NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally found it very amusing. http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html


Also, I've noticed that some people can change their link to whatever they want it too say. How does one go about doing that?

I think the person is so wound up in her own agenda, she can't see anything but her own twisted view of the world superimposed over what the rest of us sees -- a show in which all the big damned heroes are flawed and the men come off as bad or worse than the women.

Lol

Worst. Review. Ever.

Foe example Zoe calls Mal "Sir" because, shock/horror, he is the Captain. This whole review is filled with hatred. She focuses way to much on old stereotypes, focusing on the fact that Zoe is black, confuses Inara as a prostitute over and over when she is a companion...

I don't have more time to rip this review apart but you can see what I'm getting at.

I think the person is so wound up in her own agenda, she can't see anything but her own twisted view of the world superimposed over what the rest of us sees -- a show in which all the big damned heroes are flawed and the men come off as bad or worse than the women.

QFT

Slightly sexist, segregationist and generally startlingly prejudiced. Oh, we cannot forgot pompous and self-absorbed. Ridiculous reviews like that are the reason that there is a significant degree of criticism of what "feminism" has become. This is the sort of person who creates the creates the conservative blowback.

Slightly sexist, segregationist and generally startlingly prejudiced. Oh, we cannot forgot pompous and self-absorbed.

It's amusing none the less, such a person is a master satirist or insane. Either way is funny.

Also, I've noticed that some people can change their link to whatever they want it too say. How does one go about doing that?

The URL tages look like this (except with square brackets, not curly ones): {URL="http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html"}http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html{/URL}

Change the red part to change the visible text.

The URL tages look like this (except with square brackets, not curly ones): {URL="http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html"}http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html{/URL}

Change the red part to change the visible text.

Thank you for your help.

Zoe calls Mal "Sir" because he was her commanding officer in the war. Now he's the Captain of the ship. Habits die hard.

The reviewer derides Inara's choice of proffesion and then proceeds to berate Mal when he doesn't show her respect because of her profession. This when being a companion, basically a high class prostitute, is, in the series, a prestigious and respectable profession.

Also when I noticed a lot of homophobia given that she portrays homoeroticism in a negative light.

Good grief. That may be the stupidest analysis I have ever read, and I say that as a woman and a feminist.

I especially like the part where she essentially says that she can't actually find anything terribly wrong with Wash, but he's white and his wife is black and therefore he's a "rapist and abuser." That was the point where my brain completely and utterly broke. (Not that the impeccable logic of "I wouldn't want to be a high-class hooker, so NO ONE else could!" or "ZOMG soldiers refer to their COs and former COs as 'sir'! How sexist! Only male soldiers should apparently be allowed to do that!" didn't cause a fair amount of brain-breakage in their own right...)

I can't type in this thread without mod approval, strange. :confused:


Edit: Weird, now I can....

I can't type in this thread without mod approval, strange. :confused:


Edit: Weird, now I can....

It's just something that the forum does automatically, to keep spam-bots away. It'll stop after you've been around for a while.

RE: the review: Teeheehee, worst use of the word rape evar.

Your first ten posts are screened by mods, to make sure you're not a spambot.

I enjoy irony quite a lot, but that was just excessive.

I especially like the part where she essentially says that she can't actually find anything terribly wrong with Wash, but he's white and his wife is black and therefore he's a "rapist and abuser." That was the point where my brain completely and utterly broke.
you lasted longer than me...

Couldn't help thinking of my favorite lightbulb joke when I was reading this:

1: "How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?"
2: "I don't know, how many?"
1: <deeply offended voice> "THAT'S NOT FUNNY!"

This reads like it's written by somebody who began & ended her critical education with Feminist Literary Theory 101 but didn't actually pay attention in the course. She has, like, 8% of a point to be made about whether violent narratives can be feminist or not, and then she just loses her head. I realize she qualified her post as a "rant" but she still needs to chill out and have a taco.

Mmm, tacos.

bah, everything that had to be said about that rubbish has been said so i will just mourn about that show being cancelled...

*mourns*

I liked this comment on that LiveJournal.

I'm a fan of counter-intuitive thinking, so I was intrigued by your post when I was directed to it by someone who disagrees with your conclusion. What you've presented is obviously well-researched - I was particularly amused by the verbal analysis, which appears to have revealed some subconscious archetyping on the part of the script-writers. You got me thinking: what sort of plot would you find to not be anti-feminist? Every plot of which I can conceive can be construed as hateful to women from the perspective of your blog post:

"Pretty girls fight evil and save the day." -> "Why do female heroes have to be reduced to eye candy?"

"Ugly lesbians fight evil and save the day." -> "Whedon has created his female heroes as carictures of everything men find hateful, and through that correlates the image of strong, heroic women with what men find hateful."

"Neutral-looking women of no apparent sexual orientation fight evil and save the day." -> "The female leads are all stripped of their female characteristics and fade into the scenery, essentially putting them into the kabuki role of female servitude in which they should be neither seen nor heard."

"No women are in the show at all." -> "Buffy presents a world in which women have been wiped out, and the guys run around wisecracking and fighting evil and having a grand old time. They are winking at genocide."

. . . do you see where I'm comi
ng from? As much as I love counter-intuitive thinking, I wonder if your admitted biases have put you in a position where everything is anti-feminist, nothing is pro-feminist, and anti-women subplots can be found lurking behind every bush. If there's a plot that would pass your scrutiny, I'm curious what it would be.

I liked this comment on that LiveJournal.

I liked too. But she seems to take down critical posts of her "views".

I especially like the part where she essentially says that she can't actually find anything terribly wrong with Wash, but he's white and his wife is black and therefore he's a "rapist and abuser." That was the point where my brain completely and utterly broke.

Not to mention that she pays no attention to the rather obvious characterizations of Zoe & Wash. Who's the masculine half of that partnership? The chatty, sensitive one with the flowery shirts? Or the strong, silent one with the military background? :rolleyes:

Also priceless was that the author apparently didn't realize that the "supportive" post by she_flies was actually utterly sarcastic. She even went out of her way to reply to it.

Not to mention that she pays no attention to the rather obvious characterizations of Zoe & Wash. Who's the masculine half of that partnership? The chatty, sensitive one with the flowery shirts? Or the strong, silent one with the military background? :rolleyes:

Shhh... that practically disproves her interpretation. nevermind that the outtakes and behind the scenes of Serenty show another level of Mal's and Inara's relationship where their Tet-a-tet hides their real feelings for each other...

Mal: did you see us arguing?
Zoe: uhm... no...
Mal: trap.

Not to mention that she pays no attention to the rather obvious characterizations of Zoe & Wash. Who's the masculine half of that partnership? The chatty, sensitive one with the flowery shirts? Or the strong, silent one with the military background? :rolleyes:

She even call's the creator of the show, who is as much of a feminist as a man can possibly be, a sexist pig (or somesuch).

Not to mention that she pays no attention to the rather obvious characterizations of Zoe & Wash. Who's the masculine half of that partnership? The chatty, sensitive one with the flowery shirts? Or the strong, silent one with the military background? :rolleyes:


Seriously. You have to have an insanely distorted worldview to look at that relationship and think, "Wow, Wash is a racist macho chauvinist pig who totally takes advantage of poor, helpless Zoe." :rolleyes:

lol, about women fighting evil, maybe the fighting is the problem part. Or the evil. How about average looking girls who invite demons over for a cup of tea and ask them "Why are you eating babies? Did you know humans take a very long time to produce a baby, it's hard to bear and hard to push out into the world and once you've gone through all this trouble, you sure don't want some demon having it for a snack." Oh and "if you chose to rip off my head, you would just prove that you were pitiful, seeing that I am no threat to you." Someone should make a series about therapy. Well, having no soul may be a good excuse for acting all evil and stuff, but most people do not have that excuse. So usually being evil derives from first experiencing evil personally or having your brain chemistry messed up. So when we see women picking up a weapon and shooting or hacking enemies to bits, that's a totally masculine approach.

But this is rather off topic.

About Firefly and Serenity, Zoe is a strong woman and she is never broken. Not even when Wash dies, she doesn't go sentimental as stereotypical women would, she does what is needed in that situation and saves the grieving for a private moment.

And Inara is also a strong woman. She usually solves conflicts through diplomacy instead of using violence. In Serenity it felt out of place that she was in a battle scene with the Reavers, although they wrote that background story of her being a skilled archer, but does a woman really need to be proficient in arms to be considered useful? I think not. It's a shame that they couldn't benefit from her connections in the movie.

And then Kaylee, she is very handy in what she does and has an open attitude towards sex, which I think is good because the... well, I wouldn't call her nerdy or shy but her kind of girls are usually depicted as being clumsy when it comes to interacting with men, but she's all natural about it. She sees good in everyone so when someone hurts her, then we know we've encountered a truly bad person.

I think Firefly is more natural than many other series in that most fighters are male. Most women wouldn't enjoy drifting around on a cramped space ship nor hacking Reavers into bits.

Okay, not to forget about River. She has been broken but she has turned strong. She is still vulnerable on some levels but she's a good fighter. She would be very different if she hadn't been brain-raped by the government.

funny shit, this is why I hate some feminists.

funny shit,

Isn't it just?

bah, everything that had to be said about that rubbish has been said so i will just mourn about that show being cancelled...

*mourns**joins in mourning*
*suspects Amarenthe may join*

*joins in mourning*
*suspects Amarenthe may join*

shit, I join too *mourn*

Isn't it just?

just what? funny? yes I said it was.

*joins in mourning*
*suspects Amarenthe may join*

I'll join. I watched the series on DVD from Netflix after getting badgered to by friends. I had to admit they were right and it was a terrific show that did not deserve cancellation.

As for the blog, four words: swing and a miss.

just what? funny? yes I said it was.

It was meant as a comment not a question. That question mark just slipped in there somehow.

'Our' Voices? I didn't realize women where the Borg

'Our' Voices? I didn't realize women where the Borg

Wait wait wait! Their NOT!? This is news to me! :confused:

*joins the mourning party*

Curse Fox's sudden but inevitable betrayal! :(

It was meant as a comment not a question. That question mark just slipped in there somehow.

funny how that happens isn't it? no biggie.

*joins in the mourning*

'Our' Voices? I didn't realize women where the Borg
curious.
I like my "species" the way it is!

*Joins the Mourning*
An absolutely fantastic series, and some of the best SF on television. The woman who wrote the attack-I shan't dignify it as a review-obviously didn't even pay attention to what she was watching. How can you declare "Firefly" demeaning to women without quoting Jane? Pfui on her.

Curse Fox's sudden but inevitable betrayal! :(
*mega-BOW*

It is crossing my mind that there may be an entire region of folk here that would constitute Firefly mourners.
Yes, an entire REGION.

Worst. Review. Ever.

Foe example Zoe calls Mal "Sir" because, shock/horror, he is the Captain.

More importantly she calls him Sir because he is her CO who got her out of the living hell that was the battle of Serenity alive and relatively sane.

*joins the mourning party*

Curse Fox's sudden but inevitable betrayal! :(

And yet he's going to put ANOTHER series on Fox. One that in all likelihood the "reviewer" is going to find MUCH worse.

(paraphrased from the website in the link) I went through a sci-fi program with a fine-toothed comb searching for anything that might offend me in the least. I found stuff I think is offensive because it's my job to be offended at every damn thing that in any way relates to women, men, and their interrelations. I'm offended! So, the whole escapist program is clearly an affront to all things female and must be destroyed! Oh, and men are bad. Did I mention that?(end paraphrase)

Did I get the gist of that right? She probably found problems with Star Trek: Voyager, too, even though there was a woman as captain. I agree with the concept of women being inherently equal to men as both are members of the race called 'human' but people like her are absolutely insane. She won't ever be happy.

But this is rather off topic.

About Firefly and Serenity, Zoe is a strong woman and she is never broken. Not even when Wash dies, she doesn't go sentimental as stereotypical women would, she does what is needed in that situation and saves the grieving for a private moment.According to the production notes, the ending of 'Serenity', while Joss meant the conversation about "her being ready to fly" was supposed to mean the ship, the two actors, however, twisted it to mean Zoe over the loss of Wash.

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is.

And Inara is also a strong woman. She usually solves conflicts through diplomacy instead of using violence. In Serenity it felt out of place that she was in a battle scene with the Reavers, although they wrote that background story of her being a skilled archer, but does a woman really need to be proficient in arms to be considered useful? I think not. It's a shame that they couldn't benefit from her connections in the movie. no, however, Inara and the whole "Firefly" setting was set in the untaimed frontier. thus the goverments experiment that created the Reavers, and the idea that the women there would know how to defend themselves. and I suspect a 'cowering' Inara would've been another target for this 'reviewer' (see, all the 'cultured' women are basically useless and weak. :p )

I think Firefly is more natural than many other series in that most fighters are male. Most women wouldn't enjoy drifting around on a cramped space ship nor hacking Reavers into bits. agreed, but you gotta admit, when it comes to defending hearth and home, women have as much right to kick some ass as the men. :p

Okay, not to forget about River. She has been broken but she has turned strong. She is still vulnerable on some levels but she's a good fighter. She would be very different if she hadn't been brain-raped by the government. Remember the end of 'Serenity'? the release of the information locked in River's mind greatly healed her. her shy, quiet personality was vanishing in the end when she sat in the cockpit with Mal. It would've been interesting to see her character develop.

Remember the end of 'Serenity'? the release of the information locked in River's mind greatly healed her. her shy, quiet personality was vanishing in the end when she sat in the cockpit with Mel. It would've been interesting to see her character develop.

We still might. Joss is in the middle of writing a second comic about Firefly/Serenity set between the series and the movie. He may still write one set AFTER the movie, possibly an extended series like his continuations of Buffy and Angel..

I personally found it very amusing. http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html


Also, I've noticed that some people can change their link to whatever they want it too say. How does one go about doing that?

as below but take the spaces out


[ url=address ] name [ /url ]

The first scene opens in a war with Mal and Zoe. Zoe runs around calling Mal ‘sir’ and taking orders off him. I roll my eyes. Not a good start.

Mal is her superior officer.. pretty much anyone who is of a lower standing calls everyone of a higher standing sir in the military.

The next scene we meet Kaylee, the ship’s mechanic. <- Lookee, lookee, feminist empowerment. In this scene Mal and Jayne are stowing away the cargo they just stole. Kaylee is chatting to them, happily. Jayne asks Mal to get Kaylee to stop being so cheerful. Mal replies, “Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month.” Yes, that is an exact quote, “Sometimes you just wanna DUCT TAPE HER MOUTH and DUMP HER IN THE HOLD FOR A MONTH.” Kaylee responds by grinning and giving Mal a kiss on the cheek and saying, “I love my Captain.”

The author needs a sense of humor... there is this wonderful thing called sarcasm its when you say one thing and don't mean exactly that; you know.. like a joke.

I can't even finish reading this...

*joins in mourning*
*suspects Amarenthe may join*

With Firefly in the title, you KNOW I'm gonna be here.

This made me laugh out loud, and I seriously needed it. I am in awe of the fact that she counted the number of times men spoke versus women, and what kinds of statements they were making. I can see it now; if the MEN had asked all the questions, they'd be portrayed as intelligent, seeking answers and solving problems, while the women made empty, superfluous comments and questioned nothing like mindless idiots. Curse you, Joss Whedon, for portraying men as the only gender capable of critical analysis - and therefore, the only gender capable of acquiring knowledge! Of COURSE you expect your female characters to be unintelligent and dull. I bet your wife is, too.

Honestly.

Yeesh. I finally managed to get through that review, no small task when you're as drunk as I am... and probably no small task when you're sober either. It's hard for me to imagine reading such tripe comfortably in any frame of mind.

I mean, I can grant that Zoe's played as a little stereotypically irrational at some points ("I don't give a good gorram about relevant, Wash, or objective."), but for every time that happens, there's a point where she's so coldly utilitarian that it would make any man uncomfortable ("Won't happen again." "It does, I'm just gonna watch.")

As for Inara, the same arguments I threw out in the last "high-class prostitute" thread come to mind here. She's doing something she enjoys (there's never been even the slightest indication to the contrary), something she's good at (though Mal would argue she falls short in the area of "tellin' a man what he wants to hear"), and judging by the decor in her shuttle she's making a much better living than the rest of the crew. Any argument that this is significantly unrealistic, in my opinion, is as sexist as anything you'd see in Firefly -- just another variation on the idea that it's not okay for women to enjoy sex. The one person who tries to treat her as property gets a couple of puncture wounds for his trouble.

And Kaylee... come on. The reviewer wants to make a big deal of the "duct-tape her mouth and dump her in the hold" line? Kaylee's the ultimate "morning person" -- regardless of sex, we all know the person who's cheerful when no one else is and we all want to perform various violent acts upon him or her. But all that aside, I don't think there's a more stereotype-breaking character on the show than Kaylee -- she's feminine, attractive, talkative, reasonably comfortable in social situations... and an engineer, for God's sake. And for all that, she never even comes close to being unbelievable. I know a few people who remind me of Kaylee, which makes watching her interact with the rest of the crew even more enjoyable.

Okay, entirely separate from my comments on the female characters in Firefly is this remarkable quote from the review:

Let me just say now that I have never personally known of a healthy relationship between a white man and a woman of colour.

Let me just say now... that makes one of us. Frankly, the discomfort with interracial relationships expressed here is downright unsettling. Seriously, what the hell?

I can't even finish reading this...

but you're missing out on some great stuff:
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Joss uses his own wife in this way. Expects her to clean up his emotional messes. Expects her to be there, eternally supportive, eternally subservient and grateful to him in all his manly glory. I hope the money is worth it, Mrs. Whedon.

which is followed in comments by,
From what I've read about him and the interviews I've watched, I'm fairly certain that he rapes his wife and abuses her in various other ways. I honestly can't think of anything worse than living with a man like Joss who thinks of women like the way he portrays in his tv shows.

i have often thought to myself that the most awful possible thing in the world would be living with joss whedon

.

Okay, entirely separate from my comments on the female characters in Firefly is this remarkable quote from the review:



Let me just say now... that makes one of us. Frankly, the discomfort with interracial relationships expressed here is downright unsettling. Seriously, what the hell?

I think the author is as racist as she is sexist... I have a very healthy relationship with my lover, we enjoy everything we do with each other. Never mind that I'm white and she's african (really, african, not afro-merican).

Let me just say now... that makes one of us. Frankly, the discomfort with interracial relationships expressed here is downright unsettling. Seriously, what the hell? apparently she's ok with racism, but not sexism. :p

She's perfectly okay with sexism, so long as it's only directed towards men.

This is a joke, right?

This is a joke, right?

I'm afraid not.

She's perfectly okay with sexism, so long as it's only directed towards men.

ah, I stand corrected.

She's perfectly okay with sexism, so long as it's only directed towards men.

She's also homophobic when it comes to men. Anything that could be construed is homoerotic. This homoerotica is wrong cuz obviously gay men hate women so much that they xhose to be with other men, but lesbianism is female empowerment in contrast to heterosexual "rape" relations.

I liked too. But she seems to take down critical posts of her "views".

Ah. A coward as well as a loony?

My main problem is that this woman personifies the 'feminists have no sense of humor' argument we keep seeing. She clearly has no understanding of snark, sarcasm, or... well, funny things in general. In her review of Our Mrs Reynolds, she claims that she knows that Joss not only uses porn (well, he's male, that's kind of a given...), but that he jerks off to Hustler cartoons. All this because of ONE LINE from Book about Mal going to hell if he has sex with Saffron. (something like, "if you take advantage of her, you're going to hell. a special section, reserved for child molesters and people who talk in theaters.")

Linking to her post (http://allecto.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/a-rapists-view-of-the-world-our-mrs-reynolds-part-one/)

Not surprisingly, my comment calling her on her supposed psychic powers was deleted.

She's also homophobic when it comes to men. Anything that could be construed is homoerotic. This homoerotica is wrong cuz obviously gay men hate women so much that they xhose to be with other men, but lesbianism is female empowerment in contrast to heterosexual "rape" relations.

SO... a lesbian, homophobic, racist?!

Ah. A coward as well as a loony?

That too...

SO... a lesbian, homophobic, racist?!

A lesbian who hates gay men, a feminist who hates men yet disrespects women (who are seemingly doomed to perpetual victimhood), a person who thinks blacks and whites should stick to their own kind for romance, and a coward afraid of criticism. She's basically a sexist(against both sexes) homophobic(but only against male homsexuals) racist coward

A lesbian who hates gay men, a feminist who hates men yet disrespects women (who are seemingly doomed to perpetual victimhood), a person who thinks blacks and whites should stick to their own kind for romance, and a coward afraid of criticism. She's basically a sexist(against both sexes) homophobic(but only against male homsexuals) racist coward

Also known as one hell of a good time if your a psychoanalyst!

I tried reading the review again but it hurt my brain...

I wonder if we all criticised it on her site, she may take notice...

Aside from having utterly repellent views that are severely reality-handicapped, the blogger does not even allow comments that don't come from her circle-jerk of sycophants. When I tried to post with my LJ account, it was refused because I am not on her friends list.

I think I may have found the problem.

I have known a black woman whose white husband would strangle and bash her while her young children watched. My white grandfather liked black women because they were ‘exotic’, and he did not, could not treat women, especially women of colour, like human beings. I grew up watching my great aunts, my aunty and my mother all treated like shit by their white husbands, the men they loved. So you will forgive me for believing that the character, Wash, is a rapist and an abuser, particularly considering that he treats Zoe like an object and possession.

I think I may have found the problem.

I have known a black woman whose white husband would strangle and bash her while her young children watched. My white grandfather liked black women because they were ‘exotic’, and he did not, could not treat women, especially women of colour, like human beings. I grew up watching my great aunts, my aunty and my mother all treated like shit by their white husbands, the men they loved. So you will forgive me for believing that the character, Wash, is a rapist and an abuser, particularly considering that he treats Zoe like an object and possession.

No, I don't believe I will forgive you. I don't forgive racist tripe no matter what the reason and have seen no evidence of him treating Zoe "as an object and possession". Now if only I could get HER to read this.

I think I may have found the problem.

That's not the only problem to be found...

i have often thought to myself that the most awful possible thing in the world would be living with joss whedon

Don't we all think that every day? "Gee, my life may be terrible, but at least I don't have to endure the horror of spending time with that sexist bastard Joss Whedon!"

The review is a screed by a loyal soldier of Lezbollah.

This is what I would have posted, had she not locked the ability to comment if you're from outside of her friends circle:

Given the reality of art as a reflection of life, and the fact that Whedon writes intentionally flawed and complex characters (especially seeing that the male archetypes are more shadow archetypes, while the female characters tend to actually resemble the healthy male archetypes). The male characters are not to be admired for their fullness, because they are not full, this is not the simple universe of Star Wars or Star Trek. To have missed this fundamental element, this built in complexity, of the show does not speak well of your abilities at perception.

The female characters tend to, on the other hand, resemble the male archetypes in their fullness. The major exception being Inara, who represents a character so orientalized that she is difficult to fully understand from the western perspective, from which you are approaching this show. The society displayed by Whedon is not a purely Western society, rather it is a hybrid that bears many of the formal and ritualized elements of an Eastern Culture.

In summation, your understanding of the show, of its purpose and its characters is lacking, you have approached the show with a built in bias, which has denied you your ability to analyze it objectively, and you have framed it how you wanted it to be framed from the start. Your lens has distorted your perception, and you would be well advised to reevaluate your perceptions.

Furthermore, your comments regarding white-male, black-female relationships is startlingly demeaning, and is an open attempt to demean the value of the relationships that many of my close friends have and are experiencing. Rather than being an enlightened viewpoint, what you wrote sounds more like the awkward commentary one would expect to hear from their grandfather when he meets the new neighbors.

She needs help, and her "review" says more about her than the series...

Aside from having utterly repellent views that are severely reality-handicapped, the blogger does not even allow comments that don't come from her circle-jerk of sycophants. When I tried to post with my LJ account, it was refused because I am not on her friends list.

well, can't have people posting who will destroy her little world view now... can she?

*Wants to read Kat's Reply*

With Firefly in the title, you KNOW I'm gonna be here.


Woohoo!!

It occurs to me that this review is positively begging for one of these (http://xkcd.com/406/).

It occurs to me that this review is positively begging for one of these (http://xkcd.com/406/).

For the linkaphobes out there...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/venting.png

Don't we all think that every day? "Gee, my life may be terrible, but at least I don't have to endure the horror of spending time with that sexist bastard Joss Whedon!"

heh, yeah.

even reading it as over-the-top hyperbole, it just reads as a glaring expression of privilege. the same sort of glaring expression of privilege that allows one to think it is even vaguely reasonable to claim that "most 'sex' between men and women, in the contemporary 'sex-positive', pornographic, male-supremacist culture, is rape."

trivializing the very real and very horrific experiences of women the world over is never a good thing. even if using any amount of pressure at all to get someone to have sex was wrong,
"hey, lets have sex"
"i don't feel like it right now"
"aww, come on"
"fine"
would not be anywhere near the same league as rape.

The interesting thing is that I would agree that there are real issues with Whedon's treatment of female characters, but that vitriol may just make people want to ignore, say, an actual reasonable examination of some of the gender issues in his writing.

One, you know, without the misandry and racist assumptions. Oh, and the homophobia. I found that downright bizarre actually, that she seems to have such a terrible opinion of male homosexuals. Is this common in radical feminism?

I don't know, but I think anyone who considers any kind of hetero sex act to be rape has more than a few problems.

I don't know, but I think anyone who considers any kind of hetero sex act to be rape has more than a few problems.

Ya think?

I don't know, but I think anyone who considers any kind of hetero sex act to be rape has more than a few problems.

to be fair, she does allow the possibility of non-rape het sex. she only said 'most' was rape, and that was conditioned on taking place within a male-supremacist society

The interesting thing is that I would agree that there are real issues with Whedon's treatment of female characters,

Such as?

to be fair, she does allow the possibility of non-rape het sex. she only said 'most' was rape, and that was conditioned on taking place within a male-supremacist society

And then goes on to call Joss Whedon a rapist, and Wash, and Mal....

And then goes on to call Joss Whedon a rapist, and Wash, and Mal....

I seem to recall that she also implied that Joss is a pedophile, which was somehow connected with her assumption that his porn of choice is Hustler . . .


What a legal pornographic magazine who's models are 18 and over has to do with pedophilia I don't know . . .

Such as?

He seems to have a fixation on a particular type of 'girl' heroine, and furthermore, seems to have a tendency to kill them off. It's not that I think he should be dismissed for it, nor would I stop watching/reading stuff he writes, but it seems worth talking about, especially if you're interested in gender issues. I'm not claiming to be a huge expert on this, of course- and I really can't speak to Firefly in particular.

I've got a friend who could probably write at significant length about it, and from an informed feminist (although not Radical Feminist) perspective to boot.

He seems to have a fixation on a particular type of 'girl' heroine, and furthermore, seems to have a tendency to kill them off.

What type would that be? And does someone count as being "killed off" if she came back to life, twice?

And then goes on to call Joss Whedon a rapist, and Wash, and Mal....

well yeah, presumably the minority of heterosexuals that aren't 'rapists' and are having non-rape hetero sex aren't exemplified by men who like to see their partners naked or are of a different race or are married to women who keep their maiden names. or something.

well yeah, presumably the minority of heterosexuals that aren't 'rapists' and are having non-rape hetero sex aren't exemplified by men who like to see their partners naked or are of a different race or are married to women who keep their maiden names. or something.

Maybe it's only not rape if you're having sex with a "feminist" like the author of that review. Because she's liberated. Or something.

well yeah, presumably the minority of heterosexuals that aren't 'rapists' and are having non-rape hetero sex aren't exemplified by men who like to see their partners naked or are of a different race or are married to women who keep their maiden names. or something.

So basically, if it's not alecto approved, it's rape.

What really pisses me off about this woman, having read a few of her other entries, is that she's doing exactly the same thing that anti-feminists do - defining womanhood, sex and sexuality in a way that excludes nearly everyone who isn't her. Feminism is supposed to be about allowing women (and men, and transpeople, and genderqueers, etc) to make their own damn choices. About sex, About politics. About everything. The thing about allowing other people choice is that people will sometimes choose things that you don't like. One of my best friends is a sexual submissive. She's not submissive in any other area except the bedroom, but she likes to be tied up. I don't inderstand the arousal componenet of pain, but that's her choice, not mine.

Alecto would say that no woman can submit to a man (or women), because we're all too stupid and brainwashed by 'porn culture' to make our own choices. Funny, that sounds a lot like the kind of patronization that has kept women relegated to the sidelines for centuries, doesn't it?

What really pisses me off about this woman, having read a few of her other entries, is that she's doing exactly the same thing that anti-feminists do - defining womanhood, sex and sexuality in a way that excludes nearly everyone who isn't her. Feminism is supposed to be about allowing women (and men, and transpeople, and genderqueers, etc) to make their own damn choices. About sex, About politics. About everything. The thing about allowing other people choice is that people will sometimes choose things that you don't like. One of my best friends is a sexual submissive. She's not submissive in any other area except the bedroom, but she likes to be tied up. I don't inderstand the arousal componenet of pain, but that's her choice, not mine.

Alecto would say that no woman can submit to a man (or women), because we're all too stupid and brainwashed by 'porn culture' to make our own choices. Funny, that sounds a lot like the kind of patronization that has kept women relegated to the sidelines for centuries, doesn't it?

The irony, it burns.

BTW that was what I was trying to post (though not nearly as articulately as you did)-- that she is doing what she accuses others of.

Feminism is supposed to be about allowing women (and men, and transpeople, and genderqueers, etc) to make their own damn choices.

false consciousness liberal hogwash!

So basically, if it's not alecto approved, it's rape.

No. If it's not with *alecto*, it is not approved. Unless you are a man. If you are, you are obviously a rapist, due to having a penis. Which secrets chemicals to our brains which turn us into rapists. Apparently.

You know, I'm all for equal rights and what not, but this person just pushes the line, a bit to far.

false consciousness liberal hogwash!

Bah, it's all brought upon by the Conservative Patriarchy.

What really pisses me off about this woman,


Is the fact that she doesn't like Firefly!

You know, I'm all for equal rights and what not, but this person just pushes the line, a bit to far.

But that's the thing. Equal rights means equal rights for everyone, not just people who agree with you. I think this... I won't call her a lady, because she clearly is not... woman is full of shit. But I also think she has the right to be just as full of shit as she wants to be, as long as her being full of shit doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. And since AFAIK, she hasn't done that, she's just another internet troll.

Is the fact that she doesn't like Firefly!

Shhhh! I'm trying to be all intellectual here!

But that's the thing. Equal rights means equal rights for everyone, not just people who agree with you. I think this... I won't call her a lady, because she clearly is not... woman is full of shit. But I also think she has the right to be just as full of shit as she wants to be, as long as her being full of shit doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. And since AFAIK, she hasn't done that, she's just another internet troll.

I mean, look at her blogs comment policy: They all have to be screened by her before their posted, and she weeds out any comments that aren't along the lines of the classic "attaboy!" provided generously by her pseudo-intellectual sycophants.

I wish she'd come to NSG, where she'd be devoured alive.

I wish she'd come to NSG, where she'd be devoured alive.

So far, I haven't seen any devouring of NSG's existing troll problem. Sure, NS belittles them and generally shows every other NSGer what a mental midget they are, but didn't really change anything did it?

It would be much more effective to merely record her trope, and deliver her, and said recording, to the nearest liberal women's movement where they can dispose of her in an orderly fashion.

What really pisses me off about this woman, having read a few of her other entries, is that she's doing exactly the same thing that anti-feminists do - defining womanhood, sex and sexuality in a way that excludes nearly everyone who isn't her.

even worse, i think. she doesn't just have women as oppressed subjects, but as literally powerless objects. they have no power of their own, but are merely the victims of the all-raping patriarchy (most of the time) - even when they think they actually want to be having the heterosexual sex they have. at best she could say they are like children, literally unable to enter into consensual relations, on account of their incapacity to have independent decision-making power, and with any such relations being effectively exploitive and wrong by definition.

even worse, i think. she doesn't just have women as oppressed subjects, but as literally powerless objects. they have no power of their own, but are merely the victims of the all-raping patriarchy (most of the time) - even when they think they actually want to be having the heterosexual sex they have. at best she could say they are like children, literally unable to enter into consensual relations, on account of their incapacity to have independent decision-making power, and with any such relations being effectively exploitive and wrong by definition.

Not to mention that her ideals of feminism are so fragile that they cannot be exposed to dissenting or questioning opinions, or opinions expressed by those dreaded "males", and that she has to moderate every single post that goes on her blog.

Liberal feminism is the pits anyway, I'd say it was Engels who properly paid the groundwork for feminist equality theory. Liberal feminism comes down to whinebagging rants about 'WHY CAN'T WE OWN SWEATSHOPS TOO!!!111'. The 'righteousness' of the feminist position is diluted to nothing when you mix it with an open support of capitalism, a system which exploits everyone the same.

Liberal feminism is the pits anyway, I'd say it was Engels who properly paid the groundwork for feminist equality theory. Liberal feminism comes down to whinebagging rants about 'WHY CAN'T WE OWN SWEATSHOPS TOO!!!111'. The 'righteousness' of the feminist position is diluted to nothing when you mix it with an open support of capitalism, a system which exploits everyone the same.

Dearie, you do realize that she forbids the professing of liberal feminist viewpoints, or capitalist viewpoints of any kind in the commentary of her blogs?

All the same, she would detest you and you're breed of socialism because you're male, and because it was cooked up by males.

man, i wanted to leave a response to that foolishness but the writer has a "friends only" option on, guess she doesn't want people coming on to criticize her ridiculous post.

All the same, she would detest you and you're breed of socialism because you're male, and because it was cooked up by males.
Well, isn't that remarkably irrational and sectarian.

Well, isn't that remarkably irrational and sectarian.

The game is afoot Watson!

Well, isn't that remarkably irrational and sectarian.

They don't like it when we call them irrational. ;)

ROFL x100................. :( / :rolleyes: / :| / :headbang:

Liberal feminism is the pits anyway, I'd say it was Engels who properly paid the groundwork for feminist equality theory. Liberal feminism comes down to whinebagging rants about 'WHY CAN'T WE OWN SWEATSHOPS TOO!!!111'. The 'righteousness' of the feminist position is diluted to nothing when you mix it with an open support of capitalism, a system which exploits everyone the same.

A couple of notes:

1) I am a liberal feminist, and I'm perfectly happy (except for the whole unemployment thing, and that has nothing to do with feminism...).

2) Alecto is not a liberal feminist. She's a radical feminist, who gives women who are actually interested in things like equality and sexual liberation a bad name.

3) You might have more people agreeing with you if you'd quit ranting about the evils of capitalism and ignoring the rampant evils and abuses of communism as applied to countries. Communism only works in small groups where everyone knows what's going on and is free to leave at any time, and even then it's iffy. Applying Marx wholesale to a large group of people is asking for abuse.

A couple of notes:

1) I am a liberal feminist, and I'm perfectly happy (except for the whole unemployment thing, and that has nothing to do with feminism...).

2) Alecto is not a liberal feminist. She's a radical feminist, who gives women who are actually interested in things like equality and sexual liberation a bad name.

3) You might have more people agreeing with you if you'd quit ranting about the evils of capitalism and ignoring the rampant evils and abuses of communism as applied to countries. Communism only works in small groups where everyone knows what's going on and is free to leave at any time, and even then it's iffy. Applying Marx wholesale to a large group of people is asking for abuse.

*sigh* you realise you just ASKED him to explain to you at great length and in exponentially greater verbosity the intricacies of Marxism? That's the LAST thing we need Andaras doing. It's like asking a dog to demonstrate why there is NOTHING wrong with peeing on your brand new capitalist Italian loafers.

*sigh* you realise you just ASKED him to explain to you at great length and in exponentially greater verbosity the intricacies of Marxism? That's the LAST thing we need Andaras doing. It's like asking a dog to demonstrate why there is NOTHING wrong with peeing on your brand new capitalist Italian loafers.

Oh. Crap. :eek: I'm an idiot sometimes, and that tendency is magnified by the vicodin. Which I haven't taken in awhile, and is hitting me like the proverbial ton of bricks. Yeah. Sorry 'bout that.

Oh. Crap. :eek: I'm an idiot sometimes, and that tendency is magnified by the vicodin. Which I haven't taken in awhile, and is hitting me like the proverbial ton of bricks. Yeah. Sorry 'bout that.

Haha, it's ok, I'll forgive you. This time...

Wow...yeah...umm...she reminds me of hard core vegans...if you aren't hard core then you are part of the problem...hmm or christians..the bible thumping variety. My problem is that she is so deep in her own psychosis that everything she views is merely a projection of her own tormented psych that apparently has been fragmented by watching her aunts being abused by a abusive male. It is no wonder that in being powerless she has retreated into the one thing that allows her to feel some modicum of power. Criticizing others from the safety of the internet. I was hoping the Ms Whedon was actually the real Ms Whedon so I could here some fire thrown back at the reviewer. The fact that she doesn't even allow criticism lets us know that she is aware that her review will not stand up to scrutiny.

I have to say, I almost didn't make it past the first paragraph when she started talking about "lesbian feminist sisters" (just because someone has an interest in women, a vagina, and the same politics does not make her your sister, that requires the sharing of at least one parent!) . But I'm glad I read the rest of it, I haven't had a good LOL like that in ages.

Shame she's actually serious, I'd say she does need some serious help to sort out her issues with intimate relationships. Either that or have a number of professors rip her work apart in sociology class (I may be stereotyping, but I'm going to bet that she's a sociology/feminism/social sciences student somewhere).

I have to say, I almost didn't make it past the first paragraph when she started talking about "lesbian feminist sisters" (just because someone has an interest in women, a vagina, and the same politics does not make her your sister, that requires the sharing of at least one parent!)

that's stupid. the expanded uses of familial relations are ancient and widespread - the church uses the idea of 'christian brotherhood' all the time, for example.

that's stupid. the expanded uses of familial relations are ancient and widespread - the church uses the idea of 'christian brotherhood' all the time, for example.

I know, I know all the historical traditions etc... but there is an issue of context. In contexts like this it remains a personal bug-bear of mine, because use of the term does tend to sign-post a particular bread of radical feminist.

I first saw this article in the "Dumbest Thing...." thread and couldn't finish it. I saw this thread and tried to read the article again, and couldn't finish it. I could take the small doses offered by people quoting the article to make a point, and after reading this entire thread I have decided that I am so going to watch Firefly now. I mean, anything that can generate this much controversy with a universal support of the show has got to be good. Thanks all for finally giving me the push I needed to watch it.

P.S. Strangly enough, I'm not being sarcastic. :eek:

Before I start answering the posts I want to answer, I thought it might be a good idea to let everyone know that she's moved to Wordpress and started another article (http://allecto.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/a-rapists-view-of-the-world-our-mrs-reynolds-part-one/) :D

We still might. Joss is in the middle of writing a second comic about Firefly/Serenity set between the series and the movie. He may still write one set AFTER the movie, possibly an extended series like his continuations of Buffy and Angel..He better not! :mad:
It must contain Wash!
Aside from having utterly repellent views that are severely reality-handicapped, the blogger does not even allow comments that don't come from her circle-jerk of sycophants. When I tried to post with my LJ account, it was refused because I am not on her friends list.I saw a couple anonymous comments around there... or did she lock it afterwards?
I wish she'd come to NSG, where she'd be devoured alive.So far, I haven't seen any devouring of NSG's existing troll problem. Sure, NS belittles them and generally shows every other NSGer what a mental midget they are, but didn't really change anything did it?I'm sure that this particular individual would unite otherwise opposed forces of NSG.

I'm sure that this particular individual would unite otherwise opposed forces of NSG.

Pfft. I'm betting that someone will side with her. Just for lulz.

Pfft. I'm betting that someone will side with her. Just for lulz.

Not even Andaras Prime is on the same side as Alecto...who would?

Pfft. I'm betting that someone will side with her. Just for lulz.Yeah, but not a sizable portion of the forum.

I just thought of a positive use for this essay. On the occasions when I get called a feminazi, I now have a handy link to give out in response. (You think I'm a feminazi? Oh please, THIS is a feminazi...)

Not even Andaras Prime is on the same side as Alecto...who would?

Fass?

I just thought of a positive use for this essay. On the occasions when I get called a feminazi, I now have a handy link to give out in response. (You think I'm a feminazi? Oh please, THIS is a feminazi...)

Excellent idea.

I think the person is so wound up in her own agenda, she can't see anything but her own twisted view of the world superimposed over what the rest of us sees -- a show in which all the big damned heroes are flawed and the men come off as bad or worse than the women.

I wonder if it's telling that her username is Alecto, one of the three Furies of Greek mythology.

Edit: *sigh* and THEN I realize that this was nine pages long.

Before I start answering the posts I want to answer, I thought it might be a good idea to let everyone know that she's moved to Wordpress and started another article (http://allecto.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/a-rapists-view-of-the-world-our-mrs-reynolds-part-one/) :D

"...Mr. Whedon is a porn user. And that it is highly likely that his pornography of choice is Hustler, given that he seems to think it funny to trivialise the sexual abuse of children."

*scroll down a bit*

"Here the audience is supposed to notice that there are two sorts of men in the world; good men: Mal, and bad men: Jayne. Me? I see two rapists."

yup, no trivializing there. none at all

Just after reading the first paragraph, my "wanna be pseudo femenist attention whore I see sexism in everything" radar went off.


Because of my awesome radar I have developed, nothing in the following review suprised me

Not even Andaras Prime is on the same side as Alecto...who would?

Oh please. You know that Andaras is on a side of his own. Like Alecto, but with a different ideology.

Yeah, but not a sizable portion of the forum.

Do trolls need sizable support? They're like a combination of cockroaches and guerrilla groups. Hard to wipe out, can count on sporadic support from the general populace, persistant, impervious to conventional tactics like reason and logic.

My problem is that she is so deep in her own psychosis that everything she views is merely a projection of her own tormented psych that apparently has been fragmented by watching her aunts being abused by a abusive male.

:eek:
Sometimes a cigar is just ... gonna get used in a taxpayer-funded farce.
:(

I first saw this article in the "Dumbest Thing...." thread and couldn't finish it. I saw this thread and tried to read the article again, and couldn't finish it. I could take the small doses offered by people quoting the article to make a point, and after reading this entire thread I have decided that I am so going to watch Firefly now. I mean, anything that can generate this much controversy with a universal support of the show has got to be good. Thanks all for finally giving me the push I needed to watch it.

P.S. Strangly enough, I'm not being sarcastic. :eek:

You will SO not regret it. It's a show that sadly was canceled far too soon.

Annnnd.... her new blog accepts submissions. Of course, they have to be vetted before they're posted, but maybe you wanna take the chance.

I just thought of a positive use for this essay. On the occasions when I get called a feminazi, I now have a handy link to give out in response. (You think I'm a feminazi? Oh please, THIS is a feminazi...)

She's not really a feminazi. Just someone who's internalized her own victimhood and projected it onto all women, while internalizing the patriarchal image of the man as conqueror and projecting that onto men in general.

It's sad, mostly. I hope she works out the issues generated by past events in her life.

It's sad, mostly. I hope she works out the issues generated by past events in her life.

Somehow, barring a long list of unlikely events, I just can't see that happening.

I first saw this article in the "Dumbest Thing...." thread and couldn't finish it. I saw this thread and tried to read the article again, and couldn't finish it. I could take the small doses offered by people quoting the article to make a point, and after reading this entire thread I have decided that I am so going to watch Firefly now. I mean, anything that can generate this much controversy with a universal support of the show has got to be good. Thanks all for finally giving me the push I needed to watch it.

P.S. Strangly enough, I'm not being sarcastic. :eek:

Like Katganistan said, you truly will not regret this. This is a show which, despite all its glory, was simply not given the proper time to shine, and as such never quite broke into the public conciousness. I feel that, if we get even a single new person to watch this show, then this "review" has actually had a beneficial contribution to the universe, since it's only by spreading the show that it has any hpe of survival (No, I don't think it'll ever come back on the air, but there's always hope for continued comic releases and, possibly, maybe a "Next Generation" in a few years. Of course, I might have mixed feelings about that).

Just make sure you watch the episodes in their intended order, not the order FOX broadcast them. It makes a world of difference.

You will SO not regret it. It's a show that sadly was canceled far too soon.

Annnnd.... her new blog accepts submissions. Of course, they have to be vetted before they're posted, but maybe you wanna take the chance.Actually, considering the abuse she reported to have received (and which I can certainly see having been directed at her), I can see why she screens what gets posted.

Actually, considering the abuse she reported to have received (and which I can certainly see having been directed at her), I can see why she screens what gets posted.

I can't understand why males in general, females who have a brain and choose not to be helpless victims, persons in heterosexual relationships, persons in interracial relationships, or persons who object to other persons being accused of pedophilia, rape, and all sorts of other things without any proof whatsoever, might react that way.

I can't understand why males in general, females who have a brain and choose not to be helpless victims, persons in heterosexual relationships, persons in interracial relationships, or persons who object to other persons being accused of pedophilia, rape, and all sorts of other things without any proof whatsoever, might react that way.

Because of a persecution complex that can only be salved by stifling any attempts at debunking it?

I got as far as 'lesbian feminist sister' before my eyes rolled so hard that I couldnt read the rest.

She's not really a feminazi. Just someone who's internalized her own victimhood and projected it onto all women, while internalizing the patriarchal image of the man as conqueror and projecting that onto men in general.

It's sad, mostly. I hope she works out the issues generated by past events in her life.

yeah, though unfortunately her expression of those projections, made public, will tend to create some very strong confirmations of the view. some people are complaining about her commenting policy, and the complaint makes sense. but let me assure you that even normal feminist blogging on the internet brings out the utter dregs of society. it would not surprise me in the slightest if she has been getting numerous comments and emails wishing (or even promising) actual rape on her, for example.

I can't understand why males in general, females who have a brain and choose not to be helpless victims, persons in heterosexual relationships, persons in interracial relationships, or persons who object to other persons being accused of pedophilia, rape, and all sorts of other things without any proof whatsoever, might react that way.In the second one she mentions that she's been getting messages telling her to go kill herself. That's what I'm referring to.

I think I can sum up that "review" with one sentence. "How dare Joss Whedon be born with a penis!"

According to the production notes, the ending of 'Serenity', while Joss meant the conversation about "her being ready to fly" was supposed to mean the ship, the two actors, however, twisted it to mean Zoe over the loss of Wash.


Really? Since the way I remember it from the DVD extras, it was that the dialog was supposed to have a double meaning but it was Mal's actor who wouldn't get it, before Zoe's actor asked "This is about me, right?" and Joss said yeah, and Mal's actor was like "Oh really? I got no idea!" Maybe I should check... I bought the DVD weeks ago but I haven't taken the plastic wrapper off. Knowing that it's there when I need it is enough for me.

Sekosiili is right, Joss meant the final conversation to relate to Zoe, since it was his belief that there had yet to be a scene showing her deal with Wash's death. Nathan Fillion had no clue what it was about, and after the scene was shot was completely surprised to learn that it wasn't just about Serenity.

Actually, considering the abuse she reported to have received (and which I can certainly see having been directed at her), I can see why she screens what gets posted.

Yeah, feminism on teh intrawebs tends to bring out the asshats. In droves.

EDIT: But asshattery isn't an excuse for not allowing anything but positive comments. If she's interested in sincere debate, (which, by every indication, she is not) she needs to actually, you know, allow debate in a place where she can comment.

Sekosiili is right, Joss meant the final conversation to relate to Zoe, since it was his belief that there had yet to be a scene showing her deal with Wash's death. Nathan Fillion had no clue what it was about, and after the scene was shot was completely surprised to learn that it wasn't just about Serenity.

I totally got the double meaning. And it kinda made me cry. Poor Wash. He was my favorite, with the loud shirts and dinosaurs.

I totally got the double meaning. And it kinda made me cry. Poor Wash. He was my favorite, with the loud shirts and dinosaurs.

Plus Alan Tudyk's the man. He allegedly through a "We're not working for FOX anymore" party after the show's cancellation.

Hah allow me to post the words of a feminst friend who I emailed the link to today.

'so following a few links I discover this, at her blogger blog:

I do not believe that sex and rape exist as discrete concepts or acts in this hetero-patriarchal, male-supremacist culture.

So, basically, she thinks all heterosexual sex is rape... Or, to put it another way, she's FUCKING BATSHIT MENTAL'

yeah, though unfortunately her expression of those projections, made public, will tend to create some very strong confirmations of the view. some people are complaining about her commenting policy, and the complaint makes sense. but let me assure you that even normal feminist blogging on the internet brings out the utter dregs of society. it would not surprise me in the slightest if she has been getting numerous comments and emails wishing (or even promising) actual rape on her, for example.

At that, though, she could easily apply a sensible moderators policy, such as what is expressed on NSG, rather than squelching all opposing opinions. Vulgarity and threats are easily weeded out from legitimate discussion.

She treats her blog as a reinforcing site, cheerleading, really, rather than a place for education and discussion.