As a female friend pointed out: "Patriarchy is 32,913 people reposting Henry Rollins' opinion instead of one of the thousands of pieces written by a woman."
Hm. Seems like a little bit of a double standard though, right? A lot of the articles I've read in the wake of Steubenville have more or less been clarion calls for men to speak up about the horrors of a culture (a patriarchal one, if you will) that might set the stage for such a terrible event. A lot of really good writing, by women and men, to the effect of "everybody needs to do their part to make sure things like this don't happen, and men need to become more vocal proponents for justice through gender equality." So then to turn around and call the sharing of Rollins' essay- which was really quite good even in comparison to all the other stuff that's been written- a symptom of patriarchy seems a bit counter-intuitive, maybe arbitrarily vindictive. Why does it have to be another signifier of patriarchy? Couldn't his essay be seen and promoted as a prototype for that very feminist viewpoint that the other articles have been calling for? The bottom line, though, is that it doesn't help anything to call attention to the gender of the author over the quality of the work. Don't know much on the subject, but it seems more in line with feminist theory to say that a work ought to be promoted for the strength of its ideas and execution rather than because of the gender of the person who generated it.
Not to mention that Rollins' piece is a good sign that feminist ideas are affecting people that are interested in society and social change, particularly a person who has been influential to young people for quite a long time. I think it's great to be critical of the status quo when appropriate, but criticizing society at large for a meager amount of article sharing and Rollins for being part of a system that he exists in through no real choice of his own is as ludicrous as criticizing Elvis for popularizing black music. Rollins is a much more visible figure than many of those women writers mentioned (though conspicuously unnamed) just as in Presley's time, he was much more visible to white audiences. It's simply unfair to judge people for not being aware of the things you personally know and care about. I was guilty of that myself when I was younger and I admit that even now I sometimes do it by reflex. Anyway, hubski is about sharing alternative views and the things we're each interested in exploring and I really hope it stays that way. I also hope that this doesn't become a community where pithy, offhand comments or second-hand opinions become the norm. I for one am enjoying "a thoughtful web."
The bigger this place gets, the harder it'll be to avoid brushing up against some low-effort, low content posts. Seems like there are some neat deterrents built in ("ignore," for one) to curb at least some of those interactions. Ultimately, though, I can live with the less thoughtful stuff so long as Hubski remains more or less civil. For instance, if everybody keeps treating everybody else more or less like humans around here, and if submissions are given due diligence, low-content posts (and, by proxy, their posters) are less likely to be summarily shat upon and more likely to be followed up with calls for clarification or more effort in the future. Case in point- I don't particularly agree with Hiss's original point (or, I guess, Hiss's friend's original point), but a) it still seems to be generating some discussion, and b) it should be noted that Hiss has been really even-keeled in his responses, which in turn have helped keep this thread from turning into a massive flamewar. Any other social site (I refuse to name names), and this thread would have devolved into a series of personal attacks and shitty recycled Family Guy one-liners about five and a half hours ago. So there's that. I hope Hubski keeps that.
That seems a bit thin to me. It may be so, but might it be that Henry Rollins' piece stuck a chord with those 32,913 people who reposted it that one of those thousands of pieces written by a woman did not? Perhaps it was more accessible to them for whatever reason.
First off, you're a dude spouting off about patriarchy, picking at me, a poster, who's by the way female, about what I chose to post. So your comments aren't sitting that well with me. Second, until you find an article that says what Henry Rollins says that a woman wrote, your point is moot. Third, Henry Rollins' popularity is not only a result of his gender, but a result of everything he's done. So, while I do believe that patriarchy is a problem and feminism is necessary in modern American and the world, until you can find me an article written by a similarly situated female that says essentially the same thing, please stop spouting your psuedo-educated comments.
It's a good thing no one said that Rollins's words were, then, isn't it? In the past few days I've posted 4 articles about Steubenville, and I choose to keep it at four; there were others I could have posted and more I've seen posted, including an xojane article posted here, which should fulfill some of your yearnings for feminists speaking up on the topic, if you've seen it around. So, there's been plenty of talk about the subject on Hubski and from varied perspectives. This article is popular at the moment but it's by no means the only one.