« Photo of the Day | Main | Incroyable »

March 08, 2008

Poking The Hornet's Nest

First of all, I'm not a big fan of gender wars. Nonetheless, I feel a strong need to uphold the honor of the fairer sex and so, as an olive branch (and to show that I fully understand the male need to indulge in a bit of harmless fantasizing whilst wallowing in oodles of abundant feminine pulchritude - no half-starved starlets here!) I offer to Ace, Rusty, and yes, Vinnie this eminently shaggable bit of eye candy:

helenthomasonatreadmill6md.jpg

Yeah. I'd hit it :p

Serious commentary coming up soon after the fold. It's been a long week guys.

It all started with this post:

What is it with some male bloggers?—"Too fat, too thin. Too out-of-shape. Too fat. Too buff. Too old. Too young." (Oops! That last one never happens. Just trying to see if you're paying attention.)

...I like Ace and his crew. I even like Rusty and (most of) his crew (at least, when they aren't waxing anti-gay). But, WTF? Maybe their fans should be required to post pictures next to their comments—these fine gourmands of female flesh. I'm sure they are all prime beef. Uh-huh.

....why is it necessary to slam women who are making the best of this whole getting-older thing?

That morning, I checked out the posts in question. In most cases it wasn't so much the posts as the comments that were objectionable; at least to me. The debate raged on throughout the day - I won't bore you with the details. But that night, Ace weighed in with an interesting question that I do want to address, because I think it gets to the heart of the disconnect between the way men and women see much of what happens on the Internet:

Are you telling me that it is de facto out of bounds for man to comment on a woman's looks, ever, even if the looks being commented on are purely a choice of the woman's?

I mean here, we are not even talking about women being fat-- we are talking about Madonna and Sarah Jessica Parker weightlifting and dieting to the point of having bulging muscles and (in Madonna's case) a bodyfat percentage that actually seems to be in the negative 20's.

I write about Michael Moore being morbidly obese all the time. Never a word. Now I do a post on another celebrity for jacking her biceps up bigger than Mark Maguire and the red flag gets thrown? By what standard? That it's her "choice"? Why is fair to skewer men in this admittedly juvenile and mean spirited fashion but when it's a woman it's suddenly far, far out of bounds?

If I'm missing the nuance please explain it to me. Apparently I'm in dutch with you fellers and I don't want to be. But I want to know precisely what standard -- applicable to either sex -- I violated or I'd like to know if you yourselves are indulging yourselves in an unfair double-standard.

Not at all trying to bait, just trying to figure out precisely what the hell is going on here?

To be fair, let me say that I understand his confusion to a certain extent. Most women I talked to that day didn't really have any problem with his post. It was the comments that upset them. A lot of things were raised during the debate that I think were interesting, but didn't really cut to the heart of the problem the way Jane's comment did. I thought her remark was unusually perceptive, in that it avoided the usual minefields while neatly summing up the real issue here. I'll let you read it, and then add my comments:

It's a fact of human nature that both men and women speak in a more raunchy way when they are in a gender segregated group. I think the point here is to maintain a level of respect for the mixed gender nature of the internet.

Sarah's [Connor] muscles are an appropriate topic, and negative comments about her resulting appearance are also appropriate. Rating her screwability is tacky. It's locker-room. And it makes many women feel somewhat insulted or trivialized, not because it's a question of comparison with any movie star but a lack of recognition of our existence as females in the comments and as readers.

If male blog proprietors honestly don't care about insulting their female readers, then it becomes a guy only blog after time. And we all miss out. I understand commenters are not under the control of anybody, but an informal or formal sense of limits exist on every blog. It's about decency and respect for us as ladies. Yes as ladies, not women.

To me, this is the heart of the issue. As I said, I can't speak for others.

Almost every day, I see men react like scalded cats at the notion that women are trying to "control" them on the Internet. Let's examine this for a moment.

What is really missing here is any recognition that the Internet is essentially a public social medium. What you do and say on the Internet is not private. It is really little different than standing on a street corner in town with people you don't know walking by, or standing in a crowded hallway at work or at a Metro station.

Now a question: how many of you would stand in any of these venues with a Hustler magazine open, staring at nude photos of some celebrity and making crude sexual remarks like "Yeah, the body's OK but she'd better cover up that horse face. Maybe she could turn around so I could do her from behind."

Is there any social milieu you are aware of where this is considered acceptable behavior for grown men? If so, I am not aware of it. And yet, women are confronted with this sort of thing every single day on the Internet. And if we dare to object, we are told "Stop being emotional and controlling. Men are pigs. They like to look at women's bodies and they will never change. If you weren't ugly and fat, you wouldn't be so threatened by the way we are."

Wow.

There are sites (and blogs) on the Internet which are almost exclusively devoted to this sort of thing. As a woman, if I see a site like that, I know exactly what is going on there and I don't go there because I know the atmosphere there is neither welcoming nor conducive to my participation. Frankly there is no purpose to my presence there.

And that's fine - they are free to carry on without me. I'm not going to conduct a campaign to get them ejected from the Internet, nor will I try to shame them into stopping. I just ignore them, much as I would step around a wad of gum on the sidewalk or make sure not to see a Michael Moore's latest movie. I'm not interested, but I don't try to stop it either.

However, a site like The Jawa Report or Ace o' Spades discusses lots of topics that I happen, as a woman, to be interested in. The war on terror, for instance. And politics. So they're a mixed bag. Ace just won some big award at CPAC. Not sure what it was - I don't pay much attention to those things. And I like Ace. I like his writing on those occasions when he is serious. He has written some incredibly perceptive things that I've enjoyed greatly. He is one of a very few bloggers on my RSS feed for that reason.

But I'll be honest. I avoid his site, because I've tried participating in a few discussions and the commenters often make me angry and uncomfortable, which is saying a lot because I'm more confident and assertive than probably 98% of women I've encountered either in real life or in the virtual world. I don't give a rat's ass about traffic or whether other bloggers link to me - that's why I don't have trackbacks - if they like what I write, great. If not, they're free to blast me or ignore me. Either way, I don't back down from confrontations I think are important, as I think this post ought to demonstrate.

I would like to think I'm a thoughtful person and I believe I have a lot to offer in a serious discussion. But life is just way too short to subject myself to unnecessary aggravation. As Jane said so eloquently, if male bloggers choose, for whatever reason, to either cultivate or allow that kind of climate to develop on their sites, it will have the effect of driving women away. Personally, I view that as their choice. They've decided I (and women like me) are not the sort of persons whose respect is important to them. And that's OK. Choice is good :p I'm all about choice.

But the real point I'd like to throw out for your consideration is this: I don't think women are being oversensitive here. In real life, remarks about a person's appearance, whether it's Michael Moore's obesity, the size of Madonna's breasts or whether Ace or Rusty's commenter (as distinguished from Ace and Rusty, who did not say any of these things) think various celebrities are bangable, push the envelope of social acceptability. In short, they're considered rude. But the faceless nature of the Internet encourages us to do things we would never dream of doing in real life.

And then we are surprised when some people get offended by acts or statements which would be considered unequivocally offensive, had they been encountered in real life; by things I'm fairly certain none of these commenters would dream of saying if they were face to face with live human beings in a real conversation. Except that blogging IS a conversation.

With real, live human beings. And none of the age-old social conventions, taboos, emotions, differences between the genders changed just because you're on the Internet instead of standing on the street corner. And telling a woman she is pathetically insecure, or controlling, or that she's engaging in a double standard, because she objects to something that would offend and embarrass her in real life, doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

I don't think women have the expectation that no one is ever going to say anything crass. We don't dry up and blow away like fragile wildflowers just because someone makes a crude remark, and we certainly understand that busy site owners can't catch every comment. But when it's not just one comment but several, when a thread goes on and on and not one person objects, a very clear message is being sent: "This is OK." And it's not just the site owner. It's the other readers. I think the general tone is set from the top, and if that is done, the readers themselves will help to enforce it. I've seen that happen here at VC because I insist on civility during heated debates, and when Salon or Slate or other liberal sites have linked here, their commenters have uniformly been surprised at the reception they've received, even when they've initially been quite rude and provocative. As a result, we've had some good discussions. This is not to say we're perfect; we're not. But it does show that setting a clear expectation and reinforcing it DOES work. I believe that with all my heart and four years of blogging reinforces that belief.

So I think male bloggers, and particularly conservative male bloggers, have some thinking to do. It's harder to police the comments on a large site. I know this. It's one of the reasons I've quit several times when VC got to 2000 visits a day. I knock it back to something more reasonable, because it is more difficult to make this the kind of place I want it to be if it gets too much traffic. And for me, too much attention kills everything I love about blogging, which is the interaction with my readers. The world is full of crappy tradeoffs like that, but what are you going to do? As a blogger, you decide what your values are. Do you want lots of traffic? Do you want to accomplish other things? Are you just in it to have fun? Hopefully your blogging reflects your goals and your values.

The Internet presents us with some interesting moral dilemmas. I am going to be brutally honest here. Email and comments are too easy. You type into a little box and hit "Send" and in an instant, some random synaptic misfire of yours can travel halfway across the world. It's true, there is a bit of a 'buffer' to virtual interaction between the genders, because we don't see each other face to face. I like that in some ways because it 'preserves the decencies'. But it can also tempt us into forgetting we are speaking and acting in an essentially public forum.

And we are. If you don't care who's watching, or how your words may affect others, by all means carry on. If what you're doing is consistent with your values I think you have nothing to change.

But if you think about this, and conclude that (in real life) adults generally don't find this sort of thing socially acceptable in mixed company, I think you have to ask yourself: why is that? And I also think you have to ask the next logical question: is this such a valuable activity that it's worth offending so many people? I know that every day I wave off I can't tell you how many posts because I know they would offend liberal readers. Or men. I censor what I write out of a general feeling that there is no reason to say absolutely everything on my mind. This is not to say I never cross the line or make mistakes. I've done that more times than I'm proud of.

But the notion that just because we're on the Internet there should be no limits, or that we can throw out all social conventions, is not one I believe conservatives want to hang their hats on.

Just a thought, guys. Feel free to let me know what you think, tactfully and thoughtfully.

Posted by Cassandra at March 8, 2008 09:00 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2018

Comments

First!!!

What would you hit it with darlin'?

That might make a mess of your Chevy.

Posted by: Pile On at March 7, 2008 07:00 PM

Yeah, I didn't need that.

It's no wonder W has speaking issues in front of the WH press corp, when he has to look at that live.

Posted by: William Teach at March 7, 2008 07:50 PM

I don't like the gender war either. I can understand why some of the females would get offended by the locker room talk going on, but sometimes guys will be guys. And you cannot change our minds, we think with one track mind sometimes

I don't know if I could keep a straight face with that looking at me in the WH press corp either. man that is just cruel and unusual punishment in my books.

Posted by: Stix at March 7, 2008 08:13 PM

Milady!

As a result of viewing that, that, image, well I've just now cleaned my sinus cavity with Irish Mist. What a waste. And while I have never before needed Dramamine I think I might try some now.

There has to be something in the GC accords regulating this... or at least the MPAA rating guidelines.

Posted by: bthun at March 7, 2008 10:26 PM

I offer to Ace, Rusty, and yes, Vinnie this eminently shaggable bit of eye candy:

You are evil, Cass.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 8, 2008 01:13 AM

You are evil, Cass.

Hey - I'm female, aren't I?

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 09:00 AM

OK Stix, now that I have posted, I will react to your comment.

I can understand why some of the females would get offended by the locker room talk going on, but sometimes guys will be guys. And you cannot change our minds, we think with one track mind sometimes.

It is not your minds we are trying to change.

It is your outward behavior. You guys can be guys all you want... in private. Women can be pretty raunchy in groups of just women too. But last time I checked, comparing notes on nude women and their f***ability has never been an activity most men conduct in public forums or in mixed company.

At least not the men I know.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 11:41 AM

Have you ever thought of writing a syndicated column? You would be great at it. As someone who has trouble stringing two sentences together, I really enjoy the expertise you employ using the written word.

Posted by: Russ at March 8, 2008 01:07 PM

I guarantee you that somebody, somewhere, finds her sexy. Just right.

I haven't given this subject a lot of conscious thought. I do notice a certain level of animosity in Ace's and other sites' comments at times, but I just think to myself "what an a**, how does that guy ever get any," and keep going. I think because it isn't space that I set up myself, I'm not really in a place to expect certain behaviors.

It is enlightening to know what men are thinking. When I'm uncomfortable or disgusted with it, I go back to a less emotional site.

Posted by: April at March 8, 2008 01:24 PM

I think it's great that you can do that, April. And I know there are lots of women who react the same way.

There have been times when it has run right off my back, too. If it's just a commenter or two, as I said in my post, I just think "What a jerk" and think no more of it. It's not as though I ever felt strongly enough to write about this in all these years. And I certainly don't think I have the "right" to expect anyone to accommodate my subjective comfort level - that's why I just don't go there.

That's not my point. My point is this: I don't think that being offended is - at heart - unreasonable or overemotional. I've heard men, many times, say they avoid certain conservative sites b/c they find the heat level a bit much. IOW, people are violating social norms: they are behaving in ways they would never do in real life (and if they did, people would object and/or get up and leave the room). But if women do EXACTLY what they're doing, we're being emotional? Give me a break. Sounds to me like we're being sensible.

I only posted about this b/c I wanted to explore the question of whether women were unreasonable to be offended and/or annoyed or whether there was (in fact) behavior that normal people would *objectively* view as "unreasonable" and "offensive"? I think there is, sometimes. Your mileage may, of course, differ.

You have found a solution that works for you - if you are offended, you go somewhere else (as do I). That doesn't address the question I am interested in, which is simply whether there is any objective reason to BE offended. Almost all of the men in the discussion the other day said, "No. Men are men, get used to it b/c we will never change."

As I pointed out to Stix, this is also beside the point. It is not private thoughts or behavior that are at issue, but how people behave in a mixed public forum. Yes, women can leave, and they do. But this argument amounts to, "I can do whatever I want - if you don't like it, you can leave (this public forum). Oh, and by the way you're a wuss for saying anything about it." When did this ever become the standard for whether a thing was right or wrong? I think it's a poor argument.

I think it is also not inappropriate (if men are allowed to say anything they want) for women to say they don't agree, no? After all, people have come onto my site and told me what I should and should not be posting.

That is the price of not having a password protected site that is open to the public. You have to listen to anyone who wishes to comment. You do NOT have to change your behavior, unless you decide to :)

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 01:43 PM

Russ, I have often thought I'd like to have a syndicated column.

I would enjoy that.

I would have to do that under my real name though. I've thought, several times, of taking several offers I've had but they all involve more attention than I wanted at this point in my life. I love to write more than anything, and I really ought to be more serious about it.

Right now I just sit down and write without planning, which is not good. And I ramble. I'd have to give up this place and that's another consideration. One reason I deleted all my old posts.

So there you have it :p

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 02:06 PM

I was always raised to be polite and have good manners, but I have completely given up on the whole women are offended/unoffended thing.

Some women think its wonderful if you hold open a door for them, others will screech like harpies at you for demeaning them with your sexist, patriarchal attitude.

This is in addition to figuring out the nice guy/bad boy dichotomy in female thought. I can no longer stop rolling my eyes in disgust when a certain female friend of mine starts complaining of being unable to find any "nice guys" to date. I have introduced her to many friends and co-workers who fulfill her STATED desires, but she only shows interest in leather-clad biker types who abuse her, cheat on her, and call her "bitch" in public. Yet, if a nice guy treated her that way, she would probably be offended.

I have given up trying to understand "womanspeak' or their simultaneously held, yet mutually exclusive opinions. I just do what I think is right and proper in polite company, as I was raised. If some woman or a man gets offended, then that is her/his problem, not mine.

Posted by: a former european at March 8, 2008 03:22 PM

So in other words, you reject the notion that there is anything in the slightest unusual about a group of men sitting around making crude sexual remarks about nude photos of women in mixed company? And yet I have never known you to do such a thing, though maybe you do and I just don't see it. I am not saying this to intentionally provoke you - it is an honest question. I cannot imagine you doing such a thing. It violates everything I thought I knew about you, and I am surprised you would excuse such behavior in others using a 'two wrongs make a right' rationale.

To me, this seems elemental good manners, afe, which ought to hold true regardless of whether some people are smart enough to respect themselves or not. I didn't think this had the slightest thing to do with women's lib or the nice guy/bad guy dichotomy. It is just common sense.

But apparently things have changed far more than I knew.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 03:31 PM

Ah: I did not read carefully:

I just do what I think is right and proper in polite company, as I was raised.

Sorry. That was my mistake - I missed that sentence entirely.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 03:34 PM

But I think my question still stands, afe.

Is this offensive behavior by objective standards?

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 03:35 PM

I think this is a really important point.

It is way too easy to dismiss what I am trying to say if you won't address that one question. If you don't think this is behavior anyone (male or female) legitimately finds reasonable and acceptable, then why don't people do it all the time in real life?

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 03:39 PM

"Right now I just sit down and write without planning, which is not good."

I would love to read anything that you actually sat down and thought out.
Your writing is logical and your arguments easy to follow which makes you very interesting to read. "The Unit" must hate discussing things with you.

Posted by: Russ at March 8, 2008 04:15 PM

I open doors for women because my mother raised me to be polite. I also open doors for men when the situation arises. [Elderly gentlemen, handicapped, etc.] I never really thought of it as being demeaning to another gender or another person. Must be the British/polite in me. Seriously though - I think if you look at it from that perspective rather than the gender one I think it is a good thing. The world can never have enough politeness. Why certain people want to distort someone else's perspective or kindness is beyond me? I guess we all can't be equal until we are equally rude to each other.? OMG that sounds so liberal. From now on get your own doors...


Posted by: Dr. Harden Stuhl at March 8, 2008 04:16 PM

Heh.

Once or twice (and I'm serious - in all these years it has only happened once or twice) I've started a post on one day and then I've sat and reworked it or just finished it a day or two later.

Those posts are SO much clearer, to my mind, than what I usually write. My husband says I should be writing op-ed pieces b/c I'd have to reflect more and discipline myself more. He's probably right.

On the otter heiny, that's so not how I write. I just 'do' it; I get and idea and see where it leads. Some other posts I've loved have been ones where I was literally in the middle of a post and got 'hijacked' by someone sending me an email. spd rdr used to do that a lot - I'd be writing something and right in the middle of it he'd send just the perfect essay that was like someone had handed me a missing puzzle piece. It was eerie :p

For me, half the pleasure is NOT knowing where I'll end up. That is part of being a "P" on the Myers-Briggs - I like keeping my options open :p

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 04:26 PM

And I agree with you, Dr. Stuhl.

I think morality (and manners) have to be independent of what others do or say. This is what I taught my boys: you can't control the actions of other people, nor how they see you, nor the way the world is. But in your actions you create the world in your own image.

That's a powerful idea, when you stop and think about it. It's all we can really affect, but it's real and it does matter. And if we concede that to people we don't agree with, we're letting them control our actions against our values.

That seems both foolish and wrong to me.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 04:29 PM

...and I can't tell you how often in life I have seen unexpected gentility or kindness move others, or change their hearts. That doesn't happen if we give in to cynicism.

Of course we don't abandon wise precautions in dealing with others, but opening a door never hurts. If they are rude or don't appreciate our courtesy, so be it. We have been true to our beliefs and it was well meant. Which I think is what afe said :)

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 04:32 PM

Hey, it worked, didn't it?

Posted by: Vinnie at March 8, 2008 06:12 PM

I don't know, places like here and the Castle and Lex's don't seem to have problems because the bloggers set standards, follow and enforce them. So apparently a blogger does have some control over their commenters. That's why I read them. Places that don't may have some value, but ultimately you have to decide when the signal to noise ratio is unacceptable. Then don't go. If you happen into a club or location in the real world where the behavior or conversation isn't for you, you leave and don't bother to come back. Why would the internet be any different?

Posted by: Pogue at March 8, 2008 06:45 PM

Oh come on. All you gals really are to us is a vagina surrounded by a support system. Face it. We are attracted to you for one reason and one reason only---you are premium receptacles for our seminal emissions. What is important about you is not your spirit or your brains or your opinions, it's the viability and quality of your eggs....

I didn't create the system....I just live with it.

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at March 8, 2008 06:54 PM

It is very disappointing to poke a hornets nest and to find it dead....

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at March 8, 2008 07:03 PM

LOL @ Kasper! :)

Posted by: FbL at March 8, 2008 08:25 PM

Cassandra

I read your criticism or Ace and other male, conservative bloggers and am not convinced. Ace has the right to post whatever he wants and you have the right to ignore him when he posts subject matter you're not interested or when his commenters comment in a tone you don't like. It seems to me that you have a problem when boys act like boys.

Well, maybe one of the reasons why male bloggers and commenters act this way on the internet is because they really can't in real life. There are few places in the adult world where men can be free of women and just let lose.

Further, it is healthy for men act this way from time to time, to air out their inner sixteen year-olds and have some crass fun. This is because NOT being rude around women and being the gentlemen all day takes work--and because women are inherently less crass and rude than men, they don't have to work so hard to behave in polite society. In fact, 'polite society' means society that includes ladies.

So, to your question, then, of whether it is objectively offensive when men engage in crude discussions on a public forum. Well, I'm not offended, so I'm going to say no. Objectively crude or crass or juvenile, sure. Objectively inappropriate for most women, okay. There are good reasons why women are made uncomfortable around men they don't know who engage in salty talk. There are good reasons why men must shove this part of themselves into a hole when they are around women (and for some men, this is a very difficult thing to do, believe me).

But the thing you don't get is that when they blog or post on blogs they have a right to assume that like minded individuals will be reading. In the case of Ace and others, that would be for the most part males under 45 who enjoy crass comments with their conservative commentary. And there is nothing wrong with this.

It certainly would be offensive if they forced women to be exposed to it (just as a rude comment would in real life). But as long as anyone can opt out whenever they want and as long as they are not seriously advocating breaking laws or harming people, then no. It is not objectively offensive.

So give the guys a break and let them have their fun. And if it makes you uncomfortable, then skip the post or avoid the blog. And if it still makes you uncomfortable, even when you're not being exposed to it, then maybe you're the one who has some thinking to do.

Posted by: fasterplease at March 8, 2008 08:52 PM


We aren't going to change male biology; but your point about rational behavior in public is true. We expect them to conduct their locker room discussions in private locations, not in the middle of a restaurant. The fact that they don't do so is evidence that they recognize none of us would date them afterwards.

Ignoring that rule online is based on their recognition that none of the women they might wish to attract know their identity. So- no negative fallout from saying what is on their minds.

Posted by: Ragnell at March 8, 2008 09:22 PM

fasterplease:

Feel free to show me where, in my post, I said anyone had to change?

if male bloggers choose, for whatever reason, to either cultivate or allow that kind of climate to develop on their sites, it will have the effect of driving women away. Personally, I view that as their choice. They've decided I (and women like me) are not the sort of persons whose respect is important to them. And that's OK. Choice is good :p I'm all about choice.

And again:

If you don't care who's watching, or how your words may affect others, by all means carry on. If what you're doing is consistent with your values I think you have nothing to change.

How you got that I have a problem with "boys being boys" or that I am demanding anyone stop anything they are doing out of that, I am really not sure. Maybe it is a reading comprehension problem. I suggest you go back and read the post over.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 11:44 PM

You have a point, Vinnie :p

But my graphic is better!

Posted by: Cassandra at March 8, 2008 11:46 PM

blah, blah, blah, blah,,,,

Enough of your female jibber-jabber. Which one of you wenches is going to fry me up some eggs and bacon?

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at March 9, 2008 12:09 AM

Cassandra
Just the fact that you were questioning whether "male, conservative bloggers" and posters were being objectively offensive made me feel that you had a problem with boys being boys. That seems clear to me. All your other statements regarding their freedom to do so or your commitment to let them do so seemed secondary. If it didn't bother you, you would laugh at it and shrug it off just like my wife does. Also, it seems to bother you more, the more you respect the boy in question. You admitted that you liked Ace's writing, and so it bothers you when boys will be boys on his site in particular. If you didn't like Ace, then none of this would matter. Therefore, to refine the issue a bit, you seem to have a problem when boys you respect act like boys. And to me, that seems like you hold that respect against them. I would gladly give up someone's respect for me if it meant that I wouldn't suffer criticism for doing what's natural. And yes, that kind of behavior you object to on Ace's site is perfectly natural. One final comment: the internet is NOT public. It is anonymous editorial writing and conversation that is instantly publishable worldwide. For it to be public, bloggers and posters must be among others, preferably those they care to talk to. But they're not. The joke is that bloggers work in their PJ's after all. We don't even know Ace's real name. The internet is that un-public. You can join in or not, but no one will know either way.

Posted by: fasterplease at March 9, 2008 12:44 AM

'I do notice a certain level of animosity in Ace's and other sites' comments at times, but I just think to myself "what an a**, how does that guy ever get any," and keep going.'

Let me get this straight, as I'm obviously a confused male. Stating if I personally would (or would not) sleep with someone is impolite. Stating that its a miracle if someone ever gets any love is ok?

Is that how it works? Was it the personal aspect that made it inappropriate? Or did someone cross exactly the same line in almost exactly the same way here? ... And then get a "good for you" from the lady asking the question to boot?

Or are you going to claim that looks and attitude are so amazingly powerfully different that looks have no bearing on "getting any" and attitude is the end-all be-all capable of driving this snap decision in a way looks never could?

Posted by: Gekkobear at March 9, 2008 04:26 AM

So let's get this straight, Gekkobear.

1. If a woman is on a site and reads crude and insulting comments from men, she had better not be offended.

2. Men have a perfect right to say whatever they like, no matter how rude or insulting.

3. If women don't like it, they should just move along.

And here's the part that just slays me...

4. But she'd better not think to herself "How the heck does that guy who made the rude, insulting remark ever get any?" because that would be impolite

AND WOMEN ARE OVERSENSITIVE?

This would be funny if it weren't so apt at proving my point that some of you will excuse anything you do simply because you want to do it, but if the shoe were on the other foot and you had to put up with the same treatment, you'd be even more upset :p

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 07:03 AM

Oh, and regarding my approval ... isn't April doing exactly what you guys are telling her to do? (i.e., brushing off the remarks 'like my wife does' and just moving on?)

And my reaction was "Good for you!" Because that's a sensible reaction, in my view.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 07:06 AM

Cass:

I ignored this post at first, b/c of the graphic, but I see from the discussion you're using it to raise a couple of serious points; or rather, one serious point, with two parts:

"Should this be considered acceptable behavior in mixed company?"

I say that's two parts because the question of what constitutes "mixed company" relates to something we've discussed earlier: the need to create a public space in which all parties can be comfortable.

The standard you're proposing here -- that Ace's blog is "mixed company" because women can come read it -- would essentially encompass the entire internet as "public space." Accepting that would obligate me (as someone who has earlier agreed that we should be able to have a public space in which all parties can be comfortable) to argue for restrictions of some sort (even if only moral 'suasion ones) on every website.

Now, oddly enough, this same thing came up at my website just this week, because of a post of Eric's. I responded to that post:

I wouldn't enter into a dispute on the relative beauty of ladies, but pure patriotism makes me point out 3ID's SPC Reyes, who does the broadcast news for the division.
(SPC Reyes is indeed a lovely young lady, not only in cheek but in spirit; I'm pleased to have had the chance to know her.)

This leaves me agreeing that this sort of behavior is not appropriate for public space, in the crudest form. In a more chivalrous form, a contest for whether this or that lady is properly 'the Queen of Love and Beauty' has precedents dating to the very best period of courtly love and gentlemanly behavior. I, of course, can seriously contend for no lady but my wife; who deserves the title in any case. I see nothing wrong, however, in a patriotic reference like the one above.

Now, as to whether Ace is compelled to consider his blog public space because mixed company happens to choose to drop in; that I'll need to think on. It seems to me that there may be more than one valuable right at stake, and a reasonable balance to be found.

I do think it is possible for internet websites to be "nonpublic space," however: for example, if they put sexual content behind subscription walls, or perhaps (in borderline cases: erotic fiction, perhaps, rather than hardcore movies) even simply warnings that require you to acknowledge that you wish to view such things. I think that's a reasonable start, but there may also be cases in which a blogger without such walls can legitimately speak his mind without being declared rude.

Posted by: Grim at March 9, 2008 07:16 AM

fasterplease, I want to address a few of your statements here.

I have kind of an interesting history with guys. I have grown up with them, most of my friends have been men, so I get along with them well. When I went back to school recently as an adult, I was the only female in my program (computer science). All my classmates were Marines. And yet I got along with them great. I wasn't the least bit intimidated. In fact, they put me in charge of the class projects we did together for the two years I was in the program, and we had a great working and personal relationship. So I most definitely do not have a problem with "boys". I raised two and like them just fine.

Now to your comments:

Just the fact that you were questioning whether "male, conservative bloggers" and posters were being objectively offensive made me feel that you had a problem with boys being boys. That seems clear to me.

Perception isn't the same as reality. In four years of writing I've taken women to task countless times for being rude/inconsiderate to men. Why would I NOT object when I see men being rude/inconsiderate to women? Same standard. No sexism, yet you perceive it because it's YOUR ox being gored here :p

All your other statements regarding their freedom to do so or your commitment to let them do so seemed secondary.

That is because you CHOSE to discount them. Not because they were secondary. Big difference.

If it didn't bother you, you would laugh at it and shrug it off just like my wife does.

This is an interesting argument, fasterplease. One thing I noticed very quickly in my dealings with men (Marines) in school was this: they don't take shit from each other. It doesn't get personal either, but no man who wants to be respected takes shit from another man. So why on earth should a woman put up with rudeness?

And you openly admit that this behavior is rude and offensive! Yet you think women should put up with it.

And read Gekkobear's comment. He managed to get his pantyhose into a wad over April just thinking to herself that guys who SAY crass and rude sexual things probably have trouble getting laid! Which, if you think about it, may have a grain of truth to it... if your manners need work or you have that much hostility to women, you may well have some problems in that area. I wouldn't know b/c my husband would never dream of acting this way. I know - we discussed it and he was pretty much disgusted with the whole phenom (and he's a Marine - hardly a prude). He just couldn't imagine why anyone would feel the need to make ugly sexual remarks in mixed company. This is not a thing adults do, in his experience, or mine.

Obviously some people do seek out this opportunity. I don't get it, but you do admit it is rude. I'm not sure what value there is in saying unnecessarily offensive things. Sure, you can do it. I never said you couldn't.

But the argument that other people have no right to be offended by something you admit is rude and offensive is unpersuasive.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 07:27 AM

Well, I don't know where you're going with "compelled".

What I meant by public space was simply this: anyone can access it. So yes, it's public if you don't restrict it. Absolutely.

Does that mean other people have rights to tell you what to do with it?

Absolutely not. It's your site. You "own" it. Your content, you decide what is on it.

So, I think it entirely appropriate that Ace (and I hate to make this all about Ace b/c I really have no problem with him at all) or any other blogger, as I said, has a decision to make.

IOW, it is entirely up to each blogger to decide what they want on their site - always has been, always will be. By the same token, if you don't restrict access and/or registration to comments, your readers can and WILL be vocal about what they think of what you put UP on your site :) You *will* get feedback (as Ace and Ragnar did) if some readers don't like something in your post or comments.

People get their shorts all wadded up about that. But to me, it's not really a big deal. No one can coerce you to post, or not post, what you like. If you are a big girl or boy, you know this going in.
I think it's easier if there are a few ground rules, like asking readers to be civil all around. To me this is just an extension of that general rule. Others may disagree with me, and they are certainly free to do so.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 07:36 AM

OK.

I thought about this, and I think it needs to be responded to as well:

Also, it seems to bother you more, the more you respect the boy in question. You admitted that you liked Ace's writing, and so it bothers you when boys will be boys on his site in particular. If you didn't like Ace, then none of this would matter. Therefore, to refine the issue a bit, you seem to have a problem when boys you respect act like boys. And to me, that seems like you hold that respect against them.

Let's address why Ace got "picked on" in this post.

1. I have very little awareness of who does, and does not have 'objectionable stuff' going on their comments section :p Why? Simple. B/c I spend very little time on other people's blogs.

2. So. Why "pick on" Ace? Two reasons:

- I was sent a link to a post (Little Miss Attila's) in which his post was specifically mentioned.

- Ace is a reasonable guy who I sort of know (I don't know Rusty, the other blogger, at all).

3. As far as my subjective offense level, I'm not sure that I was all that offended by this. This stuff has been going on for how long now? Have I ever posted about it before? No. Try looking at my behavior.

I essentially did exactly what you guys are saying women should do - I just shrugged my shoulders and didn't go there.

I didn't mount a campaign to try to stop anyone from doing anything.

I didn't complain to anyone.

It really didn't register on my radar screen. I just went about my daily routine.

So I'm kind of confused about just where you're getting the idea that I'm overly upset about this. I think you're reading way more into this than is actually there. Furthermore, I'd like to suggest something you may not actually like: I'd like to suggest the notion that you think this because I'm female :p

Because the facts are simple:

1. I haven't demanded anyone stop doing anything.

2. I have just pointed out that behavior you yourself admit is rude, is... well, rude.

3. And I've pointed out that when people are rude, it drives away the objects of that rudeness.

To which you reply, essentially, "Tough shit. I like being rude, it's healthy".

"Oh, and you seem to have a personal problem because my wife just shrugs it off when I'm rude."

I am not trying to be provocative, honestly. I'm trying to point out what I see as the strangeness of what you're saying. Because it doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't see this as a 'gender' thing. I don't think anyone - male or female - puts up with disrespect/rudeness. Period. This is simple common sense. You don't have a hissy fit about it.

You simply point it out, or walk away. That is all I have done here.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 08:08 AM

Cass, your central question is simple and has a simple answer: no, good men do not act this way in mixed company. And everyone knows it.


Seriously, this doesn't merit a debate comprised of 500 word ripostes. Real men watch their mouths when ladies are present. If you don't get this, you weren't slapped enough when you were a boy.


"Boys will be boys", you say? Oh, grow up already. And until you do, stay away from my 9 year old son. I don't want him influenced by you.

Posted by: Tim at March 9, 2008 08:36 AM

Well, I've seen some pretty good men act worse in mixed company just lately; some of these soldiers out here are rough in their language (as you expect barracks language to be). Enlisted women, too.

Now, at that point we're outside my comfort zone; I simply wasn't raised to deal with women behaving in this way. So I don't; I just nod, and carry on treating them as ladies.

Which seems to make them happy; perhaps it's what they really want, and don't know how to ask for.

With one exception, a young lady who seems to enjoy rudeness, and never seems to laugh except when she is mocking someone else. I've tried very hard to like her, and find I just don't. She doesn't seem to like me, either. I still treat her with courtesy, of course, but it's annoying to be around her.

Posted by: Grim at March 9, 2008 10:07 AM

I've been around plenty of that sort of thing too, Grim.

There isn't much (sexually) that is, just on its face, going to shock or offend me. Meanness or rudeness, on the other hand, will always bother me because there is just no reason for it and I will always object to it.

I hope I never cease to do so. When I was in college I was the only girl (I've told this story before, but readers from other blogs would not know this) who was invited to the two football frats on campus during their midweek beer mixers when they were drinking and making up rugby songs. The reason I was invited was because I'm really good at rhyming, I am funny (yeah, I know, women aren't funny... except that some women do manage to be), and I was better at coming up with good lyrics than just about anyone else.

I'm not easily offended. And even though these guys were drunk and we were making up rugby songs with crude lyrics, they treated me like a lady.

I would like to think it was because I always treated them with respect, and because I respected myself. I didn't get so drunk that I passed out or did things that caused them to think I could be taken advantage of. And so no one ever tried. They were incredibly polite to me. I now realize (also) that I was very lucky. But this is why I have a generally high opinion of men, and why I expect them to behave well. I like and respect them. I treat them well and would never insult them.

And so I don't understand why they would be insulting to me, or to women in general. This is not a thing I would do to them.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 10:17 AM

I think there is such a thing as funny sexual banter that you can get away with in mixed company.

What I object to is demeaning, rude remarks of a personal nature. It's sort of like obscenity. You know it when you see it (like the remark I referenced in my post about wanting the woman to cover her horse face so the man could do her from behind). Sorry, but that's just unnecessary, and not a thing I can ever imagine saying about a man, were the positions reversed.

If I heard a woman speaking that way, I'd be equally censorious. But to be honest, I've never heard a woman speaking that way. Which is not to say it does not happen. I just don't hang around people like that.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 10:20 AM

Looks like I missed a lot after I left to fix breakfast for a house full of boys yesterday. :)

OK, Cass, I get it--I understand the original question, which is, is it unreasonable to be offended when people are rude? Nope. Not unreasonable.

I think we can take the women/men part out of the question, and it remains the same. It's the same reason I don't hang around some of the super lefty or super righty blogs, because I don't like the insults and name-calling hurled at the opposition. It's offensive to me. And I think it's reasonable to be offended when people are forgetting that the ones they oppose are living, thinking, reasonably intelligent human beings, and reduce them to an ugly and cartoonish name. Mouth breather, moonbat, wingnut, you get the idea.

Also, since this is a question you are bringing up on your own site, and not presenting within the comments of some of the blogs mentioned, it's apparent that you're not asking people to change what they do in their blogs. It sounds like "just sayin'" to me.

Posted by: April at March 9, 2008 11:19 AM

I'm glad someone gets it :p

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 01:03 PM

So, like, the Golden Rule, right?
Ok.

Posted by: spd rdr at March 9, 2008 01:48 PM

Thanks for the answer.

You didn't respond in any fashion to whether or not the comment was acceptable, or how it notably differed from the comments at Ace's site. Except it was her posting her thoughts (which was what I thought all comments are).

You didn't make any statement differentiating an "I would/wouldn't hit that" with "how could he/they get any". And her comment here (not her internal thoughts, but actually putting it into a comment; which seems to be where the problem lies from your post) can be seen to be comparable. Now she didn't truly specify which comments/commenters she stated "how do they get any"; so its admittedly lesser, but it is in the same vein. And had she pointed to one of the examples from Ace's site in the link, I'm sure there likely would have been no change in response.

But you did call me oversensitive and emotional; and that was the frosting on the cake. I wrote that comment carefully, fully believing I could (and did) get this goal.

Now, not only have you let a comparable statement slide, when called on it you made the exact response you hate so much from men (ignoring the subject, defending the comment as a simple "honest opinion", and calling me "overemotional"). Perfect really, it could have been written by a man at ace's site for any disparaging comments about the "I wouldn't hit that" comments.

I guess if standard are good, then double standards must be twice as good?

Now would be the time for you to shoot for a level of offensiveness and annoying to drive me off from your site, if you're still using the same playbook as the one you abhor.

Posted by: Gekkobear at March 9, 2008 02:01 PM

I had a completely different take on this. I don't believe I have ever been offended by a rude person. Rudeness is childish behavior. Do you really get offended by childishness? I don't.

When I read some of the posts and comments, I assume that person is exactly like that, and speaks like that in public. The question then is would you associate that person? Similarly any comments I make I question in the same way, "would I say this in public, even to close friends?"

So I don't brush it off and ignore it, I just choose the people I will associate with. The whole "company you keep" thing.

Posted by: Allen at March 9, 2008 05:22 PM

When I was in college I was the only girl (I've told this story before, but readers from other blogs would not know this) who was invited to the two football frats on campus during their midweek beer mixers when they were drinking and making up rugby songs. The reason I was invited was because I'm really good at rhyming, I am funny (yeah, I know, women aren't funny... except that some women do manage to be), and I was better at coming up with good lyrics than just about anyone else.

I'm not easily offended. And even though these guys were drunk and we were making up rugby songs with crude lyrics, they treated me like a lady.

Now this is a topic about which I'd like to hear more -- Cassidy's Rowdy Rugby Songs. Perhaps we'll have a 'racy drinking songs' day on St. Patrick's Day at the Hall. You'll have to sing, of course.

Posted by: Grim at March 9, 2008 05:24 PM

What, specifically, are you calling comparable, Gekkobear?

On the one hand we have men who gratuitously insult women who have done absolutely nothing to them other than have their picture taken in a state of undress (which men actively seek out and maintain there is nothing immoral about).

On the other, we have a woman who, in response to men who gratuitously insult women who did nothing wrong other than have their picture taken in a state of undress (which men actively seek out and maintain there is nothing immoral about), remark that she thinks to herself that such boorish behavior probably would lead to them having trouble scoring with women.

You don't like her opinion. You find it 'demeaning' and it bruises your ego.

I leave the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 06:16 PM

And as you said, Gekkobear, her comment is never made to the persons making the rude remarks.

True, they may read it here. But unlike the situation where men are demeaning women for no reason other than the pure pleasure of being a jerk, her disapproval is merit-based; i.e., they did something she thinks is wrong and consequently her opinion of these men was lowered.

If you think it is morally wrong for women to be photographed in a state of undress, then certainly it is understandable that you might think it's OK to insult them. But then it raises the question of what you are doing looking at their photos if you think this activity is morally wrong?

Hoist, meet petard.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 06:21 PM

Re: rugby songs and singing, somewhere I have a bunch of this stuff written down Grim. I wish my memory were better :p

An old friend of mine recently asked me if I had tapes of these crazy radio shows we made when we were teenagers. I'd forgotten we did that, too :p There were hours and hours of them. As I recall they were pretty funny. Don't let your kids throw this stuff away. I am kicking myself for not keeping some off these things.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 06:23 PM

Cass, sorry for the delay in responding to you. Yes, I beleive the conduct was objectively rude, and I would not engage in that sort of behavior in polite company.

My point is that there is very little consensus anymore on societal standards of behavior. Ever since the boomers/liberals/hippies came to the political fore, we are all supposed to be groovy and do our own thing. The 40s and 50s eras of their parents, when societal norms and standards were present, are ridiculed as the "Ozzie and Harriet" paleolithic era. Societal standards are anathema to the "Me Generation", in general. Add feminism to the mix, and who the heck knows how women want to be treated anymore!

As far as I can tell, women are a Gordian knot of contradictory thoughts, feelings, and impulses, any one of which may flash to dominance of the Sybil-like multi-personality at any time. Do you want to be the bold, sophisticated, bring-home-the-bacon-and-fry-it-up-in-the-pan woman who can tackle any challenge and hang with the boys? Or are you the poor, teery-eyed, naive, helpless waif being picked on by those big bad men a la Hillary Clinton? God help us men if we treat you like the former when you want the latter, or vice versa. Then we are "insensitive" to your needs (i.e. not a mind reader).

It is for these reasons that I abide by my own set of standards which I find objectively reasonable, and I do not change those standards to appease any one particular woman. If she is offended, then she can choose to find company other than my own.

Posted by: a former european at March 9, 2008 08:59 PM

Ugh. Insanity and madness from everybody. Yes, unfortunately, even from you, Cass.

Maybe times have indeed changed. I'm an 80s kid, tho (born in 1980), Malaysian, sort of upper middle-class, just to give some background.

Objectively, it is rude, no question. If I stepped back and looked at it (which as I Christian I should anyway), rating any person based purely on looks is not the way to go.

However, complaining about this *online* is silliness. Having read your post through, I can tell you this much;

1. Nobody cares about rudeness in the public sphere anymore. I've heard (and on occasion, dropped) the various turn-air-blue bombs in prudish, prissy Malaysia. In buses. At the rail stations. In parties. Hell, even in the workplace. Nevermind that - we talk about sex in our mixed working environment on an hourly basis, and so far no one has complained about it yet.

2. Trying to fix attitudes *online* is counterproductive. If people in real life do not loudly berate some young punks from Podunk, Pennsylvania for being rude, what makes you think they will behave any better online? (If you do, good on you! I always thought we needed more of those loud old ladies with walking sticks that hit youngsters for being rude, not that you're an old lady with a walking stick, of course ;)) And I believe that it's worse when you CANNOT escape the rudeness (which online, you can).

But to answer your question, it is unquestionably uncouth and rude, even in response, to speak of stuff that sexualises and objectifies anyone. Even if I agree that someone is not only a vaginal cleanser container, but a frelling v.c.c.

Having said that, I've found myself in all-female company before (saving your humble servant) and you're right, you're very right when you say girls can be... raunchy. You think it's uncomfortable? Men can treat you with respect, but when the girls go, oh crap do they go. I spent most of an hour being in a mental maze, halfway between embarrassment and sheer disbelief.

All in all, I am inclined to let it go. I mean, you women, you know? Including my own mother, Lord help me. It is definitely an interesting experience to have reproduction discussed in such... um, a clinical manner. And some of it could be termed rude, no question. But eh, I could live with it.

I really doubt that you can clean up cyberspace. Let them be.

As for gekkobear, Cass, he's got a point. Regardless of how it started, *somebody* needs to break the chain. It just goes to show that women are just as hotheaded as men are. Hooray for equality!

Here's a question. There have got to be womens' sites out there that treat men as badly (if not the same way) as you seem to think Ace's moron commenters do. What's your take on the matter? Do you seek to change them also, or would you admit that men and women both can be crass, rude and uncaring? If so, what else is new?

The final analysis is, the arbiter of the blog has the full discretion. As conservatives, we should allow the free market to decide what is acceptable in public and what is not. We can, as you do, seek to change the perceptions of the marketplace without using coercion. Which is good. But at the end, let the people decide their actions. Ace's people have mostly decided one way. Individuals can decide otherwise, and persuade others to do the same.

Just my thoughts.

Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2008 09:19 PM

Gregory:

I think I've been maintaining all along that rude behavior is rude behavior, have I not? If women are doing the same thing men are, they are just as wrong. I don't like Pandagon (for instance) because that site bashes men, and I've said so in the past, so I don't even need to look far for an example.

As to this:

I really doubt that you can clean up cyberspace. Let them be.

I guess I'm a bit confused.

(a) It is really interesting to me that observing (on my own site) that certain behavior is commonly considered rude prompts the response that I should pipe down and "leave them be".

I am not over there hectoring anyone. I am over here on my own site expressing my opinion on space I pay for with money I earn. And I have not insulted anyone either.

(b) I haven't tried (nor am I trying) to "clean up cyberspace". Not really sure where this is coming from. Please re-read the post. There's an enormous difference between discussing something and trying to coerce people into doing something.

I am doing the former. Last time I checked, I was allowed to do that on my own site.

You seem to be setting up a straw man by repeating back (as though I hadn't said exactly the same thing) things I said right in my post, such as the obvious fact that the site owner has discretion over what goes on.

Finally I fail to see how April thinking thinking something to herself, even if you (or Gekkobear don't find it pleasant) is "hotheaded"! We were discussing how women ought to react when guys engage in locker room talk. Therefore, her comment kind of makes sense - i.e., you might think to yourself, "Hey - those guys are acting like jerks." (but you don't say it) and you leave.

The entire point of good manners is that you think these things - you don't say them. Now if she'd gone over to Ace's or Rusty's and said directly to one of the guys who was doing that, "Hey - you guys are just a bunch of losers who can't get laid", THAT would be rude.

But she didn't do that. Thought crime isn't punishable by death, except amongst the Left and people who are (sorry buddy) oversensitive. Not sure what I am missing here.

Let's see if I understand what you're advocating:

It seems you don't want me to point out that rude behavior is rude on my site, but you want rude people to be allowed to be rude and offensive on other people's sites.

Ok... a bit confusing but whatever.

And you equate ugly sexual insults that guys say right 'out loud' with something a woman thinks to herself (but has the good manners not to say out loud) when she hears men uttering ugly sexual insults. Hmmmm.

It sounds like your rule in every case is quite simple: if you're a man, you can say whatever you want and get away with it. If you're female, you're "hotheaded" and you should keep quiet, even it you never insulted anyone and even if you never even said anything out loud! :p

I'm having a bit of trouble tracking your logic.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 10:02 PM

afe,

I don't think you can lump all men or all women into one category. However, I do absolutely agree that there doesn't seem to be a standard anymore.

I will tell you this: I raised my boys (who are considerably younger than you!) to be gentlemen and to treat women as ladies, and both their wives will tell you that's one reason they fell in love with them. My oldest son's wife still talks about their first date (Homecoming dance). My son went all out and did all the old fashioned guy stuff, and she loved it. She felt like a princess.

So I think with the kind of woman you would be interested in, that sort of thing still matters very much :)

It's probably a bit harder where you live. Different regions of the country vary - back east, and especially in the South, I think we're a bit more old fashioned.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 9, 2008 10:08 PM

"Different regions of the country vary - back east, and especially in the South, I think we're a bit more old fashioned."
Thankfully so. I rarely have to swat at a foul mouthed whipper-snappers down heah' while holding doors for ladies, and it's a good thing since replacing walking sticks are getting to be expensive.

Or as Mr. Rdr suggested, the good old golden rule... with an or else clause. =8^}

Posted by: bthun at March 9, 2008 10:52 PM

I may be tainted but as a person who sees life and death on a daily basis I have learned to realize that we are all survivors -in spite of our genders. Women die - men die - Women live - men live - when it is your time to go or stay it is is your time to go or stay. Honestly - when I see how hard it was to get here and how the odds are against us to stay here I feel that makes us all pretty special. It certainly doesn't make any of us better than the other.
Pardon my french but you are all "frickin miracles" in spite of ourselves... Don't abuse the privilege...

An answer to someone above - People do like politeness - some of us just don't know or appreciate how to be kind. Here is a clue - do onto others as you would do onto yourself. It really isn't that complicated.

Posted by: Dr. harden Stuhl at March 9, 2008 11:24 PM

Re: rugby songs and singing, somewhere I have a bunch of this stuff written down Grim. I wish my memory were better :p

Write new ones! :) Even short ones. This will be fun.

Posted by: Grim at March 10, 2008 12:01 AM

This may all boil down to, some men's mammas raised 'em right, whether British or Southern(By The Grace Of God). Other men (and women, alas) seem to have been raised in a barn.

As the good Dr. says, it ain't complicated to be courteous.

Posted by: Sigfried at March 10, 2008 02:52 AM

Hmm. OK, Cass. As both of us said, the final arbiter is the blog owner. I even agreed that it's rudeness to do what is being done.

Having said that, I still don't see what you are trying to accomplish. Are you trying to get Ace to clean up his site? Cannot be, since it's not gonna happen. Are you trying to shame guys to clean up their act in teh intarwebs? Again, that cannot be, because it's not gonna happen. But if you're just blowing off steam, then yeah, men can be and often are bozos. I admit it. I act the goat more often than not too - and I'm not very nice to my parents, to boot. So they'd say, anyways, and in my introspective moments I would agree that I am often unthinking.

I mean, I'm not exactly advocating that you just throw your hands up, say "men!" and wash your hands of the whole thing. Your blog, your bandwidth, your money, your rules. And if you're gonna be Don Quixote, there are worse windmills to tilt at. (I'm sorry, but you did ask for our thoughts.)

Allow me to state what I want to state in point form, so that I don't clog it up with verbiage.

1. Speech is free on the Net. Men and women alike should and are allowed to be utter and complete boors. Likewise, others should be and are allowed to express their disapproval.

2. I have no personal beef with people online being morons. Knowing as I do that I can avoid them if I want to.

3. The public square is becoming less and less civil. This is deplorable, immoral and quite possibly fattening. But it is a fact.

4. Men and women both are having their sensibilities shocked on a daily basis, and their natures coarsened.

5. You said that you thought the same as 'Jane' the commenter did - that a sense of limits exist on every and all blogs. Very good. The limits are defined on Ace's blog as on yours. I try to abide by the limits both - you will notice I try not to use expletives. Which means, if the limits are a lot looser on Ace than here, then that's what it is.

Was I building up strawmen? I don't think so, but you know what you write and what I understood from it may be two completely different beasts. Hence we are divided by a common language.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Blogs are not ordinary 'public arenas' like the town hall, or the park, or even a social milieu like the church or community centre. Blogs are private areas which the owner has opened up for people. As you do, and your humble servant is grateful. Even moreso that you are back blogging, since I missed you during your hiatus. In that sense, it is more like the corner pub or country club.

Ace has set the standard, as you rightly put. A grand majority (you can see over 550 posts generally agreeing) is fine with the standards as they currently stand. I'm afraid you'll have to write off AoSHQ as a stag club - with exceptions.

And I am very glad that you believe everyone should be held to specific standards. So do I. And the standard set at Ace is one I will hold to at Ace. I hope I hold to your standard here.

Feel free to edit any and all my comments for bandwidth purposes.

Posted by: Gregory at March 10, 2008 05:13 AM

No, I never edit comments, and I haven't been over to Ace's, as my feeling is that that is his site and the people there ought to determine the standards over there. It is none of my affair to go over there and try to tell them what to do.

That was never the purpose of this post. And I do not believe in 'collective behavior' either. I agree with you: one persuades individuals, one at a time.

I believe I will address your question in a separate post because there does seem to be a lot of confusion over what I was trying to accomplish with the post and it's a good question. I admit that perhaps I don't make a lot of sense to many people. Maybe I don't think the same way as most people I encounter (that certainly has been my experience in life). That doesn't bother me too much; it takes all kinds in life, and I don't necessarily regard the 'widely heldness' of my ideas as a barometer of their rightness or wrongness :p

I throw things out for discussion here to get feedback, and because it's fun, and interesting. Often I'm surprised at the way people react. I wasn't surprised at the reaction over at Ace's. I wish he hadn't posted on the matter, but that was (of course) his decision and I would never have dreamed of telling him what to do. Also I fully believe, with some irony, that almost no one will ever believe that I really would have preferred that he not say anything on the matter.

But to me, the idea that I would tell another blogger whether to post or not just isn't a player. Not going to happen, no matter how I feel personally, or what I think the result is likely to be, and I'm fairly resigned at my age to the fact that I can't control what people have already decided to think of me, especially when so many of them don't read carefully and then decide, on no evidence, that I am trying to tell them what to do :p

Posted by: Cassandra at March 10, 2008 07:27 AM

"April thinking thinking something to herself"

How would I know what someone thought to themselves? I'm not psychic, I'm not even that clever really. So it must be that some information was passed on beyond the "thinking".

That or the comment "whenever I see a picture of a lady in a schoolgirl outfit, I tend to think 'I wouldn't hit that'" is completely acceptable. See I didn't simply say "I wouldn't hit that" instead it was a purely internal thought... that I then externalized... and shared with everyone.

But you keep that fig leaf that it was an internal thought. Oh, and (although I didn't comment there) those posters at Ace's talking about Madonna... they didn't say that to her face either.

"And as you said, Gekkobear, her comment is never made to the persons making the rude remarks."

Somehow I really doubt Madonna reads Ace of Spades. Now I guess its plausible that she does, but really; what do you think the odds are?

Oh, and "in response to men who gratuitously insult women who did nothing wrong other than have their picture taken in a state of undress"

Nope. Sorry. In Ace's case at least they also worked to some level of negative bodyfat, and exceptional, exaggerated muscle tone.

Now, she claims, in her opinion that some men are rude, and thusly wonders how they ever "get any" from anyone.

I claim that looking like a bodybuilder and spending umpty-billion hours in the gym is offputting, and although I can't speak for others, I personally am not interested in "getting that".

So one is a statement of an action, and a comment about how it will affect sexual activity, and the other is... what?

But I guess from now on I'll just preface all my comments with "when that sort of thing happens, I generally think to myself ''".

Because the claim that I thought it to myself before I posted it covers me completely from any possible criticism. See it was just me thinking to myself, not a comment about you... even when I post it online in public, its still fully internalized, and being upset is like thoughtcrimes and stuff.

Posted by: Gekkobear at March 10, 2008 12:15 PM

Yes, she wonders whether the type of man who, knowing there are women present, makes derogatory comments about women's bodies is likely to be the kind of guy who is successful with the ladies.

This is not surprising, knowing that women tend to be sensitive about their appearance. Also they don't tend to like it much when men are crude.

Keep digging, Gekkobear :) Let me know when you reach China.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 10, 2008 12:43 PM

I'm curious: what, specifically, is your objection to April's comment?

Are you "hurt" by it, though it (as you say) doesn't apply to you, since you were not one of the people who commented at Ace's?

This is confusing. If you weren't one of the commenters at Ace's and therefore it doesn't apply to you, why do you take it personally? What is the nature of your objection (other than to pick a fight with me, of course?) Is it because you agree with them and so you think she's referring to you by extension?

That doesn't make any sense, because she specifically said that she only thinks that about people who say such things in mixed company, and only some of the time (remember, she also said most of the time it doesn't really bother her, so she had a fairly high threshold).

So I repeat: what is the nature of your objection? Is she never allowed to think to herself, "Hey - what a jerk"? Or is she never allowed to say, "When such-and-such happens I think to myself, 'He's a jerk'"?

Which is it, Gekkobear? I'm having trouble discerning the objective standard you're applying. Please explain it.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 10, 2008 12:55 PM

Ok, I'll try again.

In mixed company (here) she makes a statement regarding whether a certain trait should have side effect on someone "getting some".

This is acceptable.

In mixed company on Ace's site, comments were made about whether some celebrities might "get some" from the commenters. This was rude, crass, and over the line...

So what is the difference. I'm just trying to figure out the rules to determine where "rude" is applied.

Was April's comment ok because those commenters might not be here, whereas Sarah Jessica Parker posts on Ace's all the time?

Or because it was a non-physical vs. physical trait and we all know physical traits have no effect on sexual attraction?

Or was it that she had the part where she stated it was her thought, and you assume the comments ace Ace's site in no way were what those people thought?

Or was it that her comment didn't specifically reference whether she personally might "get some" from these people, but instead made it more a reflection on the general population? Does making it a broader and more sweeping statement avoid rudeness?

I'm just curious what "fig leaf" I need to use if I have a comment I'd like to make and don't want to be called rude for it.

Since there seems to be a significant distinction here, and I can't see it; it seemed useful to ask what the distinction was. No April's comment didn't offend me, but neither did the ones at Ace's. I do see some strong similarities between the two however.

Since these are treated so differently. One is applauded, and the other castigated; I'm trying to figure out what the criteria is for "rudeness" that your using.

"I'm having trouble discerning the objective standard you're applying. Please explain it."

Thanks, that really sums it up nicely.

I initially thought that making a comment about whether or not another person might (or might not) get sex was the "rudeness" level. Obviously that isn't the standard.

So what is it? Or do you just "know it when you see it"?

Posted by: Gekkobear at March 10, 2008 05:27 PM

I can see several differences.

1. The likelihood of any of those celebrities wanting 'some' from any of the commenters over there is just about zero. It's not a situation where we're talking about a seriously contemplated relationship that would ever happen in real life.

Unlike relationships between ordinary men and women, which happen all the time.

2. The commenters are saying they do or don't 'want it' from the celebs based on their physical appearance (something that in some cases, they can't help). Can't help getting older, for instance. Cellulite, veins, breast size... I could go on an on, but you get the picture I'm sure.

April, on the other hand, was making a judgment that other women wouldn't 'want it' from people who are rude based on their behavior (something everyone can control, just by deciding not to behave crassly or rudely).

Posted by: Cassandra at March 10, 2008 05:55 PM

Gekkobear, let me try one more time with this:

In mixed company (here) she makes a statement regarding whether a certain trait should have side effect on someone "getting some".

I think maybe the difference between you and me is that I don't view deliberate rudeness as a "trait". I view it as a decision.

Looks are a trait.

The difference, to me, lies in criticizing people for things over which they have little control (like getting older, the size of their breasts, etc) and things over which they have complete control (what they choose to say, their behavior).

I would hope that people WOULD make decisions about whether to have sex with someone or not based on their behavior and values. I think that is not only good, but smart. Do you seriously argue that having sex with men who openly demean women is a smart move for a woman?

And do you likewise argue that it's just as valid for people to make decisions about who they will have sex with based on physical characteristics alone as on their character and behavior?

See, this is what confuses me. You take offense at something that, to me, makes perfect sense - at something that, if anything, I'd think we would encourage - discriminating based on behavior rather than shallow physical attributes.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 10, 2008 06:37 PM

You have to listen to anyone who wishes to comment.

That might be the primary reason I'm here, Cass.

And I ramble.

Awww, but your best posts are when you do that.

Is this offensive behavior by objective standards?

Well that really depends upon the reason for why in mixed company men don't air their private thoughts to women. Find the reason and perhaps you can find out why men don't have that inhibition on net forums, at least some forums.

I get and idea and see where it leads.

When the muse calls, one must obey. I'm the same way.

I'd be writing something and right in the middle of it he'd send just the perfect essay that was like someone had handed me a missing puzzle piece. It was eerie :p

That's just the female brain going on overdrive in my opinion. Everything becomes connected then.

Of course we don't abandon wise precautions in dealing with others, but opening a door never hurts.

Here in the south, I actually notice that both men and women open doors for each other, simply based upon who has it or not. I think they pick it up from the "environment". They do it cause they have seen other people do it.

It seems to me that you have a problem when boys act like boys.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Ace and the commenters there are funny precisely because it is a frat boy and practical joke environment. It ain't so much boys acting like boys as retarded people acting more retarded for each other. Which is why it is funny.

Maybe it is a reading comprehension problem.

That's a big problem when it comes to men reading what women have to say, Cass. I've noticed that with Neo-Neocon and Bookworm too. And I'm not kidding.

you'd be even more upset

Men are delicate and fluffy creatures, Cass. Just look at Barney the purple dinosaur.

Personally, I am kind of miffed, Cass, that folks started a comment party here but didn't invite me.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 11, 2008 02:55 AM

I think maybe the difference between you and me is that I don't view deliberate rudeness as a "trait". I view it as a decision.

If you want my take, Cass, which I don't recommend people ask for in case they get more than they wanted, it is that men making those kinds of comments aren't thinking of anything at all. Is it "deliberate rudeness"? Not particularly, since it is not "deliberate". It is more like stream of consciousness or rather the Place of Nothing that men got to to relax.

It is not so much as a decision to do something as opposed to another, but rather it is a lack of decision. It is just letting things flow as they naturally will.

The comments at the Gollum Ace post is what people tend to say when they are almost drop dead drunk but not quite. Hillarious, often yes, but still pretty stupefying.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 11, 2008 03:10 AM

You may be right, Ymar, regarding the deliberateness factor.

It is just second nature for me to take the feelings of other people into account before I speak or act that a decision to act completely differently online than you do in real life (to me) seems deliberate, in the sense that one must at some point have decided to set aside the normal governing restraints on one's speech. Just to clarify, I didn't think all the comments on that post were all that bad. In fact, most of them didn't bother me that much.

And I am a bit disturbed by Grim's characterization of my post as complaining about what is going on at other sites.

I realize that's the way he perceives it, but that isn't what I thought I was doing. Maybe it is, however.

What I thought I was doing (i.e., the purpose of that post) was not to complain about anything. If I'd wanted to complain, I'd have titled the post differently and started it off differently. And this is what bothers me.

I really thought I was being clear about what I was trying to accomplish: I was addressing Ace's question: is commenting on a woman's looks out of bounds, and is there a double standard at work here? I even addressed that issue in a follow-up post, in case there was any doubt as to my intent.

But even Grim, who knows me, disregards everything I say and essentially dismisses it as "complaining". There's no use in "complaining" about this, because I'm pretty certain this will only be perceived as more "complaining" :p

Perhaps I really ought to blog as a man. It would be an interesting experiment :p

Posted by: Cassandra at March 11, 2008 07:36 AM

Better hurry -- I hear Kentucky is going to make it illegal to post anonymously or under a false name.

Heh.

I'm not disregarding you; I'm trying to sort out the ideas with you. What I'm trying to sort out is exactly the question you say you're interested in: is that kind of behavior necessarily out of bounds (because blogs are "mixed company," with all that phrase normally entails), or is it possible that some blogs can morally run a shop where such behavior is permitted (because a blog can be like a bar, a place for engaging in behavior that some find objectionable, but that others enjoy; and that while everyone is free to come, no one is required to)?

I'm not really interested in the question of whether you're "complaining" about it or "discussing" it; but I am interested in the question of the nature of blogs and ethics. And I'm interested in it in a particularly theoretical way: I don't actually engage in the behavior we're discussing. I just want to sort out what the right way to think about the question is.

Posted by: Grim at March 11, 2008 08:24 AM

in the sense that one must at some point have decided to set aside the normal governing restraints on one's speech.

I think a person did that when they decided to write something on Ace's blog. If they have read some of the comments and gotten a feel for what is allowed in that particular social setting and place, then simplying writing something says that they have accepted a different sort of restraint than in polite company.

I realize that's the way he perceives it, but that isn't what I thought I was doing. Maybe it is, however.

I think you were raising an issue you felt was important, not because you felt a complaint was in store, but because you have received so many complaints from other folks via email. One way or another. So you thought it might be a good idea to blog about this occurence.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 11, 2008 09:30 AM

That's exactly what happened, at least from my perspective.

Like I said, there is never much you can do about other people's perceptions. And I was aware before I did it that very likely a great many people were going to read whatever I wrote and either say or think, "Well, there goes another one of those hysterical wommenfolk again on a rant about how evil men are... yada yada yada."

But there's really not much I can do about that. If you spend your whole life not talking about things that interest you, or that you think might be important, because you're afraid of what people might say about you then you're letting other people's perceptions drive your behavior. Frankly, that's another reason I didn't go over to Ace's. I was pretty sure (given past experience over there) the comments would just give me heartburn :p And certainly if someone has something to say to me, they can say it to my face, at which point I'll gladly respond.

I guess it bothered me to see so many women clearly *were* upset, but also reluctant to raise the issue b/c I think they were leery of being taken down over it. So I did. And people were civil, so it was no big deal.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 11, 2008 09:41 AM

What I'm trying to sort out is exactly the question you say you're interested in: is that kind of behavior necessarily out of bounds (because blogs are "mixed company," with all that phrase normally entails), or is it possible that some blogs can morally run a shop where such behavior is permitted (because a blog can be like a bar, a place for engaging in behavior that some find objectionable, but that others enjoy; and that while everyone is free to come, no one is required to)?

But I believe I already addressed this issue in my post, Grim.

As I pointed out, there are many sites that are quite obviously devoted to certain activities that, by their very nature, obviously are not going to include women. And if women choose to participate, they do so at their own peril, so to speak.

I also pointed out that I don't see that sites like AoS or Jawa Report would be clearly identifiable to women as such. They're a 'mixed bag'. So you could hang around there quite a while and not encounter anything that's going to bother you, and then one day... bam! out of the blue, it's like, WTF??? Sure, things may have skirted the line before but if you're not oversensitive you would just shrug this off, as most women routinely do.

Alternatively, this might be your first time there and there is really nothing screaming out that this is what you're going to encounter.

So your analogy of not objecting to beer at a bar is not one that I'm sure is quite apt here. It would be if that's all that was going on at these sites. But I don't think that's really quite fair to bloggers like Ace, for example. As Mark noted, despite the jokes about the AoS lifestyle, there quite a bit going on under the old hood.


Posted by: Cassandra at March 11, 2008 10:29 AM

Well, and so there is; but this is part of it, is it not? I spend relatively little time at AoS, but when I have been there -- perhaps twenty or thirty times over several years -- something like this has always been going on. I've always considered it part of the flavor of the place, as much a part of the thread of the thing as anything else.

It's not really only women who just shrug it off; a man who raised the same observations would receive from that crowd a lot of jokes questioning his sexuality -- which is just the sort of behavior, directed towards women, that you... well, if not "complained about" or "objected to," let's say, "mentioned."

That, too, is part of the thread of the place. Just today he had some anti-Greenwald piece (and Greenwald almost deserves antis, except that he deserves better to be ignored) that was built around subtle gay jokes. So really, neither men nor women are immune from sexual humiliation on his site, if he doesn't approve of them.

It's a tenet of mine that one should be a friend to the weaker party, so I don't approve of boorish sexual mockery. I don't do such things myself, but if I go to Ace's place and observe them, well, that's part of what makes it Ace's place.

Posted by: Grim at March 11, 2008 10:49 AM

You're right.

I had noticed on a previous visit (also b/c I'd been sent a link) that several of the guys did attempt to stick up for the women, and they were immediately jumped on by some of the other men and essentially called wusses. That was what made me so disgusted that I left and decided it wasn't worth my time to go there.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 11, 2008 10:55 AM

That's part of why I objected to the 'complaining' thing. I've been over there I can't tell you how many times and seen this stuff going on.

And I've been annoyed by it, but never felt that I needed to post about it. I just either said my piece in the comments or got disgusted and left.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 11, 2008 10:57 AM

Frankly, that's another reason I didn't go over to Ace's. I was pretty sure (given past experience over there) the comments would just give me heartburn

They don't understand you like we do, Your Highness. We are, as always, your loyal servants in the endeavour to combine Cheese with Bikinis.

I had noticed on a previous visit (also b/c I'd been sent a link) that several of the guys did attempt to stick up for the women, and they were immediately jumped on by some of the other men and essentially called wusses.

Like I said, Cass, it's that stream of consciousness based upon acting more retarded than the rest of the competition at Ace's comment section and various others.

Alcohol makes people act the fool, obviously. But the internet serves a similar purpose by lowering a group of people's inhibitions. Not only is your own inhibitions lowered, but you suddenly realize that all these other folks at the party are just like you.

And I've been annoyed by it, but never felt that I needed to post about it. I just either said my piece in the comments or got disgusted and left.

Since Lady Attila was the only woman's argument against the post/comment I read about, I would just have to say that even though these Hollywood/star women are trying to get in shape, they are doing it the wrong way. And I think that is a substantive criticism of how they look. Too little body fat is not good, not just because it makes you look like a man with over-defined muscles, but because women need that body fat. They shouldn't have less body fat on their arms than I do, and I'm not big boned.

Of course, the people making fun of the pics aren't thinking about this stuff. Which is obvious. But it just goes to show that the problem is not the "act of criticism" of these women and what they are doing. But rather the intent behind the criticism or the methodology of the criticism. I often comment at various places about women like Paris Hilton having too thin and skinny arms and shoulders, when their pictures tend to crop up in the blog post. But that is because I feel that it makes a woman even more inferior in a hand to hand or hand to weapon fight. Some musculature is necessary, if only to speed up your metabolism and provide muscle and tissue to armor against damage. The fact that finely toned muscles do not look sculpted at all, is also another matter of aesthetics that is both beneficial physically as well as aesthetically. Such criticisms, from my viewpoint, are based upon something objective and productive, not just my personal sense of aesthetics or beauty.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 11, 2008 01:48 PM

The thing is, Ymar, that if all that had been going on over there had been people saying, "Man - I can understand working out, but don't you think maybe they are overdoing it a bit?", I don't think there would have been the reaction that there was. In fact, I think most women would have completely agreed.

It was the juxtaposition of that with the sexual commentary and the disrespect. There's a vast difference between saying, (as one commenter did in response to the remark I left over there) that when you see a woman that skinny you worry about her health, and when you see a woman that skinny you want to hand her a Hershey bar and turn her around so you can do your business from behind so you don't have to look at her.

The first is sympathetic.

The second is just pathetic. And disgusting. And childish.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 11, 2008 01:58 PM

IOW, I agree with you.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 11, 2008 02:00 PM

"The second is just pathetic. And disgusting. And childish."
In my previous life as a sailor, I could have dug up some more colorful words to say the same thing.

Not meaning to quibble, but, I will say that associating that level of mean spiritedness with children does the group known as children a disservice.

Posted by: bthun at March 11, 2008 02:54 PM

The second is just pathetic. And disgusting. And childish.

I do recognize the distinction and the reasons for it, of course. Which is why I wrote that into my comment after the relevant section.

"Of course, the people making fun of the pics aren't thinking about this stuff. Which is obvious."

when you see a woman that skinny you want to hand her a Hershey bar and turn her around so you can do your business from behind so you don't have to look at her.

Personally, I'm not exactly sure that this would be a wise thing to contemplate. Given that since the woman is buff-skinny, having to look at her shoulders and muscular back would have a very high chance of making you feel like you are on top of a man.

Of course, not people are wise, especially when it comes to men worrying about women, regardless of what form that worrying takes.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 12, 2008 07:14 AM

The second is just pathetic. And disgusting. And childish.

It would perhaps be more accurate it call it "Boys Gone Wild and Girls Gone Wild" than "childish".

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 12, 2008 07:21 AM

Well better late than never, Thanks Cass!!

Posted by: Jane at March 14, 2008 03:47 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)