Are you all the same person? I expect to see each post prefaced with "And another thing!"

Here's rule number one: Define your terms. Get your opponent to define his.

He did define his terms. He's talking about double-standards and issue reporting as it appears on Broadsheet and attendant blogs. You're talking about whether or not a prostitute can refuse to consent to sex. For you (or your counterpart, if you're actually two different people) to insist that he is making one argument, despite all evidence to the contrary, is disingenuous.

Nope. Read the history again.

I just did. Twice.

He made a post about the Philly rape in a sort of insult to Juliebird about her post and he brought name-calling into the discussion. I don't have to argue his point on his terms.

Then you can hardly complain that he refuses to argue on *your* terms.

He opened his mouth and then shifted the discussion. His initial post was about the rape.

His initial post was about his perceived double-standard in crime reporting and rape laws, his larger point being that he has decided not to care about the violation of women's personhood until he sees some evidence that women care about the violation of men's personhood on some kind of equal footing. The Philly rape was a topical lever in the argument.

I never intend to argue with him about the worthiness of Broadsheet until the Broadsheet writers actually post an article about the worthiness of Broadsheet. Why should he be allowed to deflect every thread and suffer no heat for it? Why should he, a troll, set the terms for discussion?>

Because you keep engaging him, that's why. If you don't want him to set the terms, don't fall for the bait. He is arguing a tangential point; either pursue the argument on that point, or don't answer. Just don't hammer away at him saying that he's really arguing point Y when he's quite clearly stated that he's arguing point X.

It would be interesting to see you Kitchen Girl someone hits you with a two-by-four and you defend yourself with a feather.

If I came upon a person with a 2x4 and a grudge, I'd have the good sense not to engage them in the first place.

I appreciate both what I suspect is your disagreement with me, as well as your intellectual honesty in discussing why the other anon is taking what I wrote out of context.

No problem.

For what it's worth though, I think you're wrong to see the fight for justice as a zero-sum game.

I can look at that ruling and say "holy shit, does that judge have her head firmly up her ass" and think that it was a gross injustice, both in a legal sense and on a humanitarian sense.

However, I do also see some real injustice happening against men who are unfairly tarred with some very broad brushes in the legal system, in the media, and in certain feminist circles. I've seen false accusations of sexual abuse of children used as cudgels in divorce proceedings, I've seen men have restraining orders filed against them by vindictive ex-girlfriends, I've seen false accusations of rape that were *ignored* by the local DA (I've seen men with struggle with child-support payments that they were unable to afford and threatened with having their drivers' licenses taken away if they didn't pay (significantly, the person who was threatened with this made his living *as a cab driver*).

Injustice happens all around, and just because it happens against "my" side (whatever side I happen to choose) doesn't mean I can't recognize that it happens elsewhere. I only have so many resources and so much energy; I can't pick every battle to fight, so I have to choose carefully. For example, I give money to exactly three charities, not because I don't recognize that other organizations need help with their causes, but because that damn money tree in my backyard keeps refusing to produce fruit. So, I had to choose, and I chose based on my personal circumstances in the world.

You are welcome to choose your particular battles, and more power to you. Hell, at least you care. But you should still be able to recognize and acknowledge that other battles are going on in parallel and that they are just as worthy.

Peace.

I tell you what, Kitchen Girl, since you seem to want to go on and on with this, you can just do that, going on and on.

Nah, I'm done. I've said what I wanted to say to you, I've said what I wanted to say to Lightning Rod, and now I'm going shopping for some cute boots for Fall.

Priorities, man.

Pax.

She giggles and titters with her favorite lady-in-waiting, Bess (played by the luminous Abby Cornish) -- the two have a relationship that's semi-erotic and semiotic, a language of signals and half-smiles that's largely, though not wholly, innocent.

Hardly. The relationship between Bess Throckmorton and Queen Bess is familial -- an older sister/younger sister or auntie/favorite niece kind of thing. Bess is all the things Elizabeth cannot be, and she operates as Elizabeth's proxy in the world of normal human interaction.

I just saw it tonight, and I wasn't nearly as impressed with it as I was with the first one. The dialog was lacking, and overall it seemed kind of flat. It was interesting to note the difference in how her character was written as an unsure prisoner-turned-queen just beginning to build her nation and only dimly aware of what politics really requires, and how she was written as a seasoned and confident queen.

And Cate Blanchett just f-ing rawks no matter what she does.