Mission Accomplished! Paul Elam declares victory, quits the Men’s Rights movement

I think Rich has a point. This was
the first time there’s ever been a post about Paul Elam on this site. I just don’t think David is very familiar with him.

Hi Lindsay,

I understand that incidents like that happen and are offensive. You yourself may be a good person and during the course of your lifetime may have uttetered an off color or not so nice comment or two…..right….does that mean that everything else you have done or said that was good and helpful should be overlooked? Hmmmm interesting. Again I invite you to look past your prejudice for a moment. And to have a fight there are two parties…so was Amanda Marcott merely an innocent bystander…nothing she said or did to cast aspersions on others character? Just asking the question to be clear.
David, I find the term mansplaining condescending and offensive. Please find another term besides that. Yes I find the term womansplaining equally offensive. I prefer to call it an opinion to which you may or may not agree. The intent of my initial post was not an attack on you….it is a call for people to look deeper and see intent rather than present purely emotional responses.

Regards

Rich

Oh, and mansplaining is not an insult. It is merely a description of an experience women have. If you’re offended by the term, look at your own behavior and attitude towards women (or people you mistake for one ) instead of getting all huffy. There might just be a reason that word puts you on the defensive.

Oh, the irony of someone who’s posts drip with condescension complaining about a word being condescending. Isn’t Rich irrational?

Rule of thumb: You’re not the person to give advice on how to do research if you failed to find a bolg’s about section.

@Scildfreja

Do I want to reply to this?

Yes yes yes please do :3

@Lich McNecro

Perhaps by really committing to listen without judgement you will get a better understanding and present a more balanced comment. Just saying !

You’re an uber-rational dudebro, you should have no trouble with that.

I propose a new law. It’s called Solnit’s law. Any man who complains about the term mansplaining proves the point of the term. In my experience, men who get all pissy about the word will not listen to women about what the word actually means and about their experiences being mansplained to. Thus proving the point of and the need for the word.

Let’s science it.

http://i45.tinypic.com/250ia9t.jpg

Welcome, sir. Thank you for your submission. I will now disassemble your construction for valid and invalid arguments. I may also point out correct statements, regardless of the validity of the forms in which you have presented them.

Your post was in reply to LindsayIrene, who was pointing out that most of Paul Elam’s “work” online has been in insulting, degrading and harassing women. She did this by way of example – not the strongest argument form, but given the format of interaction found in an internet forum, completely acceptable. (I also suggest that she didn’t feel a proper argument would be either as entertaining or as worthy of her time.) We know that this was the thrust of her argument given the body of work in the article above, and in other articles presented on this webiste and elsewhere.

Your reply is parsed below.

I understand that incidents like that happen and are offensive. You yourself may be a good person and during the course of your lifetime may have uttetered an off color or not so nice comment or two…..right….does that mean that everything else you have done or said that was good and helpful should be overlooked? Hmmmm interesting.

You suggest that a person can say a bad thing and still be a good person, as presented more eloquently in The Nicomachean Ethics. This is true, but misses the point of LindsayIrene’s comment, which is that the “not so nice comment” is the central theme of Paul Elam’s interactions with women.

Again I invite you to look past your prejudice for a moment.

Asking her to “look past her prejudice” is assuming that she is prejudiced, and that this prejudice is the only reason that she has for her position. Again the author would behoove themself to conduct a more thorough literature study.

And to have a fight there are two parties…so was Amanda Marcott merely an innocent bystander…nothing she said or did to cast aspersions on others character? Just asking the question to be clear.

This is an assumption of the false middle, or a false dilemma. It assumes that both parties are equally at fault, or more generally, that there are only two valid possibilities. This is incorrect. It is highly possible that one party is harassing the other, for example, or perhaps that both are arguing, but one is using above-board and civil tactics while the other is using faulty rhetoric and harassment.

Also “Just asking the question to be clear” is an unneccesary distraction. It can be assumed that questions are asked for clarity. That you felt the need to emphasize this suggests that your desire is less clarity and more to “win” than to find the truth of the matter.

David, I find the term mansplaining condescending and offensive. Please find another term besides that.

Noted, and you are allowed to present this argument, but I would have to ask whether you have protested Paul Elam’s horrible statements about women to him as well. Failure to do so would reveal your own implicit bias.

Yes I find the term womansplaining equally offensive.

“Womansplaining”, while a sensible term, has no cultural momentum or payload to it, and is not useful in describing a phenomenon in society.

I prefer to call it an opinion to which you may or may not agree.

This indicates clearly that you don’t understand what “mansplaining” means, as it is not “an opinion to which you may or may not agree”, or simply “an opinion”, as all opinions may or may not be agreed to. I suggest that you study the topic more thoroughly before commenting on it again.

The intent of my initial post was not an attack on you….it is a call for people to look deeper and see intent rather than present purely emotional responses.

There are a number of issues with this call to action. First is that your “call … to look deeper” was in fact an emotional attack, indicated by the false logic used above. That you felt motivated to post without having a strong logical foundation from which to argue is highly indicative of strong emotional investment. The nature of this investment is not well known, but given that your reply had one initial sentence decrying Paul Elam’s behaviour, followed by the rest decrying our own, it suggests a certain loyalty to a particular side of the argument.

Further, this statement and previous ones within the body of the argument makes the claim that the arguments against Paul Elam are based solely on emotion, suggesting that there is no valid reason to oppose him. This again indicates a woeful lack of investment in the primary literature of the topic. It’s also an offensive argument. Suggesting that your opponents are driven purely by emotion and act without reasonable cause is demeaning and only serves to degrade the conversation.

I say this with caution, realizing that most of my review has been invested in discussion how your appeals have mostly been emotional. However, given that your argument was focused on trying to “elevate the level of discourse,” it is important to understand how deeply flawed your methodologies have been in that attempt. If you would like to actually elevate the level of discourse, you must start by showing a deep understanding of your opponents’ position, followed by a careful examination of, and admission of, those points in which they are correct.

OVERALL, this submission falls below the standards of the WHTM Editorial Submissions Board. We encourage the author to try again, beginning with an in-depth review of the body of literature on the topic at-hand.

Regards,

Scildfreja Unnýðnes, WHTM Asgardian Co-Chair of Editorial Review.

Away in his dungeon
with nothing new read
Our mansplaining troll
necros an old thread

Everyone on a feminist blog is a girl. No exceptions

http://orig08.deviantart.net/80ef/f/2011/307/d/d/fluttershy_is_best_pony__by_cosplayrandom-d4eyn1i.png

Oh necro-troll, oh necro-troll,
Your comments are an own-goal

LOL This is reminding me of Andrew on the Cassie Jaye thread, posting links that refute his own argument.

Gender war?