True story:
Dave: "Hey Helen! I sent out this random tweet
last night and this morning it had over 600 retweets."
Me: "Cool! Was it misogynistic per chance?"
Dave: "maaaaaybeeee........"
I have been seeing a certain archetypal commenter in the spotlight recently; all women my age, progressive, and employed at mainstream institutions. I don't know them. Yet in every case, I can intuit their origin story.
It goes something like this:
> be an older millennial female, no strong passion, but strive hard in school
> reach High School
> steer clear of the kids who like talking about “far out” philosophical issues
> also steer clear of student government and debate club, which seems too contentious and vaguely threatening
> focus on getting perfect marks, complying with college reqs. Get into top uni based on those marks
> get introduced to politics in freshmen social justice class, instantly floored
> the appeal of college politics is just how cut-and-dried it is. Unlike other fields, it has a clear “good” and “bad” side, no ambiguity. The “good” side always wins in classroom discussions, you feel like a hero for validating consensus with "The Conversation"
> politics becomes your religion, “this is my passion!”
> graduate with top marks and recs. Your degree is essentially in “Current Thing-ism”. Have no broad understanding of history or philosophy.
> Your concept of human events is just people being oppressed for 4000 years until feminism and progress happened in the 20th c.
> despite the Global Financial Crisis, immediately get hired by a government/media org because they want someone who “understands the role of female politics in our new digital era!”
> most of your colleagues share your perspective, the ones who don't are older guys on their way to retirement, not looking for the confrontation that disagreeing with you would certainly involve.
> great awokening happens, double down on Current-Thingism politics
> organe-man-bad and COVID happens, triple down on politics.
> you are 15 years deep in your career, you have never once genuinely engaged with a peer who didn't validate your worldview or who you didn't consider a "token" opposition to placade your political enemies
> vibe shift happens, establishment uncertain, time to have a "conversation" with the people you've considered deplorable
> have conversation, hear non-progressive opinion that is common in the modern world, historically ubiquitous
> react with schock, umbrage horror. "Can you even believe this is happening?"
> confident that non-progressive opinion is trivially easy to refute, somehow have no idea how to actually refute it
> unaware just how deeply you have been betrayed by your education, such that the average educated man on the street has more practical understanding of what politics is than you do with decades of "experience."
You did make a good point: why are there women who share your beliefs who won’t support you?
The fact that your book did so well means there are plenty who do support you; which is good.
It’s probably because there’s something about you that isn’t relatable to these women, or something smells “off.” I don’t know what it would be, and I don’t think it’s necessarily jealousy, but something else. I’ll have to think about it.
It was an appeal to authority.. YOUR authority. You flexed your successful podcast and your position in the church. You were trying to pull rank as a way to make your claims credible OR to demand respect. I’m sure there are truth to your claims, but when debating things you need to be more fact based and less about resorting to status and posturing, even if that’s what your opponent is doing.
Are you kidding? Rachel is constantly flexing her “status” whenever she’s put in a corner.
She once insulted a girl because she didn’t sound “college educated”(getting a degree = status).
In this thread she pointed out how popular her podcast is (again, another status flex).
She likes to talk about how popular her book is as a flex.
For women especially, it’s very difficult for them to separate truth from status when debating.
You must be a woman, too.
@Rach4Patriarchy@amytheartist@gaminginmotley PSA: don’t use the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy. If having status and a successful podcast means people should take you seriously, then everyone should follow, say, Vaush. His following is bigger than yours but he’s a total monster.
@amytheartist Anecdote here: unfortunately I’ve had to go on and off BC since I was a teenager due to a medical condition. I can attest that it has never affected how irresistibly hot I find my husband to be.
@TheBrancaShow I wonder how many abortions in this country would decrease if the dudes who get the women pregnant celebrated the pregnancy and offered support.
At the end of the day, PLEASE no sex before marriage, folks. I’m serious.
@0x49fa98 I believe tools are neutral and it really boils down to the intent of those who use them.
I just can’t help but link what this dude is saying about technology and what Uncle Ted said. It’s splitting apart tight-knit communities and softening people from their full potential.
@Imrighthere77@GillAdam10578 You’d be surprised how many girls spend a free evening playing with outfits and hairdos, doing their nails, and taking flattering selfies, even if no one sees any of it.
You can judge their intent all you want, but it happens.
@newjjll@GillAdam10578 Any woman with half a brain would expect male attention if they’re looking attractive, and the women have the right to turn the men down.