I sincerely tried to steel-man her case, but her sexism was so explicit that I could not let it pass. Having your opinion dismissed because of your gender is grating; I think we can all agree on that, at least.
I agree with the sentiment, and it's prevalent in modern feminism - to the point of inventing words to deprive half the population the right to speak, but in this article the author is trying to do the exact opposite?
I provided verbatim quotes of what she said. If you disagree with my interpretation of their meaning, you are free to provide an alternative interpretation. A blanket dismissal doesn't move the conversation forward.
> In offering the thoughts that follow, though, I’d like to stress that I’m writing this to encourage conversation and ideas around this subject, not to attempt to interpret men’s stories for them.
She relates that initial anecdote to tell the story of how she got to where she’s at, acknowledging that her view on the matter has since progressed. You say you’re steelmanning, but begin by quoting how she was not how she is. You’re not dealing with her current views, you’re dealing with her precious and self-admittedly outdated views on the subject, aren’t you?
I do encourage anybody to re-read the article and switch the words 'men' and 'women'; if it feels different, it's a sign that you share the same prejudice as the author.
Her bias against men is only made more explicit when additional context is provided. I'll quote her again and interleave some observations.
> I wove together a series of stories populated by the funny, feisty older women in European myth and folklore who I love so much
That is, she was giving a talk about European myth and folklore. Myth and folklore is often characterized by having unknown authorship, and at best mixing both fiction and non-fiction elements in them. For all we know, some if not all of the stories she loved so much were actually written by men. This will become relevant in a moment.
> In my nonfiction I’ve always been scrupulous about writing within the realms of my own lived experience as a woman, and I hate it more than I can say when I read books or listen to talks and performances by men who tell and ‘interpret’ women’s stories, and who are kind enough then to suggest to us ways in which our lives as women might be improved
So, in her non-fiction she holds herself to the standard of writing about what she has experienced as a woman, which is her choice to make. She then follows by chastising men who 'interpret' (why the scare quotes?) women's stories; presumably she is referring to the same European myth and folklore she was talking about a moment ago. Thus, she is plainly saying that she hates hearing opinions about European myth and folklore stories... when the speakers are men. She could have said "I hate hearing poor interpretations of women's stories", or "I hate the interpretations provided by Person XYZ", but she didn't, and the context paints a clear picture that it wasn't an accident. She is perfectly content blaming the group for the errors of the individuals, a hallmark of prejudice.
I find it particularly funny that she doesn't seem to even contemplate the possibility that some the stories she loves so much may have been written by men. Is it because they are stories about women? Is it because she likes the stories, and thus can't possibly have been written by a 'man'? Scare quotes added for dramatic effect. I can only speculate.
> I’ve never wanted to do the same to them
One has to wonder: has she actually received any criticism for sharing her views on male archetypes? Why would it be such a terrible thing for men to discuss women's stories, or vice versa? I can only see good things coming out of more people sharing their viewpoint on a subject and I'm glad that she shared her expertise.
> It’s easy to say, Well, if the men want their stories, let them go and find them
Why does the gender of the people telling the story and the gender of the people in the story such a critical factor in her opinion? Why not their age or their ethnicity? In her opinion, can an American or a Japanese share their opinion on European myths and folklore?
The simplest explanation for all the above is that the author is openly and proudly misandrist. That is my interpretation.
> You say you’re steelmanning, but begin by quoting how she was not how she is. You’re not dealing with her current views, you’re dealing with her precious and self-admittedly outdated views on the subject
Nope. She is not retracting in any way from those views; she is simply justifying why it is okay for her to share her opinion on men's stories; in her eyes it's okay when she does it because, and I quote:
> I’d like to stress that I’m writing this to encourage conversation and ideas around this subject, not to attempt to interpret men’s stories for them
So when men give their opinion about women's stories, they are 'interpreting' them (scare quotes in the original). But when she does, she is merely "encouraging conversation" (verbatim). What, exactly, is the difference?
It would be funny if you just lectured all of us about what you think the woman was saying in an article that mentions men interpreting women stories.
> My point of contention is whether or not it is okay to shush a person talking about a collective simply because they aren't members of it. Or more broadly, whether it is okay to dismiss, silence and minimize the struggles of a collective because of some twisted notion that they deserve it.
That's a YOU problem, what you are saying in the quote is a complete parody of what people are saying when they talk about representation, identification, and lived experiences.
You extrapolate a lot.
> Thus, she is plainly saying that she hates hearing opinions about European myth and folklore stories... when the speakers are men.
I don't think this applies only to European myth and folklore stories. The joke quote "She breasted boobily to the stairs and titted downward" didn't appear out of nowhere. Only 19% readers of female writers are male (but 45% women readers for male writers) (Nielsen Book Research). If someone doesn't want to read stories from other gender groups, its statistically men.
> She could have said "I hate hearing poor interpretations of women's stories", or "I hate the interpretations provided by Person XYZ", but she didn't, and the context paints a clear picture that it wasn't an accident. She is perfectly content blaming the group for the errors of the individuals, a hallmark of prejudice.
prejudice (countable and uncountable, plural prejudices): (countable) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts. (countable) A preconception, any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative. (countable) An irrational hostile attitude, fear or hatred towards a particular group, race or religion. (obsolete) Knowledge formed in advance; foresight, presaging.
I don't think there is anything irrational in the article I'm reading. The whole thing is nuanced, comes from experience in the writing business and is absolutely not attacking men in the way you describe her (misandrist, etc.).
> I find it particularly funny that she doesn't seem to even contemplate the possibility that some the stories she loves so much may have been written by men. [...]
And here we are, the little patronizing tone coming from the guy who is keen on attacking people on what they didn't say. You just go around insulting people?
> Why would it be such a terrible thing for men to discuss women's stories, or vice versa? I can only see good things coming out of more people sharing their viewpoint on a subject and I'm glad that she shared her expertise.
You are the only one here who thinks people are somehow trying to ban men from doing that, and vice versa.
I can't imagine hearing someone say "I hate when men do this [badly]" and interpret it as "I hate men and they should be banned from doing this".
> So when men give their opinion about women's stories, they are 'interpreting' them (scare quotes in the original). But when she does, she is merely "encouraging conversation" (verbatim). What, exactly, is the difference?
The difference is in the text you don't quote: and who are kind enough then to suggest to us ways in which our lives as women might be improved. The difference is the that you have a lot of know-it-all male writers or commenters that explain how women should behave (e.g. how to write an article). This is different than coming from the perspective of learning. Maybe you didn't catch that because that's implied in the text, but this is not about all men or all male writers in general.
> The simplest explanation for all the above is that the author is openly and proudly misandrist. That is my interpretation.
Of course that's your interpretation. Your brought extra material to the article using the power of prejudice.
> It would be funny if you just lectured all of us about what you think the woman was saying in an article that mentions men interpreting women stories.
This isn't the clever retort you think it is, it is pure unadulterated sexism and it proves my point: you are brushing off my opinion based exclusively on my gender, just like the author.
So, thank you for proving me right. I rest my case.
Not super related, but R also needs some way to handle lists in the pipe chain. Maybe something like `&>` to apply over all elements (and `1>`, `2>`,..., `N>`, for piping on individual elements), and a collector operator like `]>` (or `1,2-4,N]>` to collect subsets), so that one can do:
> data <- data |>
> split_by(field) &>
> # mutate over all
> mutate(calc=...) 1-5>
> # filter the first 5 elems
> filter(…) &]>
> # control back to parent
> collect() ]>
> # collect all elements and
> # implicit rbind them
> ...
I get it, but the syntax is surprising. This is more like += etc. so I would expect a notation like ()= (ie. apply-equal) in a way that is not related to piping I guess.
smerge-refine is one keybinding I always use to highlight changes in 3-way diffs between base/mine, base/theirs, mine/theirs. The only problem is knowing what mine and theirs mean sometimes.
> In order to handle assignments, Picat creates new variables at compile time. In the above example, at compile time, Picat creates a new variable, say X1, to hold the value of X after the assignment X:=X+1.
In the standard it is not specified if such loops mutate or rebind, and you have to assume it doesn't rebind if you capture variables. I do think however that once you learn how it works it stops being a problem (in any case I can select the form, macroexpand it and it shows how it's implemented)
In theory sure. In practice it's easy enough to make this mistake mindlessly. I had this happen to me after many years of practice just this year (in an elaborate extended LOOP form which has same semantics).
