photo blog_head_zpsonl8fonu.jpg
Meesa gonna kill you!

Get email updates of new posts:        (Delivered by FeedBurner)

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Feminism <-> Conspiracy Theories

"In order to preserve your self-respect, it is sometimes necessary to lie and cheat." - Robert Byrne


It's sad that even has feminist nonsense:

You May Be A Mansplainer If... : Thus Spake Zuska
(among other things - what does this have to do with science?)

A short summary: "Mansplaining" is when a man tells a woman she is wrong, when she is actually right. This is, naturally, always chalked up to sexism and never a genuine mistake; strictly speaking the original definition says that it's mansplaining if (but, crucially, not iff) it is "delivered with the rock-solid conviction of rightness and that slimy certainty that of course he is right, because he is the man in this conversation", but you will see that people go crazy in the comments, so I feel justified in judging that they have departed from the original definition.

The chief problem in this case is the assumption of infallibility and that evidence that might disprove the theory is taken, contrawise, as proof of its validity.

You find this in conspiracy theory thinking also. But then at least the conspiracy theorists do not discriminate against certain groups of people (people who disagree are just deluded or part of the conspiracy), so in that sense they are more respectable.

Here, any disagreement a man has with a feminist theory is because he's male and automatically sexist.

Sample comments from the first 100:

A: I hardly think this is a behavior confined to a single gender. More like human behavior.

Also, what do you call a woman who insists you're being a "mansplainer" but is actually wrong herself?

B: OMG did someone just try to mansplain mansplainin'? Oh the irony!

C: Shades of Freudian analysis.

If you deny the allegation, that's just more evidence that you're guilty, and you haven't stopped beating your wife.

I can't wait for the thread for venting about being victims of such womanalysis.

I actually went into a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Forum to find comments using parallel "logic" and similar dismissals of contrary opinions by begging the question, but in general:

- there was less groupthink
- there was less begging of the question (most of the conspiracy theories actually attempted to make arguments instead of dismissing the skeptics)
- they were more polite
- the grammar and spelling was worse

So I stopped.

D: I don't really get the hostility toward Michael H. I thought he raised his points respectfully and got a lot of shit thrown in his face without his points ever being
thoroughly addressed. I read this situation as: he disagrees with you, and explains why; everyone jumps on him and calls him condescending for not understanding the problem in the first place.

E: Members of every gender, race, height, sexual orientation, and religion on this planet probably "explain" things in a way that is condescending. What's condescending is trying to make it momentarily exclusive to men just because you're a woman.

As one person observed:

"You've sort of created a perfect system, in that it seems to be immune to criticism, but of course you already knew that. :)"

And of course he got slammed:

"Hey, passive-aggressive smiley Jon, maybe you need to focus less on criticism for its own sake and just listen for a while."

In other words: if someone disagrees with you, it's because he's wrong (at least he wasn't called a troll, clueless or a bigot - or at least not in the first 100 comments).

His response covering most bases:

"That's a fantastic response

1. Assume that if someone responds with a criticism (indirectly or directly), they must be doing so for the sake of criticism itself.
2. Assume that if someone disagrees with what's been said, they're not listening. They need a lesson.

You've also seen past my passive-aggressiveness. Very clever! And here I thought I was being subtle!

Suggestions for further interactions:

(1) If interlocutor is female, accuse her of being a FemaleMansplainer.
(2) Accuse interlocutor of not "getting it" or misunderstanding the point of the discussion.
(3) If interlocutor poses a question you don't want to answer, tell them that this isn't the appropriate place for such a discussion.
(4) If interlocutor is male and appropriately humble, kindly explain to him that this discussion isn't for "them" or about "them," returning to (3).
(5) Ask why men always have to intrude on discussions that don't have anything to do with them.
(6) Make sure your concepts are as vague as possible so there's always a moving target."

Perhaps the saddest thing is that feminism is not the only field where we see this happening (ergo the "pc" label for this post)
blog comments powered by Disqus
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Latest posts (which you might not see on this page)

powered by Blogger | WordPress by Newwpthemes