Um, go to a scientific blog if you are so offended?
mrouza601
13

I was not aware that the comments section was supposed to only contain nodding agreement. And I certainly wasn’t “offended”; I didn’t take it personally.

The assumption underlying the article (the one that apparently “you” agree that rich people are (and I’m paraphrasing here) soulless trolls, and science exists to back “you” up on this), is certainly a topic worthy of discussion. I was not discussing some minor lifestyle choice mentioned in passing or letting the author know that some minor, irrelevant, factoid was wrong.

And, I’m curious, what makes something “mansplaining” other than me apparently being a guy and her not being one? My criticism is completely gender-neutral; I’ve certainly criticized men here for similar errors. (Most memorably was the one that thought he, and all employees, were being “exploited” because… and I was having trouble following the logic… employers make a profit from the labor of their employees. I (at length) stated that that wasn’t what “exploited” meant if it had any useful rhetorical meaning at all.)

The very term “mansplaining” looks very much to me like a way of invalidating my words because of my gender, and not because of their content. Isn’t that kind of a canonical example of sexism? If you disagree with my ideas, or the way I presented them, fine. But I don’t see what gender (of either party) has to do with it.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.