"Abstract hypotheticals serve your purpose in advancing feminism. Abstract hypotheticals screw men."
Wow! I remember when it was a major feminist talking point to accuse males of dominating the discourse with abstract reasoning. Women lived in context, embedded in relationships, and the privileging of abstract reasoning was a method of subordination.
The quote above is from Shouting Thomas in the comments to my post about the feasibility of instituting the military draft before and after the removal of the ban on women in combat. I'm trying to get commenters to focus on the precise issue and not drag in other material or emote about how they feel about me. I'm amused to see myself accused of oppressing the men with the use of the kind of rhetoric that feminists used to condemn as typically male.
Why, I remember "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House" by Audre Lorde. But apparently the master's tools are working quite well!
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४३ टिप्पण्या:
All this abstract reasoning makes my head spin this early in the morning... I'm not sure there's enough coffee in the world...
I've never understood why some people seem to dislike hypotheticals.
You're suggesting, Althouse, that I'm an exemplar of abstract reasoning?
You've got to be kidding! I'm a mangy Old Dawg of a musician and sex pervert.
The language of oppression is pretty foreign to my existence, too. I regard that way of looking at things as bullshit.
As I'm inclined to do, I was arguing about specific instances... in this case, your suggestion that avoiding the great taboo of discrimination against women supersedes the imperative of fielding a competent military.
"You're suggesting, Althouse, that I'm an exemplar of abstract reasoning?"
Obviously not.
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
I'm a storyteller, Althouse, which means that I value tradition and the reality of human nature over abstract reasoning.
I think my system is superior to yours.
I also think that your reflex recourse to legal solutions is as often destructive as it is constructive.
You make your living there, which blinds you, I think, to this.
Or, to shorten thing ups a little...
I'm not in favor of legalism as the solution to most things, as you are, Althouse.
Tradition and respect for the reality of human nature is better in most instances.
I guess in some ways superiority is its own reward.
I guess in some ways superiority is its own reward.
Seems to be all we've got, unless we take Shakespeare's advice and kill all the lawyers.
ST: Just because Shakespeare put the words, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" into the mouth of a character doesn't mean Shakespeare endorsed that view. It is more likely to show how superficially the character thought, imagining that the human proclivity for protracted squabbling about ANYTHING, no matter how petty, could be fixed by disposing of professional advocates.
ST, a man of all seasons! He can too be an exemplar of abstract reasoning!
Sheesh;)
You know, Althouse, the funny thing is that in real, measurable terms of abstract reasoning, I can run rings around you.
I am a very good high level programmer in languages like C++, Java, etc.
You don't have a clue here. All you got is the ability to BS about legal theories, which really isn't abstract reasoning at all.
I have the ability to employ abstract reasoning in a way that addresses measurable reality. You don't.
Kinda funny, huh?
Shout, sometimes Ann does me in and I program in most of the same languages as you.
Me, I go back to the not-so-abstract ideas. Like, if it had worked all that well in the last 5000 years, we'd be doing it already.
PS Love Alex's description of Oop now that she's stopped wanting us out of A-stan and turned into a supporter of the draft and Universal Military Training -
Inga - She Wolf of the SS.
My use of "abstract reasoning" in my job leads to things like colleges (you know where Althouse works) being able to enroll people in courses online and collect their money.
Althouse's use of "abstract reasoning" leads to giving women jobs that they can't do (by her own estimation) in the military in order to avoid the theoretical bogey man of "discrimination."
Which is better?
Ohhhhh no, not so fast here edumber, I do want us out of Afghanistan. Where have I said any differently? Lie much?
Is abstract reasoning anything like abstract painting? Why are there no great abstract female painters?....I think if the NFL had more female players there would be less concussive injuries. And the female players could go on to coaching positions and lucrative endorsement deals.
William, I believe you've nailed it.
Women must be allowed to play tackle for the Giants. Else, they are oppressed victims of discrimination.
This, according to Althouse's incredible grasp of abstract reasoning.
I might have guessed Shouting Thomas worked in IT. Almost every comp sci guy I've ever met (with some lovely exceptions) suffered mightily from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Inga said...
Ohhhhh no, not so fast here edumber, I do want us out of Afghanistan. Where have I said any differently? Lie much?
Oh, come on, She Wolf of the SS, you were ready to have your "daughter" lead the next charge at San Juan Hill, make the last Last Stand at Little Big Horn, wade ashore at the next Tarawa.
Turning chickenhawk already?
The Dunning-Kruger effect stuff is funny.
I'll grant you points for that. Funny is always good.
But, I'm also a successful musician, both a recording and performing musician. I'm also a successful church musician.
So, in this case you're wrong. I'm not imagining things.
Edumber, you really feel the need to disarm me dontcha? I've got you outgunned, but you too suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect. So carry on, it's very clear I'm some sort of threat to you here on Althouse.
Alternating declarations of victory!
Only on the internet... brought to you by God Almighty!
She really fell for it.
Pathetic, truly, makes me want to turn my eyes away, I hate seeing even those I loathe suffer.
Pathetic, truly, makes me want to turn my eyes away, I hate seeing even those I loathe suffer.
Give it up, Inga.
You were doing better before you tried the unilateral declaration of victory tactic.
Kudos for the link to the Dunning Kruger effect. As an antidote, and in the context of reading the media, consider the gem put forth by Madison lefty and progressive Erwin Knoll:
Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge link
Knoll's insight can be used to spot any charlatan: just listen to what they say about that which you know about. If you notice someone BS'ing about something you know--especially factual--they're a bullshitter.
It is so sad that Shouting Thomas thinks that he has superior reasoning ability by virtue of his male genitalia. Makes me question his ability in all areas, including tech. It certainly makes me question his abstract reasoning ability.
It is so sad that Shouting Thomas thinks that he has superior reasoning ability by virtue of his male genitalia.
This kind of shit is so hilarious.
Liz, I can send you a picture of my genitalia. Apparently, you would get a kick out of it.
Be my guest, Shouting. I'm sure I would find them beyond boring. After all I've had the best. Strictly a Marine. No need to self promote. In a fire fight I would rather have Ann Althouse at my back than a bunch of self promoted abstract reasoners. Or for that matter....
Nobody would be less useful in a firefight (except to herself) than Althouse, even assuming she knows how to shoot.
Why don't you just admit that there is a public safety/national security exception and quit picking at it? The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.
Or will it take a busload of women troops being blown to shit to wake you up? You never seem to appreciate reality until it happens to you.
Is this an abstract hypothetical? I understand an effective and favored tactic of lawyers defending against rape charges was to take a pencil and a coke bottle, give the victim the pencil, and invite her to stick the pencil in the coke bottle. He would waggle it back and forth, the victim would fail, and the lawyer would say aha, guess you didn't try very hard to resist. I have always thought the answer was to smile, jam a gun in his mouth, and invite him to move that coke bottle all he wants.
In a fire fight I would rather have Ann Althouse at my back
Good luck with that.
will it take a busload of women troops being blown to shit to wake you up?
Here is the reality. Men and women are not equal or interchangeable. Get over it feminists. It is a biological and sociological fact.
Women in combat situations are a liability and will ultimately do several things: get the men killed around them, get raped and harassed (that is also a biological fact), cause the failure of the missions that they are on, be unable to physically and mentally keep up...and did I mention?? get good men killed.
Women in combat situations who pull the less physically demanding jobs because we know they can't "hump the ruck" as Allen S so aptly stated, will be just as hated as those snot nosed, know nothing junior officers in 'Nam who were fragged. Get ready to have some major resentment and violence against women. You asked for it.
There is a reason that for all of history unless it was a last ditch, desperate effort where we are fighting to the very last person....women manned the home front.
Women in combat is one of the worst ideas ever created.
EVER!!
Or will it take a busload of women troops being blown to shit to wake you up? You never seem to appreciate reality until it happens to you.
I suspect it might take pieces of them landing on her desk to to affect her--and then she might just post on breasts or vaginas.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
I too well remember the insistence in academic feminism that, as you summarized it so nicely, "women lived in context, embedded in relationships, and the privileging of abstract reasoning was a method of subordination." Wymmins (read: ex-nun lesbians who don't actually engage in sex) holding hands and spinning around in circles in the Arboretum, by their spinning spinning spinning throwing off the shackles of patriarchal logic and the privileging of rational modes of thought that so oppress their inherent nurturing Creativity that otherwise would just burst forth and blossom and save the world.
The shorter version: Circles are good, lines --- bad!
Things that work in the abstract hypothetical or in theory, like women in combat, rarely work out in reality.
This abstract doe eyed thinking versus considering the unintended consequences of the reality and implementation of theory is the main difference between liberals and conservatives AND between women and men.
There is also a difference between abstract 'reasoning' and unreasoned abstract 'theories'.
The circular mind versus the linear mind.
An abstract, hypothetical screw?
Many of us have had several over our lifetimes, I would bet.
Oh good, Inga and Edutcher are going to insult each other some more. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Actually, I was joking and she went for it.
So is this what equality has come to? The freedom to get your limbs blown off? Yeah, GRRRL power! They can be double amputees just like the guys!
We will shame them in their homes. We will shame them in their schools. We will shame them in their places of work. We will shame them from sea to shining sea.
Women have realized their stereotype of men. Progress! Forward! To nonsense.
That said, my impression is that Professor Althouse's motives do not conform with the prevailing stereotype. Well, it's just an impression. I am fairly new to this site and haven't had an opportunity to fully characterize our host. However, she does tend to favor the occult. Perhaps that is the cause or effect of her chosen vocation. We will know her by her labor.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा