Richard Hanania writes, I think we have a few options for how we treat public discourse. The first two are Expect everyone who participates in the marketplace of ideas to abide by male standards, meaning you accept some level of abrasiveness and hurt feelings as the price of entry.
The intersectionality people talk about isn’t truly intersectional. An ugly woman, for example, is hardly living life on easy mode, whereas a rich black man navigates the world differently than a poor white man. I think a lot of these things are real, but not correctly weighted. We don’t take seriously the implications of class and beauty, either, both are dismissed completely out of hand.
"One of the first rules for a guide in polite conversation, is to avoid political or religious discussions in general society. Such discussions lead almost invariably to irritating differences of opinion, often to open quarrels, and a coolness of feeling which might have been avoided by dropping the distasteful subject as soon as marked differences of opinion arose. It is but one out of many that can discuss either political or religious differences, with candor and judgment, and yet so far control his language and temper as to avoid either giving or taking offence.
In their place, in circles which have met for such discussions, in a tête à tête conversation, in a small party of gentlemen where each is ready courteously to listen to the others, politics may be discussed with perfect propriety, but in the drawing-room, at the dinner-table, or in the society of ladies, these topics are best avoided.
If you are drawn into such a discussion without intending to be so, be careful that your individual opinion does not lead you into language and actions unbecoming a gentleman. Listen courteously to those whose opinions do not agree with yours, and keep your temper. A man in a passion ceases to be a gentleman.
Even if convinced that your opponent is utterly wrong, yield gracefully, decline further discussion, or dextrously turn the conversation, but do not obstinately defend your own opinion until you become angry, or more excited than is becoming to a gentleman."
I agree with an assertion in a previous post that women are equally competitive with men. So, I think it is unlikely that women's goals are basically sung to the tune of Kumbaya.
I was struck by a survey that was cited by Thomas Edsall in a column cited by Richard Hanania in his blog post.
The first-year students women students surveyed placed a greater priority on inclusion than heir male counterparts, but ALSO felt less protected by the First Amendment than the men. Paradoxical? No. Women probably feel like they can say anything, but feel excluded from the conversation. They can express themselves, but they cannot be heard.
Too many dopes like Hanania discount whatever a woman has to say beforehand. They believe they are hearing from some sort of alien brain that is prevented from achieving the higher rationality of the male.
“Intersectionality would imply that when you are in a room and a progressive black woman makes a comment, you had better think twice about disagreeing out loud.”
This may be why the errors in Fed nominee Lisa Cook’s famous 2014 paper are only coming to light now.
This is a very interesting angle. Avoiding politics and religion used to be a good way to have a civil conversation. Now politics is a religion and politics has been infused into sports, business, and most forms of entertainment by the corporations and/or their constituent actors who work in these spaces. I'd say - lets just talk about the weather. Climate Change! Another political religion.
The idea that language even 'could be' violence is one of the most dangerous to emerge from the cesspool of 'modern' theology in an attempt to leverage emerging taboos against violence to legitimize censorship. Unfortunately, it will take a period of sustained, widespread, physical violence to re-establish the need for the original taboo.
Is it a particularly "male" fallacy to look at some averages with lots of variance and define the essence of a standard based on the differences in averages? Is it a particularly "male" cognitive bias not to notice how often men retaliate in non-rational ways against women who have the temerity to insist on Hanania's "male" standards in discourse? Nah, but you and he don't help people understand that.
The intersectionality people talk about isn’t truly intersectional. An ugly woman, for example, is hardly living life on easy mode, whereas a rich black man navigates the world differently than a poor white man. I think a lot of these things are real, but not correctly weighted. We don’t take seriously the implications of class and beauty, either, both are dismissed completely out of hand.
Gentlemen’s Book of Etiquette and Manual of Politeness, 1875
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39293/39293-h/39293-h.htm
Chapter 1
"One of the first rules for a guide in polite conversation, is to avoid political or religious discussions in general society. Such discussions lead almost invariably to irritating differences of opinion, often to open quarrels, and a coolness of feeling which might have been avoided by dropping the distasteful subject as soon as marked differences of opinion arose. It is but one out of many that can discuss either political or religious differences, with candor and judgment, and yet so far control his language and temper as to avoid either giving or taking offence.
In their place, in circles which have met for such discussions, in a tête à tête conversation, in a small party of gentlemen where each is ready courteously to listen to the others, politics may be discussed with perfect propriety, but in the drawing-room, at the dinner-table, or in the society of ladies, these topics are best avoided.
If you are drawn into such a discussion without intending to be so, be careful that your individual opinion does not lead you into language and actions unbecoming a gentleman. Listen courteously to those whose opinions do not agree with yours, and keep your temper. A man in a passion ceases to be a gentleman.
Even if convinced that your opponent is utterly wrong, yield gracefully, decline further discussion, or dextrously turn the conversation, but do not obstinately defend your own opinion until you become angry, or more excited than is becoming to a gentleman."
I agree with an assertion in a previous post that women are equally competitive with men. So, I think it is unlikely that women's goals are basically sung to the tune of Kumbaya.
I was struck by a survey that was cited by Thomas Edsall in a column cited by Richard Hanania in his blog post.
The first-year students women students surveyed placed a greater priority on inclusion than heir male counterparts, but ALSO felt less protected by the First Amendment than the men. Paradoxical? No. Women probably feel like they can say anything, but feel excluded from the conversation. They can express themselves, but they cannot be heard.
Too many dopes like Hanania discount whatever a woman has to say beforehand. They believe they are hearing from some sort of alien brain that is prevented from achieving the higher rationality of the male.
“Intersectionality would imply that when you are in a room and a progressive black woman makes a comment, you had better think twice about disagreeing out loud.”
This may be why the errors in Fed nominee Lisa Cook’s famous 2014 paper are only coming to light now.
https://haralduhlig.blogspot.com/2022/02/lisa-cook-has-been-nominated-to-federal.html?m=1
This is a very interesting angle. Avoiding politics and religion used to be a good way to have a civil conversation. Now politics is a religion and politics has been infused into sports, business, and most forms of entertainment by the corporations and/or their constituent actors who work in these spaces. I'd say - lets just talk about the weather. Climate Change! Another political religion.
The idea that language even 'could be' violence is one of the most dangerous to emerge from the cesspool of 'modern' theology in an attempt to leverage emerging taboos against violence to legitimize censorship. Unfortunately, it will take a period of sustained, widespread, physical violence to re-establish the need for the original taboo.
Is it a particularly "male" fallacy to look at some averages with lots of variance and define the essence of a standard based on the differences in averages? Is it a particularly "male" cognitive bias not to notice how often men retaliate in non-rational ways against women who have the temerity to insist on Hanania's "male" standards in discourse? Nah, but you and he don't help people understand that.