What you reckon to this one then

[Icehaven]

It's just so patronising and creepy to feverishly agree with everything women say, especially when it's in some way critical of men.

Not to mention impossible, as women have been known to disagree with each other too.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Agreed, but this particular line of thought is in places like The Guardian, Huff Post and elsewhere which do have currency.

This is actually quite true, there's a creeping "is this piece of art morally pure?" element to quite a lot of the thinkpieces in those publications, which suggests that they're missing the whole point of art somewhat. The cultural reach of these ideas is debatable though, I honestly think that most people don't perceive art through an ideological prism at all.

[imitationleather]

Not to mention impossible, as women have been known to disagree with each other too.

My missus as a general rule doesn't tend to like other women.

[ieXush2i]

Not to mention impossible, as women have been known to disagree with each other too.

Exactly! What a ludicrous charge

[Buelligan]

Not to mention impossible, as women have been known to disagree with each other too.

No we don't.

[Funcrusher]

Exactly! What a ludicrous charge

It's certainly possible for some women to think that they speak for all women and for them and their male allies to just ignore any dissenting views.

[Buelligan]

It's certainly possible for some women to think that they speak for all women and for them and their male allies to just ignore any dissenting views.

And some women, many of the great dictators of World history, for example, don't just ignore dissenting views.  No. 

They track down the holders of such views, torture them until they dob in all of their associates (real or not) and shove them in gulags and all manner of nasty places, even doing some to actual death.  Terrible but what can you expect?

[Sebastian Cobb]

Exactly! What a ludicrous charge

^at it again

[Funcrusher]

And some women, many of the great dictators of World history, for example, don't just ignore dissenting views.  No. 

They track down the holders of such views, torture them until they dob in all of their associates (real or not) and shove them in gulags and all manner of nasty places, even doing some to actual death.  Terrible but what can you expect?

I don't understand the point you're making here.

[Buelligan]

I'm not making a point, just agreeing with you (and expanding a bit perhaps).

[Barry Admin]

Exactly! What a ludicrous charge

Example: Laurie Penny tweets "Men are trash' is a phrase I adore because it implies *waste*"

You, of course, slavishly defend her and start attacking everyone who criticises her dumb comment:

How do you frame this in the context of MeToo biggy? Just so no-one gets the impression you're a fragile male snowflake triggered by the mildest of mild comments regarding your gender.

Can you not just acknowledge that her statement was either idiotic and harmful to the discussion, or outright provocation? Even though she's a woman?

Not really, she was finding a positive spin on a phrase no-one has previously found offensive outside of "But when's International Men's Day eh?" circles but she's the designated feminist hate figure for clever people so people take grandiose umbrage I guess.

"Waste" means there was potential or value unrealised but it doesn't seem a lot of people bothered to read past "men are trash".

And then Laurie Penny herself acknowledges that it was bad writing.

That kind of thing. Automatically siding with women - usually when they're being critical of men - isn't equality. Rather it is, as I said, patronising and creepy.

[itsfredtitmus]

Straights are trash

[Funcrusher]

I'm not making a point, just agreeing with you (and expanding a bit perhaps).

Fair dos, agreement is always better than division.

[Barry Admin]

Straights are trash

Good one Igor.

[Buelligan]

Fair dos, agreement is always better than division.

I love it when you reveal your magnanimous.

[itsfredtitmus]

Good one Igor.

Def 1:a clumsy semi-retarded excuse for a human. Ocassionaly has sex with goats and other animals. It is basically the definition of an asspirate, cock juggling, cum guzzling, thundercunted 5 cent street whore all in one.

[Funcrusher]

That kind of thing. Automatically siding with women - usually when they're being critical of men - isn't equality. Rather it is, as I said, patronising and creepy.

Patronising is exactly what it is. It's just a continuation of a Victorian paternalistic view of women as the radiant sex who are better than base male ruffians. If feminism is 'the radical notion that women are human beings' that means that women have the human vices as well as the virtues. It's not putting someone on a pedestal.

[Funcrusher]

I love it when you reveal your magnanimous.

That time I revealed my magnanimous was an honest mistake officer.

[Buelligan]

Patronising is exactly what it is. It's just a continuation of a Victorian paternalistic view of women as the radiant sex who are better than base male ruffians. If feminism is 'the radical notion that women are human beings' that means that women have the human vices as well as the virtues. It's not putting someone on a pedestal.

Surely that would be the Ancient Greeks or Romans?  Victorians would plump for a penny-farthing.

[ieXush2i]

Example: Laurie Penny tweets "Men are trash' is a phrase I adore because it implies *waste*"

You, of course, slavishly defend her and start attacking everyone who criticises her dumb comment:


And then Laurie Penny herself acknowledges that it was bad writing.

That kind of thing. Automatically siding with women - usually when they're being critical of men - isn't equality. Rather it is, as I said, patronising and creepy.

Laurie Penny is every woman now, then? Then I suppose it would be fair to say you disagree with every woman.

[Barry Admin]

It's something you always do in these kinds of threads, I gave that as an example, and referred to it as such. You're just playing dumb.

[ieXush2i]

That's the thing, it's not really proof of me always agreeing with women (because you know full well that isn't true) - fucking hell, Buelligan and I aren't in agreement in this very thread - but is a good example of your Laurie Penny hatred.

And no, of course your laughable "always siding with women" thing isn't equality. Who on earth would think that's what equality is? It's a nice non sequitur, whatever you're going for.

[Barry Admin]

Ah yes my Laurie Penny hatred. Not sure your usual "no u" response will fly there, given that people will surely notice I don't comment on her much, yet lots of people have noticed your weird, creepy attitude to women. Anyway, see you in the next one of these threads where you drum up desperately needed attention for yourself by defending some dumb shit just because a woman has said it.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Here's a doozy from a GQ article called 21 Books You Don't Have To Read: https://www.gq.com/story/21-books-you-dont-have-to-read



Drivel.

[Funcrusher]

Drivel.

Typical straight white cunt.

Google reveals that she's the daughter of Art Spiegelman, creator of 'Maus'. Doesn't look like she's going to create as impressive a body of work (although I've not read 'Maus'.)

[Sin Agog]

Here's a doozy from a GQ article called 21 Books You Don't Have To Read: https://www.gq.com/story/21-books-you-dont-have-to-read



Drivel.

So it goes.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Typical straight white cunt.

Google reveals that she's the daughter of Art Spiegelman, creator of 'Maus'. Doesn't look like she's going to create as impressive a body of work (although I've not read 'Maus'.)

holy shit, i didn't clock that

Art Spiegelman was always honest about his personal shortcomings in his work. That's part of what makes great art, is laying it all out there. The ugly, complicated truth. The worst thing an artist can be is disingenuous or dissembling. In terms of the qualities that make for great art, 'wholesomeness' is not up there

[imitationleather]

Fucking LOL.

"I don't think Slaughterhouse-Five is a good book like you do. I think it's bad aaaaaah!"

[Dr Syntax Head]

Here's a doozy from a GQ article called 21 Books You Don't Have To Read: https://www.gq.com/story/21-books-you-dont-have-to-read



Drivel.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Soup]

Vonnegut can be quite shit at writing women, depending on the novel. I don't understand why Veronica is an alternative to it, anymore than Jimmy Hill is an alternative to dairy.