Perhaps the author has, ahem, missed the point. That is to say that feminism -- at any rate, the idea that men and women are equal and deserve equal respect -- is normative and thus discussed no more than other normative elements that form the background here -- the worthiness of sf as literature, for example.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:50 AM by Fragano Ledgister

I have trouble describing this-- "I read something really cool on Making Light, it's nifty people, um, publishing, but it doesn't have anything to do with that (unless it does)..."
Try explaining that you're fascinated by diabetes and fight songs because of a website about politics and gardens. I can't do it, so I mumble on.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:52 AM by Cassie

Myself, I always assumed it was Teresa who was fascinated with crafts. I mean, who'd think Patrick was crafty?

Posted July 11, 2006 1:01 AM by Kip Manley

Oh my. What an analysis. Who invited the brain surgeon to make a review. oh. I'll go look.

Posted July 11, 2006 1:11 AM by Paula Helm Murray

It's not so appalling a statement. She's listing a bunch of blogs that she regards as feminist or fellow travelers, and it's pretty clear in context that she thinks of Making Light as the latter. (If she didn't think so, Making Light wouldn't have been listed at all.)

I think it's a pretty fair assessment. Feminism is obviously not the primary focus of this blog, but it's just as obvious that this blog is, at the least, feminism-friendly. I don't think any disrespect was intended.

Posted July 11, 2006 1:18 AM by Matt Austern

Making Light not feminist? Well, depends what you mean by feminist, really.

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, one of my favourite hobbies:

There's feminist as in "focuses upon feminism as a major informing topic." Singling Making Light out as being not-this-sort-of-feminist is odd; the world is full of not-feminist sites just like it. Seems kind of mean-spirited, if you ask me.

Then there's feminist as in "takes for granted that women's opinions, thoughts and preoccupations are equal to men's, and gets on with the business of discussing them."

People who espouse Fragano's amiable norms might self-identify or be identified as feminist (and/or liberal, and/or knitters, and/or so on), but a blog which they own/to which they post might only be a feminist blog in the second sense. I get the feeling Feminist SF is more feminist in the first sense.

I blame the Romans.

Posted July 11, 2006 1:23 AM by Vian

Oooh! Can I put fellow traveler on my resume? Please? Puh-leeze!

Posted July 11, 2006 1:54 AM by Larry Brennan

Larry, if you're like me, all the HR people you meet are way too young to remember when that phrase had a pejorative meaning or what it was.

Posted July 11, 2006 2:03 AM by Linkmeister

Um. Huh? I'd like to see someone look Teresa in the face and say that.

Posted July 11, 2006 2:09 AM by Madeleine Robins

Matt Austern has it. From the post, introducing the list:

...these blogs are by people that I know identify as feminists and do good feminist work of a variety of sorts. Here’s my annotated sampling for your convenience. My own disclaimers: Some of the folks on Scalzi’s list may be very serious feminists and I might not know it. Many I don’t list below are feminist allies whom I value highly.

Posted July 11, 2006 2:47 AM by Madeline F

If you look at the article, the list of blogs is meant to be all feminist blogs, and Making Light is first on the list. I think that the phrase "not at all a feminist blog" is a brain fart, and that the person who wrote it meant to say "not entirely" or "not feminist in focus" or something, and what they meant to convey was that the blog was feminist in outlook but eclectic in subject.

Posted July 11, 2006 3:29 AM by Lucy Kemnitzer

If the word "at" were removed, the line would be applicable (if badly phrased).

But the Copyeditor Within is very tired, and has miles to go before he stets.

Posted July 11, 2006 3:34 AM by John M. Ford

On strophing would-be-goods on a snowy evening:

You have premises to vet ....

Posted July 11, 2006 5:43 AM by Lenny Bailes

I was thinking what Lucy said before I got to what Lucy said and so I associate myself with her remarks. It seemed like a brain fart.

Though I can't deny it's been a long time since I've seen any bras burned around here. Facts are facts, after all.

Posted July 11, 2006 6:36 AM by Michael Weholt

I have one spare, Michael, if you want to do some burning.

Posted July 11, 2006 6:44 AM by abi

We're supposed to read "not at all" as an attempt to say "not entirely"? Give me a break.

Posted July 11, 2006 7:07 AM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

She specifically says that Scalzi's list has at least 16 blogs 'by people that I know identify as feminists and do good feminist work of a variety of sorts' and then she lists 16 blogs, one of which is Making Light is the first. So I suspect she does mean something like 'not entirely'. Why else would Making Light even be on her list if she really meant it wasn't at all feminist?

Posted July 11, 2006 7:26 AM by Nadai

Also, the most memorable thing about Teresa's writing is her "fascination with knitting and other crafts."

Will Shetterly, by contrast, is a "tireless crusader for justice." And Scott Westerfeld's books raise significant feminist issues. Well, they do. And Will is indeed tireless. But the contrast is striking. On the one hand, lavish praise for male novelists. On the other hand, belittling.

Posted July 11, 2006 7:51 AM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Well, I'm perfectly happy to give you a break if you want one, but brain farts are brain farts and are notoriously hard to read as anything more than brain farts.

But I'll certainly acknowledge I could be wrong. I imagine asking the author of the post what she meant might help clear things up.

Posted July 11, 2006 7:52 AM by Michael Weholt

Just a note: Making Light is first on the list because it's more popular (according to Technorati) than those that follow. Its presence on the list can be read as a compliment by those charitably inclined; its placement on the list can't be read as any sort of positive review.

Posted July 11, 2006 8:31 AM by Alter S. Reiss

So, the site is run by feminists, ergo it must be about feminism. Right. With logic like that...

Posted July 11, 2006 8:42 AM by Serge

*wakes up*
*reads*
*boggles*
Should I go back to bed?
-r.

Posted July 11, 2006 8:53 AM by rhandir

What surprises me the most is how surprised she is by Scalzi knowing lots of feminists. He goes to WisCon for gu's sake. He's *invited* there.

*shakes head*

Kids these days.

Posted July 11, 2006 9:04 AM by Josh Jasper

I'll vote with Lucy and Michael -- given the general context of the list, "not at all a feminist blog" must be some kind of typo or relic of an earlier edit.

The emphasis on knitting rather than language, fraud, folly, or truth is odd. (And how long has it been since you've had a post on growing luminous by eating light? How many photovore restaurants does NYC even have?)

Posted July 11, 2006 9:10 AM by Avram

I can see what Patrick is irritated by, because it bothered me, too. She stresses my feminist background, for example, although The Sideshow is no more explicitly a feminist blog than Making Light.

Maybe I particularly noticed it because I regard Patrick has having made a very important contribution to the existence of feminism in fandom and in sf, and over the years I've been aggravated by the way he keeps getting written out of that history. I'm all for emphasizing the importance of the women involved and all that, but we didn't do it all by ourselves and Patrick supplied a lot more than mere moral support, y'know.

Not that Teresa's many discussions of related issues is by any means neglible, y'unnerstan....

Posted July 11, 2006 9:18 AM by Avedon

How many photovore restaurants does NYC even have?

Photophage, surely?

Posted July 11, 2006 9:49 AM by Xopher

I'm flabbergasted at a feminist singling out Teresa's knitting as worthy of note. I thought that battle had been fought, won, and equestrian statues erected therefor.

Posted July 11, 2006 10:23 AM by TexAnne

Or maybe lucivore. (No offense meant, Lucy.)

Posted July 11, 2006 10:36 AM by Xopher

Well, knitting is in the subhead of the blog, so why be surprised if it's mentioned?

Posted July 11, 2006 10:40 AM by adamsj

Leaving aside the incomprehensibility of that statement for a moment, what I found notable in that post was the infomation that Nalo Hopkinson has a blog. Awesome.

Posted July 11, 2006 10:52 AM by BSD

It looks like the criteria for being called a "feminist blog" is a) focuses on feminism specifically OR b) is known to the author as a feminist.

The idea that women and men are to be considered equally is a basic, shared assumption here. So is the idea that women and men have different life experiences and different things to bring to the table in discussions that touch on that difference. Neither is valued above the other.

Anyone who comes here and acts as if that isn't true gets put in his (almost always his) place fast. Example: the hubristicly-pseudonymed Vx Dy.

And wasn't there some loser who published a blog about how the whole problem with modern life is that men are too soft and sensitive, and how they ought to take back their rightful place as dictator of the household? I recall Teresa leaving little more than bloody shreds of him.

But well, she writes about knitting. Obviously no good feminist knits, or, if she does, is decently ashamed. (Good feminists presumably make MEN knit.) Writing about knitting is just Not Correct; it's far too housewifely a thing. What she'd say if she saw Teresa's preserves I can't imagine. Maybe habanero oil is sufficiently feminist?

And if she demolishes sexist jackholes on a regular basis, and runs a blog where the most conservative commenters don't hold sexist opinions, and where feminism is absolutely the air we breathe and the water we drink, well, she writes about knitting.

Posted July 11, 2006 10:54 AM by Xopher

adamsj: Because language, fraud, folly, and truth are more important. Because knitting is the last thing on the list. Because knitting is the only item in the list that is "women's work."

Posted July 11, 2006 10:56 AM by TexAnne

Well, knitting is in the subhead of the blog, so why be surprised if it's mentioned?

So are language, fraud, folly, and truth. Prior to the mention of knitting. Her characterization makes this sound like a knitting blog.

Posted July 11, 2006 10:56 AM by Xopher

Yeah, so feminists can't knit now? Shucks. Guess I'll have to use all my knitting needles for something else... Maybe for stabbing people who don't define feminism exactly the same way I do.

Posted July 11, 2006 10:57 AM by Grey

Or you could just read what Xopher said. I'll be in the corner knitting a sock if you need me.

Posted July 11, 2006 11:02 AM by TexAnne

There is "feminism" and there is "peopleism." I always thought this a peopleist blog. You treat humans with respect. Gender seems not to matter here. That's peopleist. (I'd say humanist, but the word’s been glued to other ideas.)

A mature philosophy recognizes the worth of humans. An ethically mature person practices that belief. Feminism isn't an overt issue to the morally mature. Doing right is the issue. If one “does right,” they will put into practice the ideals of equality, respect, and, as our ancestors of the mid-nineteenth century would say it, “doing good.”

As may hold it, feminism fosters enduring conflict. “Peopleism,” puts the ideas of feminism and personal liberty and responsibility into practice is a quiet and consistent way. Who are the real feminists here?

Posted July 11, 2006 11:10 AM by Rachael de Vienne

Wow. This seems to be much ado about nothing.

The inclusion of ML in the list was supposed to be a good thing. Maybe she chose her words poorly in describing the site, but it hardly seems worth getting so upset over.

We're supposed to read "not at all" as an attempt to say "not entirely"? Give me a break.

"Not overtly" would probably be a better choice. Again, poor wording, but not an attack on this site.

So are language, fraud, folly, and truth. Prior to the mention of knitting. Her characterization makes this sound like a knitting blog.

And a "big world politics" blog. And "all kinds of other things." Let's face it, reading the list of topics in the subheading, knitting stands out a bit in a "one of these things is not like the others" sort of way. Not surprising the brain would latch onto it. It is a good example of how diverse this blog can be - from politics to knitting! That's the message I think Debbie intended.

I'm a long-time lurker and I love this site. I get the impression Debbie does too - or at least likes it enough to include it in her list. Can we cut her some slack?

Posted July 11, 2006 11:10 AM by John C

Sheesh. Seriously.

Posted July 11, 2006 11:11 AM by LauraJMixon

How many photovore restaurants does NYC even have?
At least three. No actual native photovores (photovoreans?) have been spotted yet, but I'm sure they will show up any day now.*

-r.
*everyone knows that nifty ethnic restaurants just sort of apperate a few months before the ethnic group they belong to first appears in NY, don't they? How else do you think we keep it so diverse here?

Posted July 11, 2006 11:12 AM by rhandir

To the people who are pissed off: Are y'all serious?

Debbie can explain what she meant if she chooses to -- my guess is there was a typo or misphrasing on the making light entry, which read "Not at all a feminist blog" when she probably meant to write something like "Not an all feminist blog" or "Not all a feminist blog" substantively meaning "Not focused on feminism". No other conclusion makes sense, if you look at what she's doing with the list. She says "at least 16 of these blogs are by people that I know identify as feminists and do good feminist work of a variety of sorts" and then lists 16 blogs. Given that description of ML as a feminists/doing feminist work, wouldn't one want to give her the benefit of the doubt on a contradictory text? Wouldn't it feel silly to go all in a tizzy or feel outraged about the classification and then have her say "oh yeah that was a typo?"

Other than a typo, the second likeliest meaning is that she meant "feminist blog" as some term of art; and then one could critique her for not explaining the definition & criteria, and argue about whether something fit or not. But given her earlier reference to the criteria she used in picking her 16 ("identify as feminists and do good feminist work") this seems less likely. Either way wouldn't it behoove you to cut the sister some slack?

As for the knitting - good grief, what's wrong with knitting? or mentioning knitting? how is it not feminist to discuss knitting? In her annotations she briefly mentioned the general theme of the blog or its coverage and/or what was particularly interesting to her about the blog. What's wrong with the making light description (other than the likely typo/brain fart about feminism): "covers big world politics and all kinds of other things, including Teresa’s fascination with knitting (in the subtitle) and other crafts"?

It's an interesting example of group dynamics. Imagine if the making light entry had not had the likely typo/misspeak, and read something more like "Not only a feminist blog, covers big world politics and all kinds of other things, including Teresa’s fascination with knitting (in the subtitle) and other crafts". Would the knitting comment have struck anyone at that point? Or is it that once people thought something (A) was wrong with the post, then they began seeing wrong also in (B)? I just really don't see how the knitting comment is problematic. (Except that it's been kind of a while since I saw knitting discussion - bring back the knitting, Teresa! Some of us liked it.)

Likewise, the comparison with SS. I think it would only get made at all if someone takes seriously the description of ML as "not at all a feminist blog". Then you can look at SS & ML entries and see them as materially different. Otherwise, you look at the SS & ML entries and see them as not that different: One says feminism isn't her focus; the other says something like "not an all feminist blog". Not materially different. Indeed, most of Debbie's annotations say little or nothing about the feminist content on the blog itself; some only identify the blogger.

Posted July 11, 2006 11:15 AM by Laura Quilter

Photophage restaurants are, of course, the perfect place for a light meal.

Posted July 11, 2006 11:16 AM by Xopher

If folks want to get pissy, I recommend they direct it toward The American Prospect, a wonderful magazine that nevertheless still links here from its blogroll to "Patrick Nielsen Hayden's Electrolite".

Anyway, I'm personally a little distressed by the continuing devaluation of feminism into "anything a woman does and any choice a woman makes". I suspect the author of the posting in question might have similar sentiments.

Posted July 11, 2006 11:17 AM by adamsj

"Feminism fosters enduring conflict. 'Peopleism,' puts the ideas of feminism and personal liberty and responsibility into practice is a quiet and consistent way. Who are the real feminists here?"

This may be well-meaning nonsense, but it's still nonsense. Feminism is an analysis of social relations that focuses on the extent to which men persistently have and use unjust and unearned power over women.

Everyone who mounts a critique of established power winds up being charged with "fostering enduring conflict," as if the complaint of the victim is somehow the cause of the crime. It's abuser logic: "Look what you made me do."

Posted July 11, 2006 11:23 AM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Photophage restaurants are, of course, the perfect place for a light meal.

Xopher, just step over here a moment will you?

*thwack*

adamsj: I'm sure TAP used to link to both ML and Electrolite. Obviously someone got it wrong when the Amalgamation happened.

rhandir: everyone knows that nifty ethnic restaurants just sort of apperate a few months before the ethnic group they belong to first appears in NY, don't they

Eerie. Would make a good Twilight Zone:

Irate New Yorker: "You serve rats? What kind of weird diner serves rats? What sort of Visitors are you expecting, anyway? And another thing - what the hell does "The Old Crevet Bar & Grill" mean?"

Posted July 11, 2006 11:36 AM by ajay

*rubs ear* It's a fair cop.

Posted July 11, 2006 11:40 AM by Xopher

As for whether anyone is overreacting, this is a classic dynamic of online discussions. One person posts, briefly, looking askance at something. Thirty other people express their opinions, some briefly and some at length. Statements are critiqued and clarified. At which point it's the easiest thing in the world to wade in and announce that Everyone Here Sure Is Making A Big Deal Of This Small Thing. Thank you for straightening us out, O Wise One.

That said, I can't say I'm all that impressed by the gymnastics being performed to explain why a couple of belittling remarks actually mean something entirely opposite to what they say. By themselves the belittling remarks are no big deal; indeed none of this is a big deal. But it's interesting that, in some SFnal feminist circles, unless you are forcefully all about feminism all the time, you're "not at all" feminist.

Note that it would have been perfectly easy for the author to have written, as she did about Avedon's blog, that Making Light isn't constantly focussed on feminist issues. Instead she went out of her way to make, quite clearly, a categorical statement that Making Light is entirely devoid of anything feminist. What this suggests to me is that some people are more interested in having a club, with membership boundaries they can define, than in promulgating ideas to the greater world.

Posted July 11, 2006 11:43 AM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Dear Patrick,

I think you misunderstood me.

Yes, men oppress women. Men hurt women. In most of the world women are chattle, possesions and no more.

The answer rests not in yelping over it, but in taking positive action. The solution is a change of heart and mind. This means changing how we act, not merely politically but in our practice.

The most persuasive argument is one's own behaviour. True, consistently treating others with respect, defference, and honour is a much harder road. But it is what works.

Do I mean to say there is no room for strongly voiced protest? No. Part of 'doing right' is that we open our mouths, drop our fear, and say, "This is wrong. Stop it!"

But, merely protesting or setting up a social voice that reinforces the wall we wish to tear down will not work. The lesson, 'It is wrong to hit,' is far more effective than 'You hit me, and I'm going to hit you back!'

Posted July 11, 2006 11:43 AM by Rachael de Vienne

Regarding Tapped, the excellent blog of The American Prospect, I think they started linking to Electrolite back before Making Light even existed. Since all links to Electrolite's front page now automagically go to Making Light, we have no complaints. (Tapped is in fact one of my favorite blogs, leaving aside my evident compulsion to nitpick them on occasion.)

Posted July 11, 2006 11:46 AM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Isn't the problem more an issue of labeling the forum as this or that rather than looking at the ideas expressed there on their own merit? Part of this blog's appeal is that it is not just the same thing ground to a fine powder every day for your reading pleasure.

Maybe things would be different if Teresa did bronze casting as her artistic outlet.

Posted July 11, 2006 11:47 AM by Avery

Or if she shouted "K'plah!" when finishing a knitted Batleth sheath or something.

Posted July 11, 2006 11:50 AM by Xopher

Screw that. Teresa, got any views about Trekking XXL vs. Regia vs. Opal?

Posted July 11, 2006 11:53 AM by rams

Patrick,

If you didn't want a thread, perhaps this should've been a Sidelight. If that wouldn't have drawn sufficient attention, perhaps you should've posted but disabled comments. Since you have a good understanding of the dynamics of on-line communities, I find it a tad disingenous for you to be shocked that people have behaved in an easily foreseeable manner. That said, I do agree the original posting was a tad snarky in its phrasing (unless it was the typo others have hypothesized).

However (and this here is the meat of the issue for me), I stand by my comment above that "feminism" has come, wrongly, to mean all things female to all people and my suspicion that a similar sentiment may have motivated the original poster.

(I also suspect there might be a little inside baseball going on here, but that's just a suspicion and I could be wrong.)

Posted July 11, 2006 11:56 AM by adamsj

Rachel: I don't misunderstand you at all. You're promulgating a bunch of silly falsehoods about what "feminism" means. I'm pointing out that they're false.

Posted July 11, 2006 11:56 AM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Silly Xopher, Batleths don't have sheaths!

rams: I'm not Teresa, would that I were, but my favorite sock yarn ever is Blue Moon's Socks That Rock. As far as I'm concerned, it's a foolproof cure for second-sock syndrome.

Posted July 11, 2006 11:57 AM by TexAnne

There's “doing feminism”, and then there's life (which, of course, is what feminism is about, after all). “Feminists” who do nothing but feminism seem to me a bit dubious.
But feminists (regardless of gender) doing Life go about with certain implicit attitudes, which colors everything else.

Avedon, for instance, wanders back and forth as the breezes take her. Making Light rarely focuses on directly feminist bits (meaning that I can't recall any at the moment, but that that's no guarantee of anything), but it's clear nonetheless. If anything, having “knitting” in the subhead is a lovely, genteel display of Attitude; “I am unconstrained by your categories, ascriptions, or associations”.

Excuse me. Why are we having this thread?

Posted July 11, 2006 11:58 AM by Neil Rest

"I find it a tad disingenous for you to be shocked that people have behaved in an easily foreseeable manner."

I'm not remotely shocked. I was making mild fun of the predictability of it all. When I'm actually shocked I'll let you know.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:00 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Silly Xopher, Batleths don't have sheaths!

They're called "redshirts."

"Where's the Away Team?"
"They went away."

Posted July 11, 2006 12:01 PM by John M. Ford

Fair enough.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:01 PM by adamsj

adamsj: I understand what you're saying. But I'm one of those women who gets very damn sick of people saying, "oh look she's knitting how cute" or "you're so brave to knit in public, it's so nice to see young women doing that" or other varieties of smug head-patting. Nobody says that a man is special for liking cars, but a woman who knits is pointed at.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:02 PM by TexAnne

Well, I don't want to argue with you. My impression is that you and Terresa practice what works. I mean that you base your relationship on your principals.

All I'm saying is that there are feminists who have a strident voice but don't practice what they want for themselves. This isn't real feminism. It won't repair our broken society to merely yell. And it isn't helpful to show disrespect to those who make the principals of equality work.

The test of belief rests in putting our belief into practice. I'm advocating putting the belief in equality into practice.

And umm it's Rachael, not Rachel.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:04 PM by Rachael de Vienne

I really should proof read before I post, shouldn't I?

princpals=principles.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:06 PM by Rachael de Vienne

TexAnne...you're right. That was culturally insensitive.

Wait, wait! That's worse, isn't it? Let me try again.

TexAnne, I will show you my Batleth sheath...which will be your heart!!!! Q'apla!!!! *the battle is joined*

Posted July 11, 2006 12:09 PM by Xopher

Patrick, Making Light was listed as one of "at least 16 of these blogs are by people that I know identify as feminists and do good feminist work of a variety of sorts." That just plain contradicts "not at all feminist", so I don't think it's unreasonable to figure the latter was a mistake.

If Debbie ever gets around to replying to the comments, we'll find out.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:10 PM by Avram

Trekking XXL vs. Regia vs. Opal

Those are sock yarns? I thought they were WWE wrestlers!

Posted July 11, 2006 12:11 PM by Xopher

Xopher: You can sheathe your Batleth in my heart if you must--just don't get those sharp edges anywhere NEAR my knitting.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:13 PM by TexAnne

Yes, they're the autoflagellant yarns. (Self-striping, you know.)

Posted July 11, 2006 12:14 PM by TexAnne

Well, I didn't think it was gymnastics to point out that there was an obvious contradiction in the top of the post ("feminists") and the description ("not at all a feminist blog"), and to suggest that where there is an obvious contradiction one reads the whole text to ascertain the author's intent. We run into this all the time in legal circles and have an entire set of canons of "statutory interpretation" dedicated to divining the intent of legislators despite their awkward and/or internally inconsistent language. Occasionally Congress goes back and fixes some obvious error. Luckily bloggers are faster.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:14 PM by Laura Quilter

Oops. Rachael, not Rachel. I'm usually good at spelling proper names, but I consistently fluff that one. Bad sector, no doubt; as ever, I look forward to the release (shortly before the Singularity) of Norton Brain Doctor.

My objection boils down to this: you seem to be defining "feminism" as everything ineffective ever done by anyone who called themself a feminist, while appropriating for something called "peopleism" everything admirable and good. This seems to me unwise and, also, unfair.

Also, while I agree that good behavior in our own lives can be a force that inspires positive change in others, it seems to me that, throughout much of history, rather more reforms were accomplished by "strident" people who "yelped" a whole heck of a lot. Quietly dignified virtue only gets you so far.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:15 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

*puts down Batleth*

TexAnne, could you come here for a moment please?

*thwack*

(only because ajay is busy)

Posted July 11, 2006 12:21 PM by Xopher

PNH, possible mnemonic help: Rachael is like Michael, Rachel is like Michel.

(The names aren't actually related in that way, but the spellings are analagous.)

Posted July 11, 2006 12:26 PM by Xopher

The Civil Rights fight, for example, Patrick?

Posted July 11, 2006 12:32 PM by Serge

Or the War of Independence...

Posted July 11, 2006 12:33 PM by Serge

Dear Patrick,

I think our difference is only one of emphasis. Choosing to call effective feminism "peopleism" was probably a mistake. It was misleading, apparently.

And my gripe isn't with a strident voice only. It's with those who only have a strident voice but don't practice their principles. I believe in a firmly stated "this is wrong; stop!" It takes more than a "stop." It takes consequences for failing to stop.

I think I'm a conservative revolutionary. Confusing? Maintaining good social values is important to me. Kindness, consideration, respect, even-handed treatment of others are key to how I try to live. I'd like to see the social structures that hurt humans all torn down. So, I'm a conservative revolutionary. I don't know how else to describe it.

Before a social structure is collapsed, there should be something to replace it. Hopefully, it would be something that works.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:33 PM by Rachael de Vienne

Patrick: you did sound a bit ungracious, while Rachael had every right to say what she did -- quite well, too.

[Now I'll duck and run, quaking with cowardice after daring to criticize.]

Posted July 11, 2006 12:41 PM by Faren Miller

It's gracious to trash feminism--to define it as "fostering enduring conflict"--but "ungracious" to point out that this is nonsense. Noted.

I really am annoyed now, so I'll stop.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:49 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

TexAnne - "second sock syndrome"?

Posted July 11, 2006 12:52 PM by joann

I am sorry I upset you. I can see that I didn't phrase what I meant in an understandable way. What I wrote drew your focus to things unmeant.

Additional explanations would only make it worse, I think.

I offer my profoundest apologies.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:56 PM by Rachael de Vienne

I am reminded of yesterday's Altercation: The purpose of intellectuals is to defend the language (referenced to Susan Sontag and Nadine Gordimer).

Posted July 11, 2006 12:57 PM by FungiFromYuggoth

As for the knitting - good grief, what's wrong with knitting?

Nothing is wrong with knitting, but given the incredibly broad range of topics here, and the vanishing infrequency of actual posts about knitting, it makes it sound like an awfully shallow review. Like, as in, didn't get past the subtitle shallow. I mean, if I were going to mention non-political oddball topics in Making Light, I would think of rip off artists who prey on would-be writers, favorite solecisms in everyday reading, Mormon cooking, or even the occurrence of guinea pigs in religious art of the last supper, before I mentioned *knitting*. So it just makes this Debbie person look like she couldn't even be arsed with reading Cliffs notes.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:57 PM by Ulrika O'Brien

Thank you for straightening us out, O Wise One.

Point.

That said, I can't say I'm all that impressed by the gymnastics being performed to explain why a couple of belittling remarks actually mean something entirely opposite to what they say. ... Instead she went out of her way to make, quite clearly, a categorical statement that Making Light is entirely devoid of anything feminist.

I don't think that is clear at all. As has been pointed out, she indicated there were 16 blogs that "do good feminist work of a variety of sorts." She followed this up with a list of 16 blogs, including ML at the top of the list. It's hardly a stretch to conclude she believes ML is one of these blogs that "do good feminist work."

So no, it's not that I believe people are overreacting. I think some are misinterpreting the intent. Whether willfully or no, I'm increasingly unsure.

Posted July 11, 2006 12:59 PM by John C

joann: You see a nifty yarn or a fabulous pattern. You just hafta try it right then at that very second. You finish the first sock, put it on, and are filled with a sense of accomplishment. Then you remember you have two feet and feel put-upon because you just made a sock, why do you have to do it again?

Posted July 11, 2006 12:59 PM by TexAnne

I agree with Patrick. He began by saying that Rachael's statements were well-intentioned. I thought his criticisms were very gently phrased.

I think it's easy to forget that people wearing the label 'feminist' - or being tarred with it - won women many of the rights they enjoy today. It is just not OK to disparage feminism as 'fostering enduring conflict'. (Saying it's not OK isn't the same as saying you have no right to do it; people have a right to do all sorts of offensive things.)

It reminds me of the behavior of young gay men these days. Many of them seem to have no idea about what life was like for gay people even twenty years ago, laugh at those of us who are still inhibited about PDA (no, not palms) because we remember being beaten up for it, and complain that their GSAs are weak, with no idea that GSAs would have been unHEARDof when I was in high school, or that you could actually be expelled from a public school for being too queer.

I'm actually, in the abstract, glad that they live in a world where such ignorance is possible. It's what we fought for, after all. But on a personal level it makes me angry.

Similarly, when young women tell me "I'm not a feminist" in the tone they'd use to say "I'm not a Satanist," it pisses me off. I want to say "Then of course you won't be going to college, because naturally you'll be marrying whomever your father picks, right?" And things of that nature.

Posted July 11, 2006 1:02 PM by Xopher

Well, I thought I was done with this, but I see I'm not.

What I actually said was: "As may hold it, feminism fosters enduring conflict." It seems to me that this is a qualified statement. It does not paint feminism or even the majority of feminists as interested in or fostering conflict. And isn't the point of feminism to bring equality? Isn't the point of equality to bring a resolution of conflict? To bring fairness? When we reach the point that only a rare, hard, reactionary spirit sees women as property or less than human we won’t have conflict. The point of human rights is to end conflict on the basis of justice, isn’t it?

If language means anything, then the qualifier is important. If it means nothing, then you may understand what you wish from my statement.

I'm not afraid of criticism. But, let's at least be plain in what I did write. My intention was to praise what I see as a practical application of principles on this blog. That was my only intent. I neither criticized the Patrick nor the person who posted about this blog. I didn’t say feminism was useless or wrong. I said, that those who are only interested in the conflict, but not its resolution are wrong. That’s it.

I may have said it badly. For that I’m sorry. I’m not sorry for my views.

Posted July 11, 2006 1:16 PM by Rachael de Vienne

"I think it's easy to forget that people wearing the label 'feminist' - or being tarred with it - won women many of the rights they enjoy today. It is just not OK to disparage feminism as 'fostering enduring conflict'. (Saying it's not OK isn't the same as saying you have no right to do it; people have a right to do all sorts of offensive things.)"

In my view, this is precisely right, both inside and outside the parentheses.

That said, it wasn't Rachael's remarks that really annoyed me; apologies are unnecessary.

Posted July 11, 2006 1:18 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

People have no memory, Xopher.

Posted July 11, 2006 1:19 PM by Serge

Similarly, when young women tell me "I'm not a feminist" in the tone they'd use to say "I'm not a Satanist," it pisses me off. I want to say "Then of course you won't be going to college, because naturally you'll be marrying whomever your father picks, right?" And things of that nature.

Well, but that's a whole different ball of spaghetti, right there. Honest to Pete, I have absolutely no idea whether I'm a feminist or not.
It mostly seems to depend on who I'm talking to, and how they parse "feminist," and there seem to be as many readings on that word as there are readers to have them. At least. Sometimes saying "I am not a feminist," is simply distancing yourself from the last person who tried to load you down with a bunch of Theory-with-a-capital-T-laden, neo-Freudian, Post Modern hoo hah when you were just trying to explain why you took your husband's last name. There are way too many Feminists with degrees in junk think from Comparative Literature programs that haven't gotten over Derrida yet for me to be entirely comfortable calling myself a feminist, even though I probably am one.

Posted July 11, 2006 1:21 PM by Ulrika O'Brien

This is not my day for spelling well. I meant, "as many hold it ..."

It would have been better writen as "many practice it."

Posted July 11, 2006 1:22 PM by Rachael de Vienne

What does the qualifier "As may hold it" mean?

Posted July 11, 2006 1:24 PM by JC

Rachael: You're right, your remark that "feminism fosters enduring conflict" was stripped from a sentence that began "As many hold it".

However, the whole thing came from a comment which began by setting up an opposition between "feminism" and "peopleism". It's true that some of the reaction hereabouts has been a bit severe, but labels are important, as the Mensheviks discovered too late.

Posted July 11, 2006 1:26 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

"There are way too many Feminists with degrees in junk think from Comparative Literature programs that haven't gotten over Derrida yet for me to be entirely comfortable calling myself a feminist, even though I probably am one."

Beware. Down that road lies being Jonathan Chait.

Posted July 11, 2006 1:30 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

I overinterpreted your statements, Rachael. I'm sorry.

Posted July 11, 2006 1:36 PM by Xopher

I'll chime in with Lucy, Madeline, and Matt; I read it as they did. Given the context (a list of feminist SF blogs) what the actual words say (not at all feminist) is impossible. Author was clearly having a bad brain day and probably at some point will come back, read it, and go "what the hell did I write there?"

Posted July 11, 2006 1:50 PM by Clifton Royston

Finally, a knitting thread! (Ok, it isn't really, but it's a knitting sub-thread on a mostly unrelated topic, which is what I like about this group.)

(I'm 2/3 of the way through my very first sock, and I think I've done something wonky in the tension on the heel. But I don't care. Because it looks more or less sock-like, and the second one will maybe not be so lumpy.)

I'm using Magic Stripes, and by gum, it's stripey. *wide-eyed gaaaaaze*

Posted July 11, 2006 2:00 PM by Thena in Maine

Pairing "feminism" with "strident", implicity contrasting it to "mature", and offering instead an ambiguous invented word, is not doing anyone any favors. Classic example of dividing a dangerous group into several parts and setting them to eat each other. "Oh, I'm not one of those morally immature people only interested in strife... But what about Betty over there?!"

I think you've got noble goals, Rachael, but your tactics are counterproductive. As in any group of humans, there are some jerk feminists. The way to win is to make it clear that the jerk feminists are only a tiny part of the group, and the main point of the group isn't jerkish. Shrug and fight on.

Posted July 11, 2006 2:00 PM by Madeline F

"Second sock syndrome" = lots of Christmas (or whenever) stockings.

Well, at least they'll get used.

(Somewhere I have a couple of sock projects. I just don't know which box(es) they're in.)

Posted July 11, 2006 2:08 PM by P J Evans

P J Evans, only that you've got them socked away somewhere?

Posted July 11, 2006 2:14 PM by Xopher

Xopher: I need to give you a copy of the button I saw the other day:

"I'm an incorrigible Punster. Please don't incorrige me."

Posted July 11, 2006 2:21 PM by Lenora Rose

*aims death-ray of yarniness at Xopher, adjusts setting to mohair*

Posted July 11, 2006 2:22 PM by fidelio

You see a nifty yarn or a fabulous pattern. You just hafta try it right then at that very second. You finish the first sock, put it on, and are filled with a sense of accomplishment. Then you remember you have two feet and feel put-upon because you just made a sock, why do you have to do it again?

So this time you can do it right?

I've noticed that in many sorts of projects, the first one is never quite right; it's only when I'm doing it again that I figure out the shortcuts necessary to make it really work. (Frex, many recipes are badly organized and you end up taking twice as much time the first outing because you made stuff in the wrong order.)

Also, the second time takes less time simply because of familiarity. The first time I walk somewhere (or even drive it), it seems to take forever; subsequent trips seem much faster.

OTOH, my second-sock syndrome kicks in before the first sock, as it were. I don't knit; I do occasionally sew, and have discovered that for me, the real rush is picking out the pattern, and getting the material and the notions. At that point, the project seems to acquire a weird finished-ness that it's sometimes really hard to get past to get the thing actually made. But then, software is sorta like that, too, sometimes.

Posted July 11, 2006 2:23 PM by joann

Beware. Down that road lies being Jonathan Chait.

Well, possibly. But just because I'm not entirely comfortable with it, doesn't mean I don't ever call myself a feminist. You're right that I should probably do it more often, if only to assert my own understanding of the word, but when you hang out with a lot of academics and their tendency to turn all nouns into terms of art, it's easy to slip into the habit of needing to make distinctions before you make assertions.

Posted July 11, 2006 2:23 PM by Ulrika O'Brien

rather more reforms were accomplished by "strident" people who "yelped" a whole heck of a lot. Quietly dignified virtue only gets you so far.

AND

Pairing "feminism" with "strident", implicity contrasting it to "mature", and offering instead an ambiguous invented word, is not doing anyone any favors.

Word. Thanks.

Intended or not, "strident" is a word long-used to criticize (or worse) women who have the audacity to not shut up and act like ladies. Fuck that.

And, re: knitting socks: Auto-stripes! Yes! I love that yarn. Dang, people think those stripes are hot shit, don't they? Which is awfully inspiring for making sure you do that second sock. And sock-knitting is so incredibly portable, I love that about it too.

Regards from,
a strident, knitting feminist

Posted July 11, 2006 2:23 PM by d

Ooo, ooo. Fidelio's gonna knit us a mohair Xopher.

Posted July 11, 2006 2:24 PM by Ulrika O'Brien

Xopher: ooowww!

Posted July 11, 2006 2:27 PM by P J evans

What we really need as a guide for those who absolutely must categorize Making Light is an archive copy of the RASSEF FAQ, or similar. That'll get their heads spinning, or exploding.

I just re-read that FAQ, though and there's absolutely no mention of d*nosaur s*d*my. Ah for the days when we were young and unspoiled, yet to experience the sensuous thrills of, well, you know.

Posted July 11, 2006 3:38 PM by Patrick Connors

Bif! Sock! Whammo!

Posted July 11, 2006 3:42 PM by Serge

Bif! Sock! Whammo!

Zappa's grandkids? What are they up to now?

Posted July 11, 2006 3:45 PM by Stefan Jones

For the record, Debbie has responded, and apologized, in her own thread.

Also, I apologize for any snarkiness in my previous posts. As I said, I have great respect for this site, and am a long time lurker - I don't know why I felt compelled to post in this particular thread, after years of silence. I shall now return to lurking. :)

Posted July 11, 2006 3:47 PM by John C

Rams, I expect that the Sock Thing will someday possess me, as it does all knitters, but it hasn't yet. Speaking therefore only as an observer, I'll say that Trekking XXL stripes nicely over short rows, and I like the effects produced by Regia, but Opal's a bridge too far. It may look like Fair Isle from a distance, but up close it's like a multigeneration xerox image breakdown.

Posted July 11, 2006 3:52 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

the Sock Thing will someday possess me

That sounds like the last line from Samurai Cat's poof of Lovecraft.

Posted July 11, 2006 3:57 PM by Serge

Ooo, ooo. Fidelio's gonna knit us a mohair Xopher.

"Fidelio made me a homosexual."
"If I get her the mohair, will she make me one too?"

Posted July 11, 2006 4:04 PM by Xopher

IANA knitter, but happily married to one; and the Sock Thing has definitely been lurking around the place lately.

In particular, I've been privileged to observe the genesis of a Toe Up, which I now understand is called that because it gets to'e up about five times before it can properly get underway.

Posted July 11, 2006 4:10 PM by Dan Layman-Kennedy

yay! Knitting (sub)thread!

I'm working on a string bag, and trying to figure out how to do Turkish stitch in the round. I can't seem to produce the pattern right, and if I don't figure it out in the next few days, I'm throwing my hands up in the air and using a different pattern.

I have a lot of sock wool and patterns and plans, but very few (2) finished socks. They took me 3 years.

I'm planning on the next pair from Priscilla Gibbons-Roberts Simple Socks book, in Paton's Kroy, or in Magic Stripes using a pattern that has a lettuce edge at the top.

Posted July 11, 2006 4:20 PM by Nancy C

Teresa knits?

Posted July 11, 2006 4:35 PM by Scott H

Teresa knits?

Notonly that, but she spins a mean yarn too.

Posted July 11, 2006 4:38 PM by Serge

I had a conversation with a brilliant, wonderful writer, at WisCon, where he told me rather defensively that he wasn't a feminist, because he had not experienced what it is like to be a woman in our culture, and he didn't want to claim to represent them. I let it go because I still think he's a good guy, and I didn't see any point in arguing with him. Maybe he was being overly modest. But I thought the word feminist meant a supporter of women's rights. If we required gender-specific nouns to separately classify male and female feminists, that wouldn't be very feminist, would it?

I would be rather suspect of anyone who claims to be only a humanist or a feminist and not both. If they are humanist and not feminist, they're not very aware of the last few thousand years of human history, or their humanism is more theoretical than real. Conversely, if they are feminist and not humanist, they're missing out on some valuable friends and allies. We're all in this together.

Posted July 11, 2006 4:43 PM by TomB

I had a conversation with a brilliant, wonderful writer, at WisCon, where he told me rather defensively that he wasn't a feminist, because he had not experienced what it is like to be a woman in our culture, and he didn't want to claim to represent them. I let it go because I still think he's a good guy, and I didn't see any point in arguing with him. Maybe he was being overly modest. But I thought the word feminist meant a supporter of women's rights.

I would think the same but I've observed supposedly thoughtful and intelligent female feminists effectively saying that men can't be feminists. I try to challenge this attitude when I encounter it because I think it's dumb and counterproductive.

Posted July 11, 2006 4:55 PM by Ulrika O'Brien

rather more reforms were accomplished by "strident" people

I've always been strident. If not for that, it would take me twice as long to walk everywhere. Besides...

What?

It doesn't?

Nevermind then.

Posted July 11, 2006 4:56 PM by Xopher

Ooo, ooo. Fidelio's gonna knit us a mohair Xopher.
. . .
"Fidelio made me a homosexual."
"If I get her the mohair, will she make me one too?"

Nah, I don't knit in hot weather; also I tend not to finish my knitting projects, and if I started something like that, I'm sure you wouldn't want me to leave the poor thing incomplete.

I'm impressed by everyone's restraint on the possibilities of the mohair pun, especially given Xopher's coiffure.

Posted July 11, 2006 5:01 PM by fidelio

Rats! Missed that. Too late now.

Posted July 11, 2006 5:04 PM by Xopher

Xopher's coiffure

You mean, the Luthor hairdo, Fidelio?

Posted July 11, 2006 5:05 PM by Serge

Hey, it's the Egghead Geek look. Only my egghead REALLY looks like an egg...

Posted July 11, 2006 5:06 PM by Xopher

Not mohair, but nohair?

Posted July 11, 2006 5:09 PM by joann

The problem with how good Making Light is, is that when you want to get in to apologize you're 103 comments down (122 once the server problems are fixed!) That's a testament to how good this space is.

I can only say that I was crafting that piece as I went, the tone of it changed, and I made the classic error of not going back to conform myself to the way I finished up.

As I said there and will say anywhere: Making Light is an incredibly valuable and important blog which I read and appreciate, and it is written by feminists and reflects feminist values.

I'm a twit. Why I'm so frequently a twit with the Nielsen Haydens, whom I value personally an enormous amount, is not clear to me, and I wish I understood it.

'Nuff said?

Posted July 11, 2006 5:12 PM by Debbie Notkin

tomb,

I would be rather suspect of anyone who claims to be only a humanist or a feminist and not both. If they are humanist and not feminist, they're not very aware of the last few thousand years of human history, or their humanism is more theoretical than real.

first, it's "i would suspect," or "i would be suspicious." (sorry)

second, maybe they're feminists but not humanists because they don't discriminate against animals. i have heard of people like that.

i'm a feminist, but i don't know if i'm a humanist because i haven't studied the beliefs of humanism. i'm uh, for poeple, though.

Posted July 11, 2006 5:24 PM by miriam beetle

In fact, it never occurred to me that the un-surnamed "Debbie" who wrote that post on "Feminist SF--The Blog!" might be Debbie Notkin. If I'd known, I would have been a lot more generous in my reading of it.

This probably says one or two good things about me, and several bad ones.

Posted July 11, 2006 5:48 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

I get really nervous around Internet discussions of feminism ever since last spring when I was violently flamed for having the temerity to stand up to someone who claimed that the experiences of male victims of sexual violence did not matter as much as those of female rape victims.

Posted July 11, 2006 5:54 PM by pat greene

Good gravy. Yep, I too had no idea that "Debbie" was Debbie Notkin. If I had, I could have guessed from context that the bit of business about knitting and craftiness came out of knowing too much about Teresa's interests to track what has been said here as opposed to elsewhere, rather than not knowing anything at all. Well, I'm a doof.

Posted July 11, 2006 6:00 PM by Ulrika O'Brien

Pat Greene: Holy cow, really? Eeeeww.

Posted July 11, 2006 6:07 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Nancy C: Ah, but are the two socks a pair? If not, join the club. Right now I have 2 finished socks from different pairs, with the mates on the needles, and one poor lonely little almost-finished singleton. Along with the skillions and whillions of other UFOs, but we won't go into that. It's almost entirely Teresa's fault. (See below.)

Teresa: Succumb to the lure of the Sock Thing. It's only fair, considering that it was your offhand mention of the party trick in War and Peace that made me yearn to know how they did that.

Posted July 11, 2006 6:09 PM by TexAnne

...wait-- you can't be a femenist if you like knitting?

And here I thought all it took was recognizing that women and men are fundamentally equal in value and deserving of equal rights and protections under the law. I guess I missed the purled ceiling. I'm glad someone pointed it out, because I would have gone all my life thinking I was a femenist.

Apparantly, women who really believe in equal rights for everyone know that they have to dedicate all their time to discussing how oppressed they are. All other interests--like knitting-- are for boys. Duh.

Posted July 11, 2006 6:11 PM by Annalee Flower Horne

And also, to Debbie: What I thought was smug was really a fellow geek waxing enthusiastic about a very important part of life. Please accept my apologies.

Posted July 11, 2006 6:18 PM by TexAnne

My father's mother liked to knit. She did good work. My mother's mother and her sisters crocheted beautifully. I value the pieces of their making that have come my way.

I fancy crochet and tatting myself, but I'm not adept. The gene of thread and steady eye was not passed my way.

Posted July 11, 2006 6:20 PM by Rachael de Vienne

I state that I'm a feminist in every circumstance save for those exceptions which could endanger my personal safety...or sanity (and/or negatively impact my ability to serve my clients). Unfortunately, those exceptions still occur with marked frequency.
Many of the people I work with, from various cultural settings but usually lower socio-economic backgrounds, still DO consider feminism akin to communism, Satanism, socialism and other 'evils.' For most of them, feminism isn't equality, feminism is 'special rights', just like affirmative action and absolutely anything relating to homosexuality, or 'those people'. Feminism isn't about reforming social power structures, it's 'destroying family values.'
Of course...I do live about three blocks from the home base of Publish America (literally!), so this is a slightly more conservative area than some. :)

Posted July 11, 2006 6:26 PM by Heatherly

miriam beetle, thanks. I meant "I would be suspicious".

I'm a firm believer that animals are much smarter and more complex than we understand or would like to acknowledge. But I don't think that has anything to do with humanism, in the same way that being a feminist does not imply any bias against men.

I could imagine a feminist non-humanist who is comfortable with social inequality based on class, race, or belief, as long as the genders are treated (or mistreated) the same.

Posted July 11, 2006 7:35 PM by TomB

On admitting to the dreadful and incurable condition of being a feminist: One of the best comebacks I was ever witness to involved the F word.

There was a dialogue on admitting women to the Catholic priesthood (I am not a Catholic; of course I realise now I wasn't then).

So, there's Archbishop (now Cardinal) George Pell, holding a forum and announcing some of his best friends are women, and so on. Basically, he had stopped taking my questions on whether a woman was the spiritual equal of a man in the eyes of God, which was lucky because I was this close to asking him whether a dick was a magic wand for turning wine into blood ...

Towards the end of the encounter, he was only taking questions from men. So the friend I'd gone with (gay, male, practicing) asked a polite version of my question for me.

"Well," began ponderous Pell, "A feminist might accuse me of that ... "

"I am a feminist."

The silence was golden. The laughter after it was platinum, studded with diamonds and wrought into a really nice hair toy.

Posted July 11, 2006 7:47 PM by Vian

There's a simple way to avoid the dreaded Second Sock problem:
knit them both at the same time.

It takes very little time to learn how,
thanks to this excellent how-to page:

How to knit with two circulars

Knitting them at the same time makes it easy to knit two socks that match, exactly. Same stripe pattern, number of rows, places where pattern elements start, you name it.

Also, toe-up socks are great. You can try one on as you go, and no grafting at the end of the project. Just one knot each sock. Best of all, no *seams* [shudder] at the toes -- automatic deluxe smooth lump-free toesies.

Posted July 11, 2006 8:44 PM by Steff Z

Debbie, no, you are not a twit. Not nohow, not ever.

Intended or not, "strident" is a word long-used to criticize (or worse) women who have the audacity to not shut up and act like ladies. Fuck that.

Got that right. I want a button (remember buttons...?) that says Strident Feminist.

Posted July 11, 2006 9:11 PM by Lizzy L

Apparantly, women who really believe in equal rights for everyone know that they have to dedicate all their time to discussing how oppressed they are. All other interests--like knitting-- are for boys. Duh.

Only girly interests are for boys. Feminist girls are supposed to have, um, boyly interests. Let me loan you this torque wrench from another thread.

Seriously: while I don't knit with yarn, just metal, the population of sewing machines - speaking of girly hobbies - in my house is equal to the population of humans and the population of cats combined: five sewing machines and five living beings. If you just count my personal living space, we three are actually outnumbered by the four machines. And I am surely a feminist.

Posted July 11, 2006 9:28 PM by Susan