<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A meandering reflection on fun feminism, waxing, role modeling, Socrates, and intra-feminist dialogue</title>
	<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:09:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Uncontainable_Spirit</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26697</link>
		<dc:creator>Uncontainable_Spirit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:14:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26697</guid>
		<description>heh heh... when the pendulum swings back... and it will.  I'll be very interested in how these 'feminists' respond.  Until then... good luck.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>heh heh&#8230; when the pendulum swings back&#8230; and it will.  I&#8217;ll be very interested in how these &#8216;feminists&#8217; respond.  Until then&#8230; good luck.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gwallan</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26696</link>
		<dc:creator>gwallan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:16:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26696</guid>
		<description>mythago I understand your what you are saying but that wasn't really the point of my post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>mythago I understand your what you are saying but that wasn&#8217;t really the point of my post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mythago</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26695</link>
		<dc:creator>mythago</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:53:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26695</guid>
		<description>gwallan, suggestion that instead of running into the arms of pretended sympathizers, you turn and call those people who are harassing you on their BS. Being a feminist doesn't prevent one from being stupid and, say, blaming abuse victims. I hope you won't let a few idiots sour you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>gwallan, suggestion that instead of running into the arms of pretended sympathizers, you turn and call those people who are harassing you on their BS. Being a feminist doesn&#8217;t prevent one from being stupid and, say, blaming abuse victims. I hope you won&#8217;t let a few idiots sour you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hugo</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26694</link>
		<dc:creator>Hugo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:48:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26694</guid>
		<description>Thanks, tekanji.  Etymology is a fascinating subject about which I rarely post, and I appreciate everyone for their interest in it; let us indeed keep on thread here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, tekanji.  Etymology is a fascinating subject about which I rarely post, and I appreciate everyone for their interest in it; let us indeed keep on thread here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tekanji</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26693</link>
		<dc:creator>tekanji</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:48:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26693</guid>
		<description>Gonzman, I just want to make something clear. The post I made? So &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; about Rush Limbaugh. Never was. He's a passing mention because of his role in the popularization of the term. You can keep arguing until the cows come home, but that won't make the post about him. And since it was a post regarding an internal feminist issue, furthermore directly addressing feminists, I fail to see how you -- an outsider who clearly does not identify as feminist -- can be an authority on the matter.

Anyway, I suggest that we stop this argument. This is way off topic and I don't think either of us wish to be rude to Hugo by derailing his thread. If you feel the need to reply to what I've said, I will probably read it, but this will be my last comment regarding this matter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gonzman, I just want to make something clear. The post I made? So <i>not</i> about Rush Limbaugh. Never was. He&#8217;s a passing mention because of his role in the popularization of the term. You can keep arguing until the cows come home, but that won&#8217;t make the post about him. And since it was a post regarding an internal feminist issue, furthermore directly addressing feminists, I fail to see how you &#8212; an outsider who clearly does not identify as feminist &#8212; can be an authority on the matter.</p>
<p>Anyway, I suggest that we stop this argument. This is way off topic and I don&#8217;t think either of us wish to be rude to Hugo by derailing his thread. If you feel the need to reply to what I&#8217;ve said, I will probably read it, but this will be my last comment regarding this matter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arielladrake</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26692</link>
		<dc:creator>arielladrake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Oct 2006 06:34:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26692</guid>
		<description>o.O We can't say 'not all feminists think alike' without throwing out a term intended to paint radical feminists as comparable to *Nazis*? More to the point, there's not actually anything wrong with saying not all feminists think alike without such 'differentiating' terms. Difference doesn't necessitate categorising feminists. Please take your false dilemma elsewhere.

And you say 'opinions' like they can never be full of shit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>o.O We can&#8217;t say &#8216;not all feminists think alike&#8217; without throwing out a term intended to paint radical feminists as comparable to *Nazis*? More to the point, there&#8217;s not actually anything wrong with saying not all feminists think alike without such &#8216;differentiating&#8217; terms. Difference doesn&#8217;t necessitate categorising feminists. Please take your false dilemma elsewhere.</p>
<p>And you say &#8216;opinions&#8217; like they can never be full of shit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Gonzman</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26691</link>
		<dc:creator>The Gonzman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Oct 2006 03:14:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26691</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Thanks, Gonzman, for snarking about it here instead of having the common courtesy to point out the factual error on my site. Where, you know, it could have been speedily addressed.&lt;/i&gt;

I've made it a habit of not going on feminist blogs and commenting without being invited in some fashion.  And if you'd done your homework instead of being eager to snark on Rush Limbaugh, well, this wouldn't be a problem either.  He at least several times a year makes the point he didn't invent the term - also makes it obvious you haven't listened to him.

&lt;i&gt;Also, do you know the term "don't throw stones from glass houses"? It's not like I'm the first person to make a factual error -- that's why even major publications have to put out error corrections all the time. All publications will sometimes make mistakes (yes, even basic ones), and I seriously doubt you have never mixed up a fact or cited a source that did so.&lt;/i&gt;

Why I like to give opinions, rather than engage in contests of lies, damnable lies, and statistics.  Generally the minute someone starts tossing out stats, I start rolling up the cuffs of my trousers.

&lt;i&gt;Lastly, the error may be "contrary to fact" but it doesn't invalidate my point, especially since the context itself isn't pertinent to which anti-feminist coined the term. &lt;/i&gt;

Oh, but I disagree -the term was specifically invented to differentiate between the more militant feminists and others.  Now if you don't wish to make that distinction, fine and dandy - but it then becomes disingenuous to throw out the canned "not all feminists think alike" canard.  You can't have it both ways.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Thanks, Gonzman, for snarking about it here instead of having the common courtesy to point out the factual error on my site. Where, you know, it could have been speedily addressed.</i></p>
<p>I&#8217;ve made it a habit of not going on feminist blogs and commenting without being invited in some fashion.  And if you&#8217;d done your homework instead of being eager to snark on Rush Limbaugh, well, this wouldn&#8217;t be a problem either.  He at least several times a year makes the point he didn&#8217;t invent the term - also makes it obvious you haven&#8217;t listened to him.</p>
<p><i>Also, do you know the term &#8220;don&#8217;t throw stones from glass houses&#8221;? It&#8217;s not like I&#8217;m the first person to make a factual error &#8212; that&#8217;s why even major publications have to put out error corrections all the time. All publications will sometimes make mistakes (yes, even basic ones), and I seriously doubt you have never mixed up a fact or cited a source that did so.</i></p>
<p>Why I like to give opinions, rather than engage in contests of lies, damnable lies, and statistics.  Generally the minute someone starts tossing out stats, I start rolling up the cuffs of my trousers.</p>
<p><i>Lastly, the error may be &#8220;contrary to fact&#8221; but it doesn&#8217;t invalidate my point, especially since the context itself isn&#8217;t pertinent to which anti-feminist coined the term. </i></p>
<p>Oh, but I disagree -the term was specifically invented to differentiate between the more militant feminists and others.  Now if you don&#8217;t wish to make that distinction, fine and dandy - but it then becomes disingenuous to throw out the canned &#8220;not all feminists think alike&#8221; canard.  You can&#8217;t have it both ways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gwallan</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26690</link>
		<dc:creator>gwallan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:14:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26690</guid>
		<description>I've not posted here before and I do understand that many may have me pegged as an MRA because of my apparent hostility to feminism in other places.

The truth is that I have been driven away from feminism by the frequent overt hostility of feminists to my being a victim of some abuse. I was driven straight into the arms of the mens' rights movement as a consequence. 

I was a teenager in the seventies. I was drawn to feminism for a host of reasons not the least of which was a strong left wing heritage. 

Among those reasons was, maybe simplistically, a hope that we could create a world where appearences or physical attractiveness would become less of an issue. That we could begin to judge people on what they did rather than what they looked like.

Another, and more importantly, was a recognition that we treated women like children. 

On the first of these I have been sadly disappointed. On the second I'm developing a perception that not only are we still doing it but that it is feminism which is leading the charge.

I find myself stuck in the middle and feeling like I'm being bombed by both sides in this stupid "war". And I can't help feeling that feminism has lost touch with some of it's original principles.

I know this is a strictly personal view and not well expressed so I'd expect to be roundly criticised for it. Maybe it'd be best sumarised by saying that if I was to list my personal "heroes" chief among them would be Ghandi and Martina Navratilova. Make of that what you will.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve not posted here before and I do understand that many may have me pegged as an MRA because of my apparent hostility to feminism in other places.</p>
<p>The truth is that I have been driven away from feminism by the frequent overt hostility of feminists to my being a victim of some abuse. I was driven straight into the arms of the mens&#8217; rights movement as a consequence. </p>
<p>I was a teenager in the seventies. I was drawn to feminism for a host of reasons not the least of which was a strong left wing heritage. </p>
<p>Among those reasons was, maybe simplistically, a hope that we could create a world where appearences or physical attractiveness would become less of an issue. That we could begin to judge people on what they did rather than what they looked like.</p>
<p>Another, and more importantly, was a recognition that we treated women like children. </p>
<p>On the first of these I have been sadly disappointed. On the second I&#8217;m developing a perception that not only are we still doing it but that it is feminism which is leading the charge.</p>
<p>I find myself stuck in the middle and feeling like I&#8217;m being bombed by both sides in this stupid &#8220;war&#8221;. And I can&#8217;t help feeling that feminism has lost touch with some of it&#8217;s original principles.</p>
<p>I know this is a strictly personal view and not well expressed so I&#8217;d expect to be roundly criticised for it. Maybe it&#8217;d be best sumarised by saying that if I was to list my personal &#8220;heroes&#8221; chief among them would be Ghandi and Martina Navratilova. Make of that what you will.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tekanji</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26689</link>
		<dc:creator>tekanji</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Oct 2006 04:09:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26689</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Sandy, since Tom Hazlett was the one who coined the term and not Rush Limbaugh, it's difficult to follow any conclusions from such an embarassing, contrary to fact, premise.&lt;/i&gt;

Thanks, Gonzman, for snarking about it &lt;i&gt;here&lt;/i&gt; instead of having the common courtesy to point out the factual error on my site. Where, you know, it could have been speedily addressed.

Also, do you know the term "don't throw stones from glass houses"? It's not like I'm the first person to make a factual error -- that's why even major publications have to put out error corrections all the time. All publications will sometimes make mistakes (yes, even basic ones), and I seriously doubt you have never mixed up a fact or cited a source that did so.

Lastly, the error may be "contrary to fact" but it doesn't invalidate my point, especially since the context itself isn't pertinent to which anti-feminist coined the term.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Sandy, since Tom Hazlett was the one who coined the term and not Rush Limbaugh, it&#8217;s difficult to follow any conclusions from such an embarassing, contrary to fact, premise.</i></p>
<p>Thanks, Gonzman, for snarking about it <i>here</i> instead of having the common courtesy to point out the factual error on my site. Where, you know, it could have been speedily addressed.</p>
<p>Also, do you know the term &#8220;don&#8217;t throw stones from glass houses&#8221;? It&#8217;s not like I&#8217;m the first person to make a factual error &#8212; that&#8217;s why even major publications have to put out error corrections all the time. All publications will sometimes make mistakes (yes, even basic ones), and I seriously doubt you have never mixed up a fact or cited a source that did so.</p>
<p>Lastly, the error may be &#8220;contrary to fact&#8221; but it doesn&#8217;t invalidate my point, especially since the context itself isn&#8217;t pertinent to which anti-feminist coined the term.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: acm</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26688</link>
		<dc:creator>acm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:28:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/12/a-meandering-reflection-on-fun-feminism-waxing-role-modeling-socrates-and-intra-feminist-dialogue/#comment-26688</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Being introspective about one's choices and admitting that not all of them are empowering is a great first step. But that's it. Once you've gotten to that level, make some more changes. &lt;/i&gt;

this seems key to me.  everybody has to pick their battles and their comfort zone (be it name-changing, shaving, make-up, etc.) -- but if you never take on a battle, never challenge your level of comfort, then you are implicitly accepting the status quo, which is an oppressive patriarchal society.  pick your battles, but get in there somewhere.  mulling over a cup of tea isn't enough.

(of course, I feel this same way about politics, religion, and any other set of precepts or values that we claim guide our thoughts and lives.  get into the game or stop pretending you're on the field.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Being introspective about one&#8217;s choices and admitting that not all of them are empowering is a great first step. But that&#8217;s it. Once you&#8217;ve gotten to that level, make some more changes. </i></p>
<p>this seems key to me.  everybody has to pick their battles and their comfort zone (be it name-changing, shaving, make-up, etc.) &#8212; but if you never take on a battle, never challenge your level of comfort, then you are implicitly accepting the status quo, which is an oppressive patriarchal society.  pick your battles, but get in there somewhere.  mulling over a cup of tea isn&#8217;t enough.</p>
<p>(of course, I feel this same way about politics, religion, and any other set of precepts or values that we claim guide our thoughts and lives.  get into the game or stop pretending you&#8217;re on the field.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
