To
@Sybill and
@Joe.
Sorry that I haven’t come back to this until today and to be clear I have come with my head hanging pretty low. My “external consideration” was so absent it might as well have been non existent. There was a good way for me to bring up my concerns and a bad way. I chose the bad.
Sybill I ran my ego around and I’m sure I sounded like a Jerk. Instead of politely enquiring more info and thinking up an appropriate way to ease into my concern, I jumped the gun and acted like an authoritative egotistical jerk and I am sorry.
Joe and others (I tagged Joe because he was early to the party to give me the reprimand I deserved) I did not have the intention of trying to speak for the “group” but that’s actually what I did. I saw a small issue and came at it like Rambo. Oh boy did I think I was winning the day.
I didn’t respond earlier because I had not yet gone through the five steps of being called out for being a jerk. I stayed on step one for a bit too long (“I’m not the jerk, Joe is”). I knew my logic was faulty when I asked myself why I listen to your show every week if you are such a jerk. I wasn’t satisfied with the answer of “I just really like listening to jerks.” So I moved on and accepted the undeniable fact that you were right. I still didn’t have the courage to acknowledge so I waited a bit longer. In order to grow I have to take responsibility for my actions.
As for any innocent bystanders let my example be a lesson that hopefully you can learn without going through. Remember to chill, stop and think and remember that Its not a good idea to flip out.
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. I saw the same, and although I held my impressions back, I got the same vibe from this thread as you did. It's hard not to, when the thread opened on divisive identitarian lines, with seriously sexist innuendo. Feeling a reaction was fine; acting on it reactively isn't.
She started by saying, '
history proves that it was dangerous for women to seek objective knowledge'. What, and it wasn't dangerous for men? "
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? 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? '
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... This is beyond toxic. 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.
As if, during times when women prioritized homebuilding, men were freely frolicking about. As if the harsh reality wasn't calling on these men to perform or die. As if they were free to design wild adventures 'to seek knowledge', as if society didn't try to hurriedly jam them into the material priorities of bare subsistence, as if they were free to create their own path without having society trying to annihilate them.
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.
www.axios.com
