I’m still not clear on the jellied eels thing, either — perhaps someone who’s been here longer than I can answer that one, but I can help with a few of the others.

“Comparing the systems of oppression…” is talking about the fact that you really can’t try to figure out who has it worse: people of color, trans people, women, queer people, disabled people — all oppressed groups are oppressed differently, and their experiences of oppression don’t always translate from one group to another.

NT = neurotypical. NTism is expecting all those around you to conform to neurotypical standards of behavior and punishing those who don’t.

Ethyl- Thank you, at the beginning of the thread I thought ableist might be another way of saying enabler.

Bellacoker I feel like the phrase “If you want to police the poop of the world, then go ahead!! But my poops will NOT BE TAMED!!” will haunt me for some time. But I lolled, so thank you.

Thank you also in general for this blog. From the rules to the commenting community. I saw the rules after someone was referred there, and I love #6. We need more spaces like this, given the campaigns to sell people specific body images for the sake of money. The way we relate to food and diet in this country has hurt my friends in lasting ways, so I want to make sure I get this across the way I mean it- as a personal thanks, not something abstract and philosophical. I was a bit confused by this: “comparing the systems of oppression themselves is always a losing proposition,” but is it that there is no point is arguing about how much each group contributes to the oppression of another particular group, because it doesn’t solve it? If I am wrong in my tentative interpretation, please, please tell me if you have the inclination.

As to geek culture, I won’t disagree with anything I’ve read, I just want to point out that like any out group which self identifies as such, there is potential for people to identify with people in other out groups in a way difficult to those who do not acknowledge their own out group status. No, I’m not arguing that means that they make better dates or anything like that or that you should let them engage you in conversation if you don’t want to converse, just that they might take less training to be good allies. Of course intersectionality has a great deal to do with this. The more out groups a person belongs to the better the potential for sympathizing with others, even though it also means, the worse for the shit you wade through.

I had to google PUA. Since geeks had been mentioned in or just before that post, I was expecting it to be something to do with computer science or technology, rather than one of the most cynical, cold hearted, divisive, misogynistic, insulting scams ever.
Really? They are going to teach men to act less like themselves in order to “score,” thus making women’s bodies a prize, women’s personalities something to be analyzed and gamed, and men’s personalities completely beside the point as they assume a hypermasculinity as superior to their own emotions?
Yeah, I can’t see anyway any of that can go wrong. /end sarcasm

I liked the 2nd and 3rd comments about playing hard to get, because they made me realize that I personally have never encountered it or heard or seen any real life examples of such things other than in this very thread and so, even though if it apparently does happen occasionally, it happens more in stories than in real life. That feels important to me, and I’m not sure why. Would countering that myth result in much change of attitude among guys? I’ve no idea.

“There are no jellied eels, only pie.” I cannot begin to express my confusion. I can only assume this is similar to “GOATS ON FIRE!”

I googled this Open Source Boob Project, and I just want to say I’m sorry that anyone thought this was a good idea.

About Commonwealth v. Berkowitz? I wish my country did better with these cases. There are no excuses for screwing up that badly.

Also, a question: What is an NTist, please? My google fu has failed me.

Well, I do need some more fridge magnets.

(Can I say in my defense my comment looked very much teenier in the comment-typing box?)

In more seriousness, I’m going to assume that your one-liner is intended to express some level of displeasure with how your comment has been received. (It’s hard to tell since tone on the Internet is so darn tricky. If I’m off-base, then please accept the resulting off-baseness of anything I say based on that faulty premise.)

Shii, I have a question for you — did you take the time to read the comments on this post here at Shapely Prose? All those stories by “real women” that you found so enlightening over at MeFi? There’s a whole bunch of them right here on this post. Including someone who had a man TRY TO SET HER ON FIRE when she had the gall not to want to talk to him on a bus. (Don’t believe me? Search for the word “lighter” on this page and it’ll pop up.)

So when you talk about how SP is some “Crazy Feminist Cabal” — nice re-enactment of the common misogynist trope of painting women’s concerns and perspectives as insane/hysterical, BTW — and how you’re only willing to concede some truth in what’s being said here because you were given a perspective shift by reading “real women’s stories,” well then I can only see two ways you came to that conclusion:

1. You didn’t bother to read the comments on this thread before posting — which is just generally rude by blog-etiquette standards, and is especially galling because your not-reading causes you to simultaneously say how important real women’s stories are while cavalierly dismissing all the real women’s stories right here on this post.

2. You did read the comments on this post, but have chosen to discount their value as real women’s stories for some reason that is unfathomable to me. Which is pretty darn rude by blog-etiquette standards, and also pretty generally rude by human standards.

So, as far as I can tell, you popped up out of nowhere, rudely discounted the value of the real women posting their stories here at SP, called us all crazy (or did you call all feminists crazy? I’m not quite sure), and appointed yourself as the new male arbiter of what women should and should not say on a feminist blog.

Your initial comment rude on at least 3 different matrices. And now you’re unhappy because some of the commentariat decided to turn the “Crazy Feminist Cabal” thing into a running joke and you had a little mockery directed at you? Considering your opening level of rudeness, I think the response has been pretty well-measured. In fact, SM wrote a pretty thoughtful response to your comment.

I’ll note in passing that you decided not to engage in that substantive response and instead lobbed a Monty Python quote in, I guess to indicate your displeasure with how you’re being treated. I’m not sure I’d go so far as to think this latest response is another example of rudeness: I AM quite sure that it’s not doing much to improve my assessment of your thus-far participation in this thread…..