An Intellectual Being
Via the comments, AnotherFred steers us to an outpouring of note by Melissa Fabello, managing editor of Everyday Feminism. In this potentially classic piece, from September last year, Ms Fabello rails against those who presume to question her feminist gospel and its charmless lamentations:
If you’re a feminist who spends any amount of time on the internet, you know exactly what I’m talking about: You post that article about the wage gap on Facebook, and all of a sudden, all of these cis, white, straight dudes come out of the woodwork to remind you that the statistics are faulty, that women take more time off of work, that women just don’t like STEM fields.
Well, yes, that will happen if you publicly assert as fact things that aren’t true and which have been repeatedly debunked. And labelling the people who correct those zombie misconceptions, the ones that refuse to die, as “cis, white, straight dudes,” even when they’re ladies, as in the links above, is an evasion, not an argument. Curiously, Ms Fabello depicts those who dare to disagree as merely “playing devil’s advocate,” which seems just a tad presumptuous.
Whenever someone responds to my critique of the culture in which we live with what they believe to be a deep conundrum or contradiction, my first thought is, “Wow. You have absolutely no respect for me as an intellectual being.”
You see, those aren’t load-bearing arguments. They’re just for show. If you poke at those buggers the whole roof could fall in. This is followed, almost instantly, by a twitch of political self-correction:
I don’t think we should value intellect… as a trait (hi, that’s ableist)
Whew. Nice save.
but I do think that we should respect one another for whichever way our smarts show up for us.
Ms Fabello’s smarts are manifest via the medium of rhetorical dance:
When you regurgitate the status quo to us
I.e., when you point out a mistake or point of contention, this is,
interrupting our thought processes
How very dare you.
in asking us to reconsider ideas that we’ve already contemplated deeply.
Yes, deeply, which apparently means perfectly, with no possibility of error. Furthermore, these beastly interruptions are,
often unsolicited.
Again, the temerity. And so,
You’re signalling to us that you don’t trust our ability to think critically.
This, remember, from the woman who praises “intersectional feminism” for the realisation that “what had gone wrong” in her life, all of it, was – and I quote – “never my fault.” Ms Fabello goes on to hurl great handfuls of straw into the air, before telling us, quite firmly, that,
Your thoughts [as a man] – no matter how well-intentioned, well-thought-out, or well-researched they are – simply pale in comparison to living in a marginalised body that experiences the trauma of oppression.
By which she means being a middle-class female in twenty-first century America. Despite all this trauma and bodily marginalisation, she somehow, heroically, finds the strength to explain just how tiresome it is for a feminist, a bearer of enlightenment, such as herself, to debate with a mere
layperson (especially one who is a straight, cis man).
Oh, the indignity. She has robes and an amulet. Do they mean nothing to you heathens?
Of course, respect for Ms Fabello “as an intellectual being” might be easier to sustain if her articles weren’t dense with question-begging and neurotically incoherent. Likewise, modern feminist “theory” might command more deference if it didn’t appear to operate according to random, somewhat bewildering standards. Such that statistics can be inflated arbitrarily, by orders of magnitude, and such that mythological figures – say, Romulus, the wolf-suckled son of Mars – are presented as real people who were involved in feminist politics.
Update:
Ms Fabello responds, bearing down with the full weight of her intellectual being.
And labelling the people who correct those zombie misconceptions, the ones that refuse to die, as “cis, white, straight dudes,” even when they’re ladies, as in the links above, is an evasion, not an argument.
Misgendering is violence! I denounce her!
I don’t think we should value intellect… as a trait
Evidently.
all of these cis, white, straight dudes
Such as Christina Hoff Sommers?
Off topic, but did anyone else see this appalling story of an artist put through literal hell?
…in asking us to reconsider ideas that we’ve already contemplated deeply. Except… Your thoughts [as a man] – no matter how well-intentioned, well-thought-out, or well-researched they are – simply pale in comparison to living in a marginalised body that experiences the trauma of oppression.
But then I’m one of those STEM types who expect logical consistency, and universal standards to be applied. How…erm… oppressive of me.
layperson (especially one who is a straight, cis man).
F*cking hell.
F*cking hell.
Some of her peers are careful to obscure their underlying vanities and assumptions, usually under mountains of gratuitous jargon, such that grammar itself buckles under the weight. But as often as not, Ms Fabello just blurts them out, as if oblivious to what she’s saying and what that says about her. It’s almost… charming.
“This man – who I think thought he was acting as some kind of hero to mankind – called in to regurgitate the stances that I had already rebuked”
Rebuke of course means to express disapproval, not to dis-prove. So she’s unhappy when someone calls is to express views she’s already said she does not approve of. The Patriarchal bastard.
Why am I not surprised Everyday Feminism doesn’t allow comments?
“I wish that I was exaggerating here, but in all honesty, a typical Facebook conversation […] ”
speaking of arguments that aren’t load-bearing…
No link to the radio show, I see, or even a mention of the station. We’ll just have to trust her reproduction of her lived experience. I’m sure she will rise above her subjective biases, her profit-motive for the broadcast and the article, and any personal trauma around the topic at hand.
speaking of arguments that aren’t load-bearing…
But she’s a self-described “intellectual being” who doesn’t “think we should value intellect” because that would be “ableist,” and who dismisses the views of “cis, white, straight dudes” as being by default suspect, unimportant or simply wrong. How can you not defer to her, in this and all things?
I know, defenders of the status quo can be so darn stubborn.
Why am I not surprised Everyday Feminism doesn’t allow comments?
Speaking of comment sections:
Erm, I’ not so sure that there wasn’t a Romulus at the start of Rome. I don’t buy the wolves bit, or son of Mars, but Romulus as an historical character around whom lots of stories grew up? The Heracles of the Greek myths, didn’t happen. Heracles as a Dark Age hero, maybe. The Hengist (and I know the name means stallion, but people do have nicknames) of the AS Chronicle may well be the same as the one referred to in the story of Finn. Sometimes brigands become kings. In fact, isn’t that how most kings start?
You’re signalling to us that you don’t trust our ability to think critically.
Well, the obvious sane response is, “Duh.”
I don’t buy the wolves bit, or son of Mars, but Romulus as an historical character around whom lots of stories grew up?
There’s a lively to-and-fro between Christina Hoff Sommers and Nancy Lemon on that and other matters here. I do like the reference to Elvis sightings.
Somewhat related:
Glenn Reynolds adds, “When these women wind up with student-debt problems, that will be the fault of the patriarchy, of course.”
Huh, she’s actually more perceptive than I expected.
Whenever someone responds to my critique of the culture in which we live with what they believe to be a deep conundrum or contradiction, my first thought is, “Wow. You have absolutely no respect for me as an intellectual being.”
Translation: don’t talk back.
Translation: don’t talk back.
Pretty much.
We’ve been here before, of course.
…[H]ow tiresome it is for a feminist, a bearer of enlightenment, such as herself, to debate with a mere
“layperson (especially one who is a straight, cis man).”
The use of the term “layperson” is indeed interesting. Perhaps she deploys it to describe a “non-professional” in the field, in which case, one must ask what the certification process for professional status is, beyond merely counting out the change for enough bandwidth.
Alternatively, perhaps there’s a bit of Freudian honesty involved, in that she acknowledges that Feminism is a religion, held on faith and preached to the willing by a clergy of self-declared priestesses. Flying Spaghetti Monsters, indeed.
Your thoughts [as a man] – no matter how well-intentioned, well-thought-out, or well-researched they are – simply pale in comparison to living in a marginalised body that experiences the trauma of oppression.
Somewhat related.
There’s a lively to-and-fro between Christina Hoff Sommers and Nancy Lemon on that and other matters here.
And very entertaining it is too. I think Sommers won by a knock out.
But that doesn’t mean that Romulus didn’t exist (nor Heracles or Achilles).
“Somewhat related”
STEM syllabi is misogynist and antifeminist because they prioritize facts over subjectivity
Lady, if you don’t like how STEM is taught, go create your own teaching model.
Off topic but what the hell. Welcome to the Gay Book Club – sorry, Queer Theory Reading Group – folks!
@Champ
This is either an English paper or a Linguistics one.
The tip-off is the phrase “critical discourse analysis.” This should be distinguished from “discourse analysis” which generally has no political component.
The example I’m familiar with was discussed in my wife’s Ph.D. dissertation 30 years ago which had to do with syntatic changes which occur in different modes of communication and in different settings. She had two mathematicians on her doctoral committee. The dissertation was 800 pages in two volumes.
I showed her the above abstract. She was disgusted. There was cursing in multiple languages involved. Suffice it to say, she’s not a fan.
Oh good lord, who let that female out of the kitchen?
Somewhat related.
STEM syllabi is misogynist and antifeminist because they prioritize facts over subjectivity.
Feelz, not facts, people!
The domain Cis-man.com is still available, David. Spandex optional.
STEM syllabi is misogynist and antifeminist because they prioritize facts over subjectivity.
So does a feminist bridge fall down or not?
I guess I’m a bigot for even posing the question.
When the world has dealt you as shoddy an intellectual hand as it has this Fabello creature, it’s not surprising you might find facts oppressive.
Are these fact-facts were talking about? If we’re really talking, that is.
“The domain Cis-man.com is still available, David.”
But then David’d be culturally appropriating an identity if he bought it, no?
Well, I _think_ it’s appropriate to him, but am open to argument.
So does a feminist bridge fall down or not?
I would think the answer is obvious: yes, the bridge falls down … but it’s not her fault.
yes, the bridge falls down … but it’s not her fault.
Heh.
Damn patriarchy, making feminist bridges fall down with their STEM absolutism.
Fwiw, my bridge stands, despite constant undermining. I’ll hold my nose, cross, and wonder.
STEM syllabi is misogynist and antifeminist because they prioritize facts over subjectivity
In other words, she believes women aren’t good at math.
STEM syllabi is misogynist and antifeminist because they prioritize facts over subjectivity
Is that really the point of feminism nowadays? To affirm all the invidious stereotypes about women, that they are illogical and hysterical (good one, that) and ruled by their emotions? Wasn’t Lawrence Summers kicked out as president of Harvard for saying just that?
Is that really the point of feminism nowadays? To affirm all the invidious stereotypes about women
Well, if you’d just arrived on Earth and based your estimation of our fairer sex on a random sampling of Women’s Studies graduates, you might reasonably suppose that women in general must be credulous, self-flattering and generally obnoxious.
Which seems a tad unfair, but there we are.
Anybody here know if the Dalston Mercury is a reputable news source?
I’m guessing Gerta Müff-Fümbler would say yes. But then I’m also guessing Gerta Müff-Fümbler is a fictitious character. But the again, aren’t they all?
The modern world really has done an enormous disservice to women like Ms. Fab. Our culture has made it so easy to attain a certain level of luxury that humans with very little natural ability or skill can do quite well by themselves, despite their narcissism. We have effectively cordoned these people off from the natural process whereby dysfunction is punished and adaptation is encouraged. Effectively, we’ve subsidized her anti-social tendencies and allowed her to self-isolate from any feedback which might help her bring value to the civilization she lives in…which, sadly, means that she’ll never gain any true satisfaction in her life.
What price vanity? Oh, dearie, it’s a process. Whaddya got left?
The modern world […]
TL;DR version: “Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”
Hedgehog,
That looks like rather broad satire. Unfortunately, the Spectator article it links to is not (and I believe has been discussed here).
“Your thoughts [as a man] – no matter how well-intentioned, well-thought-out, or well-researched they are – simply pale in comparison to living in a marginalised body that experiences the trauma of oppression.”
Your facts are no match for my feelz! Because ableism!
This is the reason for wage gap…and post doc job stats.
http://bombsdollars.com/index/index.php/2016/09/12/i-came-across-an-interesting-research-paper/
It’s the “syllabi is” that gets me….
It’s the “syllabi is” that gets me….
Yeah, I thought the same thing. But I figured it wouldn’t be sporting to point out the lack of education of a hard-core feminist. Fish in a barrel and all that.
It’s the “syllabi is” that gets me….
To be fair, that particular abomination seems to be the work of the Twitter account drawing attention to the ‘analysis’ rather than the ‘critical thinker’ herself.
Are there really now so many who question their ‘birth gender’ that society requires to identify those who don’t by the label, “cis”?
Indeed, Trevor, you is right. People in glass houses and whatnot…
Am I the only one to think that the best way to demonstrate respect for someone as an intellectual being is to subject their ideas to the same standard of scrutiny I’d expect my own to be held to…
When feminists say “respect,” they mean “toe-kissing subservience,” thus your confusion.
“the Critical
thinkerTheorist herself”The modern world really has done an enormous disservice to women like Ms. Fab.
They’re not a new phenomenon though.
Prior to the Modern era these people were what drove extreme religious sects like the Flagellants, Anabaptists, Levellers, Puritans and assorted ascetics. From a similar position of unreality they would then castigated the mass of humanity for their sins, and proposed “solutions” that were not really thought through with how people actually live.
Later versions moved to mass political parties that sought “purity” in some way or other: Fascists, Marxists, Trotskyists, Anarchists, etc.
Compared to previously, we should be grateful. While dangerous, they are at least fragmented.
So anyway, this lady tweeted Ms Fabello and directed her attention to the piece above.
Ms Fabello responded thusly:
You can imagine my distress.
Note that Ms Fabello chooses not to share the original tweet with her readers, or a link to the offending post, so that they might determine for themselves just how awful and irrelevant it is.
Ms Fabello responded thusly:
I picture our host laughing into his coffee.
I picture our host laughing into his coffee.
Well, when someone disdains the very idea of engaging with criticism from people not already sympathetic and in her personal contacts list, while inadvertently confirming, quite vividly, at least one of the points being raised, it’s hard not to smile.
I’m only human, after all.
I’m sure Ms. Fabello would accuse Paula Wright of suffering from “false consciousness”; Wright’s interests lie in evolutionary psychology, and she leans toward fact-based argumentation—qualities that would not endear her to the merry social-constructivists over on EF. She’s certainly no fan of post-modern feminism.
She has some interesting posts over on her site.
When people you’ve never heard of write “analyses” of your work and personhood . . .
Are we to then assume that we have no basis for criticizing and argument unless we know the author(s) well? If so, what
intellectual processalchemy allows Fabello and others of her ilk to skirt around their own ignorance, or are they, as enlightened beings, exempt from such things?She has some interesting posts over on her site.
Yes. This one caught my eye. Specifically,
I’ve added Ms Wright to the blogroll. Worth a visit.
“endemic female passive aggressive bullying of their female rivals”
Wasn’t it Ace who mentioned something about boys at about the age of 12 learning that assholism can have face-punching consequences while girls, on the other hand…
So she’s vain, stupid and a racist too.
https://twitter.com/fyeahmfabello/status/779687536088256512
Dave Waterman’s reply to her is brilliant. Although I do wonder if she’d like some Aloe Vera. She just got burned.
So she’s vain, stupid and a racist too.
Imagine feeling such a need to signal in-group piety – in this case, an ostentatious disdain for the entire white male population – that you’re willing to sacrifice all realism and coherence and become an absurdity, a cartoon. Not just once, but every single day.
The word neurotic barely covers it.
Imagine feeling such a need to signal . . .
Granting a feature that only registers at this general cultural moment, and will be only a sociological surreality in time, one doesn’t even need to read any of the text to see her own open and absolute signaling of her message of being an openly clueless ditz of the moment with a demand that all recognize her as lightweight and utterly irrelevant.
Go to the twit account, and the very first thing that one sees is a hipster variety outline image of a pair of glasses—and at this moment, to help underline the message of irrelevance, the pinned note at the top of the queue has an image . . .
. . . with the exact same pictographic insistence that she be ignored.
She responded to the list of philosophers with this: https://twitter.com/fyeahmfabello/status/779723370577428481
“Y’all. I can’t.”
We should all genuflect to her superior debating skills . . . when they actually manifest themselves in a tangible form.
And labelling the people who correct those zombie misconceptions, the ones that refuse to die, as “cis, white, straight dudes,” even when they’re ladies, as in the links above, is an evasion, not an argument.
‘Social justice’ means feeling good about not listening to people based on their sex and race.
‘Social justice’ means feeling good about not listening to people based on their sex and race.
Heh. Pretty much. Certainly it provides endless excuses for doing just that and generally being presumptuous. It must be quite strange to go through life mentally categorising people by pigment and whatever, and then either being fawning and credulous or smugly disdainful based on that and little else. Though it seems to me that the categorising process, the urge to label and then position people in some imagined hierarchy of default virtue, is corrosive to realism and morally blunting.
It’s a worldview that attracts self-flattering mediocrities and then makes them absurd.
Anyone else notice how “feminism” does a pretty darn good job ticking so many Cluster B boxes?
I don’t know if PD categorizations are a set of natural buckets into which fall behaviors, or if they’re pure after-the-fact abstracts for various screwballednesses, but either way they seem to fit…
‘Social justice’ means feeling good about not listening to people based on their sex and race.
Not too long ago, that would have been considered sexism and racism. Now it’s considered progressive social justice. No, I can’t get my head around it either.
Not too long ago, that would have been considered sexism and racism. Now it’s considered progressive social justice. No, I can’t get my head around it either.
I get the impression that progressivism has very little in the way of fixed content; it’s more about distinguishing oneself from hoi polloi. If the masses adopt a progressive opinion, then the progressive must find something new to believe so as not to be mistaken for a commoner.