with these sources and say that they are not actually feminist and in some ways I would absolutely agree. But for better or for worse these are actually very popular feminist branded portals with certain classes are you sure this is actual contempt and derision and not just some personal sensitivity on your part, because i'm not seeing it despite you constantly asserting that it is so
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:are you sure this is actual contempt and derision and not just some personal sensitivity on your part, because i'm not seeing it despite you constantly asserting that it is so Are you sure that you haven't substituted "hey think you have some issues buddy *smrik*" for an argument because it seems like that is all you are capable of posting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
menino posted:Are you sure that you haven't substituted "hey think you have some issues buddy *smrik*" for an argument because it seems like that is all you are capable of posting. alright, if you don't want to address this glaring flaw in your argument then i guess i'll let it go
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:are you sure this is actual contempt and derision and not just some personal sensitivity on your part, because i'm not seeing it despite you constantly asserting that it is so A good bit of the articles with the Men tag on Jezebel are dumb sickburns on men. I guess you can call that contempt, but given the mission of the site cherry-picking is kind of to be expected. I'm mostly eh about it. menino posted:I'm not expecting them to cover men's issues. I'm expecting less contempt and derision. E: Same from NYMag, Slate, Guardian. Now you can play no true Scotsman with these sources and say that they are not actually feminist and in some ways I would absolutely agree. But for better or for worse these are actually very popular feminist branded portals with certain classes Can you provide proof that NYMag, Slate and Guardian or some such news sources create this sort of derision? And I would like to note these are more general issue magazines, not explicitly aimed for women like Jezebel. That's important. If you got proof of that, okay. We can talk more. Otherwise PTD is right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Ultimately I don't think misogyny/misandry/patriarchy are good labels, the theory has evolved to such a point that it's not useful to think of it in terms of 'hate' or 'rulership', but ideology. Like patriarchy isn't an actually coherent system like oligarchy, it's a language, a virus, a set of symbolic associations, a religion, a set of faulty assumptions, etc. Though I know how that must sound, "The etymology is wrong, what a tragedy", but I think it's important to have the right first impression. Which I kind of think is what motivates the thread topic in the first place, as a framing of something to do with the relations between sexes only (which is why the constant refrain to the rape of women getting highlighted is 'well men get raped to'), when the correct framing should be of one ideology versus another - the 'traditionalism' that disempowers women and shits on effeminate men for the sake of enforcing highly constrained & demeaning gender roles, and, well the feminism that seeks to grant people freedom to self-express.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Ultimately I don't think misogyny/misandry/patriarchy are good labels, the theory has evolved to such a point that it's not useful to think of it in terms of 'hate' or 'rulership', but ideology. Like patriarchy isn't an actually coherent system like oligarchy, it's a language, a virus, a set of symbolic associations, a religion, a set of faulty assumptions, etc. Though I know how that must sound, "The etymology is wrong, what a tragedy", but I think it's important to have the right first impression. Which I kind of think is what motivates the thread topic in the first place, as a framing of something to do with the relations between sexes only (which is why the constant refrain to the rape of women getting highlighted is 'well men get raped to'), when the correct framing should be of one ideology versus another - the 'traditionalism' that disempowers women and shits on effeminate men for the sake of enforcing highly constrained & demeaning gender roles, and, well the feminism that seeks to grant people freedom to self-express. I agree the labels tend to be pretty bad. Labels like “Patriarchy” and “Feminism” attempt to shoe-horn a gender onto a point of view, and even the very notion of “Patriarchy” seems to presume the old-fashioned gendered assumptions of men as actors and women as acted upon. I would find terms like Traditionalism & Egalitarianism as far better for discussion the actual issues and belief systems in place, rather than attempting to assign a gender to one side or the other. I'll stop there because I don't want to get drawn too far into a discussion that's gone beyond the original topic. Or, to turn it back to how it relates to my experiences, being seen as part of the “oppressor-class” or a “not the real victims” seems to contribute a lot towards the trivialisation I encounter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
^^^^^* Welp! rudatron posted:Ultimately I don't think misogyny/misandry/patriarchy are good labels, the theory has evolved to such a point that it's not useful to think of it in terms of 'hate' or 'rulership', but ideology. Like patriarchy isn't an actually coherent system like oligarchy, it's a language, a virus, a set of symbolic associations, a religion, a set of faulty assumptions, etc. Though I know how that must sound, "The etymology is wrong, what a tragedy", but I think it's important to have the right first impression. Which I kind of think is what motivates the thread topic in the first place, as a framing of something to do with the relations between sexes only (which is why the constant refrain to the rape of women getting highlighted is 'well men get raped to'), when the correct framing should be of one ideology versus another - the 'traditionalism' that disempowers women and shits on effeminate men for the sake of enforcing highly constrained & demeaning gender roles, and, well the feminism that seeks to grant people freedom to self-express. You could have just said "I'm an egalitarian because the label feminism is sexist against men  " and saved everyone a lot of time.
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
reductress is pretty cool and good tho e.g., http://reductress.com/post/i-am-not-a-feminist-but-i-do-think-all-men-should-die/
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:reductress is pretty cool and good tho uhh my av picked up a trojan embedded on that site? misandry 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:uhh my av picked up a trojan embedded on that site? I think it's a bunch of MRAs reporting the site?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I think it's a bunch of MRAs reporting the site?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
The browser doesn't know the difference, all it does is download a list of sites from google that are flagged as malicious. You can report sites to Google, but I don't think they'd just ever take your word for it, so it's more likely to be actually bad. Google doesn't seem to be transparent over if they actually have a review process or not, but I can't imagine they don't.Railtus posted:I agree the labels tend to be pretty bad. Labels like “Patriarchy“ and “Feminism“ attempt to shoe-horn a gender onto a point of view, and even the very notion of “Patriarchy“ seems to presume the old-fashioned gendered assumptions of men as actors and women as acted upon. I would find terms like Traditionalism & Egalitarianism as far better for discussion the actual issues and belief systems in place, rather than attempting to assign a gender to one side or the other. You can also make another comparison to people who automatically equate anything sexual with objectification, though that's more fringe-loners on tumblr than actual academic feminists or serious activists. Still, we're definitely in an era of transition, I think things will work out better in the end, but there's gong to be a lot of confusion and stumbling along the way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The browser doesn't know the difference, all it does is download a list of sites from google that are flagged as malicious. You can report sites to Google, but I don't think they'd just ever take your word for it, so it's more likely to be actually bad. Google doesn't seem to be transparent over if they actually have a review process or not, but I can't imagine they don't. I think that like everything, feminism has been commoditized, and it's getting over saturated to the point where itfs just "Hey look at these men they're awful!" That tends to be what Reductress goes after, the portion of online feminism that is basically just branding. Here's Valenti's article, which boils down "yeah we say bad poo poo about men, but it's empowering because it's based on stereotypes. And men's concerns aren't worth listening to until we end rape and murder." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/13/feminists-do-not-hate-men
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
menino posted:"And men's concerns aren't worth listening to until we end rape and murder." It's fine to have your own concerns, but when your ideology demands that race/sex/class/whatever are dismissed until its goals are met, it's probably a bad ideology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
So to turn it back to your case, Railtus, the reformation would be that there aren't victimizers in the usual sense when we're talking about this trivialization (ie criminal, like the people who abused you), but people who fit and people who don't. People's whose experience and position largely confirms their emotional attachment to the dominant ideology (them), and those who cannot make that reconciliation (you). It's then totally natural to want to discard information if it doesn't fit, which is why you got trivialized, but everyone does it everywhere, just on different things. Hell, you have to, you can't afford to take everyone and everything at their word, that'd just lead to themselves being abused. Which is then when we come back to the stereotypes you bring up, menino, because in an odd way they're not actually that different from traditionalist prescriptions of male behavior. Men are dangerous, sure it's only a couple of really bad eggs, but can you trust all of them? It's ultimately still playing off gender as a homogenized group with some variance, rather than a battleground of different belief systems. Conversely, some women are just 'faulty', because they have 'internalized misogyny'. So we have Men (some good guys + some bad guys) & Women (enlightened and ignorant). But, rotate that dichotomy by 90 degrees, and you have Traditionalist (formerly 'bad guys + ignorant') vs. Modern (formerly 'good guys + enlightened'). Now the feminists you ran into, Railtus, that you were really put off by, they see things the first way, not the second, which is probably why you got so much pushback - you hadn't been 'vetted', so they were super defensive about accepting or giving legitimacy to something that may have been bad. So, and I'm just guessing here, their first assumption would be that you had provoked it in some way, that this would have been her way of fighting back against something you had done, because that fits the framing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
menino posted:I'm not expecting them to cover men's issues. I'm expecting less contempt and derision. E: Same from NYMag, Slate, Guardian. Now you can play no true Scotsman with these sources and say that they are not actually feminist and in some ways I would absolutely agree. But for better or for worse these are actually very popular feminist branded portals with certain classes the contempt and derision i've seen in a couple articles but they were particularly nasty issues where its kind of expected honestly. ya like they're gonna be tactful when the article is about defunding planned parenthood, lol a cursory glance at their front page and it's all pretty ok t b h
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Why would any man be concerned with the writing of women having less contempt or derision for men? Do you fancy we have earned less, as a sex? e: to be obsessed with "contempt and derision" is a very proto-fascist way of thinking
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
menino posted:I think that like everything, feminism has been commoditized, and it's getting over saturated to the point where itfs just "Hey look at these men they're awful!" That tends to be what Reductress goes after, the portion of online feminism that is basically just branding. Well, that and like women's lifestyle magazines
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why would any man be concerned with the writing of women having less contempt or derision for men? Do you fancy we have earned less, as a sex? You see fascism in literally everything, please go back to hoarding guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
menino posted:You see fascism in literally everything, please go back to hoarding guns. I hoard back issues of Ms. Magazine that treat me with contempt and derision, they're more dangerous than guns. It's a wonder I can even stay alive as men are, as we speak, being criticized.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I hoard back issues of Ms. Magazine that treat me with contempt and derision, they're more dangerous than guns. It's a wonder I can even stay alive as men are, as we speak, being criticized. I agree. Taking issue with anything that isn't the literal worst state of human affairs possible is petulant, proto fascist and shows deep insecurities. Good opinions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
menino posted:I agree. Taking issue with anything that isn't the literal worst state of human affairs possible is petulant, proto fascist and shows deep insecurities. Good opinions. Hey I was using hyperbole, but you went and filled it in. It's definitely petulant and insecure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I actually think 'feminism' is a fine label, most for historical reasons, but hell it has the -ism suffix, what more do you want from an ideology? More seriously, what you point out is actually part of traditionalist ideology, that unfortunately seeps into people who would otherwise regard themselves as progressive or whatever. This takes it's most obvious expression in TERFs, who fundamentally see all men as kind of predatory, and therefore transwomen as just another expression or avenue of that predation. That's obviously different to the more usual expectation that men should be predatory, and if they're not then there's something wrong with them, they're not manly enough or whatever, but similar assumptions are being made. First of all, I want to murder your gif. It's so distracting when I'm trying to think of an intelligent comment. :P There's definitely a lot of confusion. I also think the idea of “feminism = women's rights” would also attract a lot of traditionalists who want to 'champion' women, which would encourage a lot of that overlap and misunderstanding. I gave up on the word largely because it stopped telling me anything useful about the views of the people using the label; it could describe views similar to Karen DeCrow or beliefs more like Sally Miller Gearhart. rudatron posted:So to turn it back to your case, Railtus, the reformation would be that there aren't victimizers in the usual sense when we're talking about this trivialization (ie criminal, like the people who abused you), but people who fit and people who don't. People's whose experience and position largely confirms their emotional attachment to the dominant ideology (them), and those who cannot make that reconciliation (you). It's then totally natural to want to discard information if it doesn't fit, which is why you got trivialized, but everyone does it everywhere, just on different things. Hell, you have to, you can't afford to take everyone and everything at their word, that'd just lead to themselves being abused. That sounds very accurate, from what I've seen – I definitely got the impression that I was/am perceived as a threat to their world-view, and an almost panicked-seeming defence of it. There also seemed to be on occasion this kind of outrage that I spoke up, like I was taking something away from people who mattered more than I did, or they were equating "threat to our world-view" with "threat to women." It probably doesn't help that my experiences oppose feminist narratives to such ridiculous extremes; my background was women holding power and authority that they received for being women, and this gender-specific social power being the primary factor that made the abuse possible, because they as women had a license to commit abuse and I as a boy (as a male child specifically, rather than just as a child) was obligated to take the abuse without complaint. The interesting part about people assuming I provoked the abuse in some way, with the woman seen as fighting back against my unknown crime, is that it is an incredibly traditionalist form of thinking; it assumes I have the power to make her behave in those ways, glossing over any decision-making power on her part = men are actors and women are acted upon. People who theoretically should be most against that line of thinking were ironically the people practising these brands of traditionalism the most aggressively. I definitely see the framing as a powerful force at work, and honestly I think the main obstacles to knowledge/understanding/solutions is that the framing has been pushed forward to the point that anything outside that framing becomes heresy just for existing outside the framing - like the framing is overshadowing the original goal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Okay, but you get what I was saying, right? This behavior happens with everyone, it's just that the issue it can happen on varies depending on what set of beliefs are tied up with your identity. Doesn't matter what a person believes, you (well I can) get them into a panicked self defense of it, if you push the right buttons. It's just that, in this case, the belief system is tied up with assumptions of an essential nature of X. Men are A, Women are B. The reason you got more push-back from the feminist 'allies' than you did from the traditionalist is because 'women being bitchy' was an already established meme for the later, but 'women are victims' was the meme for the former. In both cases, inconvenient evidence would have been dismissed (up to a point). Hell, you would do the same, in the same position. Not that I'm pessimistic enough to say there's isn't an answer to all this, there is. But you have to introduce psychology, classifying people solely on behavior and patterns of assumptions which, for your case, would have lead to more people willing to recognize your carer/partner as abusive personalities. Though that's not as obvious, and not something you can ever get from a first impression, so naturally that hard work scares people. Railtus posted:First of all, I want to murder your gif. It's so distracting when I'm trying to think of an intelligent comment. :P  I don't see the problem
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
GAH! Yes, I do get what you're saying, and I don't disagree. Investment in a belief system happens to anyone. I was expanding on what you said about traditionalism seeping into people who would otherwise describe themselves as progressive, since it was something I had witnessed in action. Sorry for any confusion there. Also, as an aside, I'd prefer referring to the ex who abused me as “ex” rather than “partner” please – just to avoid any confusion between my partner (who is wonderful) and my ex (who was abusive). I know it's probably a little overprotective on my part, but I just don't want to accidentally give a bad impression of my partner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:54
|
|