Friday, April 2, 2010


April 1 saw two long, interesting essays appear in the blogs I read. I have not yet been able to formulate responses to them, but I'm feeling a need to acknowledge them. So:

Jack Crow against "right and wrong." Awesome intro about eternal uncertainty, too.

Lisa Kansas on "fun feminism." I hadn't heard the term before but I'm definitely familiar with the concept and yeah, yuck. Replacing a system of oppression from without with a system of oppression from within, all the while retaining the same ol' subservience to consumerism, is not a positive step.


Jenny said...

What about the "fun feminsim" aspect of sex? Doesn't your dislike contradict your call for subverting sexual norms?

Ethan said...

Jenny, as you see it, what is the purpose of your existence?

Jenny said...

I'm pointing out your slight hypocrisy.

Ethan said...

Oh, so you actually are sticking around for conversation? Fine.

1. You're assuming that I 100% agree with everything in the essay.
2. Having casual sex with everyone you meet whether it's what you really want to do or not is not the same thing as "subverting sexual norms." Even in my sexual flaneur posts I mentioned asexuality. For instance.
3. You didn't answer my question.

Jack Crow said...

<---humbled. I'm also really, really enjoying Lisa's essay. Grateful for the link to that.

Ethan said...

I'm looking forward to the second part of the fun feminism essay. Hopefully by then I'll be able to come up with intelligent discussion about it all.

The opening of your essay, where you talk about how you really don't know anything, and that and about how keeping that in mind is a constant conscious effort, is what originally drew me in (it's something I frequently think about), and then you tricked me by turning it into an essay about something (not entirely) else that was also fascinating! So, you know, good job.

JM said...

But there are people out there who do like having mutiple sex partners and well, being accepting of this and having it treated as a casual matter of taste would surely break sexual norms as well.

And I ain't answering your question because the sarcasm of it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Ethan said...

JM = Jenny? OK.

Your first paragraph: if you can find anything I've said that would indicate I disagree, I will gladly edit it and make a note saying I phrased things poorly and fixed it upon your pointing it out. If you can find anything Lisa says that would indicate she disagrees, I'm sure she would love it if you'd point it out. Because to my reading, she explicitly agrees.

Look. I'm not denying that I'm a hypocrite about many things. We all are. And I'm not saying I'm a perfect writer, far from it. But you reliably seem to go out of your way to misunderstand everything you read and to play weird little "gotcha" games, as if you were the pointless, still-living Tim Russert of the radical blogosphere. Which, whatever. But while my question to you was in many ways sarcastic, I really do want to know what the hell you think you're doing, so I can decide if there's any point in engaging with you.

Ethan said...

And yes, I'm sitting at home responding to Jenny comments on Friday night.