Here’s the deep sexy analysis bit: Mark is a dude. A white dude. With white dudely privilege. So for his entire life, he’s been absorbing societal narratives which are pretty clear on the fact that his opinion should always count, his voice should always be heard, and when women have the audacity to talk, and retweet each other, he has every right to insert his 2 cents on a completely different topic.And by doing so, he is of course being completely civil - because any behaviour on his part must be acceptable if it doesn’t actively involve physically attacking people with swords while screaming “fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck”.White male privilege: I think Mark Hubbard haz it.
First the context: my post to Carrie’s (
Though finally, back to QofT, that denier of labels who also labels herself, of all things, Lady Taboo – oh that’s original (you do bring out the worst in me): in passing, you can't be on the Internet accusing an ‘entitled libertarian’ as pathetically needing attention, without needing attention yourself: after all, why are you blogging? (I’m wondering if you’re thinking of librarians here? And hey, no slight to librarians, I’ve been one of you also.) Don't say you're blogging about ideas, because there was none of those in your post; just mad, bad words. Speaking for myself, one wellspring of my writing is a feeling of ill-defined boundaries about myself, and my writing is the life-long work of defining to my own satisfaction, no one else’s, what I believe; perhaps you could start with defining yourself a bit better, by spewing that venom you do from your own name. As Matthew would say, own it. But everyone blogging is an attention seeker to some degree, otherwise none of us would be here: get over it.
[Week later.] Well, as it happens, Thorny hasn't changed, so the campaign against her double standard and hypocrisy won't stop. Also read updates below.
QofT has refused to put a link up to this post, from her dreadful post, as my 'defence', calling it linkspam. One of her accusations was that 'I' didn't understand the Internet.
If she represents a true, completely closed, Marxist feminism, that is frightening. Interestingly, the Exclusive Brethren are also known as Closed Brethren.
Above all else, we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge reality.
For poster Draco on QofT's blog. Because I doubt if the below comment will be allowed in full on QofT's blog post, either, I repeat it for Draco here below ... note this is the blog where free speech rules, not Soviet styled feminism ... for followers of QofT's site why not ask her why she is against free speech, especially the rejoinder of a man she has just shamefully libeled.
For Draco, on why I was banned from Labour's blog, Red Alert:
For the record, I got banned from Red Alert for arguing with Trevor Mallard over their comment posting policy which saw blog stalwarts able to post real time, with dissenting opinions held back and moderated, meaning dissenting opinion was not able to keep up with debates point by point and argue consistently. It was nothing to do with you Draco.
Regarding [QofT's appalling post], a woman interested in a voluntary society would not shut down debate, I've posted a full rejoinder to it on my blog. Unlike on my blog where I keep an un-moderated, free speech policy, [QofT's] blog does not have that, preferring the Soviet show trials model, so you'll have to Google, (and that's if all this post makes it up).
Why are you so scared of me Thorny you can't let your readers see both points of view? My rejoinder is getting a lot of traffic ... I wouldn't want to be working from the point of ignorance (of it) you seem to prefer.
My comments to QofT's blog continue to be re-written in good old Soviet style, so my last comment to Thorny's shut down of my right to respond is as follows:
You do realise you've become what you hate? And I suppose you don't care, it's the only rational explanation, but you are marginalising your 'cause' more than if you'd done nothing. That is, as far as Marxist feminism, and feminism proper - your labels not mine - are concerned, you've put yourself in the way of what both are trying to achieve. As well, of course, vis a vis your irresponsible drek on me, you're just an awful person. If you had any guts, yeah, no doubt masculine BS, but you'd read my post and answer to it. It's got nothing to do with feminism, just being some sort of decent individual. But of course you believe, ironically, in enslavement to group-think, and the surveillance state to enforce it, so I guess you believe you don't have to be responsible for what you say or write.
Rand help us.
QofT: I’ve given you the easy, amicable out; a link to this post from your post. That's all I want. The full story. Reality.
Addendum: predictably, to me at least, I have been accused on Twitter of trivilising rape. No. My point is one cause of rape culture is objectification: that is, not seeing people as individuals, but belonging to groups with attributes indistinguishable from the group, and that QofT's blog in many ways runs on such an objectification of those she has put in the 'enemy camp, or aforementioned wall of scum. And such a double standard needs to be called.
My above comment will not appear on 'liberal' blog, The Daily Blog:
Today's sadly-trashed comment from a very important man: me making one post about his behaviour is JUST LIKE victim-blaming in rape culture.
— Queen of Thorns (@qot_nz) March 9, 2013
And I'm trivialising?
The Daily Blog has a 'liberal agenda'. I wonder what that is, or whatever it is, it obviously starts with censorship. As with QofT's own blog, it's run like a Stalin show trial. If you're ever reading The Daily Blog, remember what may be far more important is what you're not reading, because they don't want you to see it. Whatever their purpose is, it's discredited, entirely.
QofT continues to ignore my questions, and asking for explanations. She obviously feels herself as having no responsibility for her words, including how my behaviour, to defend my character, is 'victim-blaming'.
And I'm not a very important man, I'm entirely insignificant. I'm just mad at being grossly wronged, and there being apparently nothing I can do to fix it.
My post is now up on Daily Blog. Thank you: a change of policy - interesting in itself. I wonder if QofT will comment?
As I said above I've got time constraints and have to disappear, if I'm wise, until I reach my deadline, also, I want my life back (possibly as much as QofT wants her's, possibly not), but also another blog I read, Deborah Russell's 'A Bee of a Certain Age' has an interesting post, and links, up on Internet trolling. Now I have no agreement with Deborah over her left politics, it goes without saying, and her writings on tax policy never fail to have me hopping around my office to vent a bit :) but if this is the true experience of women bloggers, then perhaps I can start, just a tiny little bit, to understand the (catch-22) anger behind QofT's blog. This leads to the following:
1) QofT's manner of blogging will create a self-fulfilling prophesy regarding the reaction she gets - yeah, I know, now that 'is' victim blaming and doesn't excuse the behaviour.
2) This changes nothing I've posted: I am the one who has been trolled, and that post still up on QofT's site is a permanent injustice to me. As long as it remains, as long as she puts no link up to this, at the very least, then QofT remains a low life and loathsome. What QofT is running from behind her anonymity, with her wall of scum, is a hate site - what do you expect to achieve with that?
But that said, I'm buttoning back, a bit, to consider things, get work done, use any time I have to get my blog back on track - ideas and the free society.
Leaving only one thing left to be said for now: QofT - do the decent thing.
Also, I retract my comment on The Daily Blog, who ultimately did publish my comment - though you shouldn't need pushing (unless QofT in her tweet above was talking about trashing from her site? Whatever).
(Needless to say I leave myself the option to reinstate everything).