patriarchal confusion to challenge and transform military cultures, and that looking for sites of patriarchal confusion can be a productive way to respond to the challenge of promoting diversity and inclusion in the military. The study suggests that patriarchal confusion can be exploited as a strategy for disrupting and challenging contemporary patriarchy, which has practical implications for feminist politics.

where gender fails, feminists can demonstrate the radically contingent nature of patriarchy and open up possibilities to exploit this failure and engender patriarchal confusion.

what's the point what am i g to get out of this it's the same question actually

I got no actual help from my long Verizon Support chat session and I kept asking if there is a block list they use that they could check (or a whitelist I could be added to...but fat chance) my IP for, since that is clearly what the error is calling out, but they never acknowledged that particular part of my questions, just ignored it.

Leon Huang  · nsoSrdopteftuam473i91ctittu09521cgu781mlfhct5i61g2c61l37699t  · Shared with Public最近衝著Banjamin van Rooji，去買了《行為失控》這本書；剛剛讀了第一章，我發現翻譯才是真的失控。低劣而錯誤百出。我講的並不是單純翻譯風格疑似中國化的問題，而是原文所使用的字彙，語意，句法，乃至寫作巧思，在翻譯版當中錯漏誤譯，巧思盡失。我舉幾個例子吧。1. 第一章的標題，"A Tale of Two Codes" 顯然原作者在致敬Dickens的名著《雙城記》A Tale of Two Cities. 這不用花太多腦力也沒什麼高深的文學素養。了解這個基本不過的文學典故，翻譯成「雙『碼』記」，不失原意之外，同時也呼應本書同時指涉legal code，也就是「法典」，正是一種「法律編碼」，以及behavioral code--行為準則，也是一種「行為編碼」。正是雙『碼』記。為什麼能翻成「兩個密碼的故事」？然後，全文的"legal code"硬要翻成法律密碼，"behavioral code"硬要翻成行為密碼，到底是有多少秘密？編碼、符碼、組碼...各式各樣的詞彙組合，都有可能呈現作者原意。到底跟密碼（cryptography）有什麼一定要扯上的關係？2. 「在這一切之中，律師扮演著重要的角色。律師身為立法者...」（第22頁））這種荒腔走板的翻譯，顯然是以為"lawyer"一詞就是律師，而不知道lawyer一詞根本上很常泛指「法律人」。這一整段的譯文內容，不要說句意通順了，連中文的意思都令人難以理解。3. 「我們的法律傾向由公共意見形成的政治過程。」（第23頁）誰能告訴我這句中文在講什麼？我看不懂。這才第一章。被我標示為錯誤或中文字句但無法以中文理解的字詞，已經多不勝數。我不理解為什麼一本橫跨法律與行為科學專業，在美國頗受好評的著作，這麼大一家出版社的中文版可以把它搞砸成這樣。譯者跟責任編輯不覺得要對讀者負責嗎？編輯自己不懂的，不用找專業審訂嗎？還是覺得法律相關的書反正大家都看不懂，無所謂？

I've been meaning to remind readers that I do read the comments. Some time ago, one disappointed commenter mused that others' reflections seemed to go (as I recall) "into a void," because I remained silent to each. Perhaps I was ignoring readers' remarks? I assure you that is not the case. I read them all — although on this site, for some reason, "all" means somewhat sparse — and I find them nearly all remarkable in their perceptiveness. I especially welcome, and enjoy, intelligent disagreement. I choose not to respond, however, only because of my editorial philosophy, which holds that the comment section is, rightfully, for commenters — and commenters alone. I've already had my say, and it seems to me rather rude to take another whack in reply. Whenever I'm so substantively shaky or incoherent as to make my case unpersuasively the first time around, I figure I should live with the consequences. And whenever I find criticism flawed, I figure readers — perceptive as they are — will see the flaw as well, therefore there's no need for me to rub it in. So, I beg you not to take my silence personally.