First up, love the image.
I'm well aware there are no Penguins in the Arctic, I preferred it to the Antarctic Circular because it rolled off the tongue better. Language choice. *points at self* Playwright.
Note the words you've quoted. 'Some thoughts emerged'
Not facts. Not a grand theory. Thoughts. Thoughts being explored. Different thoughts to your own obviously... but still thoughts. You returned to my story multiple times yesterday to angrily tell me I was wrong, to tell me my stupidity was going to generate a rebuttal article (this one) maybe even four rebuttal articles because I'd been so stupid in my sharing of thoughts. I even went as far as to say in the article...
In discussions of patriarchy, I cannot be the good-ship Medium’s captain — I am not well enough informed. I suspect it’s someone like Elle. I’m probably so far down the pecking order (Penguins have those) I’m only Lightoller.
But it seems this was overlooked because what I'd done was attempted to discuss and explore ideas on a subject in which you are the expert. When I tongue in cheek said you liked 'to win' - this is what I was referring to. Not discussion. A dismissive tone and intolerant overkill of anything not written with the backing of sociological evidence and at an academic standard. Zero wiggle room for explanation. You want to have 'factual sociological discussions with people who don't look at them as some sort of theoretical contest' whilst simultaneously assert the pre-requisite for involvement in discussions is your level of academic interest. That isn't a discussion, it is an ivory tower.
I was using the Titanic analogy to explore m thoughts about Patriarchy. The wider point of my article was:
- Patriarchy is bad
- Some things which have emerged under a Patriarchal system are good.
- These things have emerged as a result of warfare and technological advance and have bettered all of human society.
- Patriarchy cannot be all bad.
or to carry on from this rebuttal using new words I've gained from the discussion
- Patriarchy has thrown up, either on its own or through some degree of codified opposition to itself, the capacity for hierarchy of actualisation. Isn't that interesting?
That's it. That was my entire thought process, not presented as an absolute fact which cannot be question. A starting point for a discussion. Not backed by huge amounts of science or by referring to paper after paper. Explored instead through the idea that on a sinking ship - there are benefits to some (created by a hierarchy with a captain at the top and enforced by social rules (and guns)) in which a steerage class child was granted a seat in a lifeboat whilst they let a billionaire financier drown.
And before I head off into the sunset. I'll leave you with this quote from your work: masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful. And ask readers looking at the back and forth on these two articles to consider which one of us is behaving in the competitive, dominant and aggressive way. Or to put it more bluntly in the Sweden vs Iran choice.... which one of us would they prefer to be trapped in a lift with to have a discussion about patriarchy.
I'll now link this story to the bottom of mine to encourage people to read further. :o)
