Entry 1901, on 2018-02-19 at 21:32:11 (Rating 4, Politics)
If you can be classified as a white, middle-aged male, then you are in the unfortunate position of being in one of the least advantaged groups in society today. I say this because of the numerous examples of affirmative action and political correctness which support every group in society except that one. And these forces are not always premeditated because they are often a manifestation of a zeitgeist which has little basis in reality but has evolved through various ill-defined social and political processes.
The supporters of these phenomena will claim they are based on a real reaction against the existing power structure and that any attempt at alternative explanations is simply "mansplaining". This is very convenient for the followers of these PC modes of thought because they can reject any criticism by labelling it as mansplaining, and at that point it requires no further comment. In fact, the refusal to enter into any meaningful dialog, or to look at alternative views, is a common characteristic of modern political correctness.
And this has extended into exactly the areas where it shouldn't exist. In many US universities some subjects just cannot be discussed without a violent and unreasoned backlash from the politically correct extreme left. And many speeches, discussions, and debates have had to be closed down, just because a subject is deemed too sensitive to even contemplate hearing any view which deviates from what is considered "appropriate" by the self-appointed arbiters of what is congruous with social norms.
The most ironic point of all this is that the students causing the trouble are generally hugely privileged themselves, and likely to become more so in the future. Plus their experience of life and their knowledge of the world in general is usually pathetically insubstantial. But it really does take a genuinely ignorant person to have such total confidence in their beliefs, no matter how extreme they might be.
People like Ben Shapiro, Anita Alvarez, Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Bret Weinstein, and Jordan Peterson, as well as many others, have been shut down at American colleges recently. I admit that some (especially Yiannopoulos and Coulter) have deliberately controversial messages, but many are models of reason and fairness. And what is the problem with controversial opinions anyway? In most cases the person is never even allowed to speak and the points made by protestors against the speakers are generally laughably naive and inaccurate.
It should be noted that many of the obstructed speakers are "old, white guys" - although there are also women involved, and even one openly gay person - so this isn't just a reaction to "mansplaining" in the most simple sense, but I think that is the most important component.
Of course, there are many occasions I have been accused of indulging in this myself. But it has got to the point now where I don't see it as a criticism much any more, because I am starting to view mansplaining as a good thing. If no one else is going to be sensible, open-minded, rational, and fact-based then I guess us old (or middle-aged) white guys are going to have to do it, just like we have done the vast majority of anything worthwhile in the past!
Because it is exactly that group (old white guys, AKA OWGs) who have done the most for society. Sure, I agree, most of the really evil people in history were OWGs, but both aspects should be acknowledged. Just because some people who are currently out of favour (you know who the prime example is here) belong to that category don't assume there is nothing good about OWGs. And never reject their opinions by applying silly tags like "mansplaining".
As I said, if mansplaining is just a way the politically correct members of society label the opinions of the most influential and brilliant group in society I say bring it on. I'm happy to mansplain as much as possible.
And I would like to say at this point that I welcome any other groups into join me as a "mansplainer". Women are very welcome, people of any age and race are also welcome, and your cultural, sexual, religious, or ethnic background is irrelevant. I would ask you to join the mansplainers, because the truth doesn't belong to any one group.
Comment 1 by Rob on 2018-02-21 at 17:43:55:
Oh Jeezo Baxter. Still got your knickers in a twist? If you're gonna go off on the PC group at least get your terms correct. Mansplaining is more correctly used to describe a usually (but not always) WASP male that condensendingly "explains" concepts based on his reality down to his lessers.
Still banging on about how poorly one of the most privileged groups in history is mistreated and misunderstood. How trite. Deal with this pendulum swing with grace and dignity instead of the constant whinging.
Would you hold that OWM have made such great contributions to society in the past because they were/are in positions of privilege to have the wealth, social status and therefore the opportunity to have the education and leisure to pursue interests that led to discoveries and contributions? Might it have been a bit difficult to make much of a societal contribution when you were working at manual labour dawn till dusk to feed yourself or born into a slave class or born at a time when as a woman you were not allowed, or strongly discouraged, from attending higher education or admittance to many professions even if you were of a privileged class?
Come on. Surely you can do better than tease the waters to try and get a rise.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2018-02-22 at 14:55:50:
Yes, I agree that the definition you gave is the one used by many SJWs. My point was that the word is usually used in a derogatory sense to shut down a debate without having to honestly respond. And also that the point made by the OWM is often completely valid and at least as pertinent as that made by the SJW.
Describing this latest fad as a "pendulum swing" is very telling because pendulums don't swing and then stop in a neutral position, they move to the opposite extreme before swinging back again. That is what I think we should try to avoid, by stopping this stuff going too far.
Why OWMs have made the great majority of contributions to society is an interesting question. Are OWMs in a dominant position because they are superior, or are they superior because they are in a dominant position? I think it is a bit of both. Research shows that men outnumber women in the genius category of IQ tests by about 10 to 1. It also shows white people have much greater average general intelligence than most other groups. Maybe that is what gave the OWMs the initial opportunity to dominate.
As per usual, I just want to present an opinion contrary to what it is usually polite to say. What's the point in just saying the same thing as everyone else? Especially when they are wrong.
Comment 3 by Rob on 2018-02-22 at 15:54:40:
Research says...
Surveys claim...
Polls show...
I heard that...
References Mr. Baxter, references.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2018-02-22 at 20:00:50:
OK, let's start with the validity of IQ testing. I have had a look at several opinions on this but this (from Wikipedia) summarises it well: "In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements."
So, are IQ tests biased? This form the APA: "As a result, many of the biases identified by critics of intelligence testing have been reduced, and new tests are available that, unlike traditional intelligence tests, are based on modern theories of brain function, says Alan Kaufman, PhD, a clinical professor of psychology at the Yale School of Medicine."
So do we agree that IQ testing does mean something useful?
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE
