Why did we treat this FPP differently? April 3, 2012 5:27 PM   Subscribe

A positive callout.

Just wanted to say that this post (on "how to be a fan of problematic things") and related discussion have been topnotch and reaffirming. I have been a bit disenchanted by the tenor of some (mostly political) discussion on MeFi lately, but this thread struck me as particularly intelligent, by and large respectful, involved a good bit of good-faith back and forth discussion, and actually made me think about some difficult issues.* Kudos MetaFilter! Y'all, you guys're alright.

*I recognize it may be just that I've been reading the wrong threads and conversation has mostly been at this level throughout, but this still seemed worth a gold star.
posted by dixiecupdrinking to MetaFilter-Related at 5:27 PM (73 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

Besides the built in derail this meta's great and so was the fpp it refers to.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:01 PM on April 3, 2012


Hah, just trying to be fair/anticipate objections, but I see your point.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 6:04 PM on April 3, 2012


I am a fan of this thread, even though it is problematic.
posted by crunchland at 6:08 PM on April 3, 2012


Hey no problem dixiecupdrinking, glad to help out. Just keep shovels and a tarp in your own trunk in the future, ok?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:17 PM on April 3, 2012


Ah I didn't catch the title the first time around...not so much of a built in derail then. So are you giving a positive call out, wanting to have the discussion indicated in the title, or both?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:38 PM on April 3, 2012


I agree - it's nice that people are being collegiate in that thread. Yay us!
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:39 PM on April 3, 2012


AEifwine – just a cheeky reference to the MeTa post a couple days back. I am being completely sincere in my positive feedback.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 6:40 PM on April 3, 2012


I recognize it may be just that I've been reading the wrong threads and conversation has mostly been at this level throughout

Well, sorta both, maybe. I mean you're probably never going to find much awesome conversation in contentious political threads (until they're like 20 days old and the only people left are the ones who actually know what they're talking about, unlike the rest of us) but the thread you link to is a particularly great one.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:50 PM on April 3, 2012


I'd just like to point out that I can't hear the word "problematic' anymore without thinking of Horace Rumpole's comment here.
posted by maryr at 7:40 PM on April 3, 2012 [2 favorites]


It looks like it was a fine discussion and I think there are many more like that on MeFi regularly.
posted by Miko at 7:45 PM on April 3, 2012


Yeah, that discussion made me smile.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:05 PM on April 3, 2012


Gosh!

And skimming the thread sort of put my hackles up because of the amount of "oh I see you care about a thing, I thought I'd drop in to let you know that I most certainly do not, hrrrrrumph!"

Perhaps I've been on twitter too much today.
posted by kavasa at 9:16 PM on April 3, 2012 [2 favorites]


It made me happy that I don't find things problematic.
posted by planet at 11:15 PM on April 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

It made me happy that I don't find things problematic.
See? Stuff like this. Are people under the mistaken apprehension that this is somehow witty? That anyone is enriched by them going "I definitely do not care about this"? If you're that indifferent, wouldn't it be easier to just not type the comment out?

Mystifying.
posted by kavasa at 11:41 PM on April 3, 2012 [6 favorites]


It made me happy that I don't find things problematic.
posted by planet at 2:15 AM on April 4 [+] [!]


Your first name is Pluto, isn't it?
posted by dirigibleman at 12:06 AM on April 4, 2012


We should just make a point of flagging any comment that boils down to "I don't care about this subject, and find it ridiculous that you do" on the blue. They're disruptive in any thread, but seem to be especially pernicious in threads that concern things that upset or offend people who have any history of oppression. Apparently, it's very in vogue to accuse these people of being oversensitive crybabies who are just out to ruin everybody else's fun, and this really doesn't make for good discussion. In fact, it seems designed to shut complainers up.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:19 AM on April 4, 2012 [7 favorites]


I missed that thread, but reading it now I find it super disappointing and alienating, actually.

From

this was just another haranguing about how "your X is bad and you should acknowledge that liking it makes people you care about feel bad"

which, to be fair, is merely dismissive of the consequences of bigoted media to anonymous, allegedly cared-about human targets of social injustice, to

...and if your entire day is being ruined by racist shows, I would wonder how often this is happening. If it's happening more than once every year or so, then I think you are probably one of those people who mentally checks everything that is said or written for proper political correctness. And if that's the case, then you should know better than to watch TV in the first place! Just turn away when you get offended. If you're constantly exposing yourself to objectionable material, in addition to being oversensitive, you're obviously looking for reasons to be angry. And if all of that is the case, I can see why you wouldn't understand how following someone's favorite show with a round table discussion of race might be considered obnoxious and self-righteous.

which is actively rude to another person in the discussion on top of all that, I thought quite a lot of that thread was not a bit respectful. However, god bless Frowner for their comment here. Anyway, I think Metafilter regularly does better than this.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 12:44 AM on April 4, 2012 [5 favorites]


Apparently, it's very in vogue to accuse these people of being oversensitive crybabies who are just out to ruin everybody else's fun,
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:19 AM on April 4


Maybe, but that might be because oversensitive crybabyness is in vogue .I certainly see a quite alarming amount of it on this site, sometimes to the extent that I wonder how certain Mefites manage to cope with life at all, without being in a permannt state of weepy, hand-wringing distress. There are some good points to be made about giving and receiving offence but sometimes people really are just being oversensitive crybabies, and it is hardly surprising that they get called out for it or even, oh horror, have the piss taken out of them a bit.
posted by Decani at 12:54 AM on April 4, 2012 [5 favorites]


Well, this is a public bus and people who are different from you are going to ride on it. Some people want others to toughen up, some people want others to be more sensitive. Realistically, neither of those things are going to happen to the complete satisfaction of all parties, so exercising a certain amount of tolerance and resisting the impulse to bait your philosophical opponent (for either the lulz or the righteous outrage factor) would be a rational line to take.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:14 AM on April 4, 2012 [7 favorites]


Ah, The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down. I love that movie.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 2:16 AM on April 4, 2012 [4 favorites]


Good old MeFi, you know a thread that begins as 'a positive callout' is a guaranteed bunfight.
posted by Abiezer at 2:43 AM on April 4, 2012


Well, this is a public bus...

Just like in that movie, Speed.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:09 AM on April 4, 2012


Just like a bop, bringing a bus to a bunfight.
posted by SpiffyRob at 4:30 AM on April 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


I never thought I'd say this, but I'm with Decani. I also had some problems with the basic idea of the thread and I stand by my comment in it.
posted by jonmc at 5:22 AM on April 4, 2012


two or three cars parked under the stars: "

this was just another haranguing about how "your X is bad and you should acknowledge that liking it makes people you care about feel bad"

which, to be fair, is merely dismissive of the consequences of bigoted media to anonymous, allegedly cared-about human targets of social injustice
"

as the poster of this comment you called out, I must agree that it is dismissive of the consequences of bigoted media. However, you took it out of context, in a way that neither surprises me nor upsets me. I'm sorry that the things I am working through - i.e. constantly feeling ashamed of myself because the things I like don't live up to my liberal standards of equality and enlightened thinking. I'll go back to feeling bad about myself now, because only by doing so can I help the human targets of social injustice.
posted by rebent at 5:30 AM on April 4, 2012


Wait, I have an important question.

....What kind of buns are involved in a bunfight? This kind? Or this one?

Actually, fighting using this kind of buns would be kind of awesome.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:26 AM on April 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


Q: What do you get if you pour boiling water down a rabbit hole?
A: Hot cross buns.
posted by zamboni at 6:51 AM on April 4, 2012 [2 favorites]


Yeah, add me to the list of people not impressed with that thread. I bailed on it for a while because I was watching it turn into a laundry list of exactly the behaviors the link in the original post was meant to discourage. It looks like the thread has gotten a bit better, but I was surprised to see it as the subject of a positive callout and backpatting.

(And I would not have thought of myself as particularly sensitive to SJ concerns, either.)
posted by immlass at 7:03 AM on April 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


Maybe, but that might be because oversensitive crybabyness is in vogue .I certainly see a quite alarming amount of it on this site, sometimes to the extent that I wonder how certain Mefites manage to cope with life at all, without being in a permannt state of weepy, hand-wringing distress.

Dude, do you ever see the irony in your input to MetaFilter being largely weepy, hand-wringing lamentations about how sensitive everyone else on MetaFilter is, and how their refusal to toughen up is making your life a vale of tears? It's like reading Richard Littlejohn's teenaged poetry sometimes...
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:20 AM on April 4, 2012 [3 favorites]


don't bring a croissant to a bunfight
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 7:32 AM on April 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


How about a hoagie roll?
posted by jonmc at 7:33 AM on April 4, 2012


A bunfight is actually a party, but young people who know no better generally now use the word to mean an actual fight.
posted by Segundus at 7:52 AM on April 4, 2012


I assumed it was this kind of buns.

Yes, I have that bookmarked just for you, Metafilter.
posted by maryr at 8:17 AM on April 4, 2012


...but I'm with Decani.

That would make an excellent sitcom.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:25 AM on April 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


I certainly see a quite alarming amount of it on this site, sometimes to the extent that I wonder how certain Mefites manage to cope with life at all, without being in a permannt state of weepy, hand-wringing distress.

It seems to me that what you're saying is that "a quite alarming amount" of folks on MetaFilter tend to take the position of "oversensitive crybaby" (to use your words) as their default response to anything and everything even mildly objectionable, which is disingenuous because, come on, nobody is that offended all the time in real life, otherwise how would they "manage to cope"? After all, being oversensitive is cool, so when someone is reacting negatively to something that you or I (for example) view as merely "taking the piss", well, gosh, they're just being oversensitive! And for cool points, no doubt.

I bet I probably agree with you more often than not in situations like that but isn't it also just a bit disingenous and dismissive on our part to paint objections in this way? In other words, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution and ask ourselves, maybe I am being insensitive here, even though my gut reaction is that the other person is being a crybaby?

MetaFilter is, ultimately, an open canvas bathed in the power of anonymity. We can use that power to inflate our egos and harden our intellectual biases, or we could use that power to lower our defenses, exercises and self-doubt and reflection, admit to being wrong or to simply not having all the facts. Seems to me that greater progress is made with the latter approach.

Or perhaps I need to stop wringing my hands.
posted by Doleful Creature at 9:06 AM on April 4, 2012 [2 favorites]


Proof-read fail, should have read: or we could use that power to lower our defenses, exercise some self-doubt and reflection, and admit to being wrong or to simply not having all the facts.
posted by Doleful Creature at 9:08 AM on April 4, 2012


I am problematic even though I'm a fan.
posted by TooFewShoes at 9:18 AM on April 4, 2012



Apparently, it's very in vogue to accuse these people of being oversensitive crybabies who are just out to ruin everybody else's fun


The theme of the piece was telling people how they can have fun and not dismiss works of fiction outright because of their sensitivity to elements of the story. Because apparently that's a thing that people do. And it starts by saying that you have to acknowledge peoples' objections to a given work as valid as a first step. That's kind of a big first step in some cases; there exists the possibility that someone is, you know, wrong about something sometimes. It can be frustrating that the response to someone who disagrees is "why are you commenting if you hate it so much?" or "Sigh, I thought we solved this already! Here's the 'backpack' link and that old MeTa." If you want everyone in the thread to be of the same opinion about the linked article, maybe there should just be no comments at all and we should just let the thing stand on its own merits.

Besides, telling a fan of, say, the Scott Pilgrim vs the World movie that "yeah, it's fine that you enjoy that racist movie; I don't, though, because you gotta admit it's racist stamped it no erasies, and as someone who totally hates racism I can't get past it. It's nothing about you, personally, that you have no problem with this inherently racist and problematic movie, it's just my thing" is not a good jump-off for a conversation either.
posted by Hoopo at 9:20 AM on April 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


Nobody said that in either the thread or the original article.

I would argue that snide paraphrases that are simply meant to mock the other person's position are probably not all that marvelous a jump-off for conversation.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 9:24 AM on April 4, 2012 [2 favorites]


@segundus

by the time you get the croissants there, they'll be cold and dried out and no good to anyone
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 9:40 AM on April 4, 2012


Actually, fighting using this kind of buns would be kind of awesome.
posted by EmpressCallipygos


I can't figure out if this gets an "I see what you did there." or an "Eponysterical!".
posted by benito.strauss at 9:51 AM on April 4, 2012


A positive callout.

We call those callins.
posted by Eideteker at 10:03 AM on April 4, 2012


Once upon a time they were "shout outs". But once upon a time people did "shout outs" a lot at meetups too. Both seem to have decayed over the years.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:05 AM on April 4, 2012


How is this FPP different from all the other FPPs? You're a few days early on that one, aren't you?
posted by spaceman_spiff at 10:07 AM on April 4, 2012 [3 favorites]


I would argue that snide paraphrases that are simply meant to mock the other person's position are probably not all that marvelous a jump-off for conversation.

Like this?

"I don't care about this subject, and find it ridiculous that you do"
posted by Hoopo at 10:19 AM on April 4, 2012


My phrasing of it is actually less snide than some of the comments in the thread.

But, okay, I also paraphrased. Mea culpa. Now that that's out of the way, can we address your paraphrase, which transforms the point of the article -- which is that if, as a reader, you find something problematic in art, you can nonetheless still enjoy the art, allowing for an awareness of that problem? In your recasting of it, the original article is making a childish assertion (which I think was the point of "stamped no erases"), and then insisting everybody else agree that the piece is absolutely and essentially racist (not that there may be elements of it that unconsciously reflect racism, or even that this may be the reader's own interpretation of the piece), and that people must then accept that point of view and enjoy art in this very proscribed way.

Your paraphrase was a dramatic recasting of the original point. I can understand if it was an honest misinterpretation, but this is the problem with paraphrasing. You're not addressing the actual argument, but instead the one you have rewritten.

I shall henceforth try not to put into quotation marks anything that is not actually said by somebody else. Will you make the same effort?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 10:39 AM on April 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


Your paraphrase was a dramatic recasting of the original point.

I don't really think it was:

"Firstly, acknowledge that the thing you like is problematic and do not attempt to make excuses for it."

From the article:

"one of my best friends won’t watch HBO’s Game of Thrones because of the racism and misogyny. That’s a completely legitimate and valid response to that tv show, and me trying to convince her to give it another shot would be disrespectful and hurtful. If you badger others to see what you see in something when they are telling you it’s not enjoyable for them, you’re being an entitled jerk. You’re showing yourself to be willing to hurt a real person over a television show."

In the context of a metafilter thread about Game of Thrones or LoTR or Scott Pilgrim, then, is disagreeing with someone's assessment of the show's sexism and racism, or explaining why it's still worth watching also "disrespectful and hurtful"? If the approach described in the article is to be followed, what is the use of a Mefite bringing up that it's sexist or racist in such a thread, then, other than to end the conversation and tell people that if they respond to the comment or disagree they're being "entitled jerks"?

I shall henceforth try not to put into quotation marks anything that is not actually said by somebody else. Will you make the same effort?

Realistically, probably not. It's even in the linked article, as a fairly major piece of the argument:

"acknowledge that the thing you like is problematic and do not attempt to make excuses for it. It is a unique irritation to encounter a person who point blank refuses to admit that something they like is problematic. Infuriatingly, people will often actually articulate some version of the argument “It can’t be problematic because I like it, and I’m nice”. Alternatively, some fans may find it tempting to argue “Well this media is a realistic portrayal of societies like X, Y, Z”. But when you say that sexism and racism and heterosexism and cissexism have to be in the narrative or the story won’t be realistic, what you are saying is that we humans literally cannot recognise ourselves without systemic prejudice, nor can we connect to characters who are not unrepentant bigots."

And we're into making caricatures of responses theoretical people might have. The whole thing is really condescending.
posted by Hoopo at 11:09 AM on April 4, 2012


Well, you know, you're always free to ignore advice you don't like. Especially when the advice is not directed at you. I have to say I'm really puzzled by the responses here.

If the essay says you can enjoy a piece of art, even if you find it problematic, and you don't find the piece of art problematic, maybe the article isn't talking to you? And maybe you don't need to parse for for every sentence that sounds somehow prescriptivist and decide the whole thing is somehow condescending to you?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 11:20 AM on April 4, 2012


And maybe you don't need to parse for for every sentence that sounds somehow prescriptivist and decide the whole thing is somehow condescending to you?

Dude: it's the first item on a list, and it's in fucking bold. It's not like I'm cherry picking here.
posted by Hoopo at 11:29 AM on April 4, 2012


Well, seeing as the list starts two paragraphs into the article, and is followed by 400 additional words directly relating to the point, I'd say you've removed a lot of context.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 11:39 AM on April 4, 2012


It's a little annoying that you're saying the advice is not directed at me, as if I'm incapable of seeing any racism or sexism in GoT or LoTR. I'm disagreeing with some of the author's suggestions and the assumptions she is making to illustrate some of her points. I'm not sure why I should reproduce the entire article and not just the specific points I'm disagreeing with.
posted by Hoopo at 11:51 AM on April 4, 2012


I am only a casual lurker here so perhaps I've missed some recent conversations on social justice, but that thread looked pretty much the same as previous similar threads on MeFi. Instead of actually discussing the subject, it's a conversation about whether the subject even deserves to be talked about.
posted by jess at 11:58 AM on April 4, 2012 [3 favorites]


It's a little annoying that you're saying the advice is not directed at me, as if I'm incapable of seeing any racism or sexism in GoT or LoTR.

Well, I guess my question then is if you see racism or sexism in GoT and LoTR, then how do you respond to this? The piece offers some advice, and that advice is to acknowledge the elements of the piece of art that you find problematic, but feel comfortable that you can enjoy it anyway without having to pretend these problematic elements don't exist, or feeling guilty about enjoying the piece of art.

This seems like good advice. If you don't like it, you certainly don't have to take it. Do you have other suggestions for how to address this? I mean, this is a website that explicitly addresses itself to people in the world of fandom who are also concerned with questions of social justice, and sometimes feel those two concerns come into conflict with each other. What advice would you give them that differs from this?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:03 PM on April 4, 2012


bun fight!
posted by Lynsey at 12:20 PM on April 4, 2012


Hoopo, I understand what you're saying, but I don't interpret this the same way you do. Accepting someone else's reaction to something as "valid" or "legitimate" is not the same agreeing with it or accepting their interpretation as true. I think a lot of the issue here is is the ambiguity of the words "valid" and "legitimate". You can accept that it's legitimate for a person to have an opinion that's different from yours, and thus that it's a "legitimate opinion", without agreeing with it.

There's a difference between a conversation that goes "I have a problem with author A because of their attitude about X" − "You're a pearl-clutching crybaby, and you need to get over yourself" and a conversation that goes "I have a problem with author A because of their attitude about X" − "I'm not interpreting this the same way you are at all. Where are you getting this?" I think the author is arguing that we should try to opt for the latter type of conversation, and sometimes just accept that people's responses are different.

I'm not claiming to be the true voice of the author or anything here, but that's my take on it.


It's also worth noting that this conversation is an example of what we're talking about. You found the article problematic and offensive. (You thought it was condescending). I understand your objection, and I think your reaction is "legitimate", but I disagree with your interpretation of article.
posted by nangar at 12:46 PM on April 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


Actually, nangar, I think you make a better argument than the author of the subject article itself did. If it were meant that way, I wish they'd been more clear about it. Because I took it like Hoopo did, and was annoyed by it, but your paraphrase is something I actually agree with.
posted by tyllwin at 6:15 PM on April 4, 2012


I wonder why we're having this conversation. It feels to me like this awakening of social awareness is heavily on the rise. I see it among my peers, and online. Is this a new concept? Did we not hash this all out and come up with a solution back int he '70s? I'm only 26, it's true, so I don't know what happened back then.
posted by rebent at 7:55 AM on April 5, 2012


No, I just think many people wake up to social awareness in their 20s.
posted by Miko at 8:01 AM on April 5, 2012


don't bring a croissant to a bunfight

or people will think you are a creampuff ?
posted by y2karl at 1:26 PM on April 5, 2012


I resemble that Bismarck.
posted by Miko at 2:16 PM on April 5, 2012


Just make sure to wear your gang crullers.
posted by jonmc at 4:54 PM on April 5, 2012


No, I just think many people wake up to social awareness in their 20s.


Oooooooh, was this whole thing directed at 20-year-olds?
posted by Hoopo at 4:59 PM on April 5, 2012


Whenever I start to be annoyed that people are telling me how to like things, I remember how badly I ruined the latest Star Trek movie for all my friends by moaning audibly during anything related to science.

Funny how the "Just Let Me Enjoy My Things" fans are often also the "THIS WORK IS TERRIBLE BECAUSE OF BAD SCIENCE/PLOT HOLES/PRODUCTION CHOICES" ones instead. When really boorish sexism or condescending racism are just as much a sign of poor quality world-creation as anything else.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:57 AM on April 6, 2012 [4 favorites]


Speak softly and carry a loaf of French bread.
posted by y2karl at 9:17 AM on April 6, 2012


When really boorish sexism or condescending racism are just as much a sign of poor quality world-creation as anything else

Word. I reserve the right to bitch about racism and sexism and the new Star Trek movie.

The thing that is annoying is when people are not able to acknowledge the difference between the depiction of rape and the exploitative depiction of rape / rape offered up because someone doesn't know how to write female character development. Or claiming that racism and the depiction of racism in a plot are indistinguishable. Like, that some racist sci-fi pabulum has the same level of racial awareness as Do the Right Thing, just because they both "contain" racism. I don't think "social justice warriors" think that Do the Right Thing is offensive or should be banned.

(Also, the idea that anyone feels as judged by Rush Limbaugh as they do a Women's Studies professor makes me feel pretty sad.)
posted by stoneandstar at 12:47 PM on April 6, 2012


Rush Limbaugh is many orders of magnitude more influential and famous than any single women's studies professor I have ever heard of.
posted by Miko at 8:06 PM on April 6, 2012


(Also, the idea that anyone feels as judged by Rush Limbaugh as they do a Women's Studies professor makes me feel pretty sad.)

I think I'm the one who mentioned them in the same breath. Typically, stoneandstar, I view them both as opposite ends of a spectrum. Either, I think, would judge me as lacking, and and I'm largely untroubled by that.
posted by tyllwin at 11:07 PM on April 6, 2012


What spectrum would they be two ends of?
posted by Miko at 6:09 AM on April 7, 2012


Let me tread carefully because I'm concerned that you may think I view them as equivalent, which I don't. Also that when I said "Women's Studies professors" I probably should have said "writers on women's issues."

A spectrum of sensitivity to what I'll loosely term "feminist issues," in this case related to art and the media. Limbaugh is actively and contemptuously dismissive. Any concern at all for how half the species is treated gets called "feminazi" crap worthy only of mockery.

On the other end, it strikes me that Women's Studies professors (at least in print), or someone similarly engaged in daily consideration of the problem, become hypersensitive, like a wine expert who complains of flaws that I will never taste.

I don't view them as equivalent, because I think Limbaugh acts out of bad faith and is right about 5 percent of the time, while the other side (so to speak) acts in good faith and is right ten times as often.
posted by tyllwin at 8:47 AM on April 7, 2012


That anyone is enriched by them going "I definitely do not care about this"? If you're that indifferent, wouldn't it be easier to just not type the comment out?
That's not what I said, though. I do care that I don't find things problematic -- it makes me happy. That's what I said.

I generally don't challenge people who are whining about something being problematic, or make a point of saying that I don't find it problematic. But in a meta thread like this, I don't feel at all bad about celebrating being a person who doesn't find things problematic.
posted by planet at 12:20 PM on April 7, 2012


On the other end, it strikes me that Women's Studies professors (at least in print), or someone similarly engaged in daily consideration of the problem, become hypersensitive, like a wine expert who complains of flaws that I will never taste.


Do you have examples of Women's Studies professors being hypersensitive? I think we can all think of examples of Limbaugh-isms, but this feels like a less publicized set of responses - what did you have in mind as exemplifying this hypersensitivity?

(Not very familiar with Women's Studies academia...)
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:09 PM on April 7, 2012


Yeah, I'm at a loss there too. Would like to see examples of hypersensitivity. Problematic might be a definition of "hypersensitive" that's something like "more sensitive than I am."
posted by Miko at 8:38 PM on April 7, 2012


I think upon reflection, that you're probably right there, and "hypersensitive" means little more than "noticeably more sensitive than me." Clearly I made an error in trying to put a face on people on the less sensitive side of me, and the more sensitive side. Really, when I say "Rush Limbaugh" I'm certainly blurring the little of Rush Limbaugh that I've actually heard with the opinions of acquaintances that listen more regularly and repeat his views. And in referencing Women's Studies, I'm probably actually envisioning various "diversity" speakers and programs who off-handed reference them. So, I shouldn't have invoked those specific people, and should have more strictly said "Whatever I choices I make in enjoying film or literature, there will be voices criticizing that choice from both sides, so I choose simply to listen to them, but to make my own determinations on what I find problematic."
posted by tyllwin at 10:08 AM on April 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


« Older 2012: The Tornadoing   |   Hobgoblins of a little mind Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments