I understand your points, but do believe it might be the other way around. I expressed disbelief, and I don't know how it came across as aggression, tho I'd love if you told me so I could avoid that mistake. Unless if you belong to school whereby challenging an idea constitutes violence?
Disbelief of something someone said in the absence of any effort to seek clarification is a pretty obnoxious way to engage in a conversation.
It's the way you "challenge an idea" that makes it come across as aggressive/confrontational. It's not simply about the words you use. But in your case, you also used the words. Words are important, they are the ONLY medium that we have on this forum to convey as precisely as possible what we *actually* want to say and how we actually want what we say to be received by another. Any responsible member will accept this fact and, if they want to engage in productive and useful discussions here, make an effort to remember it.
I believe, to the best of my abilities, that I am not hypersensitized to woke. I'm fairly aware, but it stands at the level of a sad joke, not something overwhelming I have to jump at every opportunity.
Maybe not, but you appear to have jumped at this opportunity.
I didn't mention it in my reply, and I didn't jump in and react right away, because I didn't see a nefarious expression of ideology as you imply, I simply noted identitarian flaws in thinking, and was curious to see how it'd evolve, and after a few pages, despite a more explicit aspect to the discussion re:henchman, I was still seeing implicit identitarian assumptions, lacking reasoning or justification. Thus I sought to challenge them.
In the context of this discussion, "identitarian flaws" are pretty much synonymous with ideology. We are, after all, talking about something that is generally labeled 'identity politics' and that is generally viewed as an ideology.
For instance, the point which I most impolitely expressed, that it is toxic to argue feminine experiences are restrictive of knowledge - do you not agree? Do you believe it makes sense to state that "It is a difficult path for women to seek out knowledge and even more difficult to apply the knowledge when one has to cook, clean, and look after the children"? In that sentence, what is the meaning of seeking knowledge? What is the meaning of applying knowledge? Is cooking, cleaning, and looking after children in a positive, a negative, or a neutral?
I wouldn't have said a negative. But it's just me.
You ask these questions now, of me, rather than asking of the person who made the comments. That's pretty rude, and can reasonably be construed as passive aggressive, which can reasonably be assumed to suggest that you have some kind of issue with this topic that provoked you and caused you to react in a less than polite way to another member. Those are my assumptions based on my reading of what you wrote and the way you wrote it. You can respond and fill in any details using some introspection and self-honesty, or you can flat out deny it. If you do the former, we all learn something more based on hard data, if you do the latter, we all stick with our assumptions.
I'll quote back to you some of your initial post with some comments to try and explain what I mean:
Don't sell yourself short. It felt to me not quite like pattern recognition run amok, as Joe harshly put it. There were a bunch of trees, and you assumed it was a forest.
Small point: me saying pattern recognition run amok was not harsh, certainly, it was not intended that way but rather a description of what henchman appeared to be doing, and which he later recognized he was. If someone sees some trees and then 'recognizes' those as a forest, that is a good example of what 'pattern recognition run amok' means. So why are you quibbling over this? Note also that henchman has since agreed that he was sort of triggered by the whole thing, but now you are attempting to disagree with his own recognition of his misreading of the situation. I don't think that is helpful to him, but maybe you do.
when the thread opened on divisive identitarian lines, with seriously sexist innuendo
This suggests that that, from the very first post, you identified this topic as not only problematic but covertly dangerous ("divisive"), and we have to presume you labeled the person who opened it in a similar way. But rather than test to see if your assessment was correct by asking some honest and friendly questions, you sat and watched and waited until you felt the need to intervene with a conclusion formed in the absence of any attempt to get clarification to confirm or refute your hastily-formed hypothesis.
She started by saying, 'history proves that it was dangerous for women to seek objective knowledge'. What, and it wasn't dangerous for men?
The fact that you are addressing another forum member who started this thread and who is actively participating in it, in the third person, as if she were not here, is needlessly rude and, again, smacks of passive aggression. Also, do you remember that interview that Jordan Peterson did with Cathy Newman? Do you remember that her responses to things he said were often prefaced by "so you're saying that...." wherein she was making massive leaps of assumption based on what he said and, more importantly, what he DIDN'T say?
If your question in the above is genuine, why didn't you simply ask, politely, if that is what she was suggesting?
"While females had a hard time getting any closer to knowledge, it was almost impossible for mothers." What does she mean, is she implying that knowledge cannot be extracted from motherhood, or from household experience?
Again, why didn't you ask, politely?
I cook, clean, don't have a dishwasher, and I always find plenty of potential to learn, grow and practice during those moments. And I'm a man. Why is she saying a woman cannot learn from that?
Again, why no asking, politely, first IF she is saying that and if she is, for her to address any comments you had on it?
'It is a difficult path for women to seek out knowledge and even more difficult to apply the knowledge when one has to cook, clean, and look after the children. Men had the 'luxury' to travel, study, engage in politics, while women were restricted in every possible way.' What the actual...
You left out the last word of the last sentence. It was "f**k". But there was nothing aggressive or confrontational in your third party questioning here, right?
Toxic, kind of like "toxic masculinity". One idiotic ideology provokes the same in response. And that's the problem.
Insanely diminutive of the value of female experience, simply assuming their daily experience doesn't allow them to grok what matters, explicitly saying males were advantaged and thereby implicitly outsourcing responsibility to the other gender.
Characterizing the comments of another as "insane", while referring to them in the third person, without asking for clarification. Nothing aggressive or confrontational about that, right?
as if they were free to create their own path without having society trying to annihilate them.
Men, "annihilated". That's the kind of hyperbole that you are supposedly arguing against. As I said, it seems that one idiotic ideology begets another.
Reading her initial post, I literally heard her asking for 'knowledge from a female perspective', even though I cannot find these words when I look at it. That's how it came across, as if knowledge was gendered, as if there had been some kind of sex war where men purposefully designed a world where women couldn't learn. Looking at it subjectively, I now understand that Sybil was seeking to discuss knowledge that can be extracted from sharing, discussing female experiences. But that's not how it initially came across.
Interesting, you literally heard her saying something that she did not say. Maybe you should have asked, politely, and not in the third person.
I'm saddened and disappointed in equal measure at the way some people have responded here. Like many others, I'm fully aware of the factual and reasoning errors that define 'woke' ideology and all its attendant 'isms'. Yet when someone posts on this forum and there appears there may be some of that infusing what they write, I don't feel the need to respond as if someone started a fire. Why? Because I understand it, and I don't see it as a threat. Why would I? More to the point, it is VERY clear that to do so ensures the discussion will descend into unproductive, unfulfilling and potentially destructive and pointless argumentation that destroys any chance of the person in question (or anyone) learning anything useful.
I suppose it has to be repeated that, there is no 'fire' on any topic on this forum. No one here, nor anything they might say, is a threat to anyone such that it justifies throwing decency and decorum out the window, forgetting ourselves, and rushing in all guns blazing (in however subtle or covert a way we might do that and then attempt to justify it afterwards).
So we'll just end this thread here then, shall we? And those of you who feel inclined can self-referntially conclude that "I was right, he was wrong/I was right, she was wrong", and walk away with no self-questioning, no practicing of patience, no deeper understanding, nothing learned?
