Girly Fighting?

Really?

Vanessa Richmond: please don't let him get away with that.

Don't need no

re: "Girly fighting too, by the look of it. From across the piazza all you can see are flailing arms at the point where two crowds of young people have met, a wild flurry of slapping and punching."

Steve, fighting that amounts to a wild flurry of slapping might well seem most aptly summed-up as girly fighting to you, but, please note, such a summation can actually contribute to a mounting societal assessment of WOMEN, of females, as all so in truth, in essence, rather ridiculous, so rather-not-to-taken-seriously, so put-them-back-in-their-proper-place, girlies. Please note, woman have been spending the last two centuries and a half, trying to escavate themselves from a Hunt, from a God-damned, you barely deserve to live let alone be expected to be respected, hunt, and it would be a pity if, hoping, after all their efforts, after all this time, they've made some forward progess, they made the mistake of looking to your assessment of horsies and crowdie' antics, they felt that, no, it's all the same, that things won't change no how, no time, nowhere--no way.

You're an interesting guy, with a promising future, so I'll resist flagging this post and reporting of your contribution to a belittling, hateful atmosphere toward women, to those who truly are to be counted on to be concerned about such matters, which may, unfortunately, given your position with the Tyee and its professed respect for women's rights and animosity toward any and all that's disrespectul to those who've historically been the brunt of brutal discrimination and shame, prove of a smaller cohort than we've been lead to believe. Of course I could be accused of making too much of such a small thing, but hopefully we've all done enough redemptive work, to know that this might amount to digging a deeper hole.

Mancations; West Edmonton Mall women, shopping--as a, as THE problem; girly vs. manly kinds of fights . . . Changes ahead? I'm indeed wondering where you're headed, Tyee.

Thank you, PatrickMcEvoyHalston

a lot of us are wondering where The Tyee is headed.

And I'll echo that too Mary....

The new look won't mean much if all that's happening is same old, same old....

Not to pick on Steve Burgess especially of course, he can be quite a funny fellow at times, - but it 'is' a troubling trend: Facebook, Twitter, photo albums, ‘Shopping’ etc.

Somehow it just doesn't seem feisty any more in fact, it seems almost, as a good friend put it the other day, a bit ‘passive aggressive’ in its demeanor.

I really wonder what kind of marketing experts and PR people the powers that be are talking to.

We shall soon see.

I believe I'll refrain

from speculating where the Tyee is going...there is enough to focus on where it's already gone.

As Patrick says, this will undoubtedly be passed off as a small thing, and to pick on the term "girly fighting", making too much of a small thing. I can assure you, though, that it wouldn't pass muster by my university's style guide for non-sexist, inclusive, etc. writing...

I remember, as a young woman during a job interview, being asked what kind of birth control I used. I remember an employee manual that specified in excrutiating detail the style of bra that female employees were permitted to wear on the job.I remember, with absolute clarity, entering a small cafe for breakfast that was full of lawyers on their way to court, and the ensuing cacophony of voices remarking on my ass and various other attributes. All this...when? In the 1980s...

So I say that "girly fighting", as a term, may have a symbolic resonance for some of us of behaviour intended to degrade that was once routine. But it surely also has a more than symbolic resonance in signifying the type of comments that may be appropriate. And respectfully, Steve, what might have been an interesting article is a little soured for me.

Just to be clear, G West. I

Just to be clear, G West. I don't mind the subject matter, at all--I'm all for ostensible "soft" news, redemption (I said something as much on Vanessa's MJ post. It's the subtle, most certainly unconscious "move" to set up the "feminine" as suspect, that concerns.

I hope they appreciate hearing your friend's feedback. It surely interested me.

BC Mary: You're welcome. You may not like my opinion as to why the "feminine" came to become suspect, however, as to why women have been the subject of brutal treatment for millenia. I am not one to believe that some time way back, guys got together (perhaps on one of their cavecations?) and came up the inspired but hugely evil idea of enslaving women, to help set themselves up so much more "prettily." No one who hasn't been brutally treated as an infant, in her/his youth, would participate in setting up women, set up ANYONE, as intrinsically suspect--no matter the nature of "books," later pressed upon her/him. Those who have only known hate/disregard, have only that to offer others. True for men. True for women. True for dads. True for mothers.

From my point of view the

From my point of view the whole story reeks of outmoded, sexist, pro-violence, tribal warfare, and "anyone who isn't a first place winner is a loser" mindset idiocy.

I have to ponder, have there been any Girly-hospitalizations; Girly dismemberments; Girly murders?

Really, I see nothing whatsoever laudable in this story or especially in this event. The whole mess is reminiscent of that other pathetic latino tradition: bullfighting.

"One year ... I came upon a group of young Aquilini ... waving Aquila flags and singing "E o subico" -- You are sewage."

Isn't that just lovely.

Isn't it time humans leave the jungle behind, remove their simian underclothes, and participate in some serious behaviour modification?

Burgess, you're a good writer. But you sure haven't sold me with this piece of tribalistic trash mongering.

The Tyee Sky is not falling

I don’t understand the need to trash the writers of the Tyee everytime there is an article that offends hegemonic sensibilities. While it is important to hold our writers accountable, it has to be done with real reason. As for the sexist ramblings in this article, a couple of lines, including the reference to Monica Lewinsky also left me a little puzzled as to what the author’s intentions are. However, the need to question the direction of the Tyee everytime an article does not meet some mysterious standard is becoming absurd.

Vanessa Richmond wrote an article last year comparing and contrasting the media treatment of Spears and Jolie. While it was “shallow” article, it was designed to provoke thought and discussion. However, it brought calls of “Why is the Tyee publishing this sort of National Inquirer crap” by some commentators who did not even bother to read the article.

There is a great variety of writing at the Tyee. If you don’t like this piece, you could spend some time commenting on the “Liberia, a Tricky Path to Justice” or the "Food Inc" piece. I encourage the writers at the Tyee to continue to take risks and provide us with many alternative subjects to consider.

In praise of girly-fighting

I am a hopeless case I fear.

I take no offense at the term "girly-fighting."

Having been a girl for all my life, I have a great affection for "girly-fighting".

Now if I was to enlist in the army I would have to learn to fight like a man.

And no doubt I could do so and become fairly good at it.

I could learn all the tricks of the trade of how to quickly and efficiently hurt and kill people.

That there are still pockets of girls/women who are not drawn to the killing fields, and still enjoy fighting and tussling like a girl - eg, "girly-fighting" - meaning we never want to seriously maim or hurt anyone or ourselves (we're not stupid) in the process is probably a sign that humankind still has a small hope that it might survive.

Long live girly-fighting.

It is the best way to fight.

Mankind should try it as an option sometime.

Just a suggestion.

Enjoyed the article as well.

Moat...

Nobody is trashing the writer here: several people have complimented Steve.I believe you are confusing the expression of dissenting opinion or discussion designed to provoke thought with 'trash'.
Presumably, this article too "was designed to provoke thought and discussion" - or why provide a comments section?

"Thought provoking" is indeed the reason many of us come to this site; otherwise we could just read the pablum passing as news and views in much of the mainstream media. There is an interesting piece of research that identifies that many people like to read the familiar, that which reflects their own views - but there are also those who like to read the unexpected, the deep analysis of arcane events, the examination of cultural truths...but without sexism, homophobia, or racism - no mysterious standard there, as it is the expressed standard of the Tyee. I say that true "risk taking" would probably mean looking rather squarely at cultural conventions, myself.

So you suggest that those who don't like this piece should move on to read something else...speaking personally, I read everything here. Yes, wouldn't it be heart-warming to read a string of glowing, positive comments? Rather more true to the intellectual imperative, though, to read those honest disagreements forcefully stated without malice. I've made my points about what bothers me in the article - as have several others - rather politely, but it is difficult to be polite in the face of being told what to think or when to comment.

Please feel free to express your view of the article, or your view of others' views, but kindly do not attempt to direct the expression of my thinking.

holding to account!, and all that jazz

Moat, you didn't reference SicPreFix's post, which addressed the entirety of the piece, not "just" a "couple of lines." S/he, you noticed, is one whose (silly?) "hegemonic sensibilities" weren't so highly-strung, they disabled her/him from finishing reading the piece.

I am one that tends to really engage in stuff some find unworthy of even a brief comment. But there are times when I won't do it, and will instead offer some broader critique--from part to whole. And when I'm beginning to sense that the range that you yourself still see, seems to me to be much less marked, and of a nature/direction that genuinely concerns, I talk it.

Pieces just don't "provoke discussion," here. Many times they are not most fairly/accurately summed up/essentialized as of the kind of stuff that opens things up. Many times there are articles here that discourage/disparage certain ways of looking at the world, that work to shut things down, to shut people down. I like it when people go at these articles in an alive way, to challenge what might well be--who knows?--a rather unfortunate narrowing, rather than a wholy commendable opening of things up (something all periodicals/media outlets pretend to: even [or even especially] the likes of FOX news). You may not intend, but you play in a way to taught appreciations of the media and readers, here, to shut certain readers/commenters down and buoy journalists up, which requires some challenge.

Most times, again, I really go at the entirety of the piece, because most articles are alive enough that you may not most fairly go at them (though this doesn't necessarily follow), that you cannot resist not engaging with them, by taking on two lines. If this the case with this piece? I had too many other articles also (reverberating) in mind when I read/addressed this one. But SicPreFix didn't--was focused solely on this one. And looks to be one who feels the whole of it is to be found in the smaller part.

It is no good when people are afraid to say things, however. And it is good when writers operate with a certain, with a considerable, disregard for what others might say--how else to integrity? how else to productivity?, how else to, even, sunshine!, pirates!, sundae sweetness!, and a better world? And it is true that people are very quick to shut people down when they say anything un-pc, as many who contribute to discussions here, have learned from past experience.

Perhaps almost as quick as they are to jump on those who can be set up to seem implusive, flippant, indulgent--"girlie": i.e., those whose obsession over the trivial, makes them sadly inferior to those able to hold to proper account.

To this man's eye, it is the

To this man's eye, it is the very political rigidness, even of people as diabolical as writers with a sense of humour, demanded by the Authoritarian Left that is the poison in the cup that leaves them forever dwelling in the starting gate of most of this country's electoral races - especially the Big Race. Freedom of speech is a damn clever idea - people like it - and is only ever opposed by enemies of the people. I hope the Tyee continues to allow a little of it beneath its fishy banner.

freedom of speech...

always a good idea. Relates to the comments section, too.

Response

Since people seem to feel strongly about this, I'll respond.

"Girly fighting"--It's a joke. Pick your battles, folks. Save the outrage for the real issues. Or can one of you explain to me the underlying lack of respect, the clear disdain for gender equality, represented by an old-fashioned term for slap fighting? Am I failing to acknowledge the very real hopes and aspirations of 21st century women to haul off and break noses with solid pile-driving punches?

SicPreFix wrote: "... the whole story reeks of outmoded, sexist, pro-violence, tribal warfare...."

So you don't object only to my perceived attitude, but to the reported facts as well? Perhaps I should rewrite the story so that an eight-century-old Italian tradition no longer offends your sensibilities?

And why is it that so many Tyee posters take umbrage at any attempt to broaden the scope of this magazine beyond their pet subjects? Down with tyranny, I say.

Maybe stop with the broadening of scope,

and entertain some appreciation, some respect, for this wild ride?

Guess we didn't realize you weren't saying they slapped away at one another like girls, that what you were saying is that they fought in the manner people used to without compunction reference as girly fighting, before feminists, concerned leftists, showed how using these ostensibly "innocent" terms, however innocently, very much contributed to an everyday lived environment which denigrated women while it upraised men.

These same concerned feminists have been trying to show that it's never a little joke obsessed over only by the intrinsically silly, whose sillyness is such that they quite rightly ought to be the subject of quick but forceful dismissal by Hemingway-venturing men, who feel they have a solid claim on being feminist, themselves, but who take suspicious, not-so-feminist pleasure in setting up people as overly-sensitive, easily offended, silly-types, with pet projects and a domestic narrowness of scope--that is, in ways/terms traditionally used to keep women in their place, well out of the affairs, and hair, of men.

Re: Response

Steve Burgess said:

"So you don't object only to my perceived attitude, but to the reported facts as well? Perhaps I should rewrite the story so that an eight-century-old Italian tradition no longer offends your sensibilities?"

Not at all. What I am objecting to, in part, and I thought this was clear enough, is the enthusiastic, gung-ho, glorification of such semi-simian behaviour and descriptions as evidenced by:

"Fighting has broken out in Siena's Piazza del Campo. Girly fighting too, by the look of it."

"... battle for civic glory by means of a horse race."

"... be prepared to punch someone for wearing the wrong scarf."

"Second place is for losers"

Etc., etc., etc.

And, yes, I am indeed critical of such socio-cultural traditions, however old or young they may be. They strike me as exemplary of regressive, hostile, us versus them thinking that is no longer socially or culturally appropriate, healthy, constructive, or useful.

Hey, you are a very good writer. However, I question your approach and perhaps your point of view -- though that is really outside my bailiwick. Isn't that, in part, what the comments section is for?

Lastly, perhaps people are taking umbrage with the so-called broadening of the scope of the magazine, because historically, whenever a quality magazine of almost any kind broadens its scope, that often seems to mean weaken its editorial focus, lessen its relevance, and invite in the woo, the goofy, and the commercially profitable in preference to the meaningful. And of course then we end up with something meaningless like that upper-class lifestyle prosletyzer and excuse for advertising called the G____ S_____.

response/response

“Pick your battles, folks. Save the outrage for the real issues. Or can one of you explain to me the underlying lack of respect, the clear disdain for gender equality, represented by an old-fashioned term for slap fighting?”
Well, Steve, I expect I can, but that’s probably a little beside the point, and personally, I think it has been well delineated by your response why it shows belittling…”Save the outrage for the real issues”.
However, in case I didn’t make clear, this is a real issue for me…never the less I don’t believe any outrage is being expressed here; that’s rather a strong term. I expect that you ought have freedom, within the broad editorial policies of the Tyee, to write what you will without undue interference…and I expect that the same respect will be accorded to readers/commenters. When you weigh in to tell us to “pick [our] battles” and “save [our] outrage for the real issues” , it might be construed as directing the commentary in a particular vein…Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech if applied only to the writer, and not the commenters …is it?

Garb of Defender of Free Speech?

Wow. VivianLea, you are pretty good at putting on the garb as a defender of free speech and open communication. No one told you what and when to post, and in my previous post, I did not even reference you. I stayed away from getting too specific because I did not want to be too abrasive with some of the posters that I genuinely enjoy reading. However, there was a call to edit the article because an expression that could freely be used in a grocery store (without offense) was employed. That is not to deny that the expression does not have some negative connotation or social baggage. The comments section is indeed the section for addressing that. But as the author Steve Burgess has stated, “save your outrage for the real issues”. I don’t wish to engage in a defense of the use of the term, as I think lynn gave us another perspective on use of such an expression. I have not told you, Vivian, what or when to post, but I suggested that people might refrain from publicly questioning the direction of the Tyee every time an article does not meet their personal standards is posted. There are other avenues for that, such as writing the editor David Beers or the author directly.

By your own admission, VivianLea, you are very concerned about others “attempt[ing] to direct the expression of [your] thinking.” I thought the idea for having a comments section was to engage in discussion and rhetoric, which is the art of persuasion. I am open to people trying to direct my thinking, as it encourages me to reflect on my beliefs.

To Patrick, I don’t always agree with your comments, and I am sure we will cross opinions again. I don’t think you agree with my comments either, but there seems to be some level of appreciation – almost like a good neighbor agreement. Mind you, I have only recently started posting again. Still, I think we have both read each other’s posts with care, and are willing to engage in the rhetorical exercise.

I am sure that the Tyee will continue to support and recognize the importance of free speech.

indeed

Thank you, I am indeed good at putting on the garb of defender of free speech; more than you can know perhaps, I wear it every day. With a bit of elan...(she says modestly).

I don't want to repeat my arguments (you'll be glad to hear), except to say that it is not "my personal standards" that Tyee articles must meet, but that of editorial policy. I simply wish that same policy to apply to commenters.

I hope that makes it clear...In a posting on another thread, you referred to social conventions that we (as a culture) adhere to...I would put forth that if you examine your social conventions you might see that I am extremely direct, and not very 'girly', but rather dedicated to politesse in manner of conversing. I never take offense when someone holds a view contrary to my own, but I will own to enjoying the "feisty fish" quite a bit better than the "genteel persuasion". (Forgive me Patrick, for borrowing your words once again.)

Palio

I've watched the Palio event in Sienna - at different times on TV, not in person unfortunately - with bemusement and amusement in about equal quantities.

The race is seriously not serious, so lighten up, folks. I'm with Steve.