anuggetofpurestgreen said: The justifying that spiderwoman is annoying me soooo much. the whole justification given there revolves around the purpose of that image being erotic in some way. but why should it be? why should sw be 'projecting sexuality' when she's about to hop off a building? as a separate point, sure bum in air might be intended to be sexy - but why is her head off center? why is her arm bent awkardly? it LOOKS awkward in the picture- not just stylised.????

Anonymous said: Mind you, I wasn't big on the reblog, either, and I question the value of the argument made. But I also question the effectiveness of merely remarking about it on one's own blog rather than actually confronting the poster about it.

Seems to have been pretty effective tbh.

Anonymous said: I'm sure there are worthwhile critiques to be had of that, but I myself am a tad suspicious when they're not actually voiced to the person in question.

My criticism wasn’t of Sandifer, it was of those who’d reblooged it.  I’d already unfollowed Sandifer.

Okay.  I’ve finally achieved all essential life goals for this morning:

  1. Gig management;
  2. Catching up on Tumblr;
  3. Helping Elanor plan some more of her novel;
  4. E-mails;
  5. Facebook messages.

Now it’s time to finally check what the three asks I’ve received hold for me.

Wish me luck.

Played 19,725 times

replicant:

Seven Nation Army - Melanie Martinez

(Source: fagmobs)

(Reblogged from sonnetscrewdriver)

wmkeith:

With reference to PS’s comment about the microreading / acting like a confidante: you have just defined stand-up comedy.

Ooh, dear.

(Reblogged from wmkeith)

andrewhickeywriter:

I was unaware that you weren’t mutual followers and friends (you were the last time I saw the two of you interact), so I’ll back out of what is not my argument before I end up saying something that makes both of you fall out with me, if I haven’t already. Clearly there’s stuff going on here I don’t know about.

For the avoidance of doubt, we’ve not fallen out.  As I explained to Phil, I don’t think of “following on Tumblr” as a social expectation of friendship the way “being friends on Facebook” is.  I’ve got some brilliant friends I’m not following on Tumblr because their particular projects aren’t what I’m into right now.

I’d also have called anyone out on the post Phil wrote.  If Richard had written it, I’d have posted much the same content.

(Source: stalungrad)

(Reblogged from andrewhickeywriter)

Lots here.  Hang tight!

philsandifer:

Nevertheless, I find his level of outrage in critiquing the precise details of my feminist ideological purity rather ludicrously out of whack,

I’m not outraged …

and think his usual approach in expressing that critique can fairly be described as “being a bit of a dick.”

… but I am doing that, yes.

I find Alun’s dressing of this in being on a first name basis with me rather intolerable,

If you’re uncomfortable with me using your first name, that’s absolutely your call to make.  I’m happy not to.

although I note that he has unfollowed me at some point or another,

That would be a past occasion on which you argued with women about feminism.

Although as it goes, I’ve unfollowed almost every Dr Who person I’ve been following in anticipation of the new series.

so I suppose it can now be chalked up to an odd assessment of the particulars of when being on a first name basis with someone is appropriate.

I don’t think “following me on Tumblr” is a prerequisite of friendship, no.  As you say, we’re friends on Facebook.  That’s what Facebook is for.  On Tumblr, I micromanage my dashboard so that it’s full of the sorts of thing I want to read.  At the moment, yours isn’t.

I am personally comfortable with that position within the context of a blog that is outspokenly and ideologically feminist.

And I’m comfortable with the idea that there’s a time and place for certain arguments, and having dispassionate conversations about aesthetics or what-have-you in a space that started as a place for feminist criticism doesn’t gel with me.

There were ways to talk about those issues.  You could’ve written a post about the concept without attaching it to a post attacking a particular piece of sexist imagery.

Your posts will always show up on your blog.  Sure, fine - that’s your space to do with as you will.  The only people who’ll see them are the people who’ve chosen to follow your blog.  Anyone who isn’t in the mood for that sort of thing can unfollow it, as I did.

But when you do it as a response to an existing post, you also become part of that chain.  It’ll be seen by the original poster, and no-doubt other contributors along the way.  You’ve entered the discourse.

And that’s where I think you breached ettiquette.  If you’re a man who wants to support feminist causes, one of the most important things you can do is either support women who come up with these causes, or - if you simply don’t agree - keep your mouth shut around those women.

 I am perfectly aware that people will disagree with this assessment of the pragmatics of blogging about things I find interesting while also materially supporting feminism.

Something the comedian Lou Sanders (who’s brilliant, and everyone should check her out) says is, if you need to say out loud that you’re a feminist, you’re doing it wrong.

(Source: stalungrad)

(Reblogged from philsandifer)

(On Tumblr app, so won’t try to do a reply, but …)

I’m sure there are endless fascinating conversations to have about the value and / or limitations of realism in art. But when that conversation is started as a response to a feminist critique of a particular image, I am deeply suspicious.

andrewhickeywriter:

I take your point. I do think at the same time though that Phil had a point

Phil’s point was taken word for word from the Mansplainer’s National Anthem.

(Source: stalungrad)

(Reblogged from andrewhickeywriter)