Sorry for my absence over the past week. Real life intervened in the form of my thesis defence. Which I passed. And then, in my euphoria, promptly murdered my lap book by dumping it on the floor. My father helped out by letting me take his old mac pro (thanks dad!) so I’m mostly back up and running.
So I was doing my semi-weekly perusal of reddit and I came upon this new piece sounding the horn about how ‘women are under constant threat of violence’.
Leaving the main thrust of the article aside, let’s focus on one specific comment by a commentator named ‘Joland’:
“And the funny thing is that if a woman were to get offended by such a simple comment she would be told that she’s too sensitive [...] I guess you men are as just as sensitive…”
What is this… I don’t even… I mean, seriously? WHAT? How does that work?
Look at the logic.
If women complained, they would be called sensitive.
Since men are complaining they must have the weak, womanly nerves of, well, a woman.
Reverse the genders to bring out contrast:
“And the funny thing is that if a man were to get offended by such a simple comment he would be told that he’s too sensitive [...] I guess you women are as just as sensitive…”
It doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because men are stereotyped to be less sensitive then women.
It’s the doublethink uncertainty principle in action. On the one hand women are held to a higher standard of stoicism then men and yet… on the other… men can be shamed for being as lacking in stoicism as women. Which means *men* are held to a higher level of stoicism then women. Which negates her original point that women are held to a higher level of stoicism… which… gah, my head hurts.
WHICH GENDER IS SHE SHAMING? WHICH?
If I had to go out on a limb I would say this falls under the ‘women are superior/held to a higher standard; but men who resemble women are inferior’ form of double think.
I wonder if this particular wave function will ever collapse into something coherent.
Until then, is this weird? Or what?