When Angry Commenters Find Common Ground

Photo: Mikemol (CC)

Photo: Mikemol (CC)

A lot of visitors to disinformation could learn a lesson from these two. Joanna Schroeder, a feminist, and David Byron, an anti-feminist, write at the Good Men Project:

JS: So, David, you and I have a pretty interesting history, don’t we?

DB: I have talked with feminists on-line for years, and been thrown off hundreds of feminist sites.  I am always looking for someone I can talk to, but I didn’t think you were a good prospect at first.

JS: Yeah, maybe I wasn’t at first. I have always been open-minded, but I started off pretty righteous.

As far as I remember it, you and I first met online at The Good Men Project in the comments section of a piece I wrote called The (Quiet) FeministRevolution. I was pretty sure I had written something so deeply based in common sense, that the whole world would read it and say, “Oh wow, now I get it!”. I was truly flabbergasted at the reaction I received.

It was very naive and short-sighted of me.

My basic assertions in the piece were that people do acts of feminism which counter Rape Culture every day, probably without knowing it. I used two examples, one which was of my father explaining to me why he would’ve been cautious asking the woman whom we’d just seen on the side of the road in a snowstorm if she needed help, had I not been with him. And he told me not to get into cars with men I didn’t know …

Read more here.

5 Comments on "When Angry Commenters Find Common Ground"

  1. gwen jackson | Feb 9, 2012 at 4:25 am |


    the internet equivalent of a hallmark card.

    •  You need a better hobby.

      • Jerrythomas | Feb 10, 2012 at 4:20 pm |

        You need to re-read this article until you get it. I know that guy was a troll but you… you are the internet snob always sideswipping people on here.

  2. Liam_McGonagle | Feb 9, 2012 at 7:46 pm |

    Okay.  I get it.  There are unconsidered primary elements to most controversial discussions that push people’s emotional hot buttons and preclude making any progress, e.g.:  “patriarchy”, etc.

    But in a way, it’s the active presence of those ideological lode stones that draw people into the discussion to begin with.  I guarantee you, NOBODY is enthusiastic about reading an article entitled:  “Nonconsensual intimacy as a paradigm for the displacement of tensions surrounding socio-economic power relations.”

    Maybe the key is to come up with a provocative title and lead, yet deliberately focus the body on expert articulation of alternate views on one relatively narrow issue.  Forget the sweeping manifestos trying to pop your cork to an ultimate solution in one article–just identify and tackle one significant roadblock at a time.

    That’s pretty hard though in these times, though.  Perversity and stupidity are not fictional concoctions.  They are real and operative, maybe even predominant themes.

Comments are closed.