Just as police need crime, dentists need cavities and firemen need fires...

[Bonobo]

Last edited Thu Mar 21, 2013, 10:35 AM - Edit history (1)

I wonder if the mechanism for radical feminist over-the-top rhetoric works something like that? Or maybe it is like Natural Selection. That which survives, thrives.

Basically I am thinking that it may be like this.

Over-the-top rhetoric incites angry retorts which then fuel the "proof" that there is anti-feminism (which they equate, of course, with sexism.)

Naturally true sexism exists, but I think that all too often, the rad fems incite angry responses which are then used as fuel to keep going:

"See? See? THAT is the Patriarchy kickback!!".

Something like that. Please understand I am not talking of feminism in the broader sense at all (which I support completely) but rather the offensive, antagonistic radical sub-variety.

[TM99]

1. Feminism as an academic

and philosophical system grew out of post-modern Marxist Hegelian dialectics.

So, yes, a thesis always requires an antithesis.

Where I see Feminism as a philosophical discipline failing is that I have yet to read about what a proper synthesis would look like. I read about mythical matriarchies in the past that never existed pitted against assumed patriarchies. But what is the practical end goal of feminism as a philosophy?

Gender equality is a different thing altogether.

Thesis - Man can vote.
Antithesis - Woman can not vote.
Synthesis - All individuals in this country regardless of religion, gender, race, or politics will all vote.

Positive change has occurred, and it is far easier to be 'for' something rather than always 'against' something like the 'patriarchy'.

[BainsBane]

17. Post-modernism rejects the structuralism of Marxism

Last edited Thu Mar 21, 2013, 06:21 AM - Edit history (1)

It arose as a critique of Marxism and represents a paradigmatic shift. There is no dialectic goal of synthesis. It deconstructs language and culture in an effort to understand multiple ways in which power produces subjects. Unlike Marxism, It is not based on class struggle or the idea of history advancing in ways that creates revolutionary and structural changes in society. One critique might be that it probes cultural meanings without offering solutions.

I also don't think your example above captures the idea of a Marxist-Hegelian dialectic. Historical change is, for Marx, revolutionary, not evolutionary. Voting rights, it seems to me, do not qualify since they represents no fundamental change in mode of production or class relations.
The central role of class in Marxist analysis in general confounds efforts to understand gender and race within a Marxist framework.

[TM99]

18. Most academic socio-political

and philosophical systems are so muddled these days given their actual historical antecedents that it is difficult to properly discuss what it is they hope to convey.

Academic Feminism is at the same time dialectic like Hegel's philosophy, egalitarianism yet revolutionary like Marxism, and post-modern in that it does seem to deconstruct with deep probing insight yet rarely offers meaningful solutions. As a psychologist, what I end up seeing is hurt, abuse, and anger (while entirely justified in almost every instance) being expressed as system of rage and unconscious revenge. If I was raped by a bad man and there are other bad men that rape, then therefore all men somehow are involved in rape whether as active participants or as passive beneficiaries of a 'rape culture' is one such example. That is both a logical and an empirical failure of thinking and reality. And it is an emotional & psychological truth that must be healed for each individual woman that experienced such a tragic reality.

I always separate Marx from Hegel who preceded him. You are quite correct that for Marx, change is revolutionary. For Hegel, however, it was definitely evolutionary, and quite dependent upon the unfolding of Spirit (i.e. God). So my example was not Marxist but Hegelian. Change often becomes permanent when it is more evolutionary than revolutionary. Revolutions almost always lead to enantiodromia's. The conscious mind seeks a resolution to a past hurt. The fear, hurt, and anger are not fully dealt with and fester in the unconscious mind. The end result is often the abuser becomes the abused, the damaged becoming the damaging, etc. Radicals and extremists of any 'ism' share this frightening trait in common.

I hope you will note that I purposefully capitalize Feminism to distinguish the academic study and philosophy from the actual real-world reality of evolutionary creation of social and financial equality while recognizing fundamental differences between male & female. I firmly support equality without being a Feminist.

[BainsBane]

19. . . .

I don't know enough about feminist theory to comment authoritatively, but in most cases academic analysis doesn't seek to find solutions, and that is particularly true about post-structuralism/post-modernism. Theoretical approaches allow academics to ask a new set of questions and thereby enhance understanding. As someone who works as a clinical psychologist, I can see why you would find that frustrating.
I would also point out their is a vast range of feminist theories and academic analyses, not a single approach. Not all are post-modernist, and women's studies and academic feminism pre-date the rise of such theories to their level of current popularity. Foucault himself was of course concerned with subjects like madness, punishment, and homosexuality. Like most other disciplines, gender studies adopted post-structuralism because of its tremendous influence across the humanities and social sciences. Queer Studies, perhaps more than any other discipline, emerged from the conceptual innovations offered by post-modernist and post-structuralist theories.

[TM99]

20. I should state clearly up front

that I am classical trained and have an undergraduate degree in Philosophy. I have very strong disagreements with post-structuralism, post-modernism, and am not fond of Foucault.

With that said, I do agree that most academic analysis does not indeed seek solutions. I tend with my background though, to expect at least congruence between the academic underpinnings and the real-world applications. I have several academic graduate degrees so I am no stranger to academia.

While Feminist Studies are not monolithic. They are solidly from a root foundation that as I stated from my experience and observation is not always congruent with real world experiences.

It has been good chatting with you on this topic even if we don't agree as you are obviously a person with intelligence and academic understanding of the topic at hand. Thank you.

[BainsBane]

21. I used the term academic too broadly

You're right for some fields. I suppose I really meant the humanities, which is what I know best.

[TM99]

22. Understood.

I also admit to being somewhat biased due to my parents who were both professors of English for over 40 years. They were not big fans of post-modernism or post-structuralism either.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Some people, confusingly enough, just aren't happy unless they're complaining about something.

That applies to a LOT of people, I would include many "MRAs" as well as "Radfems" in that.

And of course, life is much simpler if you distill reality down to one great evil, one big conspiracy, one big problem and one easy solution.

[loli phabay]

6. yup complaining is a hobby and vocation for some

[nolabels]

8. Sometimes i have a problem with those that who like to complain a lot

Then a lot of times i support them and some times their issues are my issues. Even though it may seem annoying, we need those people in our society. Without them we might not be where are today (okay, i know, that could be good or bad)

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Blame. Victim. N.T.

[Scuba]

4. "Incite", not "insight". The rest of this post is dumb too.

[Bonobo]

5. Yes, incite.

Silly mistake.

As for the post being dumb, that's your opinion. But I was really just wondering out loud. I don'd mind being wrong when trying out a new idea. It spurs thinking in myself and others and it is how ideas evolve. I may be insecure about some things, but intelligence has never been of them.

[Bonobo]

7. I am kicking this in light of the recent hullabaloo.

And I will reiterate that any normal feminist would consider me to be a highly enlightened male - I could go into details but let's just say I have worked at home for over 20 years so I can carry a lot of the home burden, I cook at least 5 nights/week and have very open conversations with my children about gender roles and all that stuff. No one that knows me would ever think I am not on the feminist's side wrt equal rights...

And yet...

The crazy-ass contingent on this board has gone so over-the-top that they have forced people like myself to take on a contrary position and had some success, as a result, in painting me and others with the "Men's Right" brush. In other words, they forced a reaction so that they can then say "Look at the backlash".

It IS like a policeman who needs crimes or a fireman who needs fires.

In fact, they set their own fires so they can be seen to be "battling them".

This has become even more clear to me of late.

That is all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. In the last year, I have come to the conclusion that the "red pill solution" is passage of the ERA.

Equal rights would then be the law of the land, and we could stop spinning our wheels. Men's rights and women's rights would then be on equal footing.

At one time, the ERA was supported because it would provide a meaningful benefit to women. Now, it's probably a net loser for the chivalrous solutions put in place in the absence of the ERA.

The fact that it stands a snowballs chance in hell of every passing is because society doesn't want equality.

[Whisp]

10. good gawd.

you need help

[BainsBane]

25. honestly

I've been wondering what this is all about and where it comes from. It is strange.

[ohiosmith]

11. This post was alerted on! The jury voted 4/2 to let it stand.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Mon Mar 18, 2013, 06:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I am kicking this in light of the recent hullabaloo.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=7302

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

\"The crazy-ass contingent on this board\"

This is how we refer to feminists at DEMOCRATICunderground? Seriously? Because women are hysterical, right? If poster doesn\'t want to be painted with the MRA broad brush, perhaps they should stop posting MRA talking points and putting so much effort into bashing feminists. This is just unbelievable.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 18, 2013, 06:43 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: tiresome...hide it
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: This man seem to have seriously problems with women.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[BainsBane]

24. What "crazy-ass contingent"

What is so radical or crazy about feminists on this board. Do provide examples.

[Gore1FL]

12. I find the rad fems to be strikingly similar to the tea party

Not in ideology, of course, but in terms of unsocial, hyperbolic, dividing, and ultimately self-eroding behavior.

[Upton]

13. Both..by appealing to a select unbending fringe..

have done their respective causes far more harm than good..

[Whisp]

15. and how about them rad masculinists

that have been ruling the world (poorly) for so long.

lol.
you guys are cute. you get so easily confused.

[Upton]

23. Thanks for thinking we're cute...

even if it is sort of a backhanded compliment. Still much better than what we usually get accused of around here, posting "MRA talking points" and the like.

Btw, I see there's a thread in GD about Adria Richards. She would be an excellent example of what I was referring to... a woman, by her extreme actions, who has done her cause far more harm than good.

[Major Nikon]

27. They certainly managed to divide themselves to the detriment of their own movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Sex_Wars

[rrneck]

14. Money. nt

[HuskiesHowls]

16. My observations are that its not just one group of people that this could apply to.

I see a lot of this same thing happening today, not just on DU but in society as a whole, and not just as it relates to what I consider "the gender wars". It seems that people have forgotten that there are gray areas in all of life. More and more, it seems that things need to be either black or white--my way or else.

Its nothing new, I remember the bumper stickers "Better dead than Red", and "America, Love it or Leave it". It just seems to have become the normal way of things now, instead of being confined to a radical fringe.

I remember Bill Moyers did an interview with someone, I can't remember who it was, that had written a book about this. As I recall, he referred to it as a "team mentality" thing. 'My team is good, and Your team is bad!' He went on to apply it to the way congress is working, and how it relates politics. But, I also see how it relates to all areas of society.

This is something that should be discussed more widely, as it applies to all areas: gender, religion, guns, whatever. Not just on DU, but in society as a whole.

[ZombieHorde]

26. All social movements require an opposition.

Abolition required slavery, etc.

[Bonobo]

28. So do all boxers, race-car drivers and scrabble players. nt

[ZombieHorde]

29. Exactly. I don't really see the point of your OP, I guess.

Of course the opposition is going to be upset by the words of their opponents.

[Bonobo]

30. The point is that the two feed off each other.

It is not a one way reaction.

Since one side REQUIRES an opposition, there comes a point when the first party feels the need/desire to create opposition for the purpose of having a soapbox to stand upon.

If no such opposition really exists, it can be whipped up and created by the exertion of over-the-top rhetoric.

Example:

A: "All men are potential rapists."

B: "I am not a potential rapist. I work at a rape survival center."

A: "Yes, but by denying that all men are potential rapists, you are supporting rape culture. So you are part of the problem."

Etc. etc.

Here, a pedagogical/semantic conflict has been created where none really exists in fact.

[ZombieHorde]

31. The saying "all men are potential rapists" is not radical.

It doesn't mean any able man may rape someone. That would be dumb. It means that a woman has no way of knowing which men are rapists, so they need to be careful. You are not a rapist, but when you stop to help a woman who's car has broken down, she needs to be careful because you might be a rapist. She has no way of knowing.

[Bonobo]

33. The interpretation you cite is not germane to the point I am making.

Such a phrase which can rightly be read by anyone as a claim that the reader, himself, is a potential rapist is intentionally offensive and meant to incite a response.

This is obvious by the audience it is said to. If, as you claim, it is meant to be aimed at women in order to protect them from danger, it would be said only to women.

The fact is that such a warning is obvious and doesn't need to be said. I think all women know already that such potential for danger exists.

No, the point of the statement is to incite, to create flame so that it can be opposed and thus magnify the voices of one side --aka to create an opposing force where none really exists so that it can be used as a launching pad to speak more loudly.

I am sorry that you do not see the point of the OP, but I think I have explained it well enough.

Again, I am not saying that the content of that example is so wrong, but that the delivery is intended to produce a reaction which then is used as fuel to feed one side and create an enemy where none exists. One can oppose such inflammatory rhetoric and still not be "the opposition".

[ZombieHorde]

35. The saying is for men to help us understand their point of view.

I was not offended when I heard the phrase, but I was curious, so I learned more. Perhaps this attitude will help you not be offended so often.

[Bonobo]

36. My being offended or not offended is also not the issue.

That some people are offended...

That it is known that some people will be offended...

That it is done so that some people will be offended...

THAT is the issue.

If education was the key and not offense, it would be phrased in a way not obviously intended to create an "enemy" to push against.

[ZombieHorde]

37. Why do you think the intent is to offend? nt

[Bonobo]

38. I think it is kind of obvious.

Primarily I would say that my gut tells me so.

Generally questions of "intent" are difficult if not impossible to prove.

I think so because my gut tells me so and because people, in fact, are offended and that it is easily predicted that people will be offended.

As I said, the same message, if truly intended to sway people or educate people, would be phrased differently.

Do you really disagree?

And do remember that this was just one example. I do not want to get too far off my general point which is larger and a well-understood sociological/behavioral pattern.

[ZombieHorde]

39. I have always seen the phrase with some explanation,

though the explanation is not always very clear for me.

And do remember that this was just one example. I do not want to get too far off my general point which is larger and a well-understood sociological/behavioral pattern.

Fair enough.

[Bonobo]

41. Thank you for helping me to explore the issue

and flesh out my thoughts a bit more.

I appreciate it, Zombie, as I do your polite probing that you do without rancor or accusation.

[ZombieHorde]

42. Thanks! I think we agree more than disagree. nt

[Major Nikon]

46. What impression would I give if I said all women are potentially neonaticidal mothers?

[ZombieHorde]

48. If you were talking about the viewpoint of a child who has suffered great abuse

from the women in his or her life, then it would be interesting.

[Major Nikon]

49. So all women who say this have been raped?

Even if that were true, it doesn't give them a free pass to make statements that are clearly intended to be inflammatory.

Numerous men on this site have expressed offense to that statement. Ironically the same people who seem to find glee in making that statement are constantly reminding other DUers they shouldn't use inflammatory words and phrases that offend women. Seems to be a double standard in that regard, which is not at all uncommon.

The whole notion that "it's just how some women feel" doesn't do much to justify it. Some men feel the need to evaluate women for the potential to falsely accuse them of rape. That doesn't mean it's not inflammatory to say all women are potential false rape accusers.

[ZombieHorde]

50. "So all women who say this have been raped?"

I don't know, but I hope not.

If I went to prison, I would probably view all able prisoners as potential rapists, until I got to know everyone. It's the same thing.

Numerous men on this site have expressed offense to that statement.

I think if more men took the time to understand what was being said, they wouldn't be offended.

[Major Nikon]

51. It's not even within the same ball park

Prison is a place where criminals are segregated from society. Comparing that with society at large is ridiculous. Even if someone felt that way, believing something is one thing, saying something you know will offend others is something else.

Numerous people here have authored long dissertations on how the word "bitch", even when used as a pejorative, is really OK and people shouldn't be offended by it. I don't think more understanding is the answer there either.

I've heard the explanations. They don't sway me into believing the term isn't specifically intended to be inflammatory, especially when it obviously has that effect to some.

[ZombieHorde]

52. What does the phrase "every man is a potential rapist" mean to you? nt

[Major Nikon]

53. It means inflammatory rhetoric

I thought I made that quite clear.

[ZombieHorde]

54. Well there's the problem.

You don't understand what is actually being said.

[Major Nikon]

55. Perhaps

The reverse could also be true.

Just sayin'

[ZombieHorde]

56. I agree with that.

Usually, in my observation, when people of similar ideologies are offending each other, miscommunication is to blame.

[Major Nikon]

57. If you are making a statement you know is offensive to a large number of people...

it's hard to believe that wasn't the intent in the first place.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. I find it intriguing that that "all men are potential rapists" is an important thing to know

But advising young women to leverage that stereotype to minimize her chance of being raped constitutes blaming the victim.

This only really makes sense if preventing rape is less important than demonizing the enemy.

[ZombieHorde]

60. Giving women basic crime prevention tips is belittling because

adults already know those things. Sometimes it is also blaming the victim. Belittling versus blaming is usually a matter of prescriptive comments versus descriptive comments; e.g., "she should lock her door at night" versus "she should have locked her door that night."

[Bonobo]

66. Is so, in post #31, why did you say....

"It means that a woman has no way of knowing which men are rapists, so they need to be careful."

You were referring to the statement "All men are potential rapists."

You don;t see that statement as similarly belittling for the same reasons? It is not as "obvious" as "lock your doors at night"?

[ZombieHorde]

69. That is a fair critique.

I think men should be mindful when approaching women they don't know, especially in isolated areas, such as an "empty" street or elevator.

You don;t see that statement as similarly belittling for the same reasons? It is not as "obvious" as "lock your doors at night"?

The statement is for men. I don't think many people can easily see things from other people's perspective without hearing/reading about those perspectives first.


I am super high on pain pills right now due to oral surgery, so I hope this makes sense. Peace.

[BainsBane]

32. Who has said all men are potential rapists?

Whenever I ask for evidence, you can never provide any. Why going around inventing strawwoman feminists who are ruining your life? Don't you have enough to worry about already?

[Bonobo]

34. No one is ruining my life. Why would you even say that?

Why do you have to get so personal?

The statement "all men are potential rapists" has been said on DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5028657&mesg_id=5039005

[BainsBane]

40. seven years ago

One person said something seven years ago and you're still worrying about? And she's talking about how women have to protect themselves, not that all men are dangerous, but that a woman doesn't know who might be dangerous. Honestly, I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from. I see so many hostile posts about women from you, I find it really puzzling. I don't see the basis for your anger in many of those threads, like the one where you complained about people fat shaming men, when no one did anything like that, or when you got angry over a blog entry where a woman talked about not wanting to have children. What possible difference could that make to you whether she had kids or not? And then you've created a number of posts about radical feminists on DU. Most of these women are married with sons. I see nothing radical about them. It's not like they are separatists.

So my getting personal is an effort to figure out what's going on with you. I suppose I could just ignore you, but I can't help wondering where you're coming from. You seem intelligent and capable, but then there is this other size of you. I guess I'd like to understand you better. In the cases of a couple of other posters with whom I've had differences, learning a bit about them has enabled me to understand much better where they are coming from. I'm sorry if this seems inappropriate. It probably is.

[Bonobo]

43. I think you are misrepresenting me.

I have not posted anything which is hostile against women in general. Perhaps they meay be read as hostile to certain women, but certainly not women in general --just as I am sure you would say that you are not hostile to men in general, just some men.

Similarly, the statement that I had a problem with an OP about the woman not having children is also untrue.

It was posted as if it was some kind of momentous statement about women's rights. I read the blog post in question and found it to be about very little in fact and I said so -nothing hostile, nothing against women. Just the observation that the post itself seemed to be no big deal, a long personal post about very little other than her fears of getting pregnant --hardly a ""feminist"" manifesto.

So, it seems your opinions about me are both a bit untrue from my perspective and also they seem to have hardened into a belief about who I am that is going to be hard to change.

I am a family man, in love with my wife, my 3 children. I do my best to transcend societal expectations of the limited role of men and women by being both gentle and hard, by working to support my family but also supporting them with love, tenderness. I cook 5-7 dinners per week, have been working at home for 18 years and generally determined my life based on what I see as the needs of my children -to raise them happy and whole.

If I get offended and angry with some women on this board, it is conversely because I believe they are occasionally -OCCASIONALLY -perpetuating negative views of men that I myself am struggling against.

When a person says "NO, men! We are not your playthings!", I do not disagree. However, I feel the need to respond to it because the implicit message is that men think of women as playthings. Yes, some do. But some women also play with men's emotions. It goes both ways, but the rhetorical attacks are overwhelmingly from the feminists side when it comes to the "war of the sexes". Naturally, as a man, it gets a rise out of me.

In conclusion, I think your opinions of me are inaccurate and I think you have misrepresented me. To a certain extent, I also feel that I have stupidly allowed myself to rise to the bait that has been thrown out intentionally to create the appearance of an "enemy".

[BainsBane]

44. fair enough

and I appreciate your thoughtful response.

As for the blog entry, I don't think it proposed to be anything other than that woman's own struggle with expectations about having children. I can imagine it wouldn't have resonated with a lot of people, as many experiences others have don't. There is a recent cultural trend of testimonial literature in both published and internet form. I find little of it interesting myself, but once in a great while something strikes me. What I found odd in that case is that you were so irritated over it.

I do recall a discussion we had several months ago where we talked about your quite understandable objection to ideas that society doesn't allow men the range of emotion afforded women. I understood and respect that position. Some of your responses of late have puzzled me, particularly when I ask for explanation or examples and you don't respond.

We all have life experiences that shape how we see the world.
I accept that I have misinterpreted you. I hope I can better understand you in future conversations.

Edit: For what it's worth, I would find it helpful if you would explain WHY you find a particular post or situation offensive or bothersome rather than simply expressing an objection. It would not only help your views be better understood, but it would also give others a chance to learn from the exchange. That's my two cents, for whatever it's worth.

[Bonobo]

45. Thank you. I just sent you a LONG message so please check your inbox. nt

[Major Nikon]

47. 2 weeks ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022481541#post30

The term is thrown around all the time on DU and vehemently defended as you are doing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. Exactly? What do race car drivers and scrabble players *need*?

They need adversaries.

As a man, you're never going to escape that role.

[ZombieHorde]

61. "As a man, you're never going to escape that role."

True, but neither will women.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. There are highly perverse incentives at work here.

If my paycheck and community status depends on maintaining someone as an enemy, I am strongly motivated to create incidents; e.g. donglegate

[ZombieHorde]

63. I am not sure how donglegate helped that woman. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. It was an overplayed hand. The exception proving the rule. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

65. Exceptions don't prove rules, unless the rule is there are always exceptions. nt

[Gore1FL]

70. It helped her fulfill her "look at me" "empowerment" needs.

She has a history of finding offense and creating scenes. (yet she posted similar jokes on her own twitter account.) She gets attention through bomb throwing. This time, she didn't manage to clear herself of the blast.

It clearly didn't help her in the long run.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I don't know. I think donglegate is more about the "crusader" mentality. Which is, to my mind,

deeper and driven by other things.

To wit, If one can convince oneself that it's their job to run around correcting everyone else's myriad imagined flaws, they never really have to examine themselves.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

68. I think it's self promotion

This Richards character seems to like to stir shit up, most likely in an attempt to get someone to say "Oh, we gotta get this woman on our tv show, she's wild!". Then maybe a book deal or something else. There is so much absolutely useless media out there that needs time to be filled, I could see a world class egomaniac like Ms. Richards finding a spot amongst the crap.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Without adversaries, there's no need for crusaders.

If you are hostile enough, you can create the enemies that your crusade needs to thrive.

That process doesn't require the conscious participation of each crusader... who often (and conveniently) feel the need to correct everyone's imagined flaws.

[Bonobo]

72. This OP is even truer today than when I first wrote it. nt

[ElboRuum]

73. I assume...

...that you are at least obliquely referring to the ongoing donnybrook in GD and its descent into metaness.

[Gore1FL]

74. Roger that.

There are people in this world (and it is not gender-based--see also: Tea Party) whose first response is to be outraged rather than inquisitive.

The most recent freak-out is a great example. It's clear none of those complaining actually clicked the link. Gurgling outrage is the path of least resistance.