Really. Wow, so you read minds now, do you? No more than you can when you say that's what I was doing. I said, "I think," because that's what I think. Not what I know, what I think.
I may have based my statement on what Rex Stout had Nero Wolf call, "knowledge based on experience," from other people who did similar things in discussion/debate. But if I you won't allow me to do that, unless I can read minds, then I have to do things like believe Bush and Cheney when they tell me they were trying to keep me safe from terrorists.
Because I've seen this pattern of behavior before. Someone asks for something to be defined (say torture) and then proceeds to try to tell me how my understanding of it is wrong. That torture, as a definition, doesn't really cover the things I mean. Or that things I don't define as torture somehow fall under the rubric, and so my definition is completely false.
As to the last, no, maybe he's not using male privilege, and he's just an asshole. Maybe the whole, "ride you like a horse," and then be offended because the person he said that too took offense was,"too sensitive" is just a function of some other aspect of him, and his upbringing, and he's just a run of the mill asshole; who happens to be male. Maybe his assholishness is because his common sense makes him more clued-in on the world, and how to deal with others than the rest of us.
But, since I do think there is such a thing as privilege, I can choose to think it's a large part of his problem. Be that a more generous read on his behavior, or not, it's the one I took.
I can also go now, and look at his version of events (and no, I don't pretend this is relevant to what I thought yesterday. It's just more evidence for it now). He thinks we were engaging in "hive-mind" responses to "our leader" being attacked.
None of what happened had anything to do with him. It was all about how we didn't read what he meant to say properly, how we needed someone with more patience than he hadto make it plain what was wrong with the idea of male gaze, and why it really would be better to call it, "objectification."
Which isn't so far off the mark of the idea he meant to explode the theory. He doesn't seem to have had that in mind when he asked, but he says it was what he ended up trying to do.
no subject
I may have based my statement on what Rex Stout had Nero Wolf call, "knowledge based on experience," from other people who did similar things in discussion/debate. But if I you won't allow me to do that, unless I can read minds, then I have to do things like believe Bush and Cheney when they tell me they were trying to keep me safe from terrorists.
Because I've seen this pattern of behavior before. Someone asks for something to be defined (say torture) and then proceeds to try to tell me how my understanding of it is wrong. That torture, as a definition, doesn't really cover the things I mean. Or that things I don't define as torture somehow fall under the rubric, and so my definition is completely false.
As to the last, no, maybe he's not using male privilege, and he's just an asshole. Maybe the whole, "ride you like a horse," and then be offended because the person he said that too took offense was,"too sensitive" is just a function of some other aspect of him, and his upbringing, and he's just a run of the mill asshole; who happens to be male. Maybe his assholishness is because his common sense makes him more clued-in on the world, and how to deal with others than the rest of us.
But, since I do think there is such a thing as privilege, I can choose to think it's a large part of his problem. Be that a more generous read on his behavior, or not, it's the one I took.
I can also go now, and look at his version of events (and no, I don't pretend this is relevant to what I thought yesterday. It's just more evidence for it now). He thinks we were engaging in "hive-mind" responses to "our leader" being attacked.
None of what happened had anything to do with him. It was all about how we didn't read what he meant to say properly, how we needed someone with more patience than he hadto make it plain what was wrong with the idea of male gaze, and why it really would be better to call it, "objectification."
Which isn't so far off the mark of the idea he meant to explode the theory. He doesn't seem to have had that in mind when he asked, but he says it was what he ended up trying to do.