[006]
contradictioninterms
Current Version
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
There is a theoretical framework. A really obvious one! What about the \
to:
There is a theoretical framework. A really obvious one! What about the \\\"active and passive attributes\\\"? What are those? Is \\\"love\\\" an active or passive attribute?
\\\"Female characters are defined by their value to others, ...\\\" What does this mean? You could just as easily say that \\\"Male characters are defined by their value to others.\\\"
Like, this later sentence is better: \\\"In terms of characterization, female characters tend to be characterized by their relationships to other characters...\\\" Uh, maybe it\\\'s not better.
It\\\'s \\\'\\\'sometimes\\\'\\\' the case that someone\\\'s mom\\\'s role in the plot will revolve around the fact that she is someone\\\'s mom, or X\\\'s wife will just have some stock wife-of-X traits, which I guess is what you\\\'re getting at.
\\\"An Expendable male character is treated as if their interior, emotionally reactive world is irrelevant. This dynamic takes Actification to it\\\'s most extreme and disturbing conclusion; whatever happens to a man he deserves because he let it happen. ...\\\" These sentences don\\\'t even make sense together! How can a person with no interior world \\\"deserve\\\" something or \\\"let something happen\\\"?
Let\\\'s just argue about that to start with.
> If an argument relating X to Y can stand on its own merits, then it can be stated succinctly on the page in plain english without appeals to theory (but with first sources as evidence.)
Yes, exactly.
> I\\\'m not sure how appealing to masculist theory will clarify anything; as in \\\"Socially, stigmatizing masculinity in women is really sexism against men. In masculist theory this is because of the misandry inherent in the creation of the Other within Hegemonic feminine discourse.\\\"
...is your style. I\\\'m the reasonable, patient one. I would write it like this.
Remember, it\\\'s \\\"Socially, X means Y. Q theory says Z.\\\"
Socially, a straight guy who does feminine things (X) is considered creepy. Feminist theory says that this is to maintain the hierarchy: if one admits that men naturally like doing feminine things as well, how can women be looked down upon for doing them?
See how it leaves open the possibility that the theory is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\'? Oh man, this is rocket science here.
But the point is not to jam a feminist primer into a page where it\\\'s unnecessary, but to take out the one-off theoretical ideas and jargon that are already there. I was suggesting feminist theory as an emergency measure if you just can\\\'t give theoretical stuff up.
\\\"Female characters are defined by their value to others, ...\\\" What does this mean? You could just as easily say that \\\"Male characters are defined by their value to others.\\\"
Like, this later sentence is better: \\\"In terms of characterization, female characters tend to be characterized by their relationships to other characters...\\\" Uh, maybe it\\\'s not better.
It\\\'s \\\'\\\'sometimes\\\'\\\' the case that someone\\\'s mom\\\'s role in the plot will revolve around the fact that she is someone\\\'s mom, or X\\\'s wife will just have some stock wife-of-X traits, which I guess is what you\\\'re getting at.
\\\"An Expendable male character is treated as if their interior, emotionally reactive world is irrelevant. This dynamic takes Actification to it\\\'s most extreme and disturbing conclusion; whatever happens to a man he deserves because he let it happen. ...\\\" These sentences don\\\'t even make sense together! How can a person with no interior world \\\"deserve\\\" something or \\\"let something happen\\\"?
Let\\\'s just argue about that to start with.
> If an argument relating X to Y can stand on its own merits, then it can be stated succinctly on the page in plain english without appeals to theory (but with first sources as evidence.)
Yes, exactly.
> I\\\'m not sure how appealing to masculist theory will clarify anything; as in \\\"Socially, stigmatizing masculinity in women is really sexism against men. In masculist theory this is because of the misandry inherent in the creation of the Other within Hegemonic feminine discourse.\\\"
...is your style. I\\\'m the reasonable, patient one. I would write it like this.
Remember, it\\\'s \\\"Socially, X means Y. Q theory says Z.\\\"
Socially, a straight guy who does feminine things (X) is considered creepy. Feminist theory says that this is to maintain the hierarchy: if one admits that men naturally like doing feminine things as well, how can women be looked down upon for doing them?
See how it leaves open the possibility that the theory is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\'? Oh man, this is rocket science here.
But the point is not to jam a feminist primer into a page where it\\\'s unnecessary, but to take out the one-off theoretical ideas and jargon that are already there. I was suggesting feminist theory as an emergency measure if you just can\\\'t give theoretical stuff up.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
There is a theoretical framework. A really obvious one! What about the \
to:
There is a theoretical framework. A really obvious one! What about the \\\"active and passive attributes\\\"? What are those? Is \\\"love\\\" an active or passive attribute?
\\\"Female characters are defined by their value to others, ...\\\" What does this mean? You could just as easily say that \\\"Male characters are defined by their value to others.\\\"
Like, this later sentence is better: \\\"In terms of characterization, female characters tend to be characterized by their relationships to other characters...\\\" Uh, maybe it\\\'s not better.
It\\\'s \\\'\\\'sometimes\\\'\\\' the case that someone\\\'s mom\\\'s role in the plot will revolve around the fact that she is someone\\\'s mom, or X\\\'s wife will just have some stock wife-of-X traits, which I guess is what you\\\'re getting at.
\\\"An Expendable male character is treated as if their interior, emotionally reactive world is irrelevant. This dynamic takes Actification to it\\\'s most extreme and disturbing conclusion; whatever happens to a man he deserves because he let it happen. ...\\\" These sentences don\\\'t even make sense together! How can a person with no interior world \\\"deserve\\\" something or \\\"let something happen\\\"?
Let\\\'s just argue about that to start with.
> If an argument relating X to Y can stand on its own merits, then it can be stated succinctly on the page in plain english without appeals to theory (but with first sources as evidence.)
\\\'\\\'Yes, exactly.\\\'\\\'
> I\\\'m not sure how appealing to masculist theory will clarify anything; as in \\\"Socially, stigmatizing masculinity in women is really sexism against men. In masculist theory this is because of the misandry inherent in the creation of the Other within Hegemonic feminine discourse.\\\"
...is your style. I\\\'m the reasonable, patient one. I would write it like this.
Remember, it\\\'s \\\"Socially, X means Y. Q theory says Z.\\\"
Socially, a straight guy who does feminine things (X) is considered creepy. Feminist theory says that this is to maintain the hierarchy: if one admits that men naturally like doing feminine things as well, how can women be looked down upon for doing them?
See how it leaves open the possibility that the theory is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\'? Oh man, this is rocket science here.
But the point is not to jam a feminist primer into a page where it\\\'s unnecessary, but to take out the one-off theoretical ideas and jargon that are already there. I was suggesting feminist theory as an emergency measure if you just can\\\'t give theoretical stuff up.
\\\"Female characters are defined by their value to others, ...\\\" What does this mean? You could just as easily say that \\\"Male characters are defined by their value to others.\\\"
Like, this later sentence is better: \\\"In terms of characterization, female characters tend to be characterized by their relationships to other characters...\\\" Uh, maybe it\\\'s not better.
It\\\'s \\\'\\\'sometimes\\\'\\\' the case that someone\\\'s mom\\\'s role in the plot will revolve around the fact that she is someone\\\'s mom, or X\\\'s wife will just have some stock wife-of-X traits, which I guess is what you\\\'re getting at.
\\\"An Expendable male character is treated as if their interior, emotionally reactive world is irrelevant. This dynamic takes Actification to it\\\'s most extreme and disturbing conclusion; whatever happens to a man he deserves because he let it happen. ...\\\" These sentences don\\\'t even make sense together! How can a person with no interior world \\\"deserve\\\" something or \\\"let something happen\\\"?
Let\\\'s just argue about that to start with.
> If an argument relating X to Y can stand on its own merits, then it can be stated succinctly on the page in plain english without appeals to theory (but with first sources as evidence.)
\\\'\\\'Yes, exactly.\\\'\\\'
> I\\\'m not sure how appealing to masculist theory will clarify anything; as in \\\"Socially, stigmatizing masculinity in women is really sexism against men. In masculist theory this is because of the misandry inherent in the creation of the Other within Hegemonic feminine discourse.\\\"
...is your style. I\\\'m the reasonable, patient one. I would write it like this.
Remember, it\\\'s \\\"Socially, X means Y. Q theory says Z.\\\"
Socially, a straight guy who does feminine things (X) is considered creepy. Feminist theory says that this is to maintain the hierarchy: if one admits that men naturally like doing feminine things as well, how can women be looked down upon for doing them?
See how it leaves open the possibility that the theory is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\'? Oh man, this is rocket science here.
But the point is not to jam a feminist primer into a page where it\\\'s unnecessary, but to take out the one-off theoretical ideas and jargon that are already there. I was suggesting feminist theory as an emergency measure if you just can\\\'t give theoretical stuff up.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
There is a theoretical framework. A really obvious one! What about the \
to:
There is a theoretical framework. A really obvious one! What about the \\\"active and passive attributes\\\"? What are those? Is \\\"love\\\" an active or passive attribute?
\\\"Female characters are defined by their value to others, ...\\\" What does this mean? You could just as easily say that \\\"Male characters are defined by their value to others.\\\"
Like, this later sentence is better: \\\"In terms of characterization, female characters tend to be characterized by their relationships to other characters...\\\" Uh, maybe it\\\'s not better.
It\\\'s \\\'\\\'sometimes\\\'\\\' the case that someone\\\'s mom\\\'s role in the plot will revolve around the fact that she is someone\\\'s mom, or X\\\'s wife will just have some stock wife-of-X traits, which I guess is what you\\\'re getting at.
\\\"An Expendable male character is treated as if their interior, emotionally reactive world is irrelevant. This dynamic takes Actification to it\\\'s most extreme and disturbing conclusion; whatever happens to a man he deserves because he let it happen. ...\\\" These sentences don\\\'t even make sense together! How can a person with no interior world \\\"deserve\\\" something or \\\"let something happen\\\"?
Let\\\'s just argue about that to start with.
> I\\\'m not sure how appealing to masculist theory will clarify anything; as in \\\"Socially, stigmatizing masculinity in women is really sexism against men. In masculist theory this is because of the misandry inherent in the creation of the Other within Hegemonic feminine discourse.\\\"
...is your style. I\\\'m the reasonable, patient one. I would write it like this.
Remember, it\\\'s \\\"Socially, X means Y. Q theory says Z.\\\"
Socially, a straight guy who does feminine things (X) is considered creepy. Feminist theory says that this is to maintain the hierarchy: if one admits that men naturally like doing feminine things as well, how can women be looked down upon for doing them?
See how it leaves open the possibility that the theory is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\'? Oh man, this is rocket science here.
But the point is not to jam a feminist primer into a page where it\\\'s unnecessary, but to take out the one-off theoretical ideas and jargon that are already there. I was suggesting feminist theory as an emergency measure if you just can\\\'t give theoretical stuff up.
\\\"Female characters are defined by their value to others, ...\\\" What does this mean? You could just as easily say that \\\"Male characters are defined by their value to others.\\\"
Like, this later sentence is better: \\\"In terms of characterization, female characters tend to be characterized by their relationships to other characters...\\\" Uh, maybe it\\\'s not better.
It\\\'s \\\'\\\'sometimes\\\'\\\' the case that someone\\\'s mom\\\'s role in the plot will revolve around the fact that she is someone\\\'s mom, or X\\\'s wife will just have some stock wife-of-X traits, which I guess is what you\\\'re getting at.
\\\"An Expendable male character is treated as if their interior, emotionally reactive world is irrelevant. This dynamic takes Actification to it\\\'s most extreme and disturbing conclusion; whatever happens to a man he deserves because he let it happen. ...\\\" These sentences don\\\'t even make sense together! How can a person with no interior world \\\"deserve\\\" something or \\\"let something happen\\\"?
Let\\\'s just argue about that to start with.
> I\\\'m not sure how appealing to masculist theory will clarify anything; as in \\\"Socially, stigmatizing masculinity in women is really sexism against men. In masculist theory this is because of the misandry inherent in the creation of the Other within Hegemonic feminine discourse.\\\"
...is your style. I\\\'m the reasonable, patient one. I would write it like this.
Remember, it\\\'s \\\"Socially, X means Y. Q theory says Z.\\\"
Socially, a straight guy who does feminine things (X) is considered creepy. Feminist theory says that this is to maintain the hierarchy: if one admits that men naturally like doing feminine things as well, how can women be looked down upon for doing them?
See how it leaves open the possibility that the theory is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\'? Oh man, this is rocket science here.
But the point is not to jam a feminist primer into a page where it\\\'s unnecessary, but to take out the one-off theoretical ideas and jargon that are already there. I was suggesting feminist theory as an emergency measure if you just can\\\'t give theoretical stuff up.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
There is a theoretical framework. A really obvious one! What about the \
to:
There is a theoretical framework. A really obvious one! What about the \\\"active and passive attributes\\\"? What are those? Is \\\"love\\\" an active or passive attribute?
\\\"Female characters are defined by their value to others, ...\\\" What does this mean? You could just as easily say that \\\"Male characters are defined by their value to others.\\\"
Like, this later sentence is better: \\\"In terms of characterization, female characters tend to be characterized by their relationships to other characters...\\\" Uh, maybe it\\\'s not better.
It\\\'s \\\'\\\'sometimes\\\'\\\' the case that someone\\\'s mom\\\'s role in the plot will revolve around the fact that she is someone\\\'s mom, or X\\\'s wife will just have some stock wife-of-X traits, which I guess is what you\\\'re getting at.
\\\"An Expendable male character is treated as if their interior, emotionally reactive world is irrelevant. This dynamic takes Actification to it\\\'s most extreme and disturbing conclusion; whatever happens to a man he deserves because he let it happen. ...\\\" These sentences don\\\'t even make sense together! How can a person with no interior world \\\"deserve\\\" something or \\\"let something happen\\\"?
Let\\\'s just argue about those three to start with.
> I\\\'m not sure how appealing to masculist theory will clarify anything; as in \\\"Socially, stigmatizing masculinity in women is really sexism against men. In masculist theory this is because of the misandry inherent in the creation of the Other within Hegemonic feminine discourse.\\\"
...is your style. I\\\'m the reasonable, patient one. I would write it like this.
Remember, it\\\'s \\\"Socially, X means Y. Q theory says Z.\\\"
Socially, a straight guy who does feminine things (X) is considered creepy. Feminist theory says that this is to maintain the hierarchy: if one admits that men naturally like doing feminine things as well, how can women be looked down upon for doing them?
See how it leaves open the possibility that the theory is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\'? Oh man, this is rocket science here.
But the point is not to jam a feminist primer into a page where it\\\'s unnecessary, but to take out the one-off theoretical ideas and jargon that are already there. I was suggesting feminist theory as an emergency measure if you just can\\\'t give theoretical stuff up.
\\\"Female characters are defined by their value to others, ...\\\" What does this mean? You could just as easily say that \\\"Male characters are defined by their value to others.\\\"
Like, this later sentence is better: \\\"In terms of characterization, female characters tend to be characterized by their relationships to other characters...\\\" Uh, maybe it\\\'s not better.
It\\\'s \\\'\\\'sometimes\\\'\\\' the case that someone\\\'s mom\\\'s role in the plot will revolve around the fact that she is someone\\\'s mom, or X\\\'s wife will just have some stock wife-of-X traits, which I guess is what you\\\'re getting at.
\\\"An Expendable male character is treated as if their interior, emotionally reactive world is irrelevant. This dynamic takes Actification to it\\\'s most extreme and disturbing conclusion; whatever happens to a man he deserves because he let it happen. ...\\\" These sentences don\\\'t even make sense together! How can a person with no interior world \\\"deserve\\\" something or \\\"let something happen\\\"?
Let\\\'s just argue about those three to start with.
> I\\\'m not sure how appealing to masculist theory will clarify anything; as in \\\"Socially, stigmatizing masculinity in women is really sexism against men. In masculist theory this is because of the misandry inherent in the creation of the Other within Hegemonic feminine discourse.\\\"
...is your style. I\\\'m the reasonable, patient one. I would write it like this.
Remember, it\\\'s \\\"Socially, X means Y. Q theory says Z.\\\"
Socially, a straight guy who does feminine things (X) is considered creepy. Feminist theory says that this is to maintain the hierarchy: if one admits that men naturally like doing feminine things as well, how can women be looked down upon for doing them?
See how it leaves open the possibility that the theory is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\'? Oh man, this is rocket science here.
But the point is not to jam a feminist primer into a page where it\\\'s unnecessary, but to take out the one-off theoretical ideas and jargon that are already there. I was suggesting feminist theory as an emergency measure if you just can\\\'t give theoretical stuff up.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
There is a theoretical framework. A really obvious one! What about the \
to:
There is a theoretical framework. A really obvious one! What about the \\\"active and passive attributes\\\"? What are those? Is \\\"love\\\" an active or passive attribute?
-
\\\"Female characters are defined by their value to others, ...\\\" What does this mean? You could just as easily say that \\\"Male characters are defined by their value to others.\\\"
Like, this later sentence is better: \\\"In terms of characterization, female characters tend to be characterized by their relationships to other characters...\\\" Uh, maybe it\\\'s not better.
It\\\'s \\\'\\\'sometimes\\\'\\\' the case that someone\\\'s mom\\\'s role in the plot will revolve around the fact that she is someone\\\'s mom, or X\\\'s wife will just have some stock wife-of-X traits, which I guess is what you\\\'re getting at.
-
\\\"An Expendable male character is treated as if their interior, emotionally reactive world is irrelevant. This dynamic takes Actification to it\\\'s most extreme and disturbing conclusion; whatever happens to a man he deserves because he let it happen. ...\\\"
These sentences don\\\'t even make sense together! How can a person with no interior world \\\"deserve\\\" something or \\\"let something happen\\\"?
Let\\\'s just argue about those three to start with.
**
> I\\\'m not sure how appealing to masculist theory will clarify anything; as in \\\"Socially, stigmatizing masculinity in women is really sexism against men. In masculist theory this is because of the misandry inherent in the creation of the Other within Hegemonic feminine discourse.\\\"
...is your style. I\\\'m the reasonable, patient one. I would write it like this.
Remember, it\\\'s \\\"Socially, X means Y. Q theory says Z.\\\"
Socially, a straight guy who does feminine things (X) is considered creepy. Feminist theory says that this is to maintain the hierarchy: if one admits that men naturally like doing feminine things as well, how can women be looked down upon for doing them?
See how it leaves open the possibility that the theory is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\'? Oh man, this is rocket science here.
But the point is not to jam a feminist primer into a page where it\\\'s unnecessary, but to take out the one-off theoretical ideas and jargon that are already there. I was suggesting feminist theory as an emergency measure if you just can\\\'t give theoretical stuff up.
-
\\\"Female characters are defined by their value to others, ...\\\" What does this mean? You could just as easily say that \\\"Male characters are defined by their value to others.\\\"
Like, this later sentence is better: \\\"In terms of characterization, female characters tend to be characterized by their relationships to other characters...\\\" Uh, maybe it\\\'s not better.
It\\\'s \\\'\\\'sometimes\\\'\\\' the case that someone\\\'s mom\\\'s role in the plot will revolve around the fact that she is someone\\\'s mom, or X\\\'s wife will just have some stock wife-of-X traits, which I guess is what you\\\'re getting at.
-
\\\"An Expendable male character is treated as if their interior, emotionally reactive world is irrelevant. This dynamic takes Actification to it\\\'s most extreme and disturbing conclusion; whatever happens to a man he deserves because he let it happen. ...\\\"
These sentences don\\\'t even make sense together! How can a person with no interior world \\\"deserve\\\" something or \\\"let something happen\\\"?
Let\\\'s just argue about those three to start with.
**
> I\\\'m not sure how appealing to masculist theory will clarify anything; as in \\\"Socially, stigmatizing masculinity in women is really sexism against men. In masculist theory this is because of the misandry inherent in the creation of the Other within Hegemonic feminine discourse.\\\"
...is your style. I\\\'m the reasonable, patient one. I would write it like this.
Remember, it\\\'s \\\"Socially, X means Y. Q theory says Z.\\\"
Socially, a straight guy who does feminine things (X) is considered creepy. Feminist theory says that this is to maintain the hierarchy: if one admits that men naturally like doing feminine things as well, how can women be looked down upon for doing them?
See how it leaves open the possibility that the theory is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\'? Oh man, this is rocket science here.
But the point is not to jam a feminist primer into a page where it\\\'s unnecessary, but to take out the one-off theoretical ideas and jargon that are already there. I was suggesting feminist theory as an emergency measure if you just can\\\'t give theoretical stuff up.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
There is a theoretical framework. A really obvious one! What about the \
to:
There is a theoretical framework. A really obvious one! What about the \\\"active and passive attributes\\\"? What are those? Is \\\"love\\\" an active or passive attribute?
-
\\\"Female characters are defined by their value to others, ...\\\" What does this mean? You could just as easily say that \\\"Male characters are defined by their value to others.\\\"
Like, this later sentence is better: \\\"In terms of characterization, female characters tend to be characterized by their relationships to other characters...\\\" Uh, maybe it\\\'s not better.
It\\\'s \\\'\\\'sometimes\\\'\\\' the case that someone\\\'s mom\\\'s role in the plot will revolve around the fact that she is someone\\\'s mom, or X\\\'s wife will just have some stock wife-of-X traits, which I guess is what you\\\'re getting at.
-
\\\"An Expendable male character is treated as if their interior, emotionally reactive world is irrelevant. This dynamic takes Actification to it\\\'s most extreme and disturbing conclusion; whatever happens to a man he deserves because he let it happen. ...\\\"
These sentences don\\\'t even make sense together! How can a person with no interior world \\\"deserve\\\" something or \\\"let something happen\\\"?
Let\\\'s just argue about those three to start with.
**
> I\\\'m not sure how appealing to masculist theory will clarify anything; as in \\\"Socially, stigmatizing masculinity in women is really sexism against men. In masculist theory this is because of the misandry inherent in the creation of the Other within Hegemonic feminine discourse.\\\"
...is your style. I\\\'m the reasonable, patient one. I would write it like this.
Remember, it\\\'s \\\"Socially, X means Y. Q theory says Z.\\\"
Socially, a straight guy who does feminine things (X) is considered creepy. Feminist theory says that this is to maintain the hierarchy: if one admits that men naturally like doing feminine things as well, how can women be looked down upon for doing them?
See how it leaves open the possibility that the theory is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\'? Oh man, this is rocket science here.
But the point is not to jam a feminist primer into a page where it\\\'s unnecessary, but to take out the one-off theoretical ideas and jargon that are already there. I was suggesting feminist theory as an emergency measure if you just can\\\'t give theoretical stuff up.
-
\\\"Female characters are defined by their value to others, ...\\\" What does this mean? You could just as easily say that \\\"Male characters are defined by their value to others.\\\"
Like, this later sentence is better: \\\"In terms of characterization, female characters tend to be characterized by their relationships to other characters...\\\" Uh, maybe it\\\'s not better.
It\\\'s \\\'\\\'sometimes\\\'\\\' the case that someone\\\'s mom\\\'s role in the plot will revolve around the fact that she is someone\\\'s mom, or X\\\'s wife will just have some stock wife-of-X traits, which I guess is what you\\\'re getting at.
-
\\\"An Expendable male character is treated as if their interior, emotionally reactive world is irrelevant. This dynamic takes Actification to it\\\'s most extreme and disturbing conclusion; whatever happens to a man he deserves because he let it happen. ...\\\"
These sentences don\\\'t even make sense together! How can a person with no interior world \\\"deserve\\\" something or \\\"let something happen\\\"?
Let\\\'s just argue about those three to start with.
**
> I\\\'m not sure how appealing to masculist theory will clarify anything; as in \\\"Socially, stigmatizing masculinity in women is really sexism against men. In masculist theory this is because of the misandry inherent in the creation of the Other within Hegemonic feminine discourse.\\\"
...is your style. I\\\'m the reasonable, patient one. I would write it like this.
Remember, it\\\'s \\\"Socially, X means Y. Q theory says Z.\\\"
Socially, a straight guy who does feminine things (X) is considered creepy. Feminist theory says that this is to maintain the hierarchy: if one admits that men naturally like doing feminine things as well, how can women be looked down upon for doing them?
See how it leaves open the possibility that the theory is \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\'? Oh man, this is rocket science here.
But the point is not to jam a feminist primer into a page where it\\\'s unnecessary, but to take out the one-off theoretical ideas and jargon that are already there. I was suggesting feminist theory as an emergency measure if you just can\\\'t give theoretical stuff up.
