Comments

[robinturner]

It's funny what people comment on and what they don't. I can guarantee getting a load of comments by mentioning race or American politics, and I'm pretty sure an entry along the lines of "Today I tried to compile something from CVS, but I couldn't get configure to see the damn GLX libraries" will pass by uncommented. Otherwise there doesn't seem to be a consistent pattern. Not that I care - I'm a terrible intellectual narcissist, but even I don't measure my self-worth by LJ comments - but it's kind of interesting seeing what will provoke responses. Strangely, my long, serious (heh) ethnographic piece on rhythmic gymnastics and self-defence seems to have gone unread, which is a shame since it's one of the few things I really would like feedback on. Go on, read it, it'll make you giggle. And it's got pictures, too!

Comments

[ex-fauxpas266.livejournal.com]

Dammit! I really enjoyed the piece on rhythmic gymnastics etc., and thought about leaving a comment along the lines of, "That was really interesting, thanks!" But I didn't want to leave such inane feedback because, uh, I have an intellectual image to uphold. Or something.

But yeah. I don't have anything smart to say in response, but I did really like it.

[chr0me-kitten.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking it might be because your comments on race or American politics tend to be shorter. I don't often get to longer posts until a week or so after they're posted. Basically, when I saw the gymnastics post I thought, gee. that looks interesting. I'll read it when I have the time to really read it.

Also, in respect to your last "race in America" post, it looked like it was at least in part inspired by my post on the issue, so I felt obliged to respond.

Finally, how many of the folks who respond to your journal are either American (in which case, good ol' human narcissism takes over. People like talking about themselves, particularly in a blogging community) or people who find Americans incomprehensible, stupid or both, and therefore like commenting on that incomprehensibility or stupidity? (pretty much the rest of the world)

[solri.livejournal.com]

All true, I think.

[evan.livejournal.com]

I usually offer computer advice but most of your problems are ones I don't know the answers too immediately.

And I read pretty much everything you write but I rarely have anything to say other than "interesting" or "neat" which are two words I need to stop using.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Wooo, neat!

[alexgal.livejournal.com]

I really enjoyed the rhythmic gymnastics post, I just didn't have anything insightful to say.
On second thought, I have a couple of questions. Where does McC..-whatever-her-name-is base her argument on the construction of gender identities? I kept thinking of Robin Lakoff's (also partly untenable) argument on the subordination of women through language use. Does the author make any such references?

[solri.livejournal.com]

I think she comes from a different place than my eponymous sociolinguist (did I mention that one visitor to my website actually thought I was Robin Lakoff?). I have to confess that I'm not sufficiently knowledgable about McCaughey's theoretical background to understand most of what she says about gender-identity. I read a lot about gender in the late 70's and early 80's, but things were simpler in those days. I suspect there is some Kristeva and maybe even DeLeuze or (goddess forbid) Irigaray lurking in there somewhere, but I haven't seen any direct references.