Something interesting happened while I was busy, though. I discovered someone was talking about me. Several someones in fact. The bits I found interesting:
Right, completely unrelated dumbass....did you miss the participation in each tale by Greg Laden and Stephanie Zvan? The point, for the slow types, is their hilariously self-serving hypocrisy. Such arbitrary standards of conduct make it clear they don't believe a damn bit of their structural and linguistic critique. It is being deployed disingenuously and need never be taken seriously as an argument.
What it is ABOUT is that THESE SAME PEOPLE (Greg and Stephanie Z. particularly, but there are others too) who are now reveling and celebrating their meanness in this episode were, just barely a week before this hit the tubes, finger-wagging and attacking Zuska and Isis for being ZOMG SO MEEN to GMP, and calling them "internet bullies" and suggesting that feminist bloggers should be nice or STFU.
THAT's what it's about. What sockmaster did was douchy and reprehensible, and no one is objecting him taken down or being taken to task. However, when some of THESE SAME PEOPLE judge and attack Zuska and Isis for being less than sweet to someone whose thoughtless casual racism had actual effects IN REAL LIFE, it is what's called "hypocrisy".
Interesting, of course, because, um...WTF? So I asked for specifics of said hypocrisy. The responses? DeviantOne decided that these two statements were incompatible:
Yes, social interaction is really a sporting competition, that kid who dared to go up to the jock table at lunch had it coming, people should really have something better to do than think about people's feelings, nobody down the totem pole a bit ever has any power over those further down, and the popular kids have a responsibility to show everyone else how they don't measure up to local, temporary standards. Did I miss anything?
No, I really don't miss junior high school.
Oedipus, thanks for the zip file. I really wanted those comments from the puppets to hang around. There's a certain argument to be made that we are the people we act like when we think no one's looking, and I think people ought to know who they're offering support to when they tell YNH to keep blogging.
And skeptifem pointed at a thread where she claimed I both objected to being called Greg's sidekick (as a belittling gendered insult) and defended Greg calling someone a bitch. Of course, what I actually did was agree with someone who objected to a third party (not Greg) calling someone a bitch.
She also, as far as I can tell, seems to think that if I suggest that some defenses of uses of power happen at a junior high reasoning level (power has an on/off switch, someone asking a favor of a person with more power deserves whatever they get) and I suggest that efforts to reduce your effective power when disagreeing with someone isn't typical high school bullying behavior, I'm a hypocrite because both conversations involve school references.
Since that point, the hypocrisy discussion has basically dried up in favor of talking about how bad my writing is (and, of course, the obligatory "this woman I'm disagreeing with must actually be controlled by a guy" moment). So, what do you think? About me, that is--I'm not looking for another round of "So and so's a creep." Whether you think it applies in this situation or not, Zuska has a point about gendered standards for behavior.
Today's question: Am I being hypocritical in the stances I've actually taken in this (as opposed to those taken by someone in the same thread I've been in? And if I am, where specifically does this hypocrisy lie?