It’s the new year already! (NYC)
Hello, world.
Thanks to the generosity of our Brooklyn-residing friends who just happened to need catsitting, Mindlace and I went to New York [Fuckin'] City for a week.
(As an aside: there’s something incredibly cool about referring to Ethan by his middle name in writing. When speaking, however, I never do it.)
I’ve been procrastinating on writing about it, because there’s just so much; so it’s unlikely that I’ll write more than one post about it. Most of it is food porn, so I’ll summarize the rest quickly.
Twenty-fifth was spent with friend Sean here in Providence in the morning and then driving in the afternoon. By the time we got to New York we were fairly tired, and lo, found that Stacy and David had left us a bottle of wine at their place. They surely knew our hearts; we drank the gorgeous red and watched movies.
Twenty-sixth we spent largely at the new and improved MoMA. My, but the building is gorgeous. Tall ceilings and entire walls of glass looking out onto the sculpture yard and over the city. One of the glass walls was frosted with very narrow translucent lines, sailor-suit-on-acid-style; so that when you walked up the stairs several feet away from it, it looked like it was snowing outside. For part of the day, it was lightly snowing, which made the sport of guessing the weather even more fun. In the evening, we met up with GHW at Strand bookstore, browsed around, bought a book on East European cooking…
…remind me to tell you about tonight’s soup. omigod. …
…and went for coffee, subsequently relocating to a beer pub. A fun time was had!, and also we spoiled ourselves by buying PixelBlocks. Hey, you’re only in New York once. Toys are paramount. That, and knife sharpeners.
This isn’t going to be a quick summary, is it?
Twenty-seventh we went to Fleur de Sel for lunch. About the best midday meal I’ve ever had, about which later. Continuing in the vein of vaguely traditional New York vacation, in the evening we saw a performance by the Alvin Ailey Dance Theatre. I highly, highly recommend this activity for young and old alike. These people leapt soundlessly across the stage; I had to strain to hear them move, and we were sitting four rows away from the stage. Beautiful performers and soul-baring choreography; no photograph does justice to the live performance. As a bonus, they inspired me to take up yoga again. Soon, strength training too. Holy god.
After the show we met up with Lune, walked through Times Square (it was great seeing Ethan experience Times Sq at night for the first time!) and dropped into a crazy tourist bar named Mars 2112. Cheese factor extra-high, but they make one tasty cosmopolitan. Okay, two. Following that was the Library bar somewhere on the lower East side, a seedy and most fun establishment with skulls on the wall, death metal roaring from the jukebox and a Godzilla movie projected onto the back wall. A perfect way to end the ev… greet the morning.
We paid for this on the twenty-eighth. Met my brother and family for lunch at 2nd Avenue Deli. We had to wait a little, and they fed all the waiting folk little chopped-liver-pate sandwiches. Although they were cute and very tasty sandwiches, and my lunch was also superlative (but only for nostalgia’s sake: this sort of food would be too heavy to eat more than once or twice a year), the noise and general mayhem of the place didn’t impress me. We came out with our ears buzzing; no doubt the five hours of sleep didn’t help, so we begged off for a nap. In the evening, dinner and merriment was had at Z & Jo’s Dobbs Ferry apartment, where we ate very tasty bean soup and – halleluia! – a simple, fresh salad. Ethan sparred with four-and-a-half-year-old Tesher, and then we crashed back in Park Slope.
Thirtieth: met Jo and Tesher (Zhenya was working) at the Museum of Natural History. Saw a butterflies exhibit and another one of frogs. Frogs bear a special mention: well-presented, loads of information, fun! Beautiful frogs, and the second case you saw as you walked in had poisonous frogs inside, with clouds of billowing steam all around them. Spectacular! The rest of the museum was great too, and I also highly recommend going to that place with a wide-eyed kid with impressive stamina for someone so young. The museum excursion ended with a planetarium show, and we proceeded back to Park Slope to meet friends for sushi at Geido. Mmm, fresh tasty fish and catching up with people, one of whom I hadn’t seen for something like seven or eight years. We hadn’t been that closely acquainted in the first place, Dr. Memory and I, and it was fun to talk to him more. His ways around language and irrepressible grin are great fun. After dinner, I sent Ethan off to play some more and headed to another Brooklyn residence to visit Lindy the attention-starved cuddle-puddle kitty on crack. We bonded; it must’ve helped that I smelled like his ex-roommate River. When I returned back to Park Slope, River the Cat Who Hides And Then Yowls For Unfathomable Favors definitely noticed that I now smelled of Lindy, and proceeded to allow me to pet her for longer than usual. I, for my part, proceeded to sneeze a lot. Someday modern medicine will get rid of allergies; until then, give me that Claritin, because I’m certainly having trouble staying away from aminals.
Thirty-first! Friday! We took it easy that day, went to Beacon’s Closet for thrift-store shopping fun. I got a bright brownish-orange very warm knit dress with a very poofy fake-fur collar and sleeve cuffs. Very unlike the rest of my wardrobe, but comfy! Haven’t worn it yet, but will post a photo when I do, just for fun. Also, got slinky black dress with – wait for it – black fringe and rhinestones going diagonally down from hip to the opposite knee. Oh yes. It was beautiful, and I had occasion to wear it that evening, as we went to a speakeasy-themed New Year’s Eve party at a bar in Williamsburg. The band was amazing (holy god, that violinist rocked! I mean, jazzed! who were these people?), the friends and conversation were all great, and we stayed until sufficiently late to be Very Tired but not late enough to stay up all night.
January the First, two thousand and Five, we took Liberties With cApiTal leTTers… just kidding. We slept in a little, got up to meet other friends at Russ & Daughters, but failed to meet with them due to excessive partying the night before. Ah well; it was New Year’s. This didn’t stop us from going to the famed deli, where we purchased ohmygawd-amazing smoked fish, chocolates and dried fruit. Oh, and salty-liquorice fish candy, the real kind, which was tasty.
This fun was followed by more fun, as we strolled on over to M. and K.’s place. I’d only met M. virtually, through blogging, but she’s an amazing mind and delightful spirit. Plus, not knowing me from Eve, she returned my email requesting restaurant recommendations with a detailed, multi-paragraph treasure trove of reviews. My kind of person, I figured; so we went over for hors d’oeuvres and movies. Both were exquisite, from fried goat-cheese balls and runny cheese to the original Stepford Wives and the Mexican wonder that is Aventurera. Successive Bollywood musical and accompanying commentary were priceless.
From there, we went to Applewood for dinner. I… don’t know what to say. I’ll say it in another post. Really.
January Two we drove back to Providence, stopping by Ess-A-Bagel on the way for a dozen bialys and another of hot bagels. I haven’t had bagels this good in a long, long time; and Ethan finally understood the transcendent experience that is the New York bagel. With bagels and salty fish in hand, not to mention pickled cucumbers and tomatoes, we stopped by Z & Jo’s again for brunch, a fun, family-oriented affair.
We came home and more or less crashed, but not before catching up on the internet (geeeks) and unpacking. I got a bit subdued. It was the fourth anniversary of my father’s death.
Okay, so this didn’t turn out short at all. But here it is, New York, sans food pr0n reviews. Those are a whole ‘nother post.
January 5th, 2005 at 6:33 am
I just wanted to say thanks for checking in on Lindy, and I am sorry we didn’t come by or call or say hi after getting back on January 1st – we were just really dead. I am glad you enjoyed your visit, though.
I feel the same way about Museum of Natural History as you do – it’s an amazing place, and better if you have someone who is wide-eyed and enthusiastic about everything.
January 5th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
thank you so much for braving your allergies and sneezing to keep river company! and mmmm, food. I will have to check out some of the places you’ve mentioned. (Fleur de Sel, though, I know; my old office was around the corner, and another friend and I would sneak off there for long lunches every so often.) I am glad you two had such a great (and packed!) trip. (hi from the seoul airport …)
April 21st, 2005 at 1:33 pm
You know your friend (mindlace) might bear some watching. If how he treats online communities that he belongs to is any measure of the man then watch out for yourself.
April 21st, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Bertram-
Well, you’re a charmer yourself, propagating the very “let’s say bad things about people on the net” meme that you condemn.
I think what mindlace was trying to get to in his post is that, as a conglomerate of online communities, we all (men and women) tolerate off-handedly demeaning things said about women more easily than the same sort of things said about men. In other words, we live in a sexist society, and once you see a concrete example of it, if you’re a feminist, it’ll change your entire worldview. Theoretical knowledge of sexism doesn’t have quite the same punch in the gut as an instance of sexism that you witness.
His story about funkynut was interesting in this context not for the parts about funkynut; but rather for the parts about the people who participated in the demean-funkynut meme, whether they “meant it” or not. But funkynut is apparently a turbulent figure in your community, so people focused on her more than on what mindlace was saying about the community as a whole.
And to be very clear: I don’t think he considers the entire community sexist assholes. I think he points out evidence of some people being sexist assholes, and in addition evidence of everyone else automatically tolerating it because of our societal assumptions.
Now, I’ve spent a considerable number of hours clicking through images on themaxx; don’t tell me you really think there are zero sexist assholes in your community. But frankly, they are not the point. The point is the level of tolerance their behavior gets; like any discriminatory -ism, it’s largely unconscious, but that doesn’t mean you wouldn’t want to become conscious of it if you do have it, so that you can decide whether you feel like eradicating it.
My blog doesn’t have threaded comments, so I’ll email this to you as well. It surprises me that you chose to comment on an old post of mine instead of one of the more recent ones. Why? It almost looks like hiding.
…Although if you got to me through a google search for mindlace, and randomly came upon this page, you have the perfect alibi. You coulda read some more, you know. The link to the most recent stuff is, like, right there.
Then you would’ve known that mindlace isn’t merely my friend; he’s my husband. :)
Look, I’m really not trying to attack or demean you in any way. I read all the comments on themaxx about this (I don’t have an account, but do have an “in”), and I think there’s a lot of miscommunication going on. But I think the flaming that’s been going on is totally unnecessary and counterproductive.
I have no reason to kiss up to your community; I don’t plan to become part of it (which is a combination of “don’t want to get all my free time sucked into this” and “not my thing in general”). So take this for what it’s worth: mindlace and I participate in several online communities together. Most of the people who know him, myself included, think that he is a valuable and good person to have in any given community. Cut each other some slack, don’t assume he’s a dumb troll just because you didn’t like what he said, and please, engage in civil discourse.
About tits & ass.
April 21st, 2005 at 8:46 pm
Man, how did it become so commonplace for people to boil everything down into inaccurate, oversimplified dualities? It’s also awesome to first draw a conclusion, and then take a situation and throw away the context so it complies with that conclusion.
This whole thing still /reeks/ of pseudo-intellectual arrogance and condescension, and you act as though you’ve suddenly stumbled onto this major sociological revelation about the internet, or communities therein. Wow, sexists exist? And people tolerate it in order to avoid confrontation? Someone alert Scientific American, and tell them to stop the presses–I think we have a major breakthrough, here.
I mean, come on, what’s your next idea going to be, “Children from dysfunctional households are more prone to criminal activity as adults”?
While I won’t argue that there isn’t sexism on TheMaxx–because there is, just like in practically every community (even feminist ones, to take it to more of a broader perspective: while arguing for total equality with men, they sometimes deny their own individuality as a gender, and the very areas in which they are better than men), and probably fractally with every magnification of humanity–I will argue that: A) The example you selected doesn’t really represent it, and B) It’s not a level/variety of sexism that’s much of a danger to society.
Now, for A, you really have selected a poor example. With the appropriate context, the irony in many of the posts (especially the “maxxer females” one about which such an enormous deal was made) becomes apparent, despite most of it failing comedically. It’s not so much “sexist” as it is “not that funny”. And they weren’t riffing on womanhood, but rather on funkynut’s intentional obfuscation of his/her gender. So they had to post pictures of women, men, and people of mixed sexes/genders to do so? Wow, what a surprise! I suppose they could have posted images of box turtles and cinder blocks, but that wouldn’t have made as much sense.
So, yeah, bad example. A better one would’ve been some of the comments made on penny_lane’s breast post. (Which, I could be a real jerk and argue from a meta-perspective, was an image in and of itself sexist, but I’ll refrain.) Or the guys who go through and vote “bad” on images that aren’t of naked females. Or probably quite a number of other things if you dig around enough. This was just stupid, really, and the fact that you assumed without context in order to justify an obviously preconceived statement or idea is really unscientific and intellectually lazy.
Now, allow me to explain what I meant by B. While there is sexism, and it does often go unchallenged, it’s not the kind of sexism that really warrants constant aggression and shunning. At worst, it is, on average, an exaggeration of males’ tendencies to be sexually aggressive. I hope it’s not surprising to you that men enjoy looking at nude females. (Then again, you’ve been acting as though “sexism exists” is some major revelation, so perhaps that DOES come as a surprise.) If you’re suggesting that every time someone drools over an image of a breast, or posts an image of a particularly degrading piece of pornography, an argument should break out, that’s a little bit extreme. And I /know/ you can’t honestly believe that men can all, with proper training, never be insensitive pricks.
What’s worse, though, is the kind of sexism exhibited by religious extremists of both genders. Men believe women to be subservient, and women believe it as well. It’s pretty shitty when men do it to women, but it’s even worse when women do it to themselves. And it’s far more degrading than any porn that exists. Given the choice, I’d prefer leering, horny geek guys in an internet community to self-subjugating religious women any day.
So yeah, I do tolerate the trite shit, and men being horny, as we are biologically programmed to be for the perpetuation of the species. There are far more important things to take up arms against.
April 22nd, 2005 at 2:56 am
Jabberwock-
Er, I’m not sure whom you’re addressing here. I never commented on anything that goes on in your community, except to point out that there are, indeed, sexist assholes there (as everywhere, you’re right about that, and I also mentioned it).
Let’s establish some stuff, since themaxxers now have a possibility of finding this site.
1. I’m not mindlace. While we strive daily to achieve entirely telepathic communication, so far we have failed in melting into one person.
2. Don’t flame. If you flame me (or mindlace) on this site, I’ll delete your comment. You can scream bloody censorship all you want; this won’t change things. If, however, you engage in civil conversation, I’m more than happy to converse.
2a. Really, if you’re inclined to talk, don’t worry about where the censorship line lies. I’m a reasonable person.
3. I am an academic. I work in a university. I *heart* theory. That said, I do not think myself to be The Shit, nor do I believe myself to have discovered something new about ye interwebbe. I’ve been on it for long enough that your pissy attack above is laughable.
4. I am not a member of your community. I’m an outsider commenting, not on the community, but on the conversation revolving around mindlace’s post.
5. Please do not use the word “females” when referring to women, especially not in the same breath as you refer to men as men and not “males.” This is a personal thing, I hate the noun “female” with a red hot passion; I’ll delete comments that use it, too, regardless of the rest of the content. This one bit is totally unreasonable, but this is my site. So ha.
6. Someone was apparently kind enough to post shit about me on themaxx without contacting me directly. While I accept this as Just How It Goes on the Net, let’s get one thing straight: I did not butt into anyone’s conversation. I responded to a comment made on my weblog.
ALL OF THAT SAID: Jabberwock, we actually agree on some points, most notably that “there are far more important things to take up arms against.” I tolerate men being horny just fine; but the sexism that mindlace was talking about is not propagated solely by men. I believe this has been mentioned several times. The sexism of the kind that mindlace was talking about, which has NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNKYNUT OR PENNY_LANE OR ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL, exists in these very forms outside of the net too. I’ll discuss it if I want, and you know what, fucker? (Yeah, this part pisses me off.) Don’t tell me what I can goddamn talk about, and certainly do NOT ridicule my intellectual side on my own website, because I’ll serve you your metaphorical mivonks for breakfast. Oh, and while we’re at it, who appointed you the arbiter of which instances of sexism deserve shunning, or a closer look?
Good morning, everyone. :)
April 22nd, 2005 at 4:03 am
Hey, I’m not telling you what you can and can’t discuss. I’m only pointing out that when you assume, and make (or defend) ridiculous ideas based on situations about which you have no frame of reference, you end up looking silly and pretentious. More later, I have to go to work.
April 22nd, 2005 at 4:41 am
There are many assumptions going on, it’s true. My context is the following: I would estimate that I’ve looked at over 300 images on themaxx, and I have read everything people have written on the topic here on my site, over at mindlace’s blog, and on themaxx. I certainly take your opinion of my context for what it is, no more and no less; but now you actually know.
I gotta say, hork’s comment on themaxx is cowardly. S/he never mentions me by name; the only contexts s/he refers to me in are my roles (wife and academic); and this person didn’t have the balls to contact me directly. Hence the addition of point number 6 up above.
I take my academic perspective rather in stride. I do not think it is a Bad Thing to have a meta perspective once in a while. Yet, you might be surprised to know that I do have a sense of humor about taking theory to ridiculous heights. In fact, most of my (as-yet short) professional life has been dedicated to avoiding jargon as much as possible and getting people excited about studying literary works by looking at them, not at the theory written about them.
Your comment would make sense in a different context, but I got into this conversation because Bertram Livestock took the trouble to search me out without knowing me from Eve, and warn me off the evils of this person whom he doesn’t know. His (I’m assuming he’s a man based on the name, although it may well be a pseudonym) behavior on my blog was itself based on a set of assumptions. Goodness’ sake, he didn’t even bother to find out the real relationship between me and mindlace. He, what? What was Bertram’s motivation? Just wanted to shit on someone he didn’t like? Or is there something else I’m missing? Was he really seriously thinking that he was doing a good and noble deed, coming to the aid of a stranger in distress?
So as far as I’m concerned, I got dragged into this. Not that I’m not enjoying it. :)
If any of you are interested in more spontaneous conversation (oh, hork! will you save me from my blind theorizing?), I’m dacilen on AIM.
April 22nd, 2005 at 5:05 am
To clarify, I was addressing you, vika, and yes, I understand you are not the same person as mindlace. I am fully literate, and am capable of both reading and comprehending the words “Then you would’ve known that mindlace isn’t merely my friend; he’s my husband.”
By commenting on a discussion about the community, however you happened upon it, you are indeed commenting on the community. Yes, there is a difference, but it’s about the same as saying “I’m not talking about politics at all when I criticize political discourse”.
This isn’t about defending the TheMaxx community, by the way. This is about your approach, and your assumptiveness.
Isn’t it a little hypocritical, by the way, to call me “fucker”, right after telling me “[i]f, however, you engage in civil conversation, I’m more than happy to converse”? And you call what /I/ said “laughable”?
Another hypocrisy: While I wasn’t trying to tell you at all what you can and can’t talk about, fucker, you’re telling me that I can’t talk about what you were talking about. So you have the right to an opinion, but I have no right to an opinion on your opinion?
Also, way to have a persecution complex. Do you honestly feel as though I’m trying to, like, oppress you with my words? I want you to point out specifically where I’m supposedly telling you that you can’t talk about a particular thing. To me, your accusation just seems as though you’re just improperly interpreting criticism, and purposely taking an opposing viewpoint to an extreme in order to become defensive. Which, by the way, is further evidence that my criticism of your methods of argument as a whole were correct.
While I did use “female”, I also repeatedly used “male” as well. Sorry if this is offensive to you, and I’ll refrain in the future. I understand the difference between gender and sex, though at times I do make mistakes with terminology.
Please point out where I “flamed”. Or are you addressing this to comment-posters in general as a warning?
Oh, and while we’re at it, who appointed /you/ arbiter of which instances of sexism are to be tolerated?
I have more to say about this, and would like to discuss sexism in further depth, but I really ought to actually do some work while I’m here, so it’ll have to wait until I get home. Fucker. (That was intended to be an ironically humorous jab at your own use of the word, by the way. I don’t actually mean it to be insulting in and of itself, so please don’t interpret it as such.)
April 22nd, 2005 at 5:29 am
Ah, just opened this window back up and noticed you replied while I was writing mine. I’ll respond later.
Just wanted to tell you that the “time zone” settings on your blog might be a little off.
April 22nd, 2005 at 5:41 am
Pfft. I do have a sense of humor.
Point taken, I was out of line. More specifically, I failed to distinguish which parts of that comment were directed specifically at you, and which were directed at the flamers-at-large. Directed in my head, which got totally mashed-up in writing. (I’m thinking more about the people who, for example, harp on site-pimping. I did link to themaxx in my post, providing it with free advertising.)
Let me repost what I said in my original response to Bertram, which was my first contribution to this conversation into which I got pulled after a member of your community randomly posted a comment to an old post on my blog:
“Look, I’m really not trying to attack or demean you in any way. I read all the comments on themaxx about this (I don’t have an account, but do have an “in”), and I think there’s a lot of miscommunication going on. But I think the flaming that’s been going on is totally unnecessary and counterproductive.”
In the context of that, and of the joke with which I ended that piece, starting your comment with “Man, how did it become so commonplace for people to boil everything down into inaccurate, oversimplified dualities?” doesn’t exactly bode well for rational reception of what you have to say.
I think I made it very clear that I was talking ABOUT THE CONVERSATION. A question for a question: where are the assumptions that I made? I said that I saw a lot of miscommunication going on, and I stand by that. This is not a value judgment, and I got jumped for it (less by you than by others).
I can establish rules for discourse on words’ end because I’m its owner. The tone of your first comment was ambiguous, reasonable in some places, puzzling in others (what example did I select? I thought the faulty selected example under consideration was mindlace’s mention of the funkynut business). Paragraphs 2, 5, 6 and 7 were downright dismissive and offensive: I wasn’t talking to you, I wasn’t talking ABOUT you, and you were way out on a limb with the assumptions you made about me.
So I hope we’ve established now that things escalated pretty quickly to the point of ridiculous. Your first communication to me would have been totally out of line had it been in meatspace, so I’m considering it out of line here. My reply to you, fucker,* was disproportional and also out of line. Can we kiss and make up?
The problem with conversing on the web is that tiny sticking points tend to obscure some of the issues that are actually important to the conversants. You haven’t commented on my emphasis about being pulled in by Bertram (as opposed to “butting in to defend [my] hubby” – hork? I think), you seem to have ignored the fact that I’m not talking about Men In General, or even men. You misunderstood, I think, my attitude about instances of sexism: I believe that sexism is deeply ingrained, and that it’s interesting to look at specific instances consciously. I never said what should be tolerated and what shouldn’t. My point was about discourse.
I, on the other hand, ignored your requests for specific instances in which you gave offense. Partly, I answered them above; partly, I admitted having been out of line. Again, sorry.
The analogy about political discourse / politics that you made at the beginning of your last comment seems faulty. If I’m discussing political discourse in light of some dumbass radical -ist’s article in the Big City Times, that does NOT imply that I am discussing the entire political party to which the individual belongs.
You’re making value judgments on me as a person when you talk about my “assumptiveness.” Until you get to know me better, I think such statements are hurtful and unfair. I am about as assumptive as your average thinking person on the net (which is to say, my assumptiveness quotient is greater than zero but not sky-high).
It’s *hard* to argue on the ‘net. Especially with strangers. There’s so little context. So, if you don’t mind, I’d like for the accusations to stop. I’d much rather discuss the actual issues that prompted this debacle. Something you wrote in that first comment is right on:
“What’s worse, though, is the kind of sexism exhibited by religious extremists of both genders. Men believe women to be subservient, and women believe it as well. It’s pretty shitty when men do it to women, but it’s even worse when women do it to themselves. And it’s far more degrading than any porn that exists. Given the choice, I’d prefer leering, horny geek guys in an internet community to self-subjugating religious women any day.”
Yeah. That. I agree with that. In addition, though, I think that our sexist social attitudes run deeply into our subconscious, and I think it’s interesting to talk about that. I don’t think it’s interesting to throw accusations around and let poo-flinging get out of, um, hand.
*I had to!
April 22nd, 2005 at 8:09 am
Oh, goddammit. I think this bloody form just lost a really great post I just spent half an hour writing.
Either that, or there’s some glitch in the posting mechanism, and the number of times I tried refreshing with POSTdata is going to end up flooding this page once the error is corrected.
Grr.
April 22nd, 2005 at 8:11 am
Well, if that comment just went through, then it DID lose it.
FUCK.
April 22nd, 2005 at 8:15 am
Gah! Sorry to hear that. Er, this isn’t a problem I can duplicate, so I can’t correct it on my end. I did look in the archives, and there’s nothing from you in there waiting to be moderated. :/
April 22nd, 2005 at 9:32 pm
Okay.
As Jabberwock’s Counterpart, I’ve been mostly following what he has to say on this topic and regarding full research into the discussion as mostly a waste of my time. Now that I’m actually reading what he wrote in context, I see what an asshole he’s being. He tries to be civil, but he wouldn’t know a non-polarizing conversation if it kicked him in… (actually, that second post is much more intelligent; my apologies for exaggerating) the shin, then. I swear, he has creative outputs other than harassing reasonable people on the internet, but damned if he doesn’t avoid them entirely. In his defense, he hasn’t been getting much sleep lately, and doesn’t have your theoretical background, or even mine. I’m an undergraduate with much earlier exposure to graduate-level feminist theory. I regard myself as a feminist. Like you, I’m so protected from real sexual discrimination that I can be alarmed at the appearance of sexism on a pic pile.
I feel very much the way you do about culture on themaxx (The Mean and Measure of the Internet), although having “been around since before the dawn of time” I’ve grown used to subliminating outrage into apathy because it’s just the place I go to procrastinate… and to experiment with public reception for artwork, and with exhibitionism, and so on. The mindset really creeps in. There’s very little one can do about stupid people, as far as I can tell. I would be alarmed, but I usually can’t summon even enough care to, say, vote like funkynut (especially considering that I don’t like funkynut and don’t want to be associated with her attitude). I accept that in a mostly male community there will be a lot of what men like, and about half of it is actually quite tasteful. I apologize for Bertram trolling you, and regret that you both drawing attention to it exacerbated the problem. I can’t remember what I was trying to say, now, because Jabberwock has woken up and began loudly defending myself at me before even reading this post.
I would love to discuss this more, and will, as soon as I can keep from taking on Jabberwock’s verbal bloat.
April 22nd, 2005 at 10:11 pm
It’s all right, I can probably remember most of my earlier post.
I clicked to submit, and it ended up going to a blank page. I tried
the “refresh->resubmit POSTdata” thing, but it didn’t work. There
needs to be a way for browsers to, like, display the data that’s being submitted in case transmission fails.
Anyway, points noted. This apology comes not in response to what Janet said above (as I said, I’d written most of it at work today and lost it), but sincerely and genuinely from my own thoughts, independent from the opinions of others.
I, too, have been misdirecting some things at you that were intended for mindlace, as I was initially slightly misled by his linking to your livejournal from the commentary, an action which led me to believe you had been wanting to give input on this as opposed to being dragged into it. (I was confused about the order of events when I made my initial post: I thought mindlace first linked to this page, and Bertram came to comment. It /did/ strike me as odd that the blog entry to be commented on had nothing to do with the conversation, but it took me until somewhere around your second reply to me to work out the actual chronology.)
I don’t agree with Bertram’s actions, and I apologize for any hostility in my initial post. I now completely understand your confusion, and how some of my references were ambiguous enough to be construed as referencing other, unrelated things. I feel it was rude of Bertram to search you out and needlessly comment on your blog, and that he was out of line.
Many of the things I said (especially paragraphs 2, 5, and 6 of my original post) were directed at both you and Ethan (and even then, really more at Ethan than you), as I felt at the time that his link to your blog indicated support. I, too, was ambiguous with my direction and I apologize.
Now fully aware of the circumstances, I realize you’ve been extremely reasonable, and, again, I apologize for my hostility and misdirected commentary.
So, now that we’ve done well to eliminate most of the confusion, I think we can finally discuss the actual root of the topic–sexism–independently from the original conversation on mindlace’s post or TheMaxx, and your subsequently being dragged into all of this. But I’ll leave that for later, as I’m hungry and have had literally nothing to eat all day.
Janet, please refrain from /constantly/, just /ceaselessly/ using the “I have more education” thing to belittle me, because it’s /extremely/ irritating and insulting, more than I feel you’re really aware. This is part of the reason I became defensive: you said you were “saying things about [me] [...] that [I] wouldn’t like”, and when you do so, it’s often this “you don’t have a full college education” bullshit that you know I adore so much. Had my mother not been a lowly bank teller and my father not been a financial disaster, perhaps I could’ve afforded the private school education that you’ve had, but I don’t think I’ve failed intellectually just because I went to public school and dropped out of college. In fact, I think I’ve done quite well in spite of it. Often, you’ll even admit that your continued education has taught you nothing. So please, please, please stop using that as a deus ex machina for every argument. It really is starting to become cliche. Note that I’m not trying to censor you, and your opposing viewpoints are fully welcome, but not when their only support ends up ultimately being my lack of formal education.
April 22nd, 2005 at 10:37 pm
I’ve already apologized in person for the elitism I always find necessary in intellectual discussions with you, and I am really, truly sorry. I admire your intelligence vastly and am both jealous and resentful against Capital for keeping you down.
I freely admit that I’ve read only a fraction of the relevent arguments here. Since the relevent arguments have almost nothing to do with your blog, I can hope that Mindlace opens his up to comments.
April 22nd, 2005 at 10:49 pm
Er, mindlace’s blog was never closed to comments. Comments are moderated, however, in an attempt to battle spam. (I don’t know of any instance where he declined to post an actual comment.)
April 22nd, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Oh, and Janet: thank you for the kind words. I do, however, think that you perceive false similarities between our perspectives. You say:
I am neither protected from real sexual discrimination nor alarmed at witnessing sexism on the internet.
I’ll repeat that.
I’m not protected from real sexual discrimination. I am also not alarmed at witnessing sexism on the internet.
I feel this is important to get across. My interest is anthropological. I like watching the way people behave and perceiving patterns. I also like perceiving patterns in communities. The fact that it’s sexism, and we should probably work to get it out of whose-ever system, is tangential to my interests.
Some of the maxxers seem to perceive being looked at as a community as a threat. Well, tough: most of the communities I take part in dissect their own behavior and others’ as well, in an attempt to understand how we work as human beings.
So again, thank you for taking the time to write; but I think we may be incongruous in where our focal points lie.
April 23rd, 2005 at 4:22 am
“I am neither protected from real sexual discrimination nor alarmed at witnessing sexism on the internet.
I’ll repeat that.
I’m not protected from real sexual discrimination. I am also not alarmed at witnessing sexism on the internet.”
What was that? I still don’t get it.
(off snappishness)
I believe we think very similarly, but communicate differently. I apologize for exaggeration, but it’s important to recognize our own faults first, especially projecting one’s own faults on others, and I never want to mistake myself for being totally knowledgable, much as I may play the part to others. Perhaps we can agree that people cannot understand each other totally, but that would be a logical contradiction.
If you want more data on the maxxer community, please ask about my observations. It can’t all have been wasted time, I hope. If you simply want me to get out of your blog, just say so without having to dismiss my viewpoint.
April 23rd, 2005 at 9:05 am
Janet,
I am sorry if I seemed dismissive. This was not my intention. You wrote:
This was a misinterpretation of the impact sexual discrimination has on my thinking. Since it was about the dozenth such misinterpretation over the course of a few days (I exaggerate, but only a little), I wanted to make my stance very clear.
I’m not that interested in the maxxer community. I never was. To me, it’s an illustration of the larger social patterns, good and bad. What I’d like is for this post to stop discussing the maxxer community, to stop having people insult me and/or bicker with each other on my blog, and to go on with my life. If you want to keep reading my blog and commenting on it, you’re most welcome to it, as is Jabberwock, Bertram, hork and whatsisname, MeatFarley. The one who called me Ethan’s “handler.” Or is he Bertram? I can’t keep up.
This has all been very surreal. Instead of discussing sexism, I’m going to go futz around with XSLT, if you don’t mind.
April 23rd, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Enjoy.
Sorry for bothering you.