<<"That’s why it’s a clear, structural analogy." Yes, but that threat carries a lot of weight, in that it’s a threat on not just anyone’s life, which is wrong in itself, but the king’s, which is extra-wrong, and why the peasant would be hanged, instead of just scolded. So while it may be analagous, the reason it’s bad…

Sure thing. I don’t think I’d have time to do anything usefully resembling a lit search in the next week — vacation! — but if you want to take it up down the line, I’m game. If you can’t wait, let me know what you turn up. You might look into what members of the American Men’s Studies Association have been publishing…

<<The real question to ask is whether these “performative acts’ are working in the long term best interests of feminism, or if they are misguided attempts at activism that assume the general public has a baseline competency in gender theory.>>

<<A peasant who said that to a king would’ve been immediately hanged.>>

If I say A, and you replace it with B, and then I say, well, I didn’t say B, we’re only diverging. I’m not being obstinate or evasive; you’re being unclear. I’m telling you this without rancor. If you’d actually like to engage, you’ve got to cool off, stop replace my words and notions with other (perhaps even similar)…

Your saying such a thing seems like a kind of dodge. I thought we agreed that conversational evasion is a kind of intellectual cowardice?

You happen to be wrong in several ways but I don’t believe you’re replying in good will, so I won’t take the time to respond to all that you write. I will mention that I believe men suffer under patriarchy as well as women; perhaps that’s a point of agreement to go forward from.

<<Your cowardice is appropriate for your station as a male feminist.>>
“Men Are Trash.”

Let’s say I recognize the flag you’re flying.

Do unto others as I’d hope they do for me: support actions and utterances which provide empowerment against the pressure gradient of structural inequality. Implore me to discard unhealthy ideas of self-seriousness. Invite me to identify with my actions as an individual and not my status as a member of a privileged…

And go do what, preach to the choir? This conversation is happening where it needs to be happening.

Hey, at least you’re consistent.

Your comment is not the way to demonstrate that men are not trash, if that is a demonstration you think called for.

<<<Playing at ignorance when challenged is one of the more intellectually cowardly things to do.>>

<<But don’t give me this sob story about how its ok for one to do it and not the other...>>

Clearly you could not possibly be guilty of any of the sorts of behaviors — deception, self-aggrandizement, aggression, self-justification, and so on — which are called out in the phrase “Men Are Trash.” Your hands, sir, are clean. Please convey my apologies and fond regards to your fellow members of the Patriarchy…

<<Right... I’m on the side where there are substantive differences between saying something like “some men are trash” and “men are trash”.>>

My reply to Paucity’s comment would be to observe that there isn’t any reason to believe that all morally permissible, let alone morally urgent, performative utterances can be deployed without harm. In theory, there are some sorts of harm which should not impede morally permissible actions — for example, the…

<<You seem to be, perhaps ironically, failing to recognize the context of a discussion thread on a gadget blog in your vehement claim that the probable interpretations of a statement are irrelevant to their use (laughable claim). None of us our submitting our dissertation to you for review and it’s extraordinarily…

<<Yes, I am. You can’t have it both ways. If you censor hate speech, you can’t play favorites.>>