Facebook discussions for many people appear to be one-sided. If you don't agree with the position taken, then the belief is that "it's my page and you can't critique my beliefs!" I don't think that it's a real discussion when everyone has to agree on everything. So no, I don't think that you're turning into a troll; you're just a person with a functional brain, an increasingly rare breed.
It seems all of us are having misadventures in Cyberspace lately, and our collective encounters seem to have a common theme: Selective reading is analogous to selective hearing.
Make a point, there are FaceBookers or bloggers who refuse to read it, acknowledge it, and pretend you never said it. What they want is to have their opinions mirrored back as a perfect reflection of themselves; and when you disappoint, don’t give them what they want, some of them turn surly or verbally abusive.
Every once in a while, I am tempted to venture out only to relearn these bitter lessons again and again. Why bother, I ask? It is such a waste of precious time.
Really good sparring partners are hard to find. In fact, I think they are an extinct species.
Oscar Wilde said something that may be appropriate here: "One should never listen. Listening is a sign of indifference to one's hearers."
Couple this with the strong possibility that for a great many people, ideas are little more than a thin veil for unexamined but powerful feelings.
Stir vigorously, and you have a recipe for spending the rest of your life responding on the Internets to people who either willfully distort what you've written or are quite incapable of understanding or "hearing" it in the first place.
I used to refer to FB as a social wasteland. Now I call it a cesspool of lies. I had two huge arguments this week with people about a couple of stories which were less than reliable. I'm the bad guy because I pointed up the fallacies in both and didn't criticize the big bad cops. Turns out, I was right but they weren't interested in facts.
Someone posted the story about the plane crash that killed two OK coaches. The lede was clearly visible (you didn't even have to click on the link) and stated that the crash occurred the previous night in Arkansas. The first person to comment said, "I didn't know about this. When? Where?" Okay . . .
I've decided to pay less attention to FB and more attention to my blog or I'm likely to have a stroke. We on the left cannot criticize the right for spreading false info when we do the same - and the hard left is as tone deaf as the right.
When you talk that way, I think you're doing the Right's job for them.
People don't need to be "hard left" in their thinking to be unpleasant towards so-called conservatives. They can be moderate-liberal and still be unpleasant towards conservatives. Incivility is a bad habit, but not an infallible indicator of "extremism" in one's politics.
Dino, I think that it's extreme to say that Leslie is doing the Right's job simply by pointing out that extremism is a useless and annoying trait whether it be from the left or the right. Providing false or misleading information hurts your cause be it conservative or liberal. Personally, I am more offended by sloppy thinking and misinformation on the Left. I expect such flawed information from the Right, so I'm not disappointed when it occurs.
I agree that people do not need to e hard left in their thinking in order ti be rude to conservatives. However, there is still no excusing perpetuating falsehoods and misinformation. It's also impossible to ignore that some of these rude voices are leftist extremists.That's a real animal and it's indiscriminate in whom it attacks. In particular, they are quick to reject that anyone can be a liberal and engage in rational dialogue with conservatives. As we cannot ever again afford to resolving differences via another civil war, then negotiation, compromise, and discussion are tools that we all need to work harder to use effectively.
The reality is that we are one country and there will not be secession on the part of any states. I'm disgusted with all factions that continually puff out their chests and advocate meeting unreasonableness and uncivil behavior with equally boorish behavior as if that is going to resolve anything. All it means is that you have a melee in which no one makes any sense. The only want to move forward is for someone to remain rational; meeting irrationality with irrationality only creates total anarchy.
Quite frankly, I think one of the issues is that a male paradigm of power still rules. Every disagreement between the Right and Left turns into a pissing contest, with some folks on the Left feeling that we're not doing enough pissing. At the heart of the Left's criticism of the President is a constant reiteration that he didn't have balls and engage in showdowns with the Republicans over the budget, or health care reform. Yet another male paradigm as a measure of effectiveness. Funny, when George Bush announced that he was the Decider, most of us on the left were not impressed.
continued Funny, when George Bush announced that he was the Decider, most of us on the left were not impressed with his macho posturing. Yet, there is much criticism from the Left that the current President refuses to indulge in a battle of testosterone as the hallmark of his leadership style. What we need are more women in positions o power within the political system. I'd like to hear someone declare, "He needs to act like he has a vagina."
Dino exemplifies what I'm talking about. Facts don't mean a damn unless you agree with him. Dino is the reason I withdrew from The Swash Zone and the reason I rarely visit and why I hesitated to leave the above commnent. I firmly believe that one reason SZ doesn't attract many readers is not only because of the male chauvinism, it is also because of the stuffy, superior intellectual snobbery.
I appreciate your comment, but the assertion really isn't extreme at all and of course it isn't about the writer's intentions. I think the point is that throwing around terms like "left" and "right" in an autopilot way is something that borrows from and benefits mainly the right wing, which has quite a grip on American political discourse. They tell us there's a crazy radical left, so we all just go along with it and make it part of our own language and thinking. Your own use of "left" indicates to me that you sort of missed the point I was making. I see no reason to refrain from making a point when I think it's worthwhile.
Leslie,
I don't mean you any offense, really, but when you say I "exemplify" what you're talking about, it means nothing because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
You seem to me too thin-skinned to deal with any kind of criticism at all, and your responses to it seem to me invariably, inflexibly hostile. Why on earth do you blog, then? I could turn your comment right back around -- if someone suggests that maybe there's something a bit off about a term you're using, you consider that "intellectual snobbery" and male chauvinism and lizardism or whatever. Isn't it the height of arrogance to consider yourself above criticism, even if it's honest?
I don't like sloppy language that people borrow from the air, which is permeated by radical conservative trash-talk. You don't like being called out for a poor choice of words or sloppy thinking when you're making a point. Not my problem. I wasn't plunked down from the Jurassic to agree with everything you say just because it's you saying it, and if you don't like that, I shan't trouble myself with you further.
To be honest, I'm not exactly clear on the FB exchange. Embiggening it didn't make it all that clear. Plus, I have an aversion to FB.
From what I did get out of the exchange, I don't think either party took an extreme position or a particularly political one. I think what it showed was an annoyed traditionalist who means no affront, discrimination or harm in a tradition that means a lot to him confronted by someone who perceives affront, discrimination or harm in that tradition, whether intended or not.
Life is too short. Inclusion and good-natured tolerance can make life more worthwhile for all. As a Christian, I don't feel threatened by symbols or greetings of Passover, Hannukah, Kwanzaa or other such things. I don't think everyone is Christian or should be. I wish people would accept a sign or verbal "merry Christmas" as a well-intended, friendly gesture, whatever their faith or disbelief.
It need hurt nothing nor cost anything to simply reply with "merry Christmas," "Happy Hannukah," "joyous Kwanzaa" or whatever.
I do resent that some seek to exploit politically the grumblings of a few about the trappings of Christmas, as if the tradition is being somehow taken away. Look hard enough and you could probably find some people find affront in the existence of vanilla milkshakes.
The grumblers would do well to understand Christmas signs in stores, banners across city streets and other superficial things for what they are. And they're are not religious. They can't and aren't intended to proselytize or oppress anyone.
The antidote to hard feelings and unwarranted grumbling, to my mind, isn't to require replacement of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays." It's to welcome, earn about, honor and include in a spirit of neighborliness the meaningful, traditional occasions of all.
Joe, Why would anyone be offended if you believe in God? As long as you keep your god in your pocket and don't wave it in anyone's face and insist that they have to worship it, too, anyway.
Leslie, I'm sorry you have an issue with Dino. I'm not actually seeing the attitude you mention in the above, though.
BTW, does it count as "stuffy, superior intellectual snobbery" when you point out something that's stupid and say "Well, THAT'S stupid"? Because I do that a lot.
I try not to be stuffy about it.
Sheria, Rather than people acting like they have a vagina (you know, unless they do...), I'd just rather more people act as if they have a brain.
Never did understand equating testicles with courage, though. That's a man's most vulnerable spot - sticking it out there to get hit isn't brave, just stupid. (Then again, it's been said before - there's a thin line between bravery and stupidity.)
And why the sexual organ disparity? "He's got balls" is admired, but "he's a dick" isn't?
Oh, it's understandable that humans have an issue with a large reptile at the keyboard, particularly one that has an occasional annoying penchant for demanding nitpicky precision in the way concepts are wielded. I mean, what the hell does a dinosaur know about concepts anyway? The only relevant question should be, "can they (concepts, I mean) be bolted down whole without fear of being disturbed by another predator before you finish?" It's just so improbable.
Believe me, I try to do my shopping at odd hours, to reduce the feeling of mild disquiet that ensues when they see me ambling through the aisles at Trader Joe's....
No harm done -- we're all on the same side. We're not voting GOP, and we don't think it's the ticket to deny others compassion or savage them for their mistakes. I would say something like, "We must not be enemies," but that's what Abe Lincoln said just before the Civil War started, so maybe that kind of statement is jinxed and I'd best just keep my simple snout shut.
I'd rather you didn't. Makes it difficult for you to eat. And among all the things I don't want, "25-30 ton hungry dinosaur" pretty much tops the list.
All those nice herbivorous principles, straight out the window.
"Never did understand equating testicles with courage, though."
Particularly since sheep have enormous ones and lions don't, but it seems to this old man that this is a fairly new thing, this testicular obsession. Back in the 50's when I used to hang with a less mature crowd, it was different. Today it's more like people who put huge wheels on crappy cars to feel hip.
Of course a dinosaur doesn't allow his to be seen at all, whether that's evidence of snobbery or just a touch of class.
I'm quite interested in the politics of accusing people of elitism or snobbery the unstated premise of which is that all opinion, taste, or preference is of equal value, regardless of credentials, facts or the ability to state them and reason from them. It's really another form of denialism, I think and the weakest of all defenses if not an admission of defeat.
So long as I get my blueberry muffin every morning with an equal amount of blueberries as the last one had, I'm fine. I take my culinary tips from Scorsese's film Casino. That Sam Rothstein's the MAN.
Capt. Fogg,
That's sort of how I feel about the "elitism" charge some folks like to serve up whenever they get annoyed and can't think of anything intelligent to say. As you suggest, I think, it's cheap relativism. It's also about as self-defeating a thing as any librul can do: (please note that I speak generally; I do not bite my non-existent thumb at anyone in particular, but I do bite my non-existent thumb): swearing off or denigrating the value of education and long study, in favor of being folksy or hip or, like ya know cool 'n whatevers.
If we're going to go that route whenever we see a word with more than two syllables, let's all just vote for Guv'nuh Goodhair of Texas or Herman Cain of Planet Pizza and get it overwith. Because over there in that blessed region of infelicity, they see no need for knowing anything about anything. Anything at all, let alone Beckybeckybickybuckystan.
Joe, thank you for your appreciation of my commentary.
Gentlemen, I adore the company here but I don't think that you realize how much testosterone is in the air at the Zone. If you recall the conversation between Edge and I on gender issues that we shared here, one of the issues we discussed was the impact of gender on communication styles.There is a definite male slant to communication at the Zone.
Dino, I accept that it wasn't your intent to personally insult Leslie with your stated belief that she was doing the Right's job for them with her observation about the hard Left. However, it was personal and it was insulting (said gently). In the context in which Leslie was speaking, her use of the term hard Left was perhaps not the same as your use of the term "Left," but her different perception does not make her a sellout to the Right, which is what your observation implied (unintentionally)
I don't think that the radicalized Left is a myth. I think it's a reality that there are extremists on both sides of the street. From what I've read of your opinions on this issue, I don't think that you would agree and that's okay. I don't think that Leslie was insulted that you disagreed, it was your suggestion that she naively didn't understand the terms that she used and was aiding and abetting the Right's agenda due to her naivete.
More generally to all regarding the testicles as a measure of courage, it's not just as a measure of courage but of competence. As women have slowly become more of the power structure, some actually believe that it is an ccolade to say of a woman, "She's got balls." My point is that the notion of success and power is tied to ideas of masculinity. If a woman want to be successful, then she needs to learn how to play by "man" rules. This gender bias is ingrained in our cultural consciousness and is shared by men and women. Of course it is ridiculous to identify power with genitalia, and that was the heart of my observations about the new norm being female genitalia as opposed to male.
I always respect and appreciate your views and always will. You are brilliant and I love your contributions and comments! Well, I can be a meanie lizard at times, but there's a bit of context to be aired here -- last time I mentioned that issue about "left" terminology, I seem to recall being a good deal gentler about it and receiving nothing but dismissive remarks in return. So I took less care the second time: people who cross me get a piece of my mind when I think the matter being discussed is important, even if my mind is no larger than a walnut.
Don't know if you noticed the utterly fantastical assertion by a certain person that I pay no attention to facts unless I happen to agree with the fact-teller. That was just pulled from thin air. Yes, I'm a sublime example of everything that's wrong with the Internets. What are we to make of that kind of talk? It was a silly thing to say and quite obviously personal (if it were true, I would have to be a Grade-A sociopath, ja?), but that's okay, I don't take it personally. Zip goes the snout from henceforth. Zip, nada.... Okay, I'll stop snarling in that low-rumble, mildly disquieting dinosaur way....
My view is that language is a public construct. The fact that a person has some highly individual "context" for an utterance does not excuse him or her from the significance that flows from broader contexts, at least in some cases. Can I, for example, say something like, "to me, the word 'Holocaust' means 'a pretty little flower found only in the remote reaches of Alaska'"? Nope, I can't, if I want to be taken seriously. And in fact I think a lot of people would get very, very upset with me if I thought I could abuse words or concepts that way. The word is saturated with history and significance. Misusing it is consequential and possibly even hurtful. And I'd have no business accusing you of snobbery or triviality if you called me on it. So if you tell me that as a talker or writer I'm "doing the work of the Right," I'm not going to get mad at you; I"m going to reflect on it and ask myself, "What the hell? AM I doing the devil's duty when I talk that way? Did I just unthinkingly borrow a concept from Bill O'Reilly and run with it? Oh God! What's happening to me?"
But seriously, that is because I have enough respect for ideas and the language that constitutes them to realize that both are "beyond me" in a non-trivial way. I believe YOU understand this and I know you're being kind to someone else, so I honor that.
As for the testosterone issue, good lord, maybe I missed something, but I don't know what you're referencing. Can you provide an instance of it on this blog? I don't think of myself as hypermasculine, or extremely competitive, or violent, or any of that stuff, and indeed I am generally playful and have a visceral dislike of hypermasculine males. I've had that reaction to them ever since I was a kid -- nearly all of them are hopeless blockheads and I have never seen any reason to amend my view.
"As for the testosterone issue, good lord, maybe I missed something,"
Well me too. I certainly wouldn't dare ascribe the haughty demands here about how words like gender and sex need to be used or how gender is an artificial construct foisted upon innocent children with no natural inclination to a lack of Y chromosomes, or indeed to the way facts are treated by different people, to estrogen poisoning or lack of androgen-induced cognitive excellence.
If I cannot say this or that is a female virtue or attitude without protest, or that one is a hyper-feminine blockhead for not being a fan of mixed martial arts or football, I certainly shouldn't be able to turn it about. Gender stereotypes are gender stereotypes and I think stereotypes say more about the typer than the typee.
But here we have those public constructs battling with the political shibboleths people make of those words. Some of us have been severely criticized for not using "sex" and "gender" according to peremptory academic rules and the idea that one is male or female only as a consequence of early conditioning by our parents has been aired without anyone ascribing that unscientific opinion to hormones.
And god help me, I have no idea what hyper-masculine means. It's more of a constellation or arbitrarily or politically chosen traits than anything scientific and I'm quite sure that "hyper-feminine" wouldn't likely be used without a great deal of justified outrage.
Are females more reasonable then, more open-minded, more right-thinking because of estrogen? Am I less masculine for appreciating English Romantic poetry as much as I do drag racing? Please.
What? You appreciate British romantic poetry? Don’t ya know that-there kind of pretty writin’ is for girls? (said the English professor with a long double-shake of his Stetson….)
But seriously, yes, I agree. (And you may have noticed that my query, "give me an instance, please," yielded -- ahem! -- no reply.) What we’re talking about is “gender essentialism,” which is what men have used for millennia to keep women from enjoying their dino-gods-given rights. We could cite a long list of authors who have counseled against the tautological pseudo-arguments that flow from gender essentialism: Mary Wollstonecraft being the greatest of them all, but why not add Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Helene Cixous, and Judith Butler, among others? Oh, and I shouldn’t forget to add J.S. Mill to that list – he wrote well on the topic in On the Subjection of Women.
As for hypermasculinity, I think that po-mo term is an attempt to get away from essentialist language and offer a criticism based more on cultural conditioning. A lot of American males (dinosaurs excluded since we have no culture to speak of) seem to be conditioned to despise anything artsy, anything having to do with expression unless it has to do with harming or killing something or someone else. And that’s unfortunate. I, for one, do not like the culture of “hardness” and ultra-violence pushed on us by our advertising geniuses and capitalist movers and shakers. It’s stupid and leads only to a nasty, brutish and unexamined life.
I think it’s fair to say the following: there’s probably something in the argument that biologically, men are more immediately inclined to aggression and violence than women, though both are quite capable of it. (I’m not quoting stats here, but I think it’s reasonable to admit that unsocialized young males are responsible for a hell of a lot of the violence in this world, and older, inappropriately socialized males for much of the rest of it – women seem to be mostly a peaceful lot. Women without proper upbringing are annoying; men so neglected are apt to prove lethal.) But saying that isn’t to doom either gender to being aggressive or passive (or destructive/creative, etc.). Rather, it’s to suggest that as always with humans, what matters MUCH more than any possible physical/hormonal differences is CULTURAL INFLECTION.
We are the artificial creatures, and culture, education, encouragement towards civility and appropriate decorum, are almost everything with us. As King Lear says to those wicked daughters of his when they try to take away his unruly hundred knights, we aren’t to be reduced to slaves of necessity (biological or otherwise): “Our basest beggars are in the poorest thing superfluous.” Better yet, “Allow not nature more than nature needs, / Man’s life’s as cheap as beast’s.”
That’s why gender essentialism is so starchy, so rigid as to be useless: it reduces us to nature and makes us go at one another as nothing more than instantiations of natural necessity. No full vision of humanity can ever arise from such a confrontation.
By the way, one more thing about the phrase "hyper-masculinity." I think it's perfectly true that the phrase is tilted in favor of the concept of femininity. That doesn't much trouble me because I don't like the way "masculinity" is defined anyhow: too much violence and foolishness. But I also think it WOULD be possible to use a term like "hyper-feminine blockhead" so long as you delimited it carefully. And then ducked for cover.... I refrain from doing so because I don't think a 40-foot-long dinosaur would be able to fit under a table.
Does Gorilla culture teach males to act differently than females? Yet in most animals it's the case, but we're more than animals aren't we? (no offense intended)
Anyone who has watched "Operation Repo" can see unsettling evidence that human females can become as irrationally and uncontrollably violent as males and with less provocation. I won't buy into the "weaker sex" thing even a small bit - no more than I buy into the idea that males are closer to our brutish ancestors than women. Are we more tolerant of boys being boys, then girls being girls? Sure, sometimes, but that doesn't mean something that angers me or offends me can be dismissed as a gender specific weakness, which is a cheap way to feel like you won the argument you lost.
Dividing opinions and the way they're expressed into male and female offends me as much as dividing them into liberal and conservative and in both cases I think it debases the culture. Male is not the opposite of Female and cultural imperatives affect different people in different ways and to different degrees at different times.
I don't feel any less masculine for a strong appreciation for art, music and literature, a passion for nature and a bunch of other things that don't fit into Archie Bunker's life - or for loathing football for that matter. To quote someone whose name I can't remember, "real men don't waste a lot of time worrying about what real men do." Perhaps it's the same for real women.
And by the way, the thing I appreciate most about this method of discourse is that, being only disembodied voices, we can separate things like age, gender, status, appearance from what's being said. Good writing, good reasoning, rigorous logic -- it has to stand on its own. Emily Dickenson and Edna St. Vincent Millay pack as much of a punch as any poet I've read and of the characters here in the zone, I couldn't tell for the most part whether they are male or female by any quality of thought and of the anonymous tribe, I find it impossible most times.
Just a quick response -- yes on the sometime benefits of "disembodied" media. That's an interesting point of view and one could go into it on philosophical grounds -- nature of writing, Plato's Phaedrus, "Derridadaism," and all that fun stuff.
As for the gender thing, well, I think you're sort of using yourself as the basis for definition, but what I'm mainly talking about is cultural typification that has a great deal of force. It's hard to ignore, though that's unfortunate. Anyhow, I think my view is supple enough to embrace the one you're voicing without my having to backtrack on the points I made. It isn't about women being "weaker." That is already to describe violence as strength and cooperation as weakness, which I don't want to do.
(And you may have noticed that my query, "give me an instance, please," yielded -- ahem! -- no reply.)
I've been busy with other things and I haven't had time to reply to your query, Dino. I will take a moment to say that issues of masculine and feminine communication styles are not centered on one's like or dislike of romantic poetry. To reduce it to such is a gross trivialization.
Sheria, I'm an English teacher and I teach romantic poetry. Please feel free to respond when you have the time to actually read what I wrote. Otherwise, you'll only sound like you have absolutely no sense of humor or irony, and that's not the kind of exchange we should be having here. It's nothing like previous ones. I write carefully, and those who respond to my comments should read my stuff as carefully as I read theirs.
"As for the gender thing, well, I think you're sort of using yourself as the basis for definition"
Well, man is the measure of all things so if I'm a man, I'm the ruler, right? No more specious than some of that Derry DaDa stuff, to my supremely masculine, gun toting, beer drinking, ballet watching, Chopin loving way of thinking. I think John Wayne would agree.
I will not wash my face; I will not brush my hair; I "pig" around the place-- There's nobody to care.
The idea of what constitutes yins and yangs, lingam and yoni is behind this discussion, I think. What is it, after all, that makes us different as to opinions, style and rhetoric, if anything? Are there really any real differences? Is John Wayne more of a man than Mr Rogers and are Ann Coulter or Indira Gandhi, or Golda Meir, or Katharine the Great or Elizabeth I or Hatshepsut typical females? I mean those women had ovaries!
I've got to know that before I consider what communication style is typical of any gender. That's why I mentioned poetry of course. "typical" males don't like it, with the possible exception of Robert W. Service vide supra or dirty limericks, right?
I've said it a million times and I'll say it again, what we assert as 'typical' says more about us and our prejudices than about anything statistically valid.
But to Sheria, I'd have to dispute the idea of a gender specific communication style. I think it's as unsupportable as postulating a Semitic or Aryan or Basque communications style or any grossly prejudiced statements. As with handwriting, we are fond of saying this is a masculine or feminine hand, but any graphologist will assure you the distinction is in the eye of the beholder and not in the hand of the writer.
If I did not know that Sheria is a woman, for instance, I would not be able to tell from her writing. I and others may joke about "female logic" (in a good natured way, of course) but I don't think there is any such thing and I can name any number of female writers who would, I think, seem to embody what some would call masculine style and vice versa. Is this a case of marshaling examples to call "typical" when they are not?
Can anyone give me an example - provide a "tell" that reveals the writer's gender with a significant statistical probability? Or shall I revert to my gender and demand pistols at dawn?
I like your previous post and the present one and can't figure out why you have cast it as a partial disagreement with what I wrote. If you go back and read my last few comments on gender carefully, you will see that they more or less anticipate what you just posted.
And to respond to part of what you wrote, no I don't suppose it is possible to tell somebody's gender with any degree of certainty based upon writing. I could be wrong, but it sounds kind of dubious to me.
Style, as you suggest, is something that goes beyond anything we could confine by a concept like "gender." All sorts of influences are brought to bear when we sit down to write or when we speak -- I suppose everyone's mind is traversed by many voices, past and present. My own style is predicated on various periods and authors and just plain quirks, sometimes self-consciously but often not.
One value of some of the post-structural authors I have read is that they go out of their way – perhaps sometimes too far out of their way – to make the point that language may be more in control of us than we are of it. That is at least an interesting and productive way of characterizing and treating language, though I think that all of us probably would like to believe we can at least inflect or be creative with the only medium we really have for intelligent communication.
I don't think it's a disagreement at all -- at least not with you; particularly with your last.
But that's a good point about language being in control of the speaker. For many people, that's quite true and few people do more than string together cliche tropes other people provide. I don't always read as carefully as you write however. Is that a "guy thing?" It's a good excuse anyway.
Okay, got it. Didn't mean to sound snippy. Anyway, about language – yes, it is true of all of us to a great extent, I think. It is a condition of language itself that it must be able to function in the absence of the speaker or writer. But simply being aware of that fact seems to do a lot of good – most of us have probably noticed just how pathetic the Sunday talk shows can be in picking up and parroting whatever partisan politicians throw them like anchovies: ideologically saturated catchphrases, brutal assumptions, and so forth. Many of them never even appear to question whether something is any good once it has been labeled "reform." But that is just one instance, and I am sure people can think of many others. Jon Stewart is excellent at picking up on that stuff – you know, putting together strings of video clips in which dozens of pundits and politicians say exactly the same thing. Language often works as perceptual and ideological shorthand and a means of belonging to the club (whatever club it may be) – straight-up maneuver of the sort that Nietzsche analyzes so well whenever he talks about the lies or delusions cradled in our dearest assumptions about language and how it does or does not let us relate to the world around us.
Anyway, I must get some rest – this old stegosaurus injury is killing my back and threatening to send me to the urgent-care veterinarian.
Facebook discussions for many people appear to be one-sided. If you don't agree with the position taken, then the belief is that "it's my page and you can't critique my beliefs!" I don't think that it's a real discussion when everyone has to agree on everything. So no, I don't think that you're turning into a troll; you're just a person with a functional brain, an increasingly rare breed.
ReplyDeleteIt seems all of us are having misadventures in Cyberspace lately, and our collective encounters seem to have a common theme: Selective reading is analogous to selective hearing.
ReplyDeleteMake a point, there are FaceBookers or bloggers who refuse to read it, acknowledge it, and pretend you never said it. What they want is to have their opinions mirrored back as a perfect reflection of themselves; and when you disappoint, don’t give them what they want, some of them turn surly or verbally abusive.
Every once in a while, I am tempted to venture out only to relearn these bitter lessons again and again. Why bother, I ask? It is such a waste of precious time.
Really good sparring partners are hard to find. In fact, I think they are an extinct species.
Oscar Wilde said something that may be appropriate here: "One should never listen. Listening is a sign of indifference to one's hearers."
ReplyDeleteCouple this with the strong possibility that for a great many people, ideas are little more than a thin veil for unexamined but powerful feelings.
Stir vigorously, and you have a recipe for spending the rest of your life responding on the Internets to people who either willfully distort what you've written or are quite incapable of understanding or "hearing" it in the first place.
I used to refer to FB as a social wasteland. Now I call it a cesspool of lies. I had two huge arguments this week with people about a couple of stories which were less than reliable. I'm the bad guy because I pointed up the fallacies in both and didn't criticize the big bad cops. Turns out, I was right but they weren't interested in facts.
ReplyDeleteSomeone posted the story about the plane crash that killed two OK coaches. The lede was clearly visible (you didn't even have to click on the link) and stated that the crash occurred the previous night in Arkansas. The first person to comment said, "I didn't know about this. When? Where?" Okay . . .
I've decided to pay less attention to FB and more attention to my blog or I'm likely to have a stroke. We on the left cannot criticize the right for spreading false info when we do the same - and the hard left is as tone deaf as the right.
"the hard left is as tone deaf as the right."
ReplyDeleteWhen you talk that way, I think you're doing the Right's job for them.
People don't need to be "hard left" in their thinking to be unpleasant towards so-called conservatives. They can be moderate-liberal and still be unpleasant towards conservatives. Incivility is a bad habit, but not an infallible indicator of "extremism" in one's politics.
Dino, I think that it's extreme to say that Leslie is doing the Right's job simply by pointing out that extremism is a useless and annoying trait whether it be from the left or the right. Providing false or misleading information hurts your cause be it conservative or liberal. Personally, I am more offended by sloppy thinking and misinformation on the Left. I expect such flawed information from the Right, so I'm not disappointed when it occurs.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people do not need to e hard left in their thinking in order ti be rude to conservatives. However, there is still no excusing perpetuating falsehoods and misinformation. It's also impossible to ignore that some of these rude voices are leftist extremists.That's a real animal and it's indiscriminate in whom it attacks. In particular, they are quick to reject that anyone can be a liberal and engage in rational dialogue with conservatives. As we cannot ever again afford to resolving differences via another civil war, then negotiation, compromise, and discussion are tools that we all need to work harder to use effectively.
The reality is that we are one country and there will not be secession on the part of any states. I'm disgusted with all factions that continually puff out their chests and advocate meeting unreasonableness and uncivil behavior with equally boorish behavior as if that is going to resolve anything. All it means is that you have a melee in which no one makes any sense. The only want to move forward is for someone to remain rational; meeting irrationality with irrationality only creates total anarchy.
Quite frankly, I think one of the issues is that a male paradigm of power still rules. Every disagreement between the Right and Left turns into a pissing contest, with some folks on the Left feeling that we're not doing enough pissing. At the heart of the Left's criticism of the President is a constant reiteration that he didn't have balls and engage in showdowns with the Republicans over the budget, or health care reform. Yet another male paradigm as a measure of effectiveness. Funny, when George Bush announced that he was the Decider, most of us on the left were not impressed.
continued
ReplyDeleteFunny, when George Bush announced that he was the Decider, most of us on the left were not impressed with his macho posturing. Yet, there is much criticism from the Left that the current President refuses to indulge in a battle of testosterone as the hallmark of his leadership style. What we need are more women in positions o power within the political system. I'd like to hear someone declare, "He needs to act like he has a vagina."
Dino exemplifies what I'm talking about. Facts don't mean a damn unless you agree with him. Dino is the reason I withdrew from The Swash Zone and the reason I rarely visit and why I hesitated to leave the above commnent. I firmly believe that one reason SZ doesn't attract many readers is not only because of the male chauvinism, it is also because of the stuffy, superior intellectual snobbery.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Sheria.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment, but the assertion really isn't extreme at all and of course it isn't about the writer's intentions. I think the point is that throwing around terms like "left" and "right" in an autopilot way is something that borrows from and benefits mainly the right wing, which has quite a grip on American political discourse. They tell us there's a crazy radical left, so we all just go along with it and make it part of our own language and thinking. Your own use of "left" indicates to me that you sort of missed the point I was making. I see no reason to refrain from making a point when I think it's worthwhile.
Leslie,
I don't mean you any offense, really, but when you say I "exemplify" what you're talking about, it means nothing because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
You seem to me too thin-skinned to deal with any kind of criticism at all, and your responses to it seem to me invariably, inflexibly hostile. Why on earth do you blog, then? I could turn your comment right back around -- if someone suggests that maybe there's something a bit off about a term you're using, you consider that "intellectual snobbery" and male chauvinism and lizardism or whatever. Isn't it the height of arrogance to consider yourself above criticism, even if it's honest?
I don't like sloppy language that people borrow from the air, which is permeated by radical conservative trash-talk. You don't like being called out for a poor choice of words or sloppy thinking when you're making a point. Not my problem. I wasn't plunked down from the Jurassic to agree with everything you say just because it's you saying it, and if you don't like that, I shan't trouble myself with you further.
To be honest, I'm not exactly clear on the FB exchange. Embiggening it didn't make it all that clear. Plus, I have an aversion to FB.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I did get out of the exchange, I don't think either party took an extreme position or a particularly political one. I think what it showed was an annoyed traditionalist who means no affront, discrimination or harm in a tradition that means a lot to him confronted by someone who perceives affront, discrimination or harm in that tradition, whether intended or not.
Life is too short. Inclusion and good-natured tolerance can make life more worthwhile for all. As a Christian, I don't feel threatened by symbols or greetings of Passover, Hannukah, Kwanzaa or other such things. I don't think everyone is Christian or should be. I wish people would accept a sign or verbal "merry Christmas" as a well-intended, friendly gesture, whatever their faith or disbelief.
It need hurt nothing nor cost anything to simply reply with "merry Christmas," "Happy Hannukah," "joyous Kwanzaa" or whatever.
I do resent that some seek to exploit politically the grumblings of a few about the trappings of Christmas, as if the tradition is being somehow taken away. Look hard enough and you could probably find some people find affront in the existence of vanilla milkshakes.
The grumblers would do well to understand Christmas signs in stores, banners across city streets and other superficial things for what they are. And they're are not religious. They can't and aren't intended to proselytize or oppress anyone.
The antidote to hard feelings and unwarranted grumbling, to my mind, isn't to require replacement of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays." It's to welcome, earn about, honor and include in a spirit of neighborliness the meaningful, traditional occasions of all.
Leslie and I exchanged comments on her facebook page about her concerns. I confessed that I was guilty of beating down righty. That was settled there.
ReplyDeleteI mostly now wanted to complimnet Sheria for her "he needs to act like he has a vagina" line.
God that was priceless.
I apologise to anyone offended by my reference to God.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteWhy would anyone be offended if you believe in God? As long as you keep your god in your pocket and don't wave it in anyone's face and insist that they have to worship it, too, anyway.
Leslie,
I'm sorry you have an issue with Dino. I'm not actually seeing the attitude you mention in the above, though.
BTW, does it count as "stuffy, superior intellectual snobbery" when you point out something that's stupid and say "Well, THAT'S stupid"? Because I do that a lot.
I try not to be stuffy about it.
Sheria,
Rather than people acting like they have a vagina (you know, unless they do...), I'd just rather more people act as if they have a brain.
Never did understand equating testicles with courage, though. That's a man's most vulnerable spot - sticking it out there to get hit isn't brave, just stupid. (Then again, it's been said before - there's a thin line between bravery and stupidity.)
And why the sexual organ disparity? "He's got balls" is admired, but "he's a dick" isn't?
(I'm off the subject again, aren't I?)
Nameless,
ReplyDeleteOh, it's understandable that humans have an issue with a large reptile at the keyboard, particularly one that has an occasional annoying penchant for demanding nitpicky precision in the way concepts are wielded. I mean, what the hell does a dinosaur know about concepts anyway? The only relevant question should be, "can they (concepts, I mean) be bolted down whole without fear of being disturbed by another predator before you finish?" It's just so improbable.
Believe me, I try to do my shopping at odd hours, to reduce the feeling of mild disquiet that ensues when they see me ambling through the aisles at Trader Joe's....
No harm done -- we're all on the same side. We're not voting GOP, and we don't think it's the ticket to deny others compassion or savage them for their mistakes. I would say something like, "We must not be enemies," but that's what Abe Lincoln said just before the Civil War started, so maybe that kind of statement is jinxed and I'd best just keep my simple snout shut.
...and I'd best just keep my simple snout shut.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather you didn't. Makes it difficult for you to eat. And among all the things I don't want, "25-30 ton hungry dinosaur" pretty much tops the list.
All those nice herbivorous principles, straight out the window.
I am not a tofurkey, damn it!
Nameless,
ReplyDelete"Never did understand equating testicles with courage, though."
Particularly since sheep have enormous ones and lions don't, but it seems to this old man that this is a fairly new thing, this testicular obsession. Back in the 50's when I used to hang with a less mature crowd, it was different. Today it's more like people who put huge wheels on crappy cars to feel hip.
Of course a dinosaur doesn't allow his to be seen at all, whether that's evidence of snobbery or just a touch of class.
I'm quite interested in the politics of accusing people of elitism or snobbery the unstated premise of which is that all opinion, taste, or preference is of equal value, regardless of credentials, facts or the ability to state them and reason from them. It's really another form of denialism, I think and the weakest of all defenses if not an admission of defeat.
But who needs to defend a dinosaur?
Nameless,
ReplyDeleteSo long as I get my blueberry muffin every morning with an equal amount of blueberries as the last one had, I'm fine. I take my culinary tips from Scorsese's film Casino. That Sam Rothstein's the MAN.
Capt. Fogg,
That's sort of how I feel about the "elitism" charge some folks like to serve up whenever they get annoyed and can't think of anything intelligent to say. As you suggest, I think, it's cheap relativism. It's also about as self-defeating a thing as any librul can do: (please note that I speak generally; I do not bite my non-existent thumb at anyone in particular, but I do bite my non-existent thumb): swearing off or denigrating the value of education and long study, in favor of being folksy or hip or, like ya know cool 'n whatevers.
If we're going to go that route whenever we see a word with more than two syllables, let's all just vote for Guv'nuh Goodhair of Texas or Herman Cain of Planet Pizza and get it overwith. Because over there in that blessed region of infelicity, they see no need for knowing anything about anything. Anything at all, let alone Beckybeckybickybuckystan.
Joe, thank you for your appreciation of my commentary.
ReplyDeleteGentlemen, I adore the company here but I don't think that you realize how much testosterone is in the air at the Zone. If you recall the conversation between Edge and I on gender issues that we shared here, one of the issues we discussed was the impact of gender on communication styles.There is a definite male slant to communication at the Zone.
Dino, I accept that it wasn't your intent to personally insult Leslie with your stated belief that she was doing the Right's job for them with her observation about the hard Left. However, it was personal and it was insulting (said gently). In the context in which Leslie was speaking, her use of the term hard Left was perhaps not the same as your use of the term "Left," but her different perception does not make her a sellout to the Right, which is what your observation implied (unintentionally)
I don't think that the radicalized Left is a myth. I think it's a reality that there are extremists on both sides of the street. From what I've read of your opinions on this issue, I don't think that you would agree and that's okay. I don't think that Leslie was insulted that you disagreed, it was your suggestion that she naively didn't understand the terms that she used and was aiding and abetting the Right's agenda due to her naivete.
More generally to all regarding the testicles as a measure of courage, it's not just as a measure of courage but of competence. As women have slowly become more of the power structure, some actually believe that it is an ccolade to say of a woman, "She's got balls." My point is that the notion of success and power is tied to ideas of masculinity. If a woman want to be successful, then she needs to learn how to play by "man" rules. This gender bias is ingrained in our cultural consciousness and is shared by men and women. Of course it is ridiculous to identify power with genitalia, and that was the heart of my observations about the new norm being female genitalia as opposed to male.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteI always respect and appreciate your views and always will. You are brilliant and I love your contributions and comments! Well, I can be a meanie lizard at times, but there's a bit of context to be aired here -- last time I mentioned that issue about "left" terminology, I seem to recall being a good deal gentler about it and receiving nothing but dismissive remarks in return. So I took less care the second time: people who cross me get a piece of my mind when I think the matter being discussed is important, even if my mind is no larger than a walnut.
Don't know if you noticed the utterly fantastical assertion by a certain person that I pay no attention to facts unless I happen to agree with the fact-teller. That was just pulled from thin air. Yes, I'm a sublime example of everything that's wrong with the Internets. What are we to make of that kind of talk? It was a silly thing to say and quite obviously personal (if it were true, I would have to be a Grade-A sociopath, ja?), but that's okay, I don't take it personally. Zip goes the snout from henceforth. Zip, nada.... Okay, I'll stop snarling in that low-rumble, mildly disquieting dinosaur way....
My view is that language is a public construct. The fact that a person has some highly individual "context" for an utterance does not excuse him or her from the significance that flows from broader contexts, at least in some cases. Can I, for example, say something like, "to me, the word 'Holocaust' means 'a pretty little flower found only in the remote reaches of Alaska'"? Nope, I can't, if I want to be taken seriously. And in fact I think a lot of people would get very, very upset with me if I thought I could abuse words or concepts that way. The word is saturated with history and significance. Misusing it is consequential and possibly even hurtful. And I'd have no business accusing you of snobbery or triviality if you called me on it. So if you tell me that as a talker or writer I'm "doing the work of the Right," I'm not going to get mad at you; I"m going to reflect on it and ask myself, "What the hell? AM I doing the devil's duty when I talk that way? Did I just unthinkingly borrow a concept from Bill O'Reilly and run with it? Oh God! What's happening to me?"
But seriously, that is because I have enough respect for ideas and the language that constitutes them to realize that both are "beyond me" in a non-trivial way. I believe YOU understand this and I know you're being kind to someone else, so I honor that.
As for the testosterone issue, good lord, maybe I missed something, but I don't know what you're referencing. Can you provide an instance of it on this blog? I don't think of myself as hypermasculine, or extremely competitive, or violent, or any of that stuff, and indeed I am generally playful and have a visceral dislike of hypermasculine males. I've had that reaction to them ever since I was a kid -- nearly all of them are hopeless blockheads and I have never seen any reason to amend my view.
"As for the testosterone issue, good lord, maybe I missed something,"
ReplyDeleteWell me too. I certainly wouldn't dare ascribe the haughty demands here about how words like gender and sex need to be used or how gender is an artificial construct foisted upon innocent children with no natural inclination to a lack of Y chromosomes, or indeed to the way facts are treated by different people, to estrogen poisoning or lack of androgen-induced cognitive excellence.
If I cannot say this or that is a female virtue or attitude without protest, or that one is a hyper-feminine blockhead for not being a fan of mixed martial arts or football, I certainly shouldn't be able to turn it about. Gender stereotypes are gender stereotypes and I think stereotypes say more about the typer than the typee.
But here we have those public constructs battling with the political shibboleths people make of those words. Some of us have been severely criticized for not using "sex" and "gender" according to peremptory academic rules and the idea that one is male or female only as a consequence of early conditioning by our parents has been aired without anyone ascribing that unscientific opinion to hormones.
And god help me, I have no idea what hyper-masculine means. It's more of a constellation or arbitrarily or politically chosen traits than anything scientific and I'm quite sure that "hyper-feminine" wouldn't likely be used without a great deal of justified outrage.
Are females more reasonable then, more open-minded, more right-thinking because of estrogen? Am I less masculine for appreciating English Romantic poetry as much as I do drag racing? Please.
What? You appreciate British romantic poetry? Don’t ya know that-there kind of pretty writin’ is for girls? (said the English professor with a long double-shake of his Stetson….)
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, yes, I agree. (And you may have noticed that my query, "give me an instance, please," yielded -- ahem! -- no reply.) What we’re talking about is “gender essentialism,” which is what men have used for millennia to keep women from enjoying their dino-gods-given rights. We could cite a long list of authors who have counseled against the tautological pseudo-arguments that flow from gender essentialism: Mary Wollstonecraft being the greatest of them all, but why not add Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Helene Cixous, and Judith Butler, among others? Oh, and I shouldn’t forget to add J.S. Mill to that list – he wrote well on the topic in On the Subjection of Women.
As for hypermasculinity, I think that po-mo term is an attempt to get away from essentialist language and offer a criticism based more on cultural conditioning. A lot of American males (dinosaurs excluded since we have no culture to speak of) seem to be conditioned to despise anything artsy, anything having to do with expression unless it has to do with harming or killing something or someone else. And that’s unfortunate. I, for one, do not like the culture of “hardness” and ultra-violence pushed on us by our advertising geniuses and capitalist movers and shakers. It’s stupid and leads only to a nasty, brutish and unexamined life.
I think it’s fair to say the following: there’s probably something in the argument that biologically, men are more immediately inclined to aggression and violence than women, though both are quite capable of it. (I’m not quoting stats here, but I think it’s reasonable to admit that unsocialized young males are responsible for a hell of a lot of the violence in this world, and older, inappropriately socialized males for much of the rest of it – women seem to be mostly a peaceful lot. Women without proper upbringing are annoying; men so neglected are apt to prove lethal.) But saying that isn’t to doom either gender to being aggressive or passive (or destructive/creative, etc.). Rather, it’s to suggest that as always with humans, what matters MUCH more than any possible physical/hormonal differences is CULTURAL INFLECTION.
We are the artificial creatures, and culture, education, encouragement towards civility and appropriate decorum, are almost everything with us. As King Lear says to those wicked daughters of his when they try to take away his unruly hundred knights, we aren’t to be reduced to slaves of necessity (biological or otherwise): “Our basest beggars are in the poorest thing superfluous.” Better yet, “Allow not nature more than nature needs, / Man’s life’s as cheap as beast’s.”
That’s why gender essentialism is so starchy, so rigid as to be useless: it reduces us to nature and makes us go at one another as nothing more than instantiations of natural necessity. No full vision of humanity can ever arise from such a confrontation.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteBy the way, one more thing about the phrase "hyper-masculinity." I think it's perfectly true that the phrase is tilted in favor of the concept of femininity. That doesn't much trouble me because I don't like the way "masculinity" is defined anyhow: too much violence and foolishness. But I also think it WOULD be possible to use a term like "hyper-feminine blockhead" so long as you delimited it carefully. And then ducked for cover.... I refrain from doing so because I don't think a 40-foot-long dinosaur would be able to fit under a table.
Does Gorilla culture teach males to act differently than females? Yet in most animals it's the case, but we're more than animals aren't we? (no offense intended)
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has watched "Operation Repo" can see unsettling evidence that human females can become as irrationally and uncontrollably violent as males and with less provocation. I won't buy into the "weaker sex" thing even a small bit - no more than I buy into the idea that males are closer to our brutish ancestors than women. Are we more tolerant of boys being boys, then girls being girls? Sure, sometimes, but that doesn't mean something that angers me or offends me can be dismissed as a gender specific weakness, which is a cheap way to feel like you won the argument you lost.
Dividing opinions and the way they're expressed into male and female offends me as much as dividing them into liberal and conservative and in both cases I think it debases the culture. Male is not the opposite of Female and cultural imperatives affect different people in different ways and to different degrees at different times.
I don't feel any less masculine for a strong appreciation for art, music and literature, a passion for nature and a bunch of other things that don't fit into Archie Bunker's life - or for loathing football for that matter. To quote someone whose name I can't remember, "real men don't waste a lot of time worrying about what real men do." Perhaps it's the same for real women.
And by the way, the thing I appreciate most about this method of discourse is that, being only disembodied voices, we can separate things like age, gender, status, appearance from what's being said. Good writing, good reasoning, rigorous logic -- it has to stand on its own. Emily Dickenson and Edna St. Vincent Millay pack as much of a punch as any poet I've read and of the characters here in the zone, I couldn't tell for the most part whether they are male or female by any quality of thought and of the anonymous tribe, I find it impossible most times.
ReplyDeleteCapt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteJust a quick response -- yes on the sometime benefits of "disembodied" media. That's an interesting point of view and one could go into it on philosophical grounds -- nature of writing, Plato's Phaedrus, "Derridadaism," and all that fun stuff.
As for the gender thing, well, I think you're sort of using yourself as the basis for definition, but what I'm mainly talking about is cultural typification that has a great deal of force. It's hard to ignore, though that's unfortunate. Anyhow, I think my view is supple enough to embrace the one you're voicing without my having to backtrack on the points I made. It isn't about women being "weaker." That is already to describe violence as strength and cooperation as weakness, which I don't want to do.
(And you may have noticed that my query, "give me an instance, please," yielded -- ahem! -- no reply.)
ReplyDeleteI've been busy with other things and I haven't had time to reply to your query, Dino. I will take a moment to say that issues of masculine and feminine communication styles are not centered on one's like or dislike of romantic poetry. To reduce it to such is a gross trivialization.
Sheria, I'm an English teacher and I teach romantic poetry. Please feel free to respond when you have the time to actually read what I wrote. Otherwise, you'll only sound like you have absolutely no sense of humor or irony, and that's not the kind of exchange we should be having here. It's nothing like previous ones. I write carefully, and those who respond to my comments should read my stuff as carefully as I read theirs.
ReplyDeleteDino,
ReplyDelete"As for the gender thing, well, I think you're sort of using yourself as the basis for definition"
Well, man is the measure of all things so if I'm a man, I'm the ruler, right? No more specious than some of that Derry DaDa stuff, to my supremely masculine, gun toting, beer drinking, ballet watching, Chopin loving way of thinking. I think John Wayne would agree.
I will not wash my face;
I will not brush my hair;
I "pig" around the place--
There's nobody to care.
The idea of what constitutes yins and yangs, lingam and yoni is behind this discussion, I think. What is it, after all, that makes us different as to opinions, style and rhetoric, if anything? Are there really any real differences? Is John Wayne more of a man than Mr Rogers and are Ann Coulter or Indira Gandhi, or Golda Meir, or Katharine the Great or Elizabeth I or Hatshepsut typical females? I mean those women had ovaries!
I've got to know that before I consider what communication style is typical of any gender. That's why I mentioned poetry of course. "typical" males don't like it, with the possible exception of Robert W. Service vide supra or dirty limericks, right?
I've said it a million times and I'll say it again, what we assert as 'typical' says more about us and our prejudices than about anything statistically valid.
But to Sheria, I'd have to dispute the idea of a gender specific communication style. I think it's as unsupportable as postulating a Semitic or Aryan or Basque communications style or any grossly prejudiced statements. As with handwriting, we are fond of saying this is a masculine or feminine hand, but any graphologist will assure you the distinction is in the eye of the beholder and not in the hand of the writer.
If I did not know that Sheria is a woman, for instance, I would not be able to tell from her writing. I and others may joke about "female logic" (in a good natured way, of course) but I don't think there is any such thing and I can name any number of female writers who would, I think, seem to embody what some would call masculine style and vice versa. Is this a case of marshaling examples to call "typical" when they are not?
Can anyone give me an example - provide a "tell" that reveals the writer's gender with a significant statistical probability? Or shall I revert to my gender and demand pistols at dawn?
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteI like your previous post and the present one and can't figure out why you have cast it as a partial disagreement with what I wrote. If you go back and read my last few comments on gender carefully, you will see that they more or less anticipate what you just posted.
And to respond to part of what you wrote, no I don't suppose it is possible to tell somebody's gender with any degree of certainty based upon writing. I could be wrong, but it sounds kind of dubious to me.
Style, as you suggest, is something that goes beyond anything we could confine by a concept like "gender." All sorts of influences are brought to bear when we sit down to write or when we speak -- I suppose everyone's mind is traversed by many voices, past and present. My own style is predicated on various periods and authors and just plain quirks, sometimes self-consciously but often not.
One value of some of the post-structural authors I have read is that they go out of their way – perhaps sometimes too far out of their way – to make the point that language may be more in control of us than we are of it. That is at least an interesting and productive way of characterizing and treating language, though I think that all of us probably would like to believe we can at least inflect or be creative with the only medium we really have for intelligent communication.
I don't think it's a disagreement at all -- at least not with you; particularly with your last.
ReplyDeleteBut that's a good point about language being in control of the speaker. For many people, that's quite true and few people do more than string together cliche tropes other people provide. I don't always read as carefully as you write however. Is that a "guy thing?" It's a good excuse anyway.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteOkay, got it. Didn't mean to sound snippy. Anyway, about language – yes, it is true of all of us to a great extent, I think. It is a condition of language itself that it must be able to function in the absence of the speaker or writer. But simply being aware of that fact seems to do a lot of good – most of us have probably noticed just how pathetic the Sunday talk shows can be in picking up and parroting whatever partisan politicians throw them like anchovies: ideologically saturated catchphrases, brutal assumptions, and so forth. Many of them never even appear to question whether something is any good once it has been labeled "reform." But that is just one instance, and I am sure people can think of many others. Jon Stewart is excellent at picking up on that stuff – you know, putting together strings of video clips in which dozens of pundits and politicians say exactly the same thing. Language often works as perceptual and ideological shorthand and a means of belonging to the club (whatever club it may be) – straight-up maneuver of the sort that Nietzsche analyzes so well whenever he talks about the lies or delusions cradled in our dearest assumptions about language and how it does or does not let us relate to the world around us.
Anyway, I must get some rest – this old stegosaurus injury is killing my back and threatening to send me to the urgent-care veterinarian.
All,
ReplyDeleteThis post is closed to further comments. I moved the last nine comments to the Private Beach, and the conversation will resume there.