Talk:Humorless feminism

always interesting to see where people go ... i was thinking primarily of research focusing on comedy and humor that looks at gender distinctions, and the history of women's humor; and how that ties into aspersions cast on women and feminists. glad to see others raising the issues of sexist/racist/prejudicial humor, although it seems (to me) to be a somewhat different (albeit related) issue. ... certainly the relations of prejudicial humor to oppression/hierarchical class structures is an interesting topic that we have only begun to hint at. (probably we need to flesh out the further readings, though, because they primarily address the first issue--women's/feminist sense of humor or lack thereof. i haven't done much reading on the uses of prejudicial humor, so hopefully someone else can add some supportive "further readings"? )--LQ 09:25, 10 December 2006 (PST)

MISPLACED FUCKING CHIVALRY. --Ide Cyan 11:01, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Actually, rather than simply reversing without explanation, it would probably be more constructive to explain what was problematic in the edits. Whatever the reasoning behind people's contributions, I think it would be better to let them stand on their own. I liked some of the edits & think reverting with such evident hostility discourages participation. --LQ 11:07, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Info concerning sexist humour per se belongs in a fucking different ENTRY THAN THIS ONE. And THIS here is a case of a guy stepping in to be effective ON MY BEHALF when he had NO FUCKING IDEA what I wanted to do, and I DO NOT THINK MY HOSTILITY IS MISPLACED. AT ALL. --Ide Cyan 11:09, 10 December 2006 (PST)

What? I'm reading some of the stuff that got deleted now and it's cool and I'd like to put some of it back. Esp. the stuff about verbal self defense. I'm not seeing where all the hostility is... it seems like a good article in the making. Ide, if there are things you disagree with I would favor separating them out, like "on the one hand, this point of view, and also...." It is unlikely that collectively we will produce something where we all agree with every point. I am just learning through doing on Wiki writing, like many of us. But it seems that before I deleted big chunks of someone's work or reverted it, I would open discussion with them of why and would suggest a restructuring that didn't erase their efforts, which could be extremely discouraging. By saying this, I don't want to be discouraging of you, Ide, but I want to suggest a more open line of communication. I do believe that there could be situations where it is best to shut down a discussion, or discourage or kick out a person, but those should be for extreme cases of trolling or "invasion", I think, and this does not seem like that kind of situation to me. :Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 11:17, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Coming in from a link on MY LIVEJOURNAL to do an edit and usurping my bloody agency FUCKING COUNTS AS AN INVASION. HELL. Why am I THE ONLY ONE SEEING THIS?!?!? --Ide Cyan 11:24, 10 December 2006 (PST)

(A) I'm not sure this person is a guy. Maybe you have some extra knowledge on that point but it's not evident from anything I see in the posting or user profile. (B) From the (relative) outside, looking in, the edits themselves look pretty useful and interesting. I agree that some of them are a different topic (as I said at the top comment) but that just means we could split them out to separate articles, not delete. (C) I didn't say your hostility was misplaced; I have no idea where it comes from -- maybe you have other interactions with this person, whatever -- I just said that evident hostility discourages participation. --LQ 11:19, 10 December 2006 (PST)

So I'm the only one who sees the FUCKING IRONY in you two leaping to defend those changes while I'm here in the fucking humourless feminist role, huh? HA BLOODY HA. --Ide Cyan 11:22, 10 December 2006 (PST)

No, I see your point that you don't like your ideas that are under development to be edited by a guy (?) who you don't know or trust. But I would like us on the wiki to talk and explain reasons... that's why I'm talking now. --Liz Henry 11:28, 10 December 2006 (PST)