I must admit that it had never occured to me that using mockery instead of analysis was a valid form of counter-argument. I always thought that mockery was worse than not replying, as it would immediately grant the opponent victory. Your comments (in particular Poeschl’s and Maggie’s) were forceful enough to convince me that I was completely wrong.

My argument was based on the assumption that the only acceptable reply would, by necessity, be based on analysis. Invalidating that assumption, my entire argument collapses like a house of cards. Consequently, one can conclude that there’s nothing left to argue. You won. I lost. I am out of the discussion as of now.

I concede that I am pedantic, condescending, patronizing (and all those ugly adjectives you mentioned), but I never engaged in this discussion in ill faith. I truly believed that lack of analysis would be equivalent to a monumental defeat, granting an epic victory to Popova’s risible article. My mistake.

Over and out.

First: This is to second Maggie’s comment, especially her point about taking context into account.

Second: The fact that you don’t take context into account suggests that you have very limited reading experience outside of science and technology. The problem is not that you have different “social norms” or live in a “parallel universe.” The problem, apparently, is that you haven’t read many authors whose argumentative style makes use of the invented persona/personality of the writer in order to make points about society.

That’s why, I suspect, you were disappointed that Natalia’s argumentative style isn’t that of an Op-Ed column in the New York Times. You were expecting something resembling a mainstream editorial and instead were confronted with Natalia’s partisan invective against the sexism which Yuliya Popova is sincerely endorsing in her KP column.

But, given Natalia’s own life experience as a Ukrainian woman, partisan invective suits her purpose far better than the more detached viewpoint of an editorial. That’s also why Natalia’s so-called “vulgarity” is completely on point in this context. Natalia’s argumentative style, including her “vulgarity,” puts her in the company of Aristophanes and Juvenal, not to mention some early Christian writers, when she condemns attitudes that she finds outrageous and dehumanizing.

Finally, simply to repeat advice from other commenters: LOOK UP THE FACTUAL CONTEXT of both Natalia’s and Popova’s columns before you object to Natalia’s style. Popova, in her KP column, is deadly serious when she urges Ukrainian women to think of themselves as ‘packages’ for men. Popova is not playing devil’s advocate here. She’s internalized an attitude deeply ingrained in Eastern Europe (and in the West). Natalia had to grow up with this attitude in Ukraine and has to confront it again now while she’s living in Ukraine. There is no reason why Natalia would, or could, adopt a ‘detached’ viewpoint about a culture that values her primarily as merchandise.

I’ll leave it at that. It will be worth your while to reread the many comments in this thread and also expand your own reading experience beyond science and technology.

First, Rod, yes, you did insult Natalia. As pointed out above, and as I think you acknowledged, you have patronized and condescended to her. Unsolicited advice to someone you know about how to conduct her career, implying that she has never thought about these things, is rude and presumptuous in any universe. It is also rude and insulting to barge onto a stranger’s blog and set yourself up as an authority on the tone and style the blog ought to take.

Second, you can’t possibly be an authority on anything to do with writing when you admit that you have no understanding whatsoever of writing that is too “personal.” You strongly imply that such writing is frivolous and without purpose. Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the enormous impact confessional writing has had on our culture from Saint Augustine to Jean-Jacques Rousseau to Anne Frank to Vladimir Nabakov (Speak, Memory!) to a number of modern poets like Allen Ginsburg, Robert Lowell, and Anne Sexton, and on and on and on.

Third, you are wrong about the effectiveness of Natalia Antonova’s take-down of the Kyiv Post article. To take on your tone of unsolicited advice, you need to learn to take context into account. This is not a court of law or a scientific journal, in which case it would certainly be inappropriate to use vulgarity and possibly inappropriate to analyze your opponent’s motivations for making a particular argument.

This is the court of public opinion, and frankly, ridicule, sarcasm, strong language and on-target psychological analysis is extremely effective, if accompanied by substance. Natalia provided both substance and bite. She totally engaged the premise of the article, the premise that women ought to change their behavior if men don’t like it, and mocking it exposed how ridiculously pandering the Kyiv Post author was.

Once again, Rod, clearly, it is all about you, your reading tastes, your superior life experience, yur universal advice, and your desire to have control over this conversation.

I suggest some smelling salts. Possibly a fainting couch. Or two.

And, for the third, and hopefully the last time: I am not battling Yuliya Popova’s writing. I am mocking it. Mocking is what it deserves. Anyone who doesn’t get it, isn’t in the loop, can read up on the subjects. My archives may or may not be a good start.

Is such rhetoric for everyone? No, it isn’t, and I don’t pretend that it is. But neither will I sugarcoat what I think and what I feel on the matter. Nor will I have you educating me on how to engage the social issues I have been engaging for years.

Hank is right about something, your priorities are bizarre. Popova’s ugly ethnic and gender stereotypes apparently deserve serious analysis, but shame on young ladies for using coarse language!

I gave you a decent response what you first popped up. At this point, I don’t really feel like you are engaging in good faith either.

Obviously, your definition of vulgarity does not include launching ad hominem attacks on an entire population. You get upset when bad words are used. Fine. It is your right, man. You said your piece. Now go and sin no more.

And you did not insult? Really? You are condescending as hell, Rod C, which is an insult. First it was Natalia is a little girl who does not understand the consequences of her actions. Now it is Natalia is a little girl who does not realize that she is writing about important social issues that are referenced by others (she is probably the most well-known Eastern European feminist blogger writing in English today, a niche, but an important niche – still, she just does not understand, she is a little girl, she needs Rod C to help her out).

You are a concern troll.

Nothing can be gained from this discussion. My comments are not useful nor informative. If you could please delete them, I would be most thankful, indeed. I will retribute by abstaining from commenting ever again. Thanks in advance.

I understand that unsolicited advice is unwelcome, but I offered honest and constructive comments on the post’s comment. When writing about a social problem, one becomes an ambassador for that cause (willingly or not). Sure, Popova did not use analysis, but she did not use vulgarity either, meaning that Natalia’s post was a Pyrrhic victory at best, a defeat at worst.

PS: Unlike you, I did not insult anyone, and I would appreciate if one kept things civil.

OK, I will indulge you. Abstaining from analysis, huh:

A woman must give her body and her soul, and never forget that she is the lucky one, as opposed to the man, or, really, the demigod in question. If she doesn’t like it, too bad. Ten others will be more than willing to take her place on the trophy shelf tomorrow. – Analysis

This is all beside the fact that men must choose women. Never the other way around. – Analysis

We’d never feel sorry for, say, Jean-Luc Picard, for staying single. A single woman of advancing years, on the other hand, is a dismal hag, who ought to be performing harakiri on Independence Square. – Analysis

… everything in life has its price. When I say that, I don’t mean monetary value. I mean the shocking idea that life, in general, is not quite perfect, for anyone… We say that your typical chauvinist expat man moves to a poorer country to experience a “sexual fantasy,” but the fantasy, I believe, is bigger than that. The fantasy is the idea, the hope, even, that somewhere out there, life doesn’t run according to the rules. – Analysis.

Unless you are a willfully obtuse/are a delicate flower unqualified to begin commenting on the issues raised (something you have already admitted to), there is a lot to think about in this piece. Your continued presence on here proves that. It also proves that you are a self-centered douche who decided to dispense irrelevant advice and got his feathers ruffled when it was not humbly accepted.

What part of Natalia Does Not Owe Popova Serious Analysis do you not understand anyway? What, because you are /not acquainted with Ukrainian reality/ and you are not capable of understanding half of what is written here, you deserve a special guide? You want writers to hold your hand? Read a book, man. Use Google. Google Carrot Top while you are at it, to expand your horizons.

(Nat, I’m sorry in advance for the shitty html in my comment. WordPress refuses to load normally for me.)