I think that, unlike public breast feeding, what we have in MMM's posts is an example of exhibitionism.

And a very deliberate attempt to switch the topic.

Ummmm. I really don't understand your comments and I am comforted by this lack of understanding. I suspect that in person you are rather mild and would not express yourself in such a way as you do here.

" "Dick Swinging Trolls....Maybe Mr. Morgan should be castrated before he hits somebody in the eye with that damned thing."

I guess that's an example of non-angry, male-positive palaver.

Why is it that anti-male genital bashing is deemed cool on Broad Sheet?

Suppose someone writes:

"Clit clangin’ Fembots...Maybe Ms. Andry should be raped/infibulated before she engulfs more people with endless fibs using that damned thing."

Would THAT be acceptable?

> “…we’ve attracted stupid crazies and that’s especially painful/dull.”

Yes. Feminists are hardly ever the brightest bulbs in the pack.

> "As for the trolls on this site, you start to recognize them..."

Feminictionary:

TROLLS: Humans who dare question angelic feminist unreason. Snipes who thought Andrea Dworkin a wide-load man-loather. Persons who note Gloria Steinem's use sexuality to get men to subsidize her screeds. Etc.

" I have been puzzled for some time by the absolute vitriol spewed by many of the commenters throughout this site.... My first thought is always to wonder why they bother reading this section of the magazine if they despise it so much."

There goes the nay-saying neighborhood!

What next, uppity blacks demanding to be educated? Niggardly Jews demanding entry to country clubs?

Why can't feminists be allowed to spew their venom in peace and quiet?

> This "social agenda" she's pushing is not exactly nationwide castration;

It's not exactly nationwide rape, ha-ha, either.

Why is the mention of abuse to male sex organs so acceptable, while similar abuse of female pudenda is not? Why can women talk of "having balls", but men not "growing clits"? Why can women mock men publicly about "size" buy men can never mention female "smell"?

Breast-feeding kids to keep them alive is noble, but hardly "heroic." If she’d risked her life, literally, by scrambling over unstable rubble to save others, that would be. Would we call a man who clothed orphans in his old work clothes a national heroine?

> as for a nursing mom "whipping out her breasts" -

> can you tell me one instance of that EVER actually happening?

Yes. I've seen it. Doesn't happen all the time, of course. But I've seen mothers intentionally do it to shock passersby. To deny this is to deny that women are incapable of intentionally provoking others. It's like saying women never lie when they do so even after facing videos PROVING they lied. Or claiming mothers never abuse their kids for attention, despite Munchausen Syndrome.

> " Where on Earth is all this irrational rage coming from?

> Mommy never hugged you? Some girl made fun of you in

> grade school? Debbie Gibson or Julia Roberts never responded to your love letters?"

Yes, yes. No man is ever justified in being angry at anything. But question a certifiable wacko like Andrea 'Wore-Jeans-Like-Junior-on-Hee-Haw' Dworkin and you're called sexist for asking the obvious.

Incidentally, how SHOULD kids act who aren't hugged by their mothers (I mean if we dare ask the taboo question if mothers can ever harm anyone)? How are kids to act who get mocked in school?

How come we never ask feminists why THEY are angry? Why do we never question why anorexics starve themselves? Because we are to believe they have justifiable REASONS for doing so. It never dawns on feminists, though, that men might have good reasons to be angry, too.

Of course, that would blow their game. It would reveal the truth that men not only suffer equally, but that women cause equal damage in the world.

You make far too much sense to be allowed on the Internet.

Re: "a plot out of Steinbeck"--in "The Grapes of Wrath," a nursing woman breastfeeds a grown man in order to save him from starvation. That incident is the reason nutjobs periodically try to get it pulled from school library shelves and off eighth-grade reading lists.

I think it's the subtext. Mr. Morgan initially came off as the opposite of a dittohead. It's good not to be a dittohead, but it's equally good not to find fault at all costs.

It's unfortunate that Broadsheet (I initially created a truly Freudian typo, "Broadstar," has a number of posters who are reflexively angry.

Reactions may be skewed because of them or because of something in a writer's response. You can't always control your subtext.

Example: Mr. Morgan's comment about Lynx's "hate." Lynx does a damn good polemic: it's a characteristic of the larger felines. I don't think "anger" = "hate," but it may be that Mr. Morgan does or that he's hearing something else. She engages, however, on an intellectual as well as an emotional basis.

I don't see any way out of strong feelings in the subjects in Broadsheet, and I don't see why people should try.

Some of the special agendas I personally could do without, but I can't compel that.

When Patrick Morgan uses the expression "whipping out her breasts," he's criticized even after he's apologized. In fact, he's criticized for his language even when he's taking Ms. Hepola to task for ending her piece by commenting on public breastfeeding here in the states. Her wordchoice: "women popping out their boobs in public."

So is pop better than whip, or is permissible language a function of gender? I really don't think that this conversation should get mired in this (show me the muck), but on some level this absurdity needs to be pointed out now, especially since some members of the Broadsheet staff and a few members of the "ditto-head" portion of Broadsheet's readership are beginning to engage in some serious introspection.

Everyone, enjoy your weekend!

Substance matters, but style matters too. From both (as well as the body of a person's works over time), a good reader deduces the subtext that makes him or her decide that someone is funny, someone's a troll, someone's filled with hate, etc.

I think the problem here is that the Broadsheet writers' reaction to space constraints is to tie things up quickly. They try for wit: when they achieve it, they're clever. When they don't, it comes off as flip.

That creates a disconnect when the subject is serious. In this case, the intent is to honor an unselfish and devoted police officer and mother: but the "whip out a boob" comment isn't just extraneous, it's counterproductive.

I tend to call it Alumnae Quarterly Syndrome, because those too are almost compulsively perky. It's like being told "smile, sweetie" on the street by strangers.

No need.