I will have to admit that I find claims that are based on non-falsifiable false consciousness to be quiet subject.

Why would woman X enjoy giving head? Who knows? Maybe it is patriarchy? Maybe it is Marxian? Maybe Freudian oral fixation? Maybe it is cognitive dissonance (I don’t really enjoy it all that much, but my bf and I reciprocate etc), or maybe pleasuring the partner you love/like is the genuinely dominant reason?

But who the hell knows? It doesn’t follow from the existence of sexism that all actions are done primarily from sexist motives (ditto for racism or any other ism).

It seems that Twisty and company have two choices to make their argument even remotely plausible:

1) Good empirical social science: you actually examine what motives people to perform blowjobs and determine that people are generally deceived or are in a poor epistemic position to understand why they do it as a matter of fact, and that the real motivation is sexual self-hatred or patriachal deception (and not other psychological mechanisms).

2) Good normative philosophy: one could examine what the preconditions of maintaining one’s autonomy and dignity in a patriarchal society are, and then conclude that enjoying blowjobs (but not lesbian sex?) are simply incompatible with those preconditions….in all cases. Thus, anyone who enjoys performing fellatio does so wrongly.

Since I don’t see Twisty or anyone else in this discussion doing any of those things, I see a lot of heat and very little light.

This dialogue:

A/Banning is nasty trolls screaming for attention and detracting from useful converstion and slurring. That’s not Pony, thats MRA assholes. –
B/ No, that’s pretty much Pony, too.

is “punishment” as much as anything Pony’s done — which, like this, is words on a screen.

Yeah, a blog’s a fine and private place. Hanging a sign over your front porch that says “Joe Bloe is banned here” is not so private an action, though. And this is more like a public accommodation* in that banning someone takes action rather than being a default thing, and saying you’re banning someone is a second action and calling that person a nasty troll is a direct insult. I have nothing against direct insults but I do prefer to name them accurately and judge them as such. Dharmadyke’s simile works fairly well for me, if I understand correctly what she means by “on view parties.” Which I might not.

*What’s that sign over the soda fountain about reserving the right to refuse service to anyone? Doesn’t that ever make you wonder what’s up? Even on Telegraph Avenue?

Thus we punish our sister for sister-punishing. Pfui.

Being kept from commenting on someone’s blog is punishment? It’s the blog owner’s prerogative to set standards of acceptable discourse, and banning is one of a very few tools a blog owner has at her disposal to do so.

Zuzu and Piny and Jill are completely within their rights to ban anyone they want, for advocating genocide or using left-handed smileys instead of right-handed smilies. It looks as though this ban was prompted in part by a misunderstanding. But only in part. The context of a person’s past actions may not be allowable evidence in a court of law, but blogs are not courts of law. If the hosts here decide to take people’s behavior in other places into account in granting the privilege of access, that”s their right.

Zuzu said:

Pony’s a big reason I don’t bother reading the comments at Twisty’s anymore.

That right there is completely sufficient reason for a ban, whether I agree with it or not.

Which is not to say we can’t all complain about the ban until we’re told to stop. But it’s not “punishing” someone to be banned from a blog any more than it’s punishing someone to not be invited to a party because the host heard a rumor about how you acted at a previous party. Or because they stopped going to other people’s parties at which you were in attendance.

And now I toss my head. Well, I’m no spring colt myself. I do think we owe youth some tolerant room for learning and mistakes and we owe age some tolerance of woundedness and bitterness and service in the wars. I know, I know, this argument could be extended indefinately to require toleration of almost everyone, anywhere.

“Thus we punish our sister for sister-punishing. Pfui.” I totally agree.

Perhaps if we stand here and bray and nag and whinny, they’ll get tired of the noise, and rescind the ban?

Thus we punish our sister for sister-punishing. Pfui.

(Yes, I’m familiar with the “You’re not tolerant of my intolerance!” whine. Nevertheless.)

I’m not inclined to be lenient based on age, but maybe that’s because I’m near Pony’s age myself. I do cite the scars of experience, though, as something it might be worth paying attention to when someone shows them. And I’m not sure, that’s what Pony was showing anyway, rather than a sandpaper style — hardly unique in my experience.

Frankly, it’s this blog’s loss, that banning.

But, returning to the issue at hand, and leaving Pony completely aside, let’s consider “the galled warhorse,” a particularly useful metaphor, I think. What do we owe age and wounds acquired in the service of a war, especially when the warhorse is not always wise and sometimes bites? I’d like some toleration and generosity towards my age, my gall, my woundedness, if or rather when I am a galled old warhorse.

yrs, dharmadyke

Zuzu: I totally respect you guys, but with all due respect, Pony’s comments on IBTP are over there.

This is true. However — and I’m not taking a position on Pony, as we’ve worked out a cordial relationship from a rough start — previous behavior in other places is worth considering in general.

Frinstance, I’d probably ban D*vidByr*n if he showed up at my place with an opinion on the best brand of cornflakes.