Fluff

~ Clarissa

Seeing the profoundly stupid struggle to figure out the multiplication table is very entertaining:

Maybe it’s time to stop attacking men for having power, or denying that their power is real, and instead try to understanding why they have had so much of it for so long. Spoiler alert: it has little or nothing to do with muscle mass. The narrative of implied violence that the tastemakers use to explain away the strength of men throughout history is oversimplified and barren of dignity. We can do better. And men should do better, no matter how hard it is.

No, you silly little piece of fluff. It has everything to do with the absence of reliable contraception until extremely recently.

And then people keep saying that college education is not necessary. There is an incredible number of completely stupid, grievously uneducated people around us. The post I culled this bit of idiocy from is extremely long. Its author obviously is passionately attached to the belief that he needs to have opinions. But he has had no access to information, so he just clucks aimlessly, trying to produce a semblance of thought in a complete intellectual vacuum.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

37 thoughts on “Fluff”

  1. I have two college degrees, but you’re welcome to keep slagging my blog without information. You’re just sending me views.

    The existence of contraception has not fundamentally changed the need for an economic system that features positive feedback, or the nature of war, or cultural and familial identity, or the legal principles of Western individualism. Those things changed differently, according to their own timetable. You’re not just simplifying here. You’re completely railroading the meat of established second- and third-wave feminist ideas.

    Saying that I, or anyone else you disagree with, doesn’t have access to information is not only wrong but willfully wrong. The post had links to several media stories which were somewhat cogently written and represented a point of view that spared me from having to establish what I thought within the post and make it any longer; you aren’t the only one who complains when they have to read something longer than a Newsweek editorial. Clearly I have access to information. It’s very likely I don’t define reliable sources the same way you do.

    The post is also written for people who have read my blog before and are already somewhat familiar with my point of view. You obviously have not, and since you aren’t my target audience and are one of very few people who have linked this blog, the only conclusion I can come to is that you purposefully searched out something that you could take out of context and talk shit about, sans complex argument. Browsing through what you publish, I don’t think I’m the first.

    How about, instead of calling out “fluff” without a single viable criticism of the content, you try saying something?

    Like

    Reply

    1. “You’re just sending me views.”

      • You are welcome. The rest of your comment is an incomprehensible jumble of weird and meaningless verbiage.

      “The post had links to several media stories which were somewhat cogently written and represented a point of view that spared me from having to establish what I thought within the post and make it any longer; you aren’t the only one who complains when they have to read something longer than a Newsweek editorial.”

      • If you don’t see that this is completely meaningless, then I apologize for making fun of a mentally ill person.

      Like

      Reply

  3. And it is a common delusion of people who communicate easily with idiots to think that the broad accessibility of their simple ideas make those ideas sophisticated and relevant. How was that, still too complicated?

    Like

    Reply

    1. Buddy, go away, seriously. Take your medication and try not to fill your little head with long words and complex ideas that are confusing you. Now scoot away!

      Like

      Reply

  4. Why would you write on a public blog without the ability to respond to, or tolerate, criticism?

    If you’ve ever read anything even remotely philosophical – including Simone de Beauvoir or Betty Friedan – then you’ve read a level of complexity that’s on par or higher than where I write at. I don’t know if you have, but it would be really disturbing to see that you’ve published at least a couple thousand posts largely focused on feminist ideas without having done so.

    And yet you continue to hand-wave me as a confused crazy person. Why? I don’t really give a shit what your little fan club on here has to say about it, but it’s a direct insult that you haven’t backed up at all. The only explanation I have is that your ability to process someone else’s writing is at least partially dependent on your emotional reaction to what’s being written. I would never expect you to like what I have to say, but you could at least do something more than highlight a paragraph and say it’s incomprehensible.

    Some sentences need to be unpacked when they have interesting things in them. It requires work. If you don’t have the time or motivation, then don’t try. Most people don’t.

    About that paragraph: It wasn’t profound or particularly difficult. I’ll break it down to simple sentences so you might have a chance of getting it.

    The post linked stories.
    Some of those stories were pretty good (that’s as idiot friendly as I can put it).
    Some of those stories said things I might say.
    So I linked them.
    They sort of stood in for my point of view in some places.
    Linking those stories kept me from making the post any longer.
    That’s really important for some readers.

    I have met many people who see a semicolon and think it’s pretentious bullshit. And yet, you highlight that sentence that uses one and call it meaningless. Lots of irony here: you started this post out complaining about me obviously not having a college education, and yet now you’re complaining about the sentence that most closely resembles college level authorship. You’re lazy and you’re wrong. Please, stop trying to defend yourself by acting like a child and whining about me being off me meds. You’re embodying lots of the things people hate about feminists.

    Like

    Reply

      1. You’ve got to give him credit for the most remarkable mixed metaphor I’ve seen in a long time: “You’re completely railroading the meat of established second- and third-wave feminist ideas.” Railroading meat! Not easy to do.

        Like

        Reply

              1. LOL, I am controlling myself ;-D

                Calling an opponent fluff/hysterical/mentally ill are not particularly intelligent arguments. While threatening censorship is especially weak.

                Like

  5. The person who wrote the linked to article seems very ignorant about military standards and performance. In fact it is well-known that you totally cannot tell what somebody’s capacity for performance will be by the way they look. Looks can be deceptive. My father said that one of the most rugged, physically tough, macho-talking men he was with froze immediately during his first contact with the enemy. He just stood still and wouldn’t move. The guys around were trying to shake him into action, but he had become frozen. He was shot and killed. Another story I heard from the Australian army was of a very petite woman. She was so small that she only just made the entry standards for height by wearing a bun on top of her head. She was the most stalwart on the marches, with the heavy back packs, never complaining.

    Like

    Reply

    1. LOL, I call BS ;-D

      Petite women can seldom manage to even lift a heavy rucksack, let alone pack it any distance. Both the physical standards of the Canadian and American militaries have been lowered so females can join, I presume the Australians have as well.

      Like

      Reply

      1. We have already discussed ad nauseam that in modern armies rucksack-lifting is not a crucial skill. Today’s soldiers don’t trudge long-distance with rucksack. Please, let’s stop boring me with these inane discussions out of the WWI era.

        Like

        Reply

        1. LOL, why don’t you tell us about the different gender physical standards in the Aussie military…and why they are necessary ;-D

          Like

          Reply

          1. I don’t know. Why don’t I talk about something beginning with A. Why don’t I talk about sheep and cattle?

            If I thought you could follow a line of reasoning I might, but I am not being paid to talk about all sorts of topics. I’m merely relating what I know. And what I know has been denied by someone who imagines he was there and knows better — i.e. a crazy person.

            Like

            Reply

            1. LOL, I am a retired scientist, I know a little about reasoning ;-D

              You started the scrap by entering a rather incredible anecdote. I invited you to inform us about the gender differences in physical standards in your country…and why they exist. You choose not to do so, it doesn’t matter. You cannot avoid the truth, every reader here know that you are desperately hoping to dodge.

              Like

              Reply

              2. “You started the scrap by entering a rather incredible anecdote. I invited you to inform us about the gender differences in physical standards in your country…and why they exist.”

                • I have already informed you that “physical standards” are of zero relevance in contemporary armies. You are being obsessive in a very freaky way.

                Like

          2. “LOL, why don’t you tell us about the different gender physical standards in the Aussie military…and why they are necessary”

            • It’s like a scary instance of OCD. And we all know how much I enjoy people pouring their psychological dysfunction into a public space.

            Like

            Reply

            1. He seems to have the idea that he was everywhere, experiencing, for instance, the corporal telling us recruits the story about the petite woman, in bootcamp. He judged this particular corporal to by lying. It might be so. Maybe the corporal was trying to toughen us up by saying “even a diminutive woman could do this” when it was really just a story to challenge us and push us along. In which case, we can congratulate BG not only for going back in history (a feature of his implied capacity to be everywhere) but also of wondrous psychological astuteness. It’s quite an impressive feat on his part.

              Like

              Reply

  6. Hmmm, I do not expect all readers to think like myself, but I fully expect many to see right through you. And please, in the future, do not ask me embarrass you by pointing out that the childish are not in a position to demand that their elders grow up.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Yes, you might see right through me, I agree. But since you are older than me, have you met that particular corporal before? Were you ever in Australia? I don’t know if you think he looked at you funny or something, but I saw no reason not to believe what he told me.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Nope, but I have distant relatives that are Aussies. I have no idea why any man, let alone a noncom, would make such an absurd claim to female recruits.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Oh, I guess military psychology is a bit difficult for some people to understand, but you could ask your distant relatives about some scenario you can imagine about female recruits and maybe they will tell you something about essentially gendered natures, which will be very useful to know. Once you’ve got it, you can pass on the information to me, so we can all develop from it.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment