Identity Politics

[The Grand Nudger]

Is the objection here that it isn't true, or more simply just that it's identity politics regardless of whether or not it's true?

[Yonadav]

Is the objection here that it isn't true, or more simply just that it's identity politics regardless of whether or not it's true?

Yeah, that's real cute, Gae. I explained the problem with the article in pretty clear English, which you claim to understand. And then you ask me a question that asserts a clearly false dichotomy which presents two positions, both of which are strawmen. You could try to have an honest discussion about an issue that you claimed that you wanted to discuss by starting this thread, instead of making a bunch of eristic nonsense out of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

What I'm trying to figure out is whether you object to the notion that a female in these positions finds themselves under fire along well defined tropes that simply don't apply to men, or in even more explicit cases are conceptualized in an entirely different way.  If..for example, some president of these united states being an abusive and dismissive boss is just engaging in his particular and strong style of top down leadership that absolutely does not get them "shot down"...whereas a female doing the same is a disheveled harpy who will be or should be or can be "shot down".   

This is the core of the contention that there's something sexist about hit pieces like that.  Either you think there's validity to that, or you don't.  It's impossible to have a discussion with you about that without strawmanning you if I don't know where you stand on that....because I could spend the next two days saying "hey, that much is true and here's an example and here's an example and here's an example" but so long as your objection isn't "that's not true" none of that will speak to whatever your objection is.  Right?

If, as in the case of the hypothetical above, you do think that's true and you object mainly because it's a use of identity politics (or a poor use of identity politics) then that would be an entirely different discussion, wouldn't it? It's entirely possible for you to think that the underlying suggestion of a sexist undercurrent is true and still object to it's exploitation for reasons not at all related to the truth of the proposition. Asking you to clarify between two positions isn't what "straw-manning" means, at all...nor is asking you to clarify between two fundamentally contradictory positions or a third not at all related to that a false dichotomy. You could volunteer a fourth if you want. The option you seem to be angling for is "happens to men too", and that's a variation on the theme of "it's not true" - an explicit rejection of the contention that there is a sexist undercurrent to these criticisms. I could have just run with that - but hey...I asked just in case you may not have expressed exactly what you meant to.

Hell..it's even possible that it "happens to men too", at least insomuch as men are also criticized for their leadership style, while also being true that criticism of females for their leadership styles commonly takes the form of sexist tropes. Two things can be true. Surely we can agree that two things can be true, even if it's also the case that two contradictory things can't be - hey, there it is again, two things are true! Hell, three, four, five six...even seven things can be true. It seems like this might be a complicated issue, about which you have thoughts. Some clarity on those thoughts can only help. For what it;s worth, it might not just help me to figure out what I'm responding to, it might help you, too.

Or...you know...we can do the other thing, lol.