Tuesday, October 13, 2009

In defense of dudes

I Blame The Patriarchy:

It turns out that dudes who cruise patriarchy-blaming blogs to criticize “dearths” of “actual” revolutionary science, and who demand to know whether a particular spinster aunt is a neo-Molotovian Sputnikist, aren’t interested in a post-patriarchal society at all! They are interested in suckering feminists into tedious “debates” showcasing their tiresome vocabularies.

In all fairness to "dudes who cruise patriarchy-blaming blogs to criticize dearths of actual revolutionary science," it should be said such dudes are interested in suckering anyone into tedious debates showcasing their tiresome vocabularies!

But like most things with internet dudes, women hold a special attraction.

8 comments:

Jenny said...

Actually,a few feminist dislike Twisty's rather judgemental dogma too:

http://nataliaantonova.com/2008/12/27/feminist-mommy-wars-meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss/

http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2008/12/feminists-on-high-horses-pt-1.html

Rachel said...

A few. But they're pushy broads with no sense of humor.

Jenny said...

No, I'd say their criticism is valid. She does seem to direct other feminists to do what's "proper"

JRB said...

People often disagree.

Within the context of the blogosprawl, it's no better or worse than people agreeing, at least from what I've observed.

Jenny said...

Yeah, but from a lot I've seen around a lot of disagreements are used as excuses to make ad hominem attacks or generalizations.

Montag said...

Jill makes no apologies. That's part of why she's so entertaining. Not only is she entertaining, but she tells the truth. Reading IBTP is both unsettling and eye opening, not unlike reading Chomsky. Jill is just plain awesome.

dhex said...

is "revolutionary science" like "biblically-informed government" and related concepts?

or do they mean "why don't bloggers shoot more people"?

mds said...

or do they mean "why don't bloggers shoot more people"?

To be fair, I've wondered that myself.