Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Speaking of entitlement feminism...

Page 2 of 7 [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

04 Oct 2012, 1:12 am

AspieRogue wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
AspieRogue knows so much about how women think



Funny how talking women, and being a 3rd party listener when women talk about their sex is very useful in learning about the female mind. So what do YOU know about how women think, vigilans? I have a sneaky suspicion that even if you understood how their minds work compared to how mens minds work, you'd probably spout some bullsh*t about how men will never understand them.


@Jono:

If women perceive someone as threatening or "creepy" who is not interacting with them but simply in their presence, they need to learn that those feelings of being "creeped out" are theirs and theirs to deal with. In other words if you(as a woman)feel creeped out by some guy who hasn't actually done anything to you then that is not his problem, it is YOUR problem :!: The issue I have is women blaming their own problems on men which (unfortunately)is something that many strains of feminism actively encourage. THAT IS MY ISSUE WITH THIS BLOGPOST AND WITH FEMINISM IN GENERAL.
And if you are frustrated with a woman being creeped out by you, that frustration is yours, and yours to deal with.

No woman has a responsibility to make you feel good about yourself.

No woman has a responsibility to donate her body so that you feel less lonely.

One thing that I do feel that women have a responsibility to do - and, despite the fact that I'm a pretty strong 3rd-wave feminist, some feminists would ask me to turn in my feminist credentials for this - is to say 'no' if they're not happy with a situation, unless they're in a state such that they can't consent (drunk, drugged, under 18), in which case the law says 'no' for them. If a woman isn't disturbed enough to say 'no,' and isn't disturbed enough to wake up and say 'no,' when she hasn't been drugged or drinking (see: Julian Assange), the guy may be an a**hole, but he hasn't committed rape imnsho.

Wrt. privilege: it's NOT about you feeling guilty about anything. The point is NOT to make you feel guilt. It's simply to make you realize that things could have been worse for you had you been born other than what you are: to make you realize that some of what you have is due to a fortunate birth, not due to extra effort by you, and that someone who has achieved as much as you have but who had a less fortunate birth, probably had to work that much harder to achieve it. If an NT and and Aspie both make it to be, say, a successful CEO, which of them had to work harder for it? The NT isn't /guilty/ of anything, but he had a lot of advantages simply due to being NT that the Aspie didn't have.



AspieRogue

04 Oct 2012, 1:26 am

LKL wrote:


And if you are frustrated with a woman being creeped out by you, that frustration is yours, and yours to deal with.

No woman has a responsibility to make you feel good about yourself.

No woman has a responsibility to donate her body so that you feel less lonely.



Well gee whiz, I NEVER WOULDA GUESSED! :lol:

If a woman is creeped out by me, I brush it off and ignore it so long as she doesn't bother me about it OR try to get me in trouble with authority figures(like falsely accusing me of stalking which did happen IRL but don't ask for me details as I will not give them) or try to start sh*t by trying to turn other people against me for it.

There are a number of documented cases of young women using restraining orders, which are surprisingly easy to obtain if you use the right language on the application, for getting rid of guys they find "creepy" or otherwise dislike who are completely innocent.




Quote:
One thing that I do feel that women have a responsibility to do - and, despite the fact that I'm a pretty strong 3rd-wave feminist, some feminists would ask me to turn in my feminist credentials for this - is to say 'no' if they're not happy with a situation, unless they're in a state such that they can't consent (drunk, drugged, under 18), in which case the law says 'no' for them. If a woman isn't disturbed enough to say 'no,' and isn't disturbed enough to wake up and say 'no,' when she hasn't been drugged or drinking (see: Julian Assange), the guy may be an a**hole, but he hasn't committed rape imnsho.

Wrt. privilege: it's NOT about you feeling guilty about anything. The point is NOT to make you feel guilt. It's simply to make you realize that things could have been worse for you had you been born other than what you are: to make you realize that some of what you have is due to a fortunate birth, not due to extra effort by you, and that someone who has achieved as much as you have but who had a less fortunate birth, probably had to work that much harder to achieve it. If an NT and and Aspie both make it to be, say, a successful CEO, which of them had to work harder for it? The NT isn't /guilty/ of anything, but he had a lot of advantages simply due to being NT that the Aspie didn't have.



WRT to the last paragraph, it's really impossible to know what my life would be like given such a counterfactual. But people used to tell me when I was a young lad about all the things I *wouldn't* have to cope with for being a straight white male...........And it turned out that they were totally and completely wrong. Women may be physically weaker than men, but they ARE more socially influential than men in the western world today.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

04 Oct 2012, 1:47 am

AspieRogue wrote:
LKL wrote:


And if you are frustrated with a woman being creeped out by you, that frustration is yours, and yours to deal with.

No woman has a responsibility to make you feel good about yourself.

No woman has a responsibility to donate her body so that you feel less lonely.



Well gee whiz, I NEVER WOULDA GUESSED! :lol:

If a woman is creeped out by me, I brush it off and ignore it so long as she doesn't bother me about it OR try to get me in trouble with authority figures(like falsely accusing me of stalking which did happen IRL but don't ask for me details as I will not give them) or try to start sh*t by trying to turn other people against me for it.

There are a number of documented cases of young women using restraining orders, which are surprisingly easy to obtain if you use the right language on the application, for getting rid of guys they find "creepy" or otherwise dislike who are completely innocent.

You know what a restraining order gets you? A legal statement that a guy can't deliberately bother you. My next door neighbor got a restraining order against her ex because he WAS SCREAMING AT HER FROM OUTSIDE HER WINDOW in the middle of the night, several times a week, and also breaking into MY yard to scream at her through the window, and also breaking into her house while she was gone and waiting in ambush for her. Did the restraining order stop him? NO - but it did improve the police response time. Was his behavior creepy? He'd probably say no. He flat-out told me, 'You don't understand! She's my girlfriend, I just want to talk to her!'
My (male) housemate started keeping an escrima baton next to the door because of this guy.

Quote:
One thing that I do feel that women have a responsibility to do - and, despite the fact that I'm a pretty strong 3rd-wave feminist, some feminists would ask me to turn in my feminist credentials for this - is to say 'no' if they're not happy with a situation, unless they're in a state such that they can't consent (drunk, drugged, under 18), in which case the law says 'no' for them. If a woman isn't disturbed enough to say 'no,' and isn't disturbed enough to wake up and say 'no,' when she hasn't been drugged or drinking (see: Julian Assange), the guy may be an a**hole, but he hasn't committed rape imnsho.

Wrt. privilege: it's NOT about you feeling guilty about anything. The point is NOT to make you feel guilt. It's simply to make you realize that things could have been worse for you had you been born other than what you are: to make you realize that some of what you have is due to a fortunate birth, not due to extra effort by you, and that someone who has achieved as much as you have but who had a less fortunate birth, probably had to work that much harder to achieve it. If an NT and and Aspie both make it to be, say, a successful CEO, which of them had to work harder for it? The NT isn't /guilty/ of anything, but he had a lot of advantages simply due to being NT that the Aspie didn't have.



WRT to the last paragraph, it's really impossible to know what my life would be like given such a counterfactual. But people used to tell me when I was a young lad about all the things I *wouldn't* have to cope with for being a straight white male...........And it turned out that they were totally and completely wrong. Women may be physically weaker than men, but they ARE more socially influential than men in the western world today.

Specifically, you are correct; statistically, you are not. Statistically, for example, someone applying to grad school under 'John' is more likely to be accepted and to gain mentorships than an identical student named 'Jennifer.'
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science ... nder-bias/
statistically, a white person accused of an identical crime, with identical evidence, is less likely to be convicted than a black person, and will receive a lighter sentence if he is convicted. Statistically, an NT person is more likely to have social interactions ease his way at work than an aspie person. Statistically, you are likely to have ended in a worse place had you been born female, or non-white, or lower-functioning than you are. Did you win the lottery? No. Were you hit by a bus on your way to buying a ticket? No.

My life would have been easier had I been a 6-foot tall man, like my brother. My life would have been harder had I been born black, or if I were lower-functioning than I am. Do I feel righteous about having had a difficult time with things? No, though I sometimes do feel frustrated and angry. Do I feel guilty about having been born white, and relatively high-functioning? No, though I am in awe of those who succeed but had fewer advantages than I did.



Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

04 Oct 2012, 3:47 am

AspieRogue - LKL has covered much of what I'd say. But:

I feel no guilt (or shame, or whatever) for what I am, and nor would I ask anyone else to. I do, however, feel guilty for things I've done, or failed to do. But not at all for what I am. What I do have is an imagination, and an awareness of where I have it easier and where I have it harder. Moving through the world I live in would be harder if I were female, or non-white, or gay. It would be easier if I were middle class, or NT. The point of the notion of Privelige is to be aware that life is not a level playing field. Some things are easier for some and harder for others simply because of who they are. The nature of Privelige is that it's very hard to notice, and one assumes it's a level playing field, which causes BS cries of "white middle class straight men are the real persecuted of society!" whenever something is done to try and level the playing field. Or as Fry had it in Futurama - "the less fortunate get all the breaks".

The point of Privelige is a structural critique first, a personal/individual one second. On an individual level, it would be a waste of time trying to make someone feel guilty. The point is to make people aware, and hope they have the decency to be angered and outraged and want to change things.

I'm a Socialist, so class tends to come first in my analysis. Where there is, say, a feminist solely concerned with sexism, I'll take issue with them. But where there is a fight against sexism or racism or ablism or homophobia, I'm with that fight.

There is 'male privelige'. Feminists don't 'scream' it into being in their imagination.

There was nothing in that blog that said all autistic men are rapists - very obviously, some autistic men are rapists. What she was doing - rightly - was dismissing the idea that women in general don't have to give extra consideration to a man's insensitivity because he might be autistic, not least because it is an attempt to derail/re-frame the matter at hand.

Quote:
Aspies and Blacks have one thing in common: The MEN from these groups are treated worse by society than the women because they are viewed as threatening.


How are they treated worse? It may be more likely they're viewed as more threatening than their female counterparts, but how is that necessarily worse?



AspieRogue

04 Oct 2012, 3:52 am

LKL wrote:


You know what a restraining order gets you? A legal statement that a guy can't deliberately bother you. My next door neighbor got a restraining order against her ex because he WAS SCREAMING AT HER FROM OUTSIDE HER WINDOW in the middle of the night, several times a week, and also breaking into MY yard to scream at her through the window, and also breaking into her house while she was gone and waiting in ambush for her. Did the restraining order stop him? NO - but it did improve the police response time. Was his behavior creepy? He'd probably say no. He flat-out told me, 'You don't understand! She's my girlfriend, I just want to talk to her!'
My (male) housemate started keeping an escrima baton next to the door because of this guy.






LKL, there have been a number of cases here in the PacNW in the last few years involving women who've been murdered by vengeful ex-boyfriends/husband despite the fact that they had a restraining order against these guys! There was even a man who was murdered 4 years ago in Portland by his schizophrenic neighbor despite the fact that he managed to get a restraining order against this guy. I was told by a former Oregon state trooper who is now a PI that restraining orders are not only a headache for law enforcement, but that they FAIL to protect people who are truly in danger. The trouble with relying on the state for personal protection is that Police simply cannot possible always be there to help you; even when your life depends on it.

I think your nextdoor neighbor might have been better off getting a GUN. I know a woman in a similar situation whose ex-bf was stalking her and hiding in her bushes. One night she heard him, and went out with a maglite flashlight and a pointed her loaded shotgun at him telling him to get the out of here and leave her the f*ck alone or he'd be shot the next time he showed up. He ran away like a scurred lil girl and never showed his face around her neighborhood ever again.



AspieRogue

04 Oct 2012, 3:59 am

Hopper wrote:
AspieRogue - LKL has covered much of what I'd say. But:

I feel no guilt (or shame, or whatever) for what I am, and nor would I ask anyone else to. I do, however, feel guilty for things I've done, or failed to do. But not at all for what I am. What I do have is an imagination, and an awareness of where I have it easier and where I have it harder. Moving through the world I live in would be harder if I were female, or non-white, or gay. It would be easier if I were middle class, or NT. The point of the notion of Privelige is to be aware that life is not a level playing field. Some things are easier for some and harder for others simply because of who they are. The nature of Privelige is that it's very hard to notice, and one assumes it's a level playing field, which causes BS cries of "white middle class straight men are the real persecuted of society!" whenever something is done to try and level the playing field. Or as Fry had it in Futurama - "the less fortunate get all the breaks".

The point of Privelige is a structural critique first, a personal/individual one second. On an individual level, it would be a waste of time trying to make someone feel guilty. The point is to make people aware, and hope they have the decency to be angered and outraged and want to change things.

I'm a Socialist, so class tends to come first in my analysis. Where there is, say, a feminist solely concerned with sexism, I'll take issue with them. But where there is a fight against sexism or racism or ablism or homophobia, I'm with that fight.

There is 'male privelige'. Feminists don't 'scream' it into being in their imagination.

There was nothing in that blog that said all autistic men are rapists - very obviously, some autistic men are rapists. What she was doing - rightly - was dismissing the idea that women in general don't have to give extra consideration to a man's insensitivity because he might be autistic, not least because it is an attempt to derail/re-frame the matter at hand.

Quote:
Aspies and Blacks have one thing in common: The MEN from these groups are treated worse by society than the women because they are viewed as threatening.


How are they treated worse? It may be more likely they're viewed as more threatening than their female counterparts, but how is that necessarily worse?



How is it "necessarily" worse? The fact that here in the US, people who are perceived as threatening are:


1) Last hired, first fired.

2) The target of false accusations in which they are presumed to be guilty until proven innocent.

3) Refused service or treated with suspicion at business establishments

4) Discriminated against in housing by property managers in charge of rentals because their neighbors dislike them.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

04 Oct 2012, 11:13 am

LKL wrote:
One thing that I do feel that women have a responsibility to do - and, despite the fact that I'm a pretty strong 3rd-wave feminist, some feminists would ask me to turn in my feminist credentials for this - is to say 'no' if they're not happy with a situation, unless they're in a state such that they can't consent (drunk, drugged, under 18 ), in which case the law says 'no' for them. If a woman isn't disturbed enough to say 'no,' and isn't disturbed enough to wake up and say 'no,' when she hasn't been drugged or drinking (see: Julian Assange), the guy may be an a**hole, but he hasn't committed rape imnsho.


I still think that if the guy isn't sure, he should ask. Should probably go for either gender if they're initiating the sex, it's a matter of respecting the bodily autonomy of the other person.

P.S. I edited your quote slightly because your "under 18" in brackets comes out as a smiley.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

04 Oct 2012, 11:39 am

Jono wrote:

I still think that if the guy isn't sure, he should ask. Should probably go for either gender if they're initiating the sex, it's a matter of respecting the bodily autonomy of the other person.

P.S. I edited your quote slightly because your "under 18" in brackets comes out as a smiley.


Why is the responsibility on the guy? After all if its clear that the guy wants to, then the woman should make it clear if she doesn't. I quite frankly find it ironic that I'm the guy who is being repeatedly labeled as a misogynist on these boards, yet I'm the one who keeps advocating that both sides of the equation should should be balanced.

I.E. put the same demands on men and women. One can hardly call oneself an advocate for gender equality if the standard answer is "treat women as if they are less capable of X than men". Which in reality is what happens when you have programs to admit women with poorer grades, hire women with poorer qualifications, remove the ability of women to be responsible for their actions after 2 mojitos, turn the tables and require that the occupations women elect to study for must receive higher salaries, instead of advocating that women should study for jobs that have higher salaries and so on.

The genders can never be truly equal in every regard. Men will tend to be physically stronger, women to be more socially astute, women have to worry more about being raped, men about being victims of just about every other form of violence, women about dying in childbirth and men about dying on the job. However, in those areas where gender neutral criteria can be established, such as college admissions, hirings, in a court of law and so on they should be neutral.



AspieRogue

04 Oct 2012, 12:00 pm

TM wrote:
Jono wrote:

I still think that if the guy isn't sure, he should ask. Should probably go for either gender if they're initiating the sex, it's a matter of respecting the bodily autonomy of the other person.

P.S. I edited your quote slightly because your "under 18" in brackets comes out as a smiley.


]Why is the responsibility on the guy? After all if its clear that the guy wants to, then the woman should make it clear if she doesn't. I quite frankly find it ironic that I'm the guy who is being repeatedly labeled as a misogynist on these boards, yet I'm the one who keeps advocating that both sides of the equation should should be balanced.

I.E. put the same demands on men and women. One can hardly call oneself an advocate for gender equality if the standard answer is "treat women as if they are less capable of X than men". Which in reality is what happens when you have programs to admit women with poorer grades, hire women with poorer qualifications, remove the ability of women to be responsible for their actions after 2 mojitos, turn the tables and require that the occupations women elect to study for must receive higher salaries, instead of advocating that women should study for jobs that have higher salaries and so on.





The best answer to your question in bold is something called Chivalry. Inorite?



It's very much outdated in an age of gender equity but for some reason, feminists(which can be male too) seem to think that it's a tradition worth saving. I however, disagree.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

04 Oct 2012, 12:07 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
It's very much outdated in an age of gender equity but for some reason, feminists(which can be male too) seem to think that it's a tradition worth saving. I however, disagree.


It comes across a bit like wanting to eat the same cake twice over. You can have one or the other, but not both. It's not fair on the other party to have equality and then demand special treatment (i.e. chivalry) on top of that because it's asking men to put themselves at a disadvantage.

Would those feminists like it if men demanded that same special treatment from women that these people want men to give to women?

Basically, if these feminists wouldn't behave "chivalrously" to men but demand it from them anyway, their argument becomes null and void and it just becomes another unfair obligation on men that they will resent.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

04 Oct 2012, 12:31 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
AspieRogue knows so much about how women think


Funny how talking women, and being a 3rd party listener when women talk about their sex is very useful in learning about the female mind. So what do YOU know about how women think, vigilans? I have a sneaky suspicion that even if you understood how their minds work compared to how mens minds work, you'd probably spout some bullsh*t about how men will never understand them.


Men can certainly understand women's minds. Just not you. Your insolence and ineptitude serve each other well in building these insipid ruminations you share with us. You're a ham-fisted buffoon and almost every post you make that is gender related demonstrates this quite nicely


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

04 Oct 2012, 12:43 pm

I don't think feminists are arguing for chivalry, except maybe the ones in all y'all heads.

TM wrote:
Why is the responsibility on the guy?


Probably because that's how the op and thread have framed the matter. Men making moves on women.

Where a man is wondering if something sexual is going to happen, but would like it to, he should ask. As, indeed, should a woman. I understood Jono's emphasis to be in light of the fact that all this was being talked about from the male perspective.

Where someone doesn't see a situation leading to sex, it might be because the possibility wouldn't even occur to them. Even if they did, it would be very weird for them to turn to whoever they're with and go, 'just to be clear, no sex. Got that?'.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

04 Oct 2012, 1:28 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
The best answer to your question in bold is something called Chivalry. Inorite?

It's very much outdated in an age of gender equity but for some reason, feminists(which can be male too) seem to think that it's a tradition worth saving. I however, disagree.


Chivalry is dead and women killed it.


Hopper wrote:
I don't think feminists are arguing for chivalry, except maybe the ones in all y'all heads.


Hey now, not all feminists are the same, they are a diverse array of representatives from an ideology which is varied and nuanced, you shouldn't generalize like that.


TM wrote:
Why is the responsibility on the guy?


Probably because that's how the op and thread have framed the matter. Men making moves on women.

Where a man is wondering if something sexual is going to happen, but would like it to, he should ask. As, indeed, should a woman. I understood Jono's emphasis to be in light of the fact that all this was being talked about from the male perspective.
[/quote]

It can be frame in any manner one elects to, without it changing the fact that the responsibility in this case is being put 100% on the male (to take the active role) and 0% on the female to take a similarly active role.

Something which seems to be a rather persistent pattern in gender discussions on this board I may add. All responsibilities placed solidly on the male, all rights placed solidly on the woman.

Hopper wrote:
Where someone doesn't see a situation leading to sex, it might be because the possibility wouldn't even occur to them. Even if they did, it would be very weird for them to turn to whoever they're with and go, 'just to be clear, no sex. Got that?'.


That would be the exact situation if you put it in reverse, to turn to someone to whom the idea of sex isn't even on the horizon and go "so, want to f**k?" (not in those words)



Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

04 Oct 2012, 1:53 pm

Oh, pfft.

The general gist of the thread is about men understanding (or rather, not) when or not to make a move with women. That's why discussion here has been framed as such. I don't see any sort of double standards. If you want to talk about women making moves on men, do so. Don't jump into a conversation about men making moves on women and say 'yeah, it's always the man's fault, isn't it?'. It's bad form.

I think the general sensible, fair conclusion is that, where someone senses something in a situation that might be a 'come on', and they want to take that 'come on' up, they should check. I haven't seen any feminist post to say that shouldn't be the case.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

04 Oct 2012, 1:58 pm

Hopper wrote:
I think the general sensible, fair conclusion is that, where someone senses something in a situation that might be a 'come on', and they want to take that 'come on' up, they should check. I haven't seen any feminist post to say that shouldn't be the case.


and you don't see how that is in fact unbalanced in a culture/society where the man is expected to be the aggressor? From my perspective, it would serve both sides better to be clear about their desires and intentions.

We know that quite a few men have issues with picking up on non-verbal cues, so it would be reasonable to say that perhaps women should be a bit clearer at times and not expect men to automatically pick up on these cues.

On the other hand, we know that a lot of men can't take a hint even if it hits them in the face, so perhaps men should be a bit more focused on the other person instead of on themselves. For a lack of a better analogy, if you need to be hit in the face with military grade pepperspray to realize she's just not into you, then you have a problem.



Last edited by TM on 04 Oct 2012, 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AspieRogue

04 Oct 2012, 2:09 pm

Hopper wrote:
Oh, pfft.

The general gist of the thread is about men understanding (or rather, not) when or not to make a move with women. That's why discussion here has been framed as such. I don't see any sort of double standards. If you want to talk about women making moves on men, do so. Don't jump into a conversation about men making moves on women and say 'yeah, it's always the man's fault, isn't it?'. It's bad form.

I think the general sensible, fair conclusion is that, where someone senses something in a situation that might be a 'come on', and they want to take that 'come on' up, they should check. I haven't seen any feminist post to say that shouldn't be the case.



Alright, when it comes to men making moves on women(particularly when they are mutual strangers) the only general rule is that if you don't pick up on NONVERBAL CUES that she's open to you approaching her then you're supposed to move on. Aspie men often don't pick up on these, and sometimes even NT men don't, so that's why women do have the responsibility of saying no and/or "leave me alone" and then it is certainly is the guys responsibility to back off and vamoose. IDC if it's not in your nature to be direct, ladies! You need to speak up sometimes for your own damn good and stop playing damsel in distress. Sheesh!

The way the blogger phrased it was particularly bad form and instead of getting her point across she sounded like a whiny, entitled, self-righteous little twat.