Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Are you sure? Really sure? It might be easier to accept your claim had you not followed this claim, almost immediately, with this particular gem:
quote:
It takes more than this to get a rise out of me. You want it up? Then you lift it.
I thought you would catch the humor intended by that line, and indeed most of that part of the reply.
I'm open to the idea that you didn't actually intend to make the reference inferred. If you didn't, I of course apologize for misreading you. If you did intend it, then it was nicely done. Either way, you may want to reread what I said with my inferrence in mind to see how I, assuming it was a bit of friendly banter, responded with what was intended as reciprocating that friendly banter. As I said at the start of that post, no offense was intended on my part, which I thought would make it clear what the nature of my reply was.
quote:
Whether one can neatly cleave apart one’s gender and one’s thought processes in the manner you are claiming is dubious.
I'm of course not claiming to have seperated the two.
"I am who I am and that I am" is as valid now as when I first said it.
I am claiming that my posting is based on, as near as I can manage, rationality. Further, that to the best of my ability to gauge, my masculinity does not appear to be significantly impacting the rationality of my posting. I am not excluding the possibility, however, as the start of introspection is always to admit the possibility that bias may cloud observation. Even so, I would greatly appreciate if you could point out which things appear to you to be a case of masculine bias on my part and why you consider it so. If you do provide such feedback, please let me know if you're open to discussing its validity as an aid to my introspection. It can only be a good thing for me to be aware of which of my views and thought patterns are tied to- or influenced by- my masculinity.
One of the reasons I consider it to be unlikely that I am excessively biased from my masculinity (though probably biased by my environment, a seperate subtopic), is that my masculinity is not in any way, shape or form challenged by- or in- this thread. And, yes, that includes the inferrence made on my part. (In fact, I've been quite open about the fact that I've got a slowly improving case of E.D., including on this board. It's a trifling thing, one that has given rise to more creativity, not a sore spot.)
Perceived challenges to masculinity are, in my experience, a major factor in increasing masculine bias in a man, presumably as a defense mechanism. That not being the case, it is highly likely that my bias is at most comparable to that of many of the gender most likely to be targetted by the pejorative term which is being discussed in this thread.
Secondarily, it has also been my experience that bias is greatest when one has a vested interest in one's point of view. I don't. It's just a word to me. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. And by the very fact that you're still discussing this with me, I suspect you're well aware that insofar as I might be a male pig, I am far from the worst of the bunch. I have no doubt used pejoratives inappropriately with every gender and group out there at some point or another, an admitted fault, but I daresay I'm equal opportunity on that point (well, okay, maybe I have been extra triggerhappy with the far right wing and other zealots).
Simply put, you have cause to feel attacked. I do not.
As such, my best guess is that any masculine bias on my part is not noteworthy in this thread, and probably not significant. Your estimation may differ on this point, and as I said, I welcome feedback. That's as much as I can do about it. It's your interpretation that I have claimed to have seperated myself from my gender, and that interpretation is not correct, as I have now clarified.
quote:
And I’d suggest that you think very seriously and deeply before you do. Rebutting this claim has damaging, possibly terminally damaging effects on your entire position.
While I've been happy to clarify that there was no such claim, I'm still somewhat confused as to how the converse might have been terminal for the remainder of the position. I've got this strange idea that the strength of an argument isn't predicated on who made it, seeing as that is arguing from the person (cf. arg. f/authority, ad h., etc.), but rather on the content of the argument. Perhaps silly of me. It's what I strive to apply in reading arguments, anyway, where it serves me well. Since it should be clear now that the claim you perceived was not one I made (a misinterpretation for which the fault is probably mine), it isn't relevant anymore, though.
Seeing as this is indeed a sensitive topic, I am willing to move on to a less "confrontational" tone, if you prefer. That might serve to lessen the misunderstandings on both ends. Speaking of which, as there was no comment on that side of the post you replied to, I would appreciate knowing whether it resolved the earlier issue regarding the exchange between me and tazzygirl about Ms. Comins and a certain quote.
Health,
al-Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Feminazis and Godwin's Law - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread