New Going to Getugly video: Just as ‘progressive’-Left ideology manufactures a flattering generic identity for its adherents… it also manufactures a generic, dehumanizing identity for anyone who doesn’t conform to its worldview.
There is a debating tactic favoured by all older sisters when they are around the age of 12 and which every younger sibling knows all too well. It would be deployed at times when the older girl was clearly in the wrong, in danger of losing an argument or simply wanted to indulge in some behavior that impacted negatively on her brother or sister. It was a particularly immature strategy which involved adopting a deliberately pompous, shamelessly arrogant and obnoxious tone and using purposefully condescending, insulting language towards her younger opponent. It would go something like this: “Oh, poor BABY! Is the widdle woo-woo gonna cwy about it? Let me kiss da booboo better!” The intention was to humiliate, degrade and convey her utter, cold contempt for the feelings and interests of the other person. Not very edifying behaviour. But hey, we’re talking about 12 year old girls. What do you expect, right?
Well, one thing I expect is that such infantile, narcissistic self-indulgence would be long outgrown by the time those petulant little girls were old enough to be employed as professional writers for major media companies. I would expect such women to hold themselves to appropriate adult-level standards of journalism and rational thinking.
Judging from this column in the Age ( link: Men, hush now. Let us womansplain it to you) my expectations were misplaced.
Keep in mind that the following lines were written by a grown woman, Jacqueline Maley… a professional ‘journalist’… who evidently thought this was an appropriate manner with which to express serious ideas to sophisticated thinking adults in a major news publication:
“Men, hush now. Let us woman-splain it to you.”
“Is there any way men can speak up about sexual harassment and the #metoo movement without sounding stupid, sexist and part of the problem?
“Man-actors, maybe it’s time for you to be quiet, dears. Look pretty, act in your action movies, dress up nicely on the red carpet, and for the moment, at least, leave the talking to the ladies.”
The fact that Jacqueline would not be embarrassed to represent the quality of her intellect with this level of rhetoric is sad. Very, very sad. That Fairfax Media would publish this juvenile tripe as legitimate, professional commentary is mind boggling.
But such is the era in which we now live. It’s why the public must come to terms with the fact that whatever social outrage the mainstream media happens to be pushing… whether it’s the now completely forgotten hysteria over Nazis popping out of the woodwork a couple of months ago or the current hysteria over sexual harassment…. the narrative is likely 1 percent related to something real and 99 percent ideologically derived, manufactured outrage driven by the media.
At least this terrible column provided the impetus for the somewhat heated exchanges below about the awful expression ‘mansplaining’… which culminated in what should be considered… in my humble opinion… the ultimate deconstruction of the shallowness of this self-infantilising, ludicrous expression.
The exchange starts with Pasha offering an excellent description of the inherent hypocrisy of using this recently invented phrase. Marcica quickly chimes in with some predictable circular reasoning to defend its use…. at which point I enter the fray in my usual demure manner. Kittie stumbles into the scene somewhat blindly… and ‘White Knight’ Campbell arrives on his steed to salvage her honour! He is quickly slapped off his saddle… at which point the main event begins with male feminist (Ughhhhh! I KNOW!) Paul’s attempt to set me straight. Enjoy! :
Pasha : The concept of “Mansplaining” epitomises sexism: it dismisses an argument based on gender of the person making it. When open, all inclusive public deliberation is rejected, only violence remains.
Marcica: Wrong. Mansplaining is a patronising explanation not a difference of opinion.
– Going to Getugly: Marcica, “mansplaining” is a silly, generic slogan used by under confident women who can’t tolerate having their sense of their own authority challenged. It’s self-infantilising. Calling it “a patronising explanation” reflects your sense of your own subordination in the dynamic.
Kittie: In your opinion.
– Going to Getugly: “In your opinion”? What kind of thinking adult’s response is that?
Campbell: See that there? Textbook patronising.
– Going to Getugly: No Campbell. ‘That there’ is a valid question in response to a childish rebuttal.
This is “textbook patronising”: “Oh no! I think he’s patronising someone! I’m going to signal my virtuousness and post a comment about it… as opposed to using reason like an adult to address the points he raised!”
Kittie: You raised no valid points….just more mansplaining.
– Going to Getugly: That’s a great example of what this silly ‘mansplaining’ slogan is really about. In this context, “You raised no valid points” means ” I don’t like what you’ve said but I have no rationally valid reason to take issue with it…. so, “mansplaining”.
Paul: Someone please explain to this guy what mansplaining actually is
– Going to Getugly: Paul, I’m sure you will get all the pats on the head from feminists that you’re clearly looking for by so randomly signalling your submissiveness to their childish concepts. Here’s an idea… instead of reasoning like a feminist and making snarky emotional comments…. why don’t you make an effort to demonstrate that you can think like a grown man? Why don’t you explain what “mansplaining” actually is? Wouldn’t that be simpler?
Paul: jeez m9[sic] settle petal. As was stated above, it’s explaining something to a woman because you think as a woman she doesn’t understand the concept even though she may be inherently more qualified than you (yeah I know right, women can be more qualified than men for a given task? Mind-blowing stuff) and what do you mean by ‘looking for feminists?’ I hope you’re not implying (like so many do) that I just say these things to ‘get laid’ because that is not a motivator for morality for me.
– Going To Getugly: Okay… so you are repeating the generic justification that women who use the ridiculous expression always use.
And according to your own definition, the premise of ‘mansplaining’ relies entirely on the woman attributing motives to a man who doesn’t agree with her or who fails to tell her she’s correct. The motive being attributed is that the man believes the woman doesn’t understand something based exclusively on the fact that she is a woman.
Tell me, how does the woman know that this is the man’s motive?
How does she objectively single out that one motive in particular from every other potential motive he could have for not agreeing with her? How does she know that he wouldn’t say the same thing to another man? How does she know that he doesn’t genuinely just think she is incorrect? What objective metrics is the woman employing that provides her with such an unobstructed view into the soul of another person that she can so definitively proclaim to know his deepest motivations in this situation?
Of course, the only motives that the woman is actually capable of knowing are her own. But that requires not only the capacity for self-awareness and honest self-critique… but also an active interest in knowing to what degree one’s own motivations are particularly virtuous.
Would it not be wise and far more mature for her to scrutinize her own motivations for how she is reacting before reflexively concerning herself with inventing motivations for the other person?
For instance, how certain is she that it’s not her own ego…. not his… that is too fragile to handle being challenged by the opposite sex? Perhaps she is simply having a negative emotional reaction to a man disagreeing with her and is indulging in pettiness by applying a convenient label to him to compensate for her own insecurity and wounded pride? Has she thought about that?
Has she given serious thought to the fact that attributing sinister motives as an explanation for someone disagreeing with you is a purely subjective, self-serving form of circular reasoning and is logically fallacious?
Has she reflected on the fact that she is a total hypocrite for trying to undermine the man’s point of view by using a demeaning phrase to dismiss it based entirely on his gender? Isn’t that what she is accusing him of doing and condemning him for it?
Frankly Paul, since it’s safe to say that none of this has ever occurred to the women who have latched onto this dumb slogan… I’m equally confident that none of that has occurred to you either.
Ultimately, this is a reflection of much bigger and pervasive problem: There are too many intellectually lazy people these days who uncritically and reflexively internalise fashionable, ideologically derived concepts which are propagated by the mass media… and who mistake that for being intellectually and ethically sophisticated.
In other words… ‘If I believe what is popular to believe that makes me good.’
I would recommend cultivating an instinct for autonomous critical thinking as the antidote.
Finally, you write, “I hope you’re not implying (like so many do) that I just say these things to ‘get laid’ because that is not a motivator for morality for me.”
I have no idea what you do to ‘get laid’ nor is it a subject in which I have any interest.
I do believe however that you have acquiesced to conditioning that is telling men they are obliged to be submissive to women in general and feminist ideology in particular if they want to consider themselves ‘moral’.
Oh yeah… and Paul did in fact get the pat on the head he was looking for:
Vee: Paul , lovely to hear a voice of reason in amongst the twerps. Thanks
Here’s the background to this ‘incident’. Six months ago, a male Canadian MP for the Conservative Party, James Bezan, was in a photo-op with a female MP from the governing Liberal Party, Sherry Romanado, and another unnamed person. As the picture was being taken, Bezan made the off-the-cuff quip, “This isn’t my idea of a threesome” – which Bezan intended as a joke about being in a photo with a Liberal member of caucus.
Har har, right? Well, no. Not in this day and age. We live in an era in which ‘progressive’, Leftist, politically correct feminism has brought society full circle to the point we find ourselves increasingly governed by a repressive prudishness that the average Victorian would have regarded as ridiculously prissy. Believe it or not, Romanado filed an official complaint with the chief human resources officer. Bezan, responding as a typical spineless, submissive male Canadian politician, immediately offered to enter into mediation so that he could apologize.
The chief human resources officer launched a review of the incident. That review apparently concluded that the complaint “did not support a claim of sexual harassment”.
Despite this, Bezan prostrated himself even further before the guardians of other people’s feelings and willingly submitted to Orwellian government re-education programming… otherwise known as “sensitivity training”… offered by the House of Commons.
In a final act of self-abasement, presumably designed to demonstrate the profundity of his willingness to appease the Goddesses of political correctness and spare himself their wrath , Bezan made another grovelling apology on Monday in the House of Commons:
“Earlier this year I made an inappropriate and insensitive comment in the presence of the member for Longueuil—Charles—LeMoyne. I have nothing but the greatest respect for this member, for this institution, and I sincerely apologize.”
But again, in this day and age, a grown man holding high office voluntarily relieving himself in public of any shred of dignity or self esteem isn’t good enough for the insatiable self-righteousness of a female colleague who recognises an advantage has been presented to her to indulge her ample ego. So Romanado… who is actually paid by hard working taxpayers for this… rose in the Commons to announce her sense of her own victimisation:
“In May, the member from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman publicly made inappropriate, humiliating and unwanted comments to me that were sexual in nature. These comments have caused me great stress and have negatively affected my work environment.”
Yes folks, this is the quality of people whom we have elected to govern us. It’s basically high school but with gold-plated retirement packages.
But as the comments from Liz, below, demonstrate… the real problem is that too many people in the public at large are currently endorsing this societal shift towards privileging the indulgence of individual subjective sensitivities over objectivity, reason and principles that cause us to transcend the impulse to indulge our self-serving, narcissistic drives and motivations.
Liz: It may have made her feel uncomfortable and offended her we have no right to criticize her feelings. But I will take this opportunity to discuss how disgusted and offended I AM by the way Trudeau has his lips and arms all over everyone like it’s his backyard Bbq. We should not be able.to pick and choose who we point the finger at when the example is blatantly set at the top.
Going to Getugly: “we have no right to criticize her feelings”. That… right there… is precisely the current problem. This insipid notion that if someone ‘feels’ something we are obliged to validate it. If an adult is displaying the emotional maturity of an infant… particularly if that adult is in a position of responsibility… and even more particularly if the indulgence of that person’s subjective emotional reactivity threatens the profession and reputation of another person… we have EVERY right to “criticize her feelings”.
In a few short years we have transformed from a society which privileged character, maturity and reason… to one that seems to operate by the maudlin values of your average kindergarten teacher: “James… you’ve upset little Sherry! I want you to apologize and then go sit in the corner of the House of Commons and think about what you’ve done!”
Another example of feminist narcissism abusing the self-conception of children.
The superficial sanctimonious rhetoric is this: “If we can stop boys growing into men that behave like jerks, we won’t have to teach our daughters how to deflect a man in power making a comment about her boobs – or much worse.”
The messaging cutting through that rhetoric is this: “Boys are intrinsically defective and need to be fixed. Girls are perfect just as they are.”
This is dangerously distorting the self-conception of BOTH boys and girls. And it’s being promoted by self-absorbed, narcissistic women more concerned with the gratification they feel from conforming to fashionable, ego-flattering ideological constructs than the psychological health of their children.
Claire S: Toxic masculinity is clearly defined by P45’s “grab ’em by the pussy” comment, especially if when combined with the many “what, yer gonna judge him for that?” responses. A better adjusted masculinity would see more men crying in public and fewer men leering and groping. If the phrase “toxic masculinity” offends you, is it because you practise and justify it?
Going to Getugly: Claire, you demonstrate perfectly why these absurd, ‘progressive’ slogans are so odious. They offer a veneer of intellectual credibility for the indulgence in plain old pettiness, shallow thinking and bigotry.
You parrot the ridiculous “toxic masculinity” expression exactly as it was intended… as a vague catch-all term that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean in order to justify their desire to collectively vilify men. The arrogant, self-aggrandizing chauvinism in your Orwellian phrase “A better adjusted masculinity” speaks volumes. And the anti-rational, circular reasoning of your conclusion… that the only explanation for men rejecting the validity of this vacuous slogan is that they want to indulge in the very premise they reject… displays the atrocious logic and self-serving rationalisations of the people who embrace this nonsense.
The mindset behind this is obvious: The standard for the norm of maleness is to be determined exclusively by feminist women. And that standard basically defines men as ‘adjusted’ to perfection when they mirror those women back to themselves. And apparently this includes infantile emotional self-indulgence and “crying in public”.
One of the pathologies in all of this of course is the schism between this currently fashionable feminist group-think conception of how women supposedly want men to be… and the characteristics of men that women actually tend to like, respond to and find attractive. So we have self-absorbed, narcissistic women raising a generation of boys to hate and disassociate from their own nature and to conform to a feminized version of the perfect man… who then will go out in the world and discover that women despise them for embodying the very characteristics they were trained to believe made them acceptable to women. Good job ladies.
Kerry S: Cue all the men explaining why the gender pay gap isn’t a thing
Going to Getugly: Kerry, care to provide some kind of rational explanation for why men replying is a problem for you?
Kerry S: Ok. I’ll bite. Men replying is not a problem, per se. It’s just that soooo many of them spout the same old line despite the longitudinal evidence proving otherwise. I didn’t answer you because clearly you are spoiling for a fight and it is clear to me that rational argument would be wasted. You have made up your mind.
Going to Getugly: We could go on with the battling snarky comments… but I’d rather attempt a genuine conversation. Let me do a quick review of what has occurred and get your response:
– The Age has posted an article.
– People have responded to the article by expressing their perspective in the comment section.
– You have started off this little thread… not by addressing anything raised in the article or responding to criticism or concerns raised by commentators… but by expressing generalised condescension towards anyone of a particular gender who may express disagreement with the article’s premise.
– Another commentator, Kelly, joined in on the generalised condescension towards people based solely on their gender and not their arguments:
Kelly : “I’m just here to laugh at their bitter tears and tantrums”
– You replied in agreement with her and complained about the number of people of that gender expressing their perspective here:
Kerry S: “Kelly Anne yup. Skimming across the replies. Nearly all men…”
I think you have to agree that what I have described above is completely accurate and factual.
Now, my understanding of credible adult-level reasoned discussion and debate has always been that attacking anything other than the argument of the other person reflects incompetent reasoning. It’s fallacious. It signals someone who has a fixed conclusion to which they are very attached and are determined to protect… but which they can’t rationally and objectively support or justify. That’s why they deflect to complaining about anything OTHER than the arguments… things like the gender, race or age of the person who doesn’t share their convictions. Other deflection tactics include things like declaring themselves too far above the level of the other person to deign to engage them in rational debate.
It seems clear that you don’t share that understanding of what qualifies as credible reasoned discussion and debate. I’m curious, on what basis do you justify rejecting these basic, well established and essentially universally acknowledged standards? And why would you believe that demonstrating your rejection of those standards is not open to valid criticism and doesn’t disqualify you as being regarded as an informed and serious thinker?
Guess what… Kerry S never responded. I wonder why?
Halloween is fast approaching… so naturally the ‘Let’s Pretend Trivial Nonsense Is Incredibly Important Squad’ is back to remind us that comfortable people in a uniquely successful and pluralistic civilisation will invent problems for themselves in order to have something to complain about.
Whereas normal people see the holiday as a rare opportunity to temporarily escape an increasingly mirthless, censorious and rigidly conformist daily grind (once known as having fun)… the New Puritans of the allegedly ‘progressive’ Left are intent on making sure that the rest of us are just as miserable, uptight, boring and uncomfortable with spontaneity and as themselves.
That’s why something like the packaging of obscure, seasonal products that have no effect on anyone can be accepted as worthy of intense scrutiny and moral consternation by major mainstream news organisations like the Globe and Mail.
The article prompted the following, reasonably non-agitated response from Michael G:
Michael G: If you’re secure with yourself and heritage/culture, it’s not really an issue. All I’d be pissed about is having a non authentic costume….obviously those depicted are not authentic representations. But still i wouldn’t get my breaches in a bunch about it…
Commentator Su Con however, found Michael’s take on the matter to be in conflict with the standard ‘progressive’ party-line:
Su Con: Given the racism that still exists, how can they be secure? Doesn’t this all come down to trying to change that?
So I helped clarify the situation:
Going to Getugly: No. This has nothing to do with stopping racism. It’s about two very specific things:
1. It’s about people who want to leverage their ‘victim’ status in order to see their will imposed on other people.
2. It’s about mainstream, middle-class people who find it gratifying to their ego and self-image to appear supportive of any fashionable trend… regardless of how stupid… that is marketed to them as atoning for past wrongs inflicted on minorities.
These two videos explore in detail what is really going on with the whole ‘cultural appropriation’ craziness: