Blogger F reads journalist A's piece and also finds it interesting. In fact, blogger F takes the time that evening to leave this comment about the piece:
- Interesting. To tie in to your two part classification of the purpose of armies (protect or conquer), notice that you still do need an army for defense, and sure enough, women have often played an important role in resistance forces throughout history.
Oh, and if we are talking about women on the warpath, can we please talk about the Amazons and their historic origins:
All these Scythians and Minoans. Hardly the kind of behaviour you would expect from weak, non-aggressive women don’t you think?
What you might call a generally positive comment on A's piece, right?
Cut to five days later, June 27. Blogger G is annoyed both by A's post and my approval of it. He writes a piece critical of it and us. A slew of comments there, many apparently convinced that I've got my come-uppance and my lessons in logic and so forth.
Which may be.
But in that slew of comments, there are these lines at different places:
- The way I saw it (the way I still see it) [A]’s post was simply a rant ...
I do think that the statements [of A's] quoted here are over the top ...
[R]ants like these do more harm than good to the feminist cause ...
[Nothing excuses] the discriminatory statements she’s making.
[B]ecause she chooses to deal in stereotypes she undermines her own credibility.
[I]t was a blatantly biased post. No, it was not journalism.
And who wrote these lines over at G's site?
Answer: Blogger F.
The same blogger F who is so generally positive about A's piece on her site.
To be fair, blogger F also tries hard, very hard, to point to positive things in A's piece, over at G's site.
But why did the opposite not happen? If blogger F had these extremely critical thoughts about A and her post, why did F not say them in this strong language at A's site on June 22, when F left that generally approving comment? (Why did blogger F not simply say to A in his comment, "The way I see it, this is just a rant"?) Why did blogger F wait five days to realize these crummy things about A's post, and tell the world about them at blogger G's site?
No: this piece blogger F found so interesting is suddenly being torn to pieces by blogger F's friends. Blogger F runs over there and pours out the strong language.
Blogger G says nothing remotely critical of blogger F.
The pillars of the blog world. From where I stand, somewhat crumbly.
Postscript: When I first put this piece up, I was wrong in attributing motives to both F and G. There's no excuse for that and I apologize to F and G for doing so. I have removed that attribution. (See comments).