@ghost-of-a-duke saidThere is no "pretence that it was" her suggestion.
This wasn't her suggestion. Why the pretence that it was?
@fmf saidThen direct your post at Rusty, not Suzianne. It wasn't her suggestion. Your post clearly implied it was when you wrote:
No. "You" refers to Suzianne. It is Very Rusty who has repeatedly been suggesting that the reason divegeester disagrees with her [i.e. Suzianne, who I refer to as "you" when I address her] is merely that he has some sort of sexual interest in her. No mistake. What I said was very precise.
Yours is an odd brand of feminism. Suggesting that the reason a man disagrees with you..."
Not precise in the slightest.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidVery Rusty can say these vaguely demeaning things if he wants to. I am just a bit surprised that Suzianne has gone along with it on a few occasions.
Then direct your post at Rusty, not Suzianne. It wasn't her suggestion. Your post clearly implied it was when you wrote:
Yours is an odd brand of feminism. Suggesting that the reason a man disagrees with you..."
Not precise in the slightest.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou need to read the post as a whole.
Not precise in the slightest.
When I said: "I am surprised that you go along with this rather demeaning banter"... the "demeaning banter" I was referring to was Very Rusty "suggesting that the reason a man disagrees with you [i.e Suzianne] - or is in conflict with you[i.e Suzianne] - is merely that he has some sort of sexual interest in you [i.e Suzianne]...".
If you think Very Rusty's riff is OK, so be it. If you think Suzianne not distancing herself from it is fine, so be it.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThen direct your post at Rusty, not Suzianne.
Then direct your post at Rusty, not Suzianne. It wasn't her suggestion. Your post clearly implied it was when you wrote:
Yours is an odd brand of feminism. Suggesting that the reason a man disagrees with you..."
Not precise in the slightest.
It's Suzianne's reaction that is more interesting in this situation, which has come up before. Sometimes her dignity as a feminist is undermined by the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing, perhaps.
@fmf saidA couple of days ago after her replying with scorn to about a dozen of my posts, Suzianne referred to the “proximity of my nose to her panties”.
I think daft speculation about divegeester's clashes with Suzianne being somehow connected to how sexually attractive she might be to him is a rather demeaning way of talking about her/to her. Surely the men who rush to her defence as if she were a damsel in distress think there's more substance to her than being a sexual object that causes sexual frustration?
Aside from the revolting thought of that scenario, I thought the comment by her was revealing of how she thinks about men, and especially men who disagree with her.
@divegeester saidYes I saw that. It was interesting. However, on this occasion I am expressing some bafflement with why she doesn't give Very Rusty's belittling riff the heave ho. But, yeah: the 'sniffing panties' thing is another peculiar thing for a feminist to say, at least to my way of thinking.
A couple of days ago after her replying with scorn to about a dozen of my posts, Suzianne referred to the “proximity of my nose to her panties”.
Aside from the revolting thought of that scenario, I thought the comment by her was revealing of how she thinks about men, and especially men who disagree with her.
112d
@fmf saidWell, it comes as surprise to no one, but I don't.
I think what I have said about Suzianne's peculiar attitude to Very Rusty's banter on this occasion - and at least two previous occasions - is valid.
Not "peculiar" at all. As we already know, you are simply wont to describe it thusly to deligitimize it.
@fmf saidWhatever.
I think daft speculation about divegeester's clashes with Suzianne being somehow connected to how sexually attractive she might be to him is a rather demeaning way of talking about her/to her. Surely the men who rush to her defence as if she were a damsel in distress think there's more substance to her than being a sexual object that causes sexual frustration?
@fmf saidAnd wrong.
No. "You" refers to Suzianne. It is Very Rusty who has repeatedly been suggesting that the reason divegeester disagrees with her [i.e. Suzianne, who I refer to as "you" when I address her] is merely that he has some sort of sexual interest in her. No mistake. What I said was very precise.
@fmf saidGetting the hem of your skirt wet over this is an issue for you -- and your band of acolytes.
You need to read the post as a whole.
When I said: "I am surprised that you go along with this rather demeaning banter"... the "demeaning banter" I was referring to was Very Rusty "suggesting that the reason a man disagrees with you [i.e Suzianne] - or is in conflict with you[i.e Suzianne] - is merely that he has some sort of sexual interest in you [i.e Suzianne]...".
If ...[text shortened]... usty's riff is OK, so be it. If you think Suzianne not distancing herself from it is fine, so be it.
@fmf saidThe only ones "undermining" my "dignity as a feminist" are you two (so far), as I said, by design, in an effort to deligitimize me.
Then direct your post at Rusty, not Suzianne.
It's Suzianne's reaction that is more interesting in this situation, which has come up before. Sometimes her dignity as a feminist is undermined by the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing, perhaps.
@fmf saidRusty's brand of banter doesn't sharpen my spear. It's your histrionic attempts to deligitimize me that do that. Adults know how to pick their battles (well, some do).
Yes I saw that. It was interesting. However, on this occasion I am expressing some bafflement with why she doesn't give Very Rusty's belittling riff the heave ho. But, yeah: the 'sniffing panties' thing is another peculiar thing for a feminist to say, at least to my way of thinking.