Friday, October 5, 2007

"Obsessional critics"

Let's remind everyone here right off the bat, FMM hates women. A lot. Cause I've never touched one without paying her for the lapdance first.
So, when Megan uses a 24 year old study to demonstrate that, yes, there is still sexism in a world where women only make 80% of what men do, it's quite clear what comes next.

I've wondered about this occasionally reading the posts accusing my more . . . er, vehement critics . . . of sexism in their treatment of me. This always elicits hysterical denials, proclamations that of course they are just objectively responding to my awfulness.
Yes, we are the patriarchy, and we are gonna get that damned woman for speaking in public.
But of course, the people in those studies, those auditions, didn't think that they were being sexist. Oh, perhaps some of them really did think "Women aren't good [violinists/scientists/etc], so I'm not going to even bother to listen--next!" But most of them undoubtedly thought that they were doing their level best to evaluate the performance--it's just that they'd already started out by deciding that the person who's work they were judging, being a woman and all, probably wasn't all that bright. And if challenged on it, they would have undoubtedly indignantly responded that they couldn't be sexist--after all, they're [scientists/musicians/whatever]. Besides, they love women scientists--they talk about Marie Curie all the time. It's just that this woman--okay, and this one over here, and this one too, and maybe that group there--all happen to be producing substandard work.
It's not Megan, it's us. But she's not hiding behind her vagina, not at all.
I don't actually have an opinion on whether sexism helps motivate my more obsessional critics; it's not an area of women's studies in which I'm particularly well versed, and I'm probably the person least qualified to judge whether my gender is helping me, as my critics aver, or hurting me, as my supporters claim. Although I confess, I can't help but wonder when people turn up in my comment section to accuse me of ignorance when their very comments make it obvious that they are markedly less well-versed in the subject than I am, and moreover, seem to have gathered their fierce confidence about my ignorance from some other commenter, always male, who also clearly knows less about the subject at hand than I do. At such times, I do tend to wonder whether they would have taken quite such a belligerently condescending tone with a man.
Yes, Gavin is clearly much nicer to guys. I, of course, have no excuse, but I've already said I hate you lovely not touched by me creatures. The fact I'm just starting a relationship has no bearing on this, but, once I touch her, this site will be deleted.
But not only has Megan discovered the truth about criticism of her, she now understands racism, despite, shall we say, her own questionable biases.
But that's just passing bemusement, the most vivid recent example of a broader thought, which is that self-examination is not always the best way to determine whether you are discriminating. Most of modern discrimination does not consist of calling someone "nigger" on the street; it consists of deciding, in the blink of an eye, that you'd really rather hire someone else. You don't need to think "someone else white"; statistically, that's the result--even when the candidates or their resumes have been carefully selected to be identical. Statistically, you are less likely to get hired as a black man with a clean record than as a white ex-con.
So, yeah, I'm also probably a racist.
I'm going to avoid taking issue with the concept of a patriarchy, cause I don't feel like being lectured by Ilyka Damen. That said, it's pretty fucking low to use gender bias to attempt to dismiss your critics when your flaws are as obvious as Megan's. There isn't a hint of self-awareness here, just a self-serving appropriation of genuine injustice as a means of avoidance of personal failings. Megan knows tons more about everything than us critics do, and if she's substantially wrong about, say, the Jena 6 or rh's new release or the housing market in NYC or....., well, that's just the exception that proves the rule.
I know I'm supposed to be mad that Megan called me sexist, but I'm really just disappointed in her. Hiding behind sexism is just cowardly, and frankly pathetic.

Since this is a loaded topic, let me be extra clear. I think the various problems collected under the heading of "the patriarchy" are, almost universally, very real issues. There's aspects of the theory I disagree with, but I agree the phenomena the theory tries to explain are real. Hiding behind sexism when it's not present is what Megan is doing, and what I'm calling pathetic.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

You have to admit that this "dialog" between MM and her critics has increased her productivity. The "I am my own..." post almost qualified as a a coherent article as opposed to the typical half-formed and half-assed note.