what’s the point in saying what year this piece of art was produced?
“for anyone who thinks it’s a recent happening.”
Also, to be exact, I was referring to the Twitter post, not the artwork the post is talking about. One could assume so, but there’s no actual indication that the post is describing something that had just happened.
Regardless, I edited that bit to make it extra crystal clear.
Are you trying to imply that feminism is no longer needed in 2026?
The fact that you jumped to this ridiculous conclusion out of nowhere, honestly leads me to suspect that the anecdote in my comment may have struck a nerve with you.
Your entire first comment boils down to “women should protest their inequalities in quieter ways”, so yeah.
You’ve completely fabricated that motive/intent, so yeah. Do you not know what “emphatically” means? I made it very clear that ‘insufferability’ has nothing to do with the ‘loudness’/‘disruptiveness’ of the actions.
Why does it matter whether it’s recent or not?
Well for me, it mattered because at first glance, I thought I was having deja vu, because it looked familiar, and then I looked it up and realized that I saw it when it first went viral. That’s the main reason I mentioned the year, after I realized.
But since you’ve apparently already decided I’m a sexist boogeyman, I doubt you’ll accept the mundane reality of the situation, and will continue to convince yourself that I just Hate Women.
Now I’m almost certain that anecdote made you feel called out.
You’ve completely fabricated that motive/intent, so yeah. Do you not know what “emphatically” means? I made it very clear that ‘insufferability’ has nothing to do with the ‘loudness’ of the actions.
Women can protest their subjugation as long as they aren’t insufferable about it.
Women can protest their subjugation as long as they aren’t insufferable about it.
They can regardless, but the fact is that being irritating for no reason is objectively counter-productive toward the cause. Also, there is a distinction to be made between being disruptive, and being insufferable; I use the latter word only to describe counter-productive disruption/aggression.
As an example, let’s take two hypothetical feminists, A and B.
They both actively campaign and gather support toward ending sex discrimination in hiring practices, with equivalent effort, as part of the same organization. But only B randomly accosts male strangers on the street, interrogating them about the sex ratio at their workplace, and chastising them if it isn’t at least 50% female, regardless of what line of work he is in, and without consideration for whether the person actually has any hiring power.
Is B doing a better job overall of furthering the cause than A, in your opinion?
One could consider workers conducting a sit-in at a workplace treating them unfairly, for example, to be very disruptive. But they’re not being insufferable, because they’re being disruptive where, and to whom, it matters, re serving their cause.
I’m sure you’re fully prepared to interpret this comment as negatively as you can muster, but for others reading this, I hope this makes it very clear exactly what I’m saying, which is obviously not the sentiment Velma is characterizing me as having.
“for anyone who thinks it’s a recent happening.”
Also, to be exact, I was referring to the Twitter post, not the artwork the post is talking about. One could assume so, but there’s no actual indication that the post is describing something that had just happened.
Regardless, I edited that bit to make it extra crystal clear.
The fact that you jumped to this ridiculous conclusion out of nowhere, honestly leads me to suspect that the anecdote in my comment may have struck a nerve with you.
Your entire first comment boils down to “women should protest their inequalities in quieter ways”, so yeah.
Why does it matter whether it’s recent or not?
You’ve completely fabricated that motive/intent, so yeah. Do you not know what “emphatically” means? I made it very clear that ‘insufferability’ has nothing to do with the ‘loudness’/‘disruptiveness’ of the actions.
Well for me, it mattered because at first glance, I thought I was having deja vu, because it looked familiar, and then I looked it up and realized that I saw it when it first went viral. That’s the main reason I mentioned the year, after I realized.
But since you’ve apparently already decided I’m a sexist boogeyman, I doubt you’ll accept the mundane reality of the situation, and will continue to convince yourself that I just Hate Women.
Now I’m almost certain that anecdote made you feel called out.
Women can protest their subjugation as long as they aren’t insufferable about it.
Yeah, I understood your comment.
They can regardless, but the fact is that being irritating for no reason is objectively counter-productive toward the cause. Also, there is a distinction to be made between being disruptive, and being insufferable; I use the latter word only to describe counter-productive disruption/aggression.
As an example, let’s take two hypothetical feminists, A and B.
They both actively campaign and gather support toward ending sex discrimination in hiring practices, with equivalent effort, as part of the same organization. But only B randomly accosts male strangers on the street, interrogating them about the sex ratio at their workplace, and chastising them if it isn’t at least 50% female, regardless of what line of work he is in, and without consideration for whether the person actually has any hiring power.
Is B doing a better job overall of furthering the cause than A, in your opinion?
One could consider workers conducting a sit-in at a workplace treating them unfairly, for example, to be very disruptive. But they’re not being insufferable, because they’re being disruptive where, and to whom, it matters, re serving their cause.
I’m sure you’re fully prepared to interpret this comment as negatively as you can muster, but for others reading this, I hope this makes it very clear exactly what I’m saying, which is obviously not the sentiment Velma is characterizing me as having.