Category talk:Feminist devil's dictionary - Revision history

Lquilter: deleting drama queenliness

2007-02-28T06:32:28Z

deleting drama queenliness

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:32, 27 February 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:# As for why I'm specifying humorous (however obliquely): Although some things in here are humorous some others appear not to be. If you can come up with another term that has the same playful meaning by all means please suggest. As I said, I considered wickedary, but (a) regardless of ''why'' it hasn't been taken up in the same way, I suspect that if someone were to see "wickedary" they would think that it referred to that specific text. FDD doesn't refer to any specific text. and (b) Wickedary isn't exactly what I was doing anyway. I was, very specifically, thinking of the strain of parodical & satirical dictionaries that began with AB's TDD. I don't feel a need to rewrite history to just fucking ignore the influence of the patriarchy.		:# As for why I'm specifying humorous (however obliquely): Although some things in here are humorous some others appear not to be. If you can come up with another term that has the same playful meaning by all means please suggest. As I said, I considered wickedary, but (a) regardless of ''why'' it hasn't been taken up in the same way, I suspect that if someone were to see "wickedary" they would think that it referred to that specific text. FDD doesn't refer to any specific text. and (b) Wickedary isn't exactly what I was doing anyway. I was, very specifically, thinking of the strain of parodical & satirical dictionaries that began with AB's TDD. I don't feel a need to rewrite history to just fucking ignore the influence of the patriarchy.
	:# Moreover, I have no problem appropriating or repurposing for a feminist project works or phrases developed by or used by men. Your argument reminds me of the fact that my partner & I had Liz read Marge Piercy's poem "On Marriage" at our commitment ceremony -- a poem about reappropriation of even the most patriarchal of language constructs.		:# Moreover, I have no problem appropriating or repurposing for a feminist project works or phrases developed by or used by men. Your argument reminds me of the fact that my partner & I had Liz read Marge Piercy's poem "On Marriage" at our commitment ceremony -- a poem about reappropriation of even the most patriarchal of language constructs.
	:# Finally I think this whole fucking thing is nitpicky, and I'm really not in the mood. If you have a suggestion please make it. If you just want to argue I'm not going to be available for a few days ~~because I'm dealing with a dying fucking man I hate. I'm going to get offline NOW before I lose it~~. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 10:47, 27 February 2007 (PST)		:# Finally I think this whole fucking thing is nitpicky, and I'm really not in the mood. If you have a suggestion please make it. If you just want to argue I'm not going to be available for a few days. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 10:47, 27 February 2007 (PST)

Lquilter at 18:51, 27 February 2007

2007-02-27T18:51:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:51, 27 February 2007
Line 7:		Line 7:
	It may not be "supposed" to imply those things, but it does imply them. I don't care one whit that it's been adapted by other movements -- that doesn't mean it's right to adapt it for feminism. Reusing a reference to "a specific famous work" -- by a ''man'' -- makes that work more famous still. Which is why it's not subversive at all! Why, Mary Daly's "wickedary" '''wouldn't''' be too specific if others had taken it up the way they've taken up those Devil's Dictionaries. You're generalising from a male-defined norm and marginalising a woman's example here. (And Elizabeth Cady Staton's Woman's Bible predates the publication of the Devil's Dictionary in its collected form, too. Have you heard of that?) But even so, I'm not advicating we use hers, either -- making up a new term, or finding another one would work better for me. And anyhow, if your ''entire'' mission statement is already playful and political, ''why do you need to specify that the dictionary is too''?? Should making the definitions points / satiric /etc be '''our''' norm? I can't get behind this category name at all. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 10:26, 27 February 2007 (PST)		It may not be "supposed" to imply those things, but it does imply them. I don't care one whit that it's been adapted by other movements -- that doesn't mean it's right to adapt it for feminism. Reusing a reference to "a specific famous work" -- by a ''man'' -- makes that work more famous still. Which is why it's not subversive at all! Why, Mary Daly's "wickedary" '''wouldn't''' be too specific if others had taken it up the way they've taken up those Devil's Dictionaries. You're generalising from a male-defined norm and marginalising a woman's example here. (And Elizabeth Cady Staton's Woman's Bible predates the publication of the Devil's Dictionary in its collected form, too. Have you heard of that?) But even so, I'm not advicating we use hers, either -- making up a new term, or finding another one would work better for me. And anyhow, if your ''entire'' mission statement is already playful and political, ''why do you need to specify that the dictionary is too''?? Should making the definitions points / satiric /etc be '''our''' norm? I can't get behind this category name at all. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 10:26, 27 February 2007 (PST)

	: I have a copy of the the Woman's Bible, in the Dover edition, but I'm not sure why it's relevant ~~here. ..~~. As for why I'm specifying humorous (however obliquely): Although some things in here are humorous some others appear not to be. ~~...~~ If you can come up with another term that has the same playful meaning by all means please suggest. As I said, I considered wickedary, but -- regardless of ''why'' it hasn't been taken up in the same way, I suspect that if someone were to see "wickedary" they would think that it referred to that specific text. FDD doesn't refer to any specific text. ... ~~However~~, I have no problem appropriating or repurposing for a feminist project works or phrases developed by or used by men. Your argument reminds me of the fact that my partner & I had Liz read Marge Piercy's poem "On Marriage" at our commitment ceremony -- a poem about reappropriation of even the most patriarchal of language constructs. ~~Hardly the same thing, because there is no equivalent to Ambrose Bierce's TDD; Wickedary was (even if we wanted to go with it) not really doing the same thing... Also~~ I think this whole fucking thing is nitpicky, and I'm really not in the mood. If you have a suggestion please make it. If you just want to argue I'm not going to be available for a few days because I'm dealing with a dying fucking man. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 10:47, 27 February 2007 (PST)		:# I have a copy of the the Woman's Bible, in the Dover edition, but I'm not sure why it's relevant to this discussion.
			:# As for why I'm specifying humorous (however obliquely): Although some things in here are humorous some others appear not to be. If you can come up with another term that has the same playful meaning by all means please suggest. As I said, I considered wickedary, but (a) regardless of ''why'' it hasn't been taken up in the same way, I suspect that if someone were to see "wickedary" they would think that it referred to that specific text. FDD doesn't refer to any specific text. and (b) Wickedary isn't exactly what I was doing anyway. I was, very specifically, thinking of the strain of parodical & satirical dictionaries that began with AB's TDD. I don't feel a need to rewrite history to just fucking ignore the influence of the patriarchy.
			:# Moreover, I have no problem appropriating or repurposing for a feminist project works or phrases developed by or used by men. Your argument reminds me of the fact that my partner & I had Liz read Marge Piercy's poem "On Marriage" at our commitment ceremony -- a poem about reappropriation of even the most patriarchal of language constructs.
			:# Finally I think this whole fucking thing is nitpicky, and I'm really not in the mood. If you have a suggestion please make it. If you just want to argue I'm not going to be available for a few days because I'm dealing with a dying fucking man I hate. I'm going to get offline NOW before I lose it. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 10:47, 27 February 2007 (PST)

Lquilter: whatever

2007-02-27T18:47:21Z

whatever

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:47, 27 February 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	It may not be "supposed" to imply those things, but it does imply them. I don't care one whit that it's been adapted by other movements -- that doesn't mean it's right to adapt it for feminism. Reusing a reference to "a specific famous work" -- by a ''man'' -- makes that work more famous still. Which is why it's not subversive at all! Why, Mary Daly's "wickedary" '''wouldn't''' be too specific if others had taken it up the way they've taken up those Devil's Dictionaries. You're generalising from a male-defined norm and marginalising a woman's example here. (And Elizabeth Cady Staton's Woman's Bible predates the publication of the Devil's Dictionary in its collected form, too. Have you heard of that?) But even so, I'm not advicating we use hers, either -- making up a new term, or finding another one would work better for me. And anyhow, if your ''entire'' mission statement is already playful and political, ''why do you need to specify that the dictionary is too''?? Should making the definitions points / satiric /etc be '''our''' norm? I can't get behind this category name at all. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 10:26, 27 February 2007 (PST)		It may not be "supposed" to imply those things, but it does imply them. I don't care one whit that it's been adapted by other movements -- that doesn't mean it's right to adapt it for feminism. Reusing a reference to "a specific famous work" -- by a ''man'' -- makes that work more famous still. Which is why it's not subversive at all! Why, Mary Daly's "wickedary" '''wouldn't''' be too specific if others had taken it up the way they've taken up those Devil's Dictionaries. You're generalising from a male-defined norm and marginalising a woman's example here. (And Elizabeth Cady Staton's Woman's Bible predates the publication of the Devil's Dictionary in its collected form, too. Have you heard of that?) But even so, I'm not advicating we use hers, either -- making up a new term, or finding another one would work better for me. And anyhow, if your ''entire'' mission statement is already playful and political, ''why do you need to specify that the dictionary is too''?? Should making the definitions points / satiric /etc be '''our''' norm? I can't get behind this category name at all. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 10:26, 27 February 2007 (PST)

			: I have a copy of the the Woman's Bible, in the Dover edition, but I'm not sure why it's relevant here. ... As for why I'm specifying humorous (however obliquely): Although some things in here are humorous some others appear not to be. ... If you can come up with another term that has the same playful meaning by all means please suggest. As I said, I considered wickedary, but -- regardless of ''why'' it hasn't been taken up in the same way, I suspect that if someone were to see "wickedary" they would think that it referred to that specific text. FDD doesn't refer to any specific text. ... However, I have no problem appropriating or repurposing for a feminist project works or phrases developed by or used by men. Your argument reminds me of the fact that my partner & I had Liz read Marge Piercy's poem "On Marriage" at our commitment ceremony -- a poem about reappropriation of even the most patriarchal of language constructs. Hardly the same thing, because there is no equivalent to Ambrose Bierce's TDD; Wickedary was (even if we wanted to go with it) not really doing the same thing... Also I think this whole fucking thing is nitpicky, and I'm really not in the mood. If you have a suggestion please make it. If you just want to argue I'm not going to be available for a few days because I'm dealing with a dying fucking man. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 10:47, 27 February 2007 (PST)

Ide Cyan at 18:26, 27 February 2007

2007-02-27T18:26:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:26, 27 February 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	: It is not supposed to suggest opposition to a male canon or imply feminist angels or anything of the sort. It's a reference to a specific famous work, The Devil's Dictionary. That term has been adapted by many political movements (such as, "the nuclear devil's dictionary") for a set of parodic or satirical definitions from "x" perspective (e.g., the anti-nuclear perspective). Lots of movement people put out little pamphlets about this; it's really a particular genre. I'm mostly familiar with it within Movement politics but I imagine it has currency in other political contexts as well. I liked the "feminist devil" construction which I thought had that arch satiric perspective. I thought about going with a Mary Daly wickedary construction ("wickedary") but that is ''too'' specific -- since only Mary Daly uses it, I didn't want to confuse anyone with thinking that our definitions were from the MD's wickedary itself. So I went with "feminist devil's dictionary." I didn't want it to just be "dictionary" because I was gathering the definitions that were pointed / satiric / etc. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 05:21, 27 February 2007 (PST)		: It is not supposed to suggest opposition to a male canon or imply feminist angels or anything of the sort. It's a reference to a specific famous work, The Devil's Dictionary. That term has been adapted by many political movements (such as, "the nuclear devil's dictionary") for a set of parodic or satirical definitions from "x" perspective (e.g., the anti-nuclear perspective). Lots of movement people put out little pamphlets about this; it's really a particular genre. I'm mostly familiar with it within Movement politics but I imagine it has currency in other political contexts as well. I liked the "feminist devil" construction which I thought had that arch satiric perspective. I thought about going with a Mary Daly wickedary construction ("wickedary") but that is ''too'' specific -- since only Mary Daly uses it, I didn't want to confuse anyone with thinking that our definitions were from the MD's wickedary itself. So I went with "feminist devil's dictionary." I didn't want it to just be "dictionary" because I was gathering the definitions that were pointed / satiric / etc. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 05:21, 27 February 2007 (PST)

			It may not be "supposed" to imply those things, but it does imply them. I don't care one whit that it's been adapted by other movements -- that doesn't mean it's right to adapt it for feminism. Reusing a reference to "a specific famous work" -- by a ''man'' -- makes that work more famous still. Which is why it's not subversive at all! Why, Mary Daly's "wickedary" '''wouldn't''' be too specific if others had taken it up the way they've taken up those Devil's Dictionaries. You're generalising from a male-defined norm and marginalising a woman's example here. (And Elizabeth Cady Staton's Woman's Bible predates the publication of the Devil's Dictionary in its collected form, too. Have you heard of that?) But even so, I'm not advicating we use hers, either -- making up a new term, or finding another one would work better for me. And anyhow, if your ''entire'' mission statement is already playful and political, ''why do you need to specify that the dictionary is too''?? Should making the definitions points / satiric /etc be '''our''' norm? I can't get behind this category name at all. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 10:26, 27 February 2007 (PST)

Lquilter: resp

2007-02-27T13:21:28Z

resp

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:21, 27 February 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	...Hell(!), "dictionary", "lexicon" or "glossary" would all be sufficient names for a category regrouping word definitions within the encyclopedia. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 22:48, 26 February 2007 (PST)		...Hell(!), "dictionary", "lexicon" or "glossary" would all be sufficient names for a category regrouping word definitions within the encyclopedia. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 22:48, 26 February 2007 (PST)

			: It is not supposed to suggest opposition to a male canon or imply feminist angels or anything of the sort. It's a reference to a specific famous work, The Devil's Dictionary. That term has been adapted by many political movements (such as, "the nuclear devil's dictionary") for a set of parodic or satirical definitions from "x" perspective (e.g., the anti-nuclear perspective). Lots of movement people put out little pamphlets about this; it's really a particular genre. I'm mostly familiar with it within Movement politics but I imagine it has currency in other political contexts as well. I liked the "feminist devil" construction which I thought had that arch satiric perspective. I thought about going with a Mary Daly wickedary construction ("wickedary") but that is ''too'' specific -- since only Mary Daly uses it, I didn't want to confuse anyone with thinking that our definitions were from the MD's wickedary itself. So I went with "feminist devil's dictionary." I didn't want it to just be "dictionary" because I was gathering the definitions that were pointed / satiric / etc. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 05:21, 27 February 2007 (PST)

Ide Cyan at 06:48, 27 February 2007

2007-02-27T06:48:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:48, 26 February 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I question the purpose of including the word "devil" in the name of the category. If we go by patriarchal standards, feminists are devils already, and if we ''don't'', why do we need to subvert it by using this religious vocabulary? To mark it an an opposition to the male canon? It's not very subversive when it's an homage to a male author in the first place! And it might cause confusion, by implying feminist angels. If we're going to use a religious term at all, something like "apostates to the patriarchy" might make more sense. Although that's probably too long, so "feminist" should suffice! --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 22:00, 26 February 2007 (PST)		I question the purpose of including the word "devil" in the name of the category. If we go by patriarchal standards, feminists are devils already, and if we ''don't'', why do we need to subvert it by using this religious vocabulary? To mark it an an opposition to the male canon? It's not very subversive when it's an homage to a male author in the first place! And it might cause confusion, by implying feminist angels. If we're going to use a religious term at all, something like "apostates to the patriarchy" might make more sense. Although that's probably too long, so "feminist" should suffice! --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 22:00, 26 February 2007 (PST)

			...Hell(!), "dictionary", "lexicon" or "glossary" would all be sufficient names for a category regrouping word definitions within the encyclopedia. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 22:48, 26 February 2007 (PST)

Ide Cyan: New page: I question the purpose of including the word "devil" in the name of the category. If we go by patriarchal standards, feminists are devils already, and if we ''don't'', why do we need to su...

2007-02-27T06:00:58Z

New page: I question the purpose of including the word "devil" in the name of the category. If we go by patriarchal standards, feminists are devils already, and if we ''don't'', why do we need to su...

New page

I question the purpose of including the word "devil" in the name of the category. If we go by patriarchal standards, feminists are devils already, and if we ''don't'', why do we need to subvert it by using this religious vocabulary? To mark it an an opposition to the male canon? It's not very subversive when it's an homage to a male author in the first place! And it might cause confusion, by implying feminist angels. If we're going to use a religious term at all, something like "apostates to the patriarchy" might make more sense. Although that's probably too long, so "feminist" should suffice! --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 22:00, 26 February 2007 (PST)