Did you see this stupid video where a climacteric guy is badgering a young woman and venting his resentment that things have grown worse for entitled middle-aged white guys now that uppity womenfolks dare to speak in public and, even worse, attend college?
Enjoy:
Yeah, Spain has freedom. Freedom from having a job. What a stupid video about a totally stupid, rabid jerk.
Also note his insistence on “we acted like men” and “men we revered.” Andropause is a scary thing. Especially when it’s combined with the loss of total gender supremacy.
This crap reminded me why I don’t watch television any longer.
Thank you, reader Titfortat, who brought this piece of proof that television sucks to the blog.
Clarissa's Blog 
The very structure of the play depicted here relies on a ready acceptance by the viewers of gendered roles. Male anger is supposed to bring about revelations, unlike female anger which merely obscures. Male anger cuts through the dross, whereas female nature assures regularity, but also the regular creation of the dross.
So much for the metaphysics of gender. Metaphysics bears no relation to reality and never has, apart from when priests and cunning speakers have been able to convince people to adapt their lives and perceptions to metaphysics.
The question of whether America is “great” or not is a fairly illogical one. It’s difficult to quantify greatness, and qualifications fall into the realm of abstraction.
Fighting wars for morality is another obscurantism. Everyone who fights thinks they are fighting for morality, in some form or another. It’s not like morality can be wiped off the human horizon. If the angry male cannot find a moral cause worthy of his energies, that is a sign of his limitations. Blaming a concept, like “America”, for that is more than bizarre. You have to go out and find your task, your calling, and stop sitting around to wait of it to come to you.
Crying tears over metaphysics won’t create the masculinity that is hypothesized to be able to make “America” “great”.
LikeLike
“The very structure of the play depicted here relies on a ready acceptance by the viewers of gendered roles. Male anger is supposed to bring about revelations, unlike female anger which merely obscures. Male anger cuts through the dross, whereas female nature assures regularity, but also the regular creation of the dross.”
– Exactly. What makes this man so angry is precisely that he doesn’t have as many occasions to put down women as he used to. And especially as his father used to.
White men overwhelmingly vote Republican. Republicans destroy their jobs and leave them homeless, but they keep voting for them because they demean and own women. They dread the idea of women having control over their own lives so much that they are willing to destroy anything to see women humiliated.
“The question of whether America is “great” or not is a fairly illogical one. It’s difficult to quantify greatness, and qualifications fall into the realm of abstraction.”
– She could have asked him the time and he would have still exploded, I believe.
LikeLike
Yes, the “greatness” of America is normally posited from a conservative perspective, so there was no need for him to explode at that. He wanted to explode. You are right.
You know, I used to look at things in a similar way to this fine fellow. I was brought up in a very nationalistic culture, and we used to paste our stickers everywhere, proclaiming, “Rhodesia is super.”
http://tinyurl.com/ctgj4zj
Then the war ended and nothing was super any more. Nothing could be super.
Then I read Dambudzo Marechera’s work, which from a right-wing perspective was on the “opposite” side to us. Only he turned out not to be so opposite, but rather warlike in his own right and complex in a way I hadn’t anticipated.
This was a huge revelation to me — that other people and things could be super; that the world was bigger than it had initially seemed, and bigger than we had made it.
The realm of reality suddenly seemed incredibly rich to me, through Marechera’s eyes.
LikeLike
@Clarissa
It is interesting how differently people react to certain things. Thanks for showing me a little bit more of how your brain works, truly fascinating.
LikeLike
Hey, you forgot your trademark :), you passive aggressive slimy dunce.
LikeLike
@Stringer
Passive? Not even close, but you do remind me of the kind of person who gives you the finger while driving and when by chance you end up in the same parking lot, you get out of your car keep your head down and quickly walk towards the nearest door. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, a working brain is a great thing.
LikeLike
Oh god Aaron Sorkin proberbly the most over rated writer in the history of ever.
LikeLike
The thing that stands out to me about this scene is that everything being said is vary vague. You would think the guy would get into some more specifics in his speech, but he never does.
Is this actually supposed to take place at a college?
LikeLike
Is this from an Aaron Sorkin series? It seems like it must be; in the Sorkin-verse, I’ve noticed that political opponents are always willing to politely sit back and let their opposites run-off their mouths in lengthy, prepared monologues which reflect Sorkin’s deeply-held view of the world.
LikeLike
And uuggh, the political strawmen to his right and left and the look of dumbfounded, reverent awe which falls over the faces of those college students when the minor piano keys start playing, and….excuse me, I think I’m going to be sick.
LikeLike
Seriously. Mansplaining at its worst.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
“Passive? Not even close”
Every time you have any sort of disagreement with anybody here, you never come out and say it directly. Any reasonable person would simply say ‘Hey clarisaa, I disagree with you and this is why: …’
Instead, you go off on some vague tangent, mumble some shit like ‘But aren’t you a feminist/Ukrainian/foreigner?’ that nobody ever knows what the fuck that means, you never explain yourself, and add a couple of 🙂 🙂 in the end. Jesus, how old are you? Have you ever learned how to construct an argument?
Your interaction with MusterYou is similar. She makes intelligent points and you reply to her with undecipherable shit (I’m sure you think they are subtle ‘zingers’. Let me assure you they are not).
You’re a sad little mouse.
🙂 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
You’re really not giving titfortat enough credit. He or she is here online to demonstrate tittiness for tattiness. He or she has correctly identified me as an MRA. This is quite an amazing insight. Of all the acronyms in all the world, titfortat stumbled upon mine. More profound insights will be also unveiled once the secret text-cracking code is made public. Hold onto your shoe phones. I’m leading the charge for men’s rights and I won’t be stopped!
LikeLike
@muster
As you already know, you have no need to worry. If your own words cant convince the choir of your misandry it is irrelevant what I say about it.
LikeLike
Nothing. But keep asking for misandry and someone might give it to you. That kind of projection normally ends up with a response. Others will understand what I mean when I mention the term, “projective identification”. It means that if you treat someone like they are a particular kind of thing, even though they are not, and you do that consistently enough, they will eventually produce the kind of response that matches your expectations.
A healthy or intelligent person would avoid doing that at all costs.
LikeLike
I would imagine when you say “all men are insane” and nobody bats an eyelash, well, you know. Healthy and intelligent people usually call out blatantly sexist comments like that, but the choir seems to lose its voice when it is directed in a certain direction.
LikeLike
I remember stating that all patriarchal men are insane, and I stand by that comment.
LikeLike
@muster
I find it interesting that we both seem to have father issues. Mine are that I wish he didnt die young and was in my life, yours seems to be the other way around.
LikeLike
Keep on firing away with your hatred.
LikeLike
Nice try, you didnt use the term patriarchal. Hatred is too strong of a word but I do have a complete disdain for your worldview.
LikeLike
I did use that term, if you go back and check. As for my world view, it doesn’t fit neatly into a simplistic set of binaries. It’s much more complicated than that.
LikeLike
Cool, we have another thing in common. Mine doesnt fit that neatly either.
LikeLike
You’re a sad little mouse.(Stringer)
Feel better now?
LikeLike
The first time I saw this, I wondered why Sorkin had chosen a young woman to be the recipient of the tirade. Maybe he didn’t feel it would be acceptable to have this character yell at a young man. I’m pretty sure the tirade would take on a different character if it was directed to a mature person.
I was hopeful when I heard his character remind the young woman that other countries were free too, but then he went on about America’s great past. What past would that be? Slavery, lynchings, segregation? Overthrowing the pro-western Iranian government because they wanted control over their own resources? The Vietnam war? (I’m not saying other countries don’t have shameful pasts, just that the U.S. past is nothing to brag about.)
Unfortunately, this is what passes for intelligent TV. Everything else is much worse.
LikeLike
I think that he’s referring to that brief window of time in between the end of the second world war and the election of Ronald Reagan. A period, which of course, included the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the cold war, the nuclear arms race, the McCarthy witchhunts, Watergate, Jim Crow laws and more riots than you can shake a stick at, but we should by no means allow these facts to undermine Aaron Sorkin’s Golden Age fantasy. Clearly, everything used to be wonderful, and it’s the present generation of youngsters what with their X-boxes and their hippity-hop what have ruined this country!
LikeLike
“I think that he’s referring to that brief window of time in between the end of the second world war and the election of Ronald Reagan. A period, which of course, included the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the cold war, the nuclear arms race, the McCarthy witchhunts, Watergate, Jim Crow laws and more riots than you can shake a stick at, but we should by no means allow these facts to undermine Aaron Sorkin’s Golden Age fantasy. Clearly, everything used to be wonderful, and it’s the present generation of youngsters what with their X-boxes and their hippity-hop what have ruined this country!”
– Exactly. The guy feels less and less relevant, so he is using the tired all trick of dumping on the young generation. And we all know how much I love seeing that.
LikeLike
“Cool, we have another thing in common. Mine doesnt fit that neatly either.”
Actually, seems like it does. You loved this video, right?
LikeLike
Actually, there are aspects to the video that are very relevant and very cool. I can also see the parts where it lacks. It seems you only see it from one angle, right?
LikeLike
Of course you did. Your in-depth analysis is why people come flocking to this blog.
LikeLike
“Your in-depth analysis is why people come flocking to this blog.”
– How come I missed this great comment? people come flocking to my blog! I love that. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, the guy definitely sounds like a narcissist who likes to listen to himself speaking. That said, I see interpreting it as a gender issue as just one possible explanation. Shouldn’t gender neutrality mean that it is only the message which is important, and not the gender of the messenger? Or the gender of the one to whom the messenger is responding? Yes, it was rude to address the young woman as “you, sorority girl”. However, why are you sure it was gender-based? The way I see that narcissist guy, he could as easily call a young man “a frat boy” for asking the same stupid question.
Next, in “we used to act (or behave?) like men”, “we” refers to the people of America. Men as in mankind. Yes, humankind is a more proper term. But there is no evidence the guy meant anywhere in his outburst that any part of America’s past mythical greatness came from women being pregnant barefoot and in the kitchen. Same goes about “we were informed by great men, the men everybody revered”. Again, there is no indication that those men were revered just because they were males, not for their merit. And if one wants to question that merit, this is fine, but this should be done using merit-related arguments, not their gender. Just as in the case of women.
And finally, “Yeah, Spain has freedom. Freedom from having a job.” is demagogy.
LikeLike
“Shouldn’t gender neutrality mean that it is only the message which is important, and not the gender of the messenger?”
– In an analysis of a text, everything is important.
“However, why are you sure it was gender-based? The way I see that narcissist guy, he could as easily call a young man “a frat boy” for asking the same stupid question.”
– I can only analyze the text that’s in front of me. Otherwise, no analysis is possible. We could just say, “Yeah, but Don Quijote could easily be not a 50-year-old Spanish man but a 12-year-old African girl.” He wasn’t, though. We can only work with the textual evidence we are given. I’m seeing an older men humiliating a younger woman and waxing nostalgic about the past when women wouldn’t even find themselves in college.
“Next, in “we used to act (or behave?) like men”, “we” refers to the people of America. Men as in mankind. Yes, humankind is a more proper term. But there is no evidence the guy meant anywhere in his outburst that any part of America’s past mythical greatness came from women being pregnant barefoot and in the kitchen. ”
– In the past he is yelping about, women were forced to be barefoot and pregnant. While men “reached for the stars”, women reached for the broom. And it is only his position as a middle-aged man that allows him to be oblivious to this. Imagine a white Southerner yelling like a hysteric at a young black kid asking him a question about 1950s. Imagine that white Southerner going into a rabid fit of hysteria about how great the country was then.
“Same goes about “we were informed by great men, the men everybody revered”. Again, there is no indication that those men were revered just because they were males, not for their merit. And if one wants to question that merit, this is fine, but this should be done using merit-related arguments, not their gender. ”
– Women could not have hoped to inform anybody of anything until very recently in this country.
“And finally, “Yeah, Spain has freedom. Freedom from having a job.” is demagogy.”
– And how about the argument that Spain is “more free” than the US?
LikeLike
—We can only work with the textual evidence we are given. I’m seeing an older men humiliating a younger woman and waxing nostalgic about the past when women wouldn’t even find themselves in college.
Agreed up to and including “…abut the past”. “When women wouldn’t even find themselves in college” is true, but it is not his text. If you are claiming you are analyzing his text – analyze his text.
—And it is only his position as a middle-aged man that allows him to be oblivious to this.
Or he thinks this is irrelevant for the discussion.
—Imagine a white Southerner yelling like a hysteric at a young black kid asking him a question about 1950s.
The girl did not ask him about the 50-ies.
—Imagine that white Southerner going into a rabid fit of hysteria about how great the country was then.
If his argument is “we were great because we reached for the stars”, not “because blacks knew their place” (or anything like that) – why does it matter if he is southerner, or white, or male?
—- And how about the argument that Spain is “more free” than the US?
“He did that first” is not really a serious argument. 🙂 🙂
Anyway, I do not care about that jerk. I am just trying to understand the whole idea of unwritten/unsaid text analysis based on the personality of the author/messenger. I always though one could only make conclusions about the personality of the author based on his texts, not attribute things author actually did not say based on the fact he is white/black, male/female, age, etc. Do you attribute certain thoughts or attitudes, which are never mentioned in the book, to Don Quijote just because he supposedly was a white Spanish nobleman?
LikeLike
“Agreed up to and including “…abut the past”. “When women wouldn’t even find themselves in college” is true, but it is not his text. If you are claiming you are analyzing his text – analyze his text.”
– “We reached for the stars” obviously refers to the Moon landing. When do you think the “glorious” past he describes happened? I date it as the 1950s-1960s.
“—Imagine a white Southerner yelling like a hysteric at a young black kid asking him a question about 1950s.
The girl did not ask him about the 50-ies.”
– Exactly. Yet he plunged into the nostalgic description of a wonderful mythical past immediately. Irrespective of how you date the past he refers to, what do you think women’s rights were like at that point in history? Were they in better or worse shape then now?
‘If his argument is “we were great because we reached for the stars”, not “because blacks knew their place” (or anything like that) – why does it matter if he is southerner, or white, or male?”
– Because the entire rhetoric of the glorious past and the subsequent decline we see today is only produced by middle-aged white guys. I have addressed such utterances many times on this blog and they always have the same source. I’m interested in the nature of that phenomenon.
“Anyway, I do not care about that jerk. I am just trying to understand the whole idea of unwritten/unsaid text analysis based on the personality of the author/messenger.”
– I know absolutely nothing about the author of this garbage and never mentioned him (or her.)
“I always though one could only make conclusions about the personality of the author based on his texts, not attribute things author actually did not say based on the fact he is white/black, male/female, age, etc.”
– I don’t see anything unsaid here.I’m analyzing the actual words of an actual character. As for the author, once again, I have no idea who s/he is.
LikeLike
—– Because the entire rhetoric of the glorious past and the subsequent decline we see today is only produced by middle-aged white guys. I have addressed such utterances many times on this blog and they always have the same source. I’m interested in the nature of that phenomenon.
It just occurred to me that the same kind of rant about the “glorious past” could be produced by (and I actually heard them from) Soviet communists. They also had “glorious past” involving reaching for the stars, fighting “moral” wars, being led by revered men, etc, etc. These statements not necessarily have much to do with the role of the women in that glorious past. (Unless, of course, you are willing to reconsider your belief that the SU was more progressive than the US in terms of gender equality… 🙂 🙂 )
—I’m analyzing the actual words of an actual character.
He did not say anything about women, good or bad. I mean besides calling the girl who asked him a question “a sorority girl”. It is YOUR projection (I admit, likely justified, but still a projection) that since he is a white middle-aged guy ranting about the past, his vision of the glorious past must also include discrimination of women. For a non-white person the primary projection might have been “jerk’s vision of the glorious past must include discrimination of people of color”, even though the jerk did not directly mention that either… and that non-white person might be right as well. But I have a hard time agreeing to call this kind of reasoning “analysis of actual words”.
LikeLike
“It just occurred to me that the same kind of rant about the “glorious past” could be produced by (and I actually heard them from) Soviet communists. They also had “glorious past” involving reaching for the stars, fighting “moral” wars, being led by revered men, etc, etc. These statements not necessarily have much to do with the role of the women in that glorious past.”
– Of course, the context of an utterance is always crucial.
“(Unless, of course, you are willing to reconsider your belief that the SU was more progressive than the US in terms of gender equality…”
– What do you mean, my belief? I don’t think that anybody can reasonably claim that there was a comparable percentage of housewives in the US and the USSR between 1917 and 1991. Or that women were banned from the leading Soviet universities.
“It is YOUR projection (I admit, likely justified, but still a projection) that since he is a white middle-aged guy ranting about the past, his vision of the glorious past must also include discrimination of women. ”
– I don’t think you can glorify a period in history without approving of everything that took place during that period. Say, somebody is telling you that the Third Reich was a phenomenal thing. Could you avoid reminding them that the low unemployment and very low crime rates of the Hitler era happened alongside of (and at the cost of) murdering crowds of people in concentration camps?
‘For a non-white person the primary projection might have been “jerk’s vision of the glorious past must include discrimination of people of color”, even though the jerk did not directly mention that either… and that non-white person might be right as well. But I have a hard time agreeing to call this kind of reasoning “analysis of actual words”.”
– That person would be completely right. If I’m not mistaken, the very first comment about this video on the youtube website addresses precisely the kind of racist bent of this nasty speech.
LikeLike
“- I don’t think you can glorify a period in history without approving of everything that took place during that period. Say, somebody is telling you that the Third Reich was a phenomenal thing. Could you avoid reminding them that the low unemployment and very low crime rates of the Hitler era happened alongside of (and at the cost of) murdering crowds of people in concentration camps?”
I’m of the very different opinion that it is both possible and necessary to distinguish between someone’s conceptions of a glorious past and the moral qualities of that past. This is absolutely imperative, because if we do not do this, we cannot distinguish between psychology and morality. These are absolutely two separate things, and I also hold that if they are conflated, one ends up at best with a distorted view of morality and the idea that people are either inherently good or inherently bad.
It is a core part of my philosophy to hold that people could enjoy and benefit from The Third Reich and that nonetheless, the regime was hateful and morally repugnant. It is false to say, “only the bad people found anything psychologically beneficial about The Third Reich”. You would spread “evil” too widely and make many boring, silly, or uneducated people retroactively to blame. I’m very much against condensing all sort of human foibles and inadequacies under the rubric of morality. That makes morality too demanding and impossible to attain within the context of historical time. One would have to overcome one’s lack of education, idiocy and/or contingency to be able to fully redeem history whilst it was actually happening.
It is far better to have psychology as one thing and morality as another, because that enables one to make a better moral critique of the kind of behavior shown in the video. Psychologically, the guy in the video is obviously depressed about something. Perhaps he misses a different sense of humanity, or indeed regrets a sense of losing male status. It may be entirely logical to miss one’s loss in status. He could be commended for psychological honesty in admitting his truth, rather than condemned for not acknowledging the wrongs of history. (Unfortunately, he himself falls into the stupid mode of conflating history with morality, which makes his whole rant ridiculous.)
I think there would be far fewer angry white men and far more intellectual development of thought if we could acknowledge that their psychological issues are valid and perhaps logical up to a point, but that psychological issues do not constitute morality. One has to consider the moral issues separately, without denying that various people have been hurt by a changing society.
In the same way we could say, “Feminism does not wish you harm. It doesn’t want to deny you your experiences, values of being. It just wants to open up your mode of being to an understanding that is more inclusive, because it is more just.”
Contrast this with, “Feminism sees you as evil, because you are historical oppressors.” This kind of rhetoric creates enemies, because it makes people feel that their subjective experiences somehow amount to evil.
LikeLike
I think that these character’s psychological issues are, indeed, very valid. He is going through andropause, a stage in one’s life that can be accompanied by many serious health issues. Unfortunately, most people neither recognize andropause for what it is nor consult medical professionals to assist them in handling it. It is only too often that the consequences of andropause are sold as some sort of an artistic expression. I find that very tiresome because the number of TV shows and movies that do nothing but illustrate andropause in very repetitive and uninsightful ways is overwhelming. I believe we would all be better served if we could just agree that andropause exists and that it is very serious. When a menopausal woman has a hot flash and behaves erratically, people are more likely to understand what is happening and see it as a legitimate medical issue. When the same thing happens to a man, though, very few people are even capable of catching the signs.
LikeLike
You could be right about that. I’m not sure I put much stock in the idea that biological changes can play havoc with the personality. More often, the changes one experiences can be used as an excuse to vent or to bring out parts of the personality previously hidden. I do believe humans are capable of immense self-control in almost all situations, so when they don’t show this, they are intending not to.
Apart from this, my way of looking at the world comes from Nietzsche, a moral philosopher.
LikeLike
“I’m not sure I put much stock in the idea that biological changes can play havoc with the personality. More often, the changes one experiences can be used as an excuse to vent or to bring out parts of the personality previously hidden.”
– Oh, I agree completely. The guy is acting irresponsibly and inflicting his issues on everybody else instead of getting them under control. I’m not excusing him in the least. But I’m trying to point out what is happening to people who see this hissy fit as some kind of a profound political statement.
LikeLike
Ah, yes. It didn’t strike me as a profound political statement, but rather as a way of conflating his psychology with broader moral issues, which is absolutely typical of Americans. Australians also make the same equation, albeit in a subdued manner.
I really do think morality and psychology need to be separated. My memoir is a psychological investigation of what happens when they are not.:)
LikeLike
In this particular video, I see neither morality nor psychology at play. The guy is upset that his demographic group is no longer holding the same supremacy as it did before, that’s all. He is absolutely right in that the times he saw as “great” are gone and will never return. In my analysis, I’m pointing out that both gender-wise and generationally I have no reason to identify with his angst. His loss is my gain and I’m happy my group has robbed him f some of his power.
LikeLike
Oh, well we disagree then. I think that your perspective is logical, but maybe in general–, and extrapolating from the video to take into account other disgruntled white males, is counterproductive.
I think we just see things differently. For instance, I also felt like him, and deeply lamented that what I thought was “great” would never return. That feeling went on for years. Then, I got deeper into psychology and history and reality, and when I embraced the sense that all of these were contingent, and far from being morally absolute, as I had been taught, the impossible thing happened: What I felt to be “great” actually returned to me. It was a weird thing, like a second birth. I went back to Zimbabwe, and it had actually become better. There was a mood of left libertarianism in the air, which had always been part of me, but would have been impossible to express in white Rhodesia. Communication had improved and everybody cracked a joke, or were really open with each other.
It became apparent that my sense of reality had been falsely informed by conflating morality with regimes and status. Those assumptions turned out to be largely wrong.
LikeLike
The difference between you and this character is that you did engage in an analysis of your position and reached some important conclusion as a result. In this episode, I see absolutely no attempt at analysis or reflection on his part.
LikeLike
No, I do agree he is an ape, and I thought I’d said so. Actually my point was that the reason there are so many apes could be because we conflate morality with subjectivity, which we shouldn’t. Personally, I was absolutely unable to analyse my position whilst I was doing that. The answer just kept coming up that I was evil — which I felt I wasn’t. I had to come to a point where I actually experienced history and subjectivity as contingent to get out of the moral bind and indeed to get beyond my fixation on a lost, glorious past.
LikeLike
It is YOUR projection (I admit, likely justified, but still a projection) that since he is a white middle-aged guy ranting about the past, his vision of the glorious past must also include discrimination of women.(valter07)
I think its called “confirmation bias”. For most people, their confirmation bias is always justified.
LikeLike
Titfortat: are you finally going to stop spamming this thread?
LikeLike
Because I call you on your confirmation bias its spamming? Ridiculous, but it is your blog, so ban me if you dont like it.
LikeLike
“Confirmation bias” is a completely different thing.
LikeLike
Did you see this stupid video where a climacteric guy is badgering a young woman and venting his resentment that things have grown worse for entitled middle-aged white guys now that uppity womenfolks dare to speak in public and, even worse, attend college?(Clarissa)
What the main character was trying to point out had nothing to do with the gender of the speaker or women in general. You projected that, as valter07 pointed out. That is classic “confirmation bias”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
LikeLike
“What the main character was trying to point out had nothing to do with the gender of the speaker or women in general. You projected that, as valter07 pointed out. That is classic “confirmation bias””
– You also misuse the word projection. The term you are looking for is “interpretation” or “reading.” In an analysis of a text, everything matters. The gender, the age, the race of the people who speak, their tone of voice, the exact words they use, the direction of their gaze, etc. Every text conceals a plethora of meanings and speaks in different ways to different viewers / readers. It is precisely this fascinating reality that makes my entire profession possible. If you are wondering whether my reading is informed by my gender, of course it is. That is not only normal but wonderful. Every work of art is the result of an encounter between an artist and a spectator. They both bring something of their own to the encounter. This is why there is no single “correct” reading of any single text.
I highly recommend a short story by Borges that illustrates this perfectly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Menard,_Author_of_the_Quixote
LikeLike
If you are wondering whether my reading is informed by my gender, of course it is(Clarissa)
I believe your interpretation is also informed by your ideology(feminism) which is why the confirmation bias is so blatantly obvious in my eyes and some other individuals too.
LikeLike
“I believe your interpretation is also informed by your ideology(feminism) which is why the confirmation bias is so blatantly obvious in my eyes and some other individuals too.”
– Please, stop using words without any understanding of what they mean. This adds nothing to the discussion. Of course, I provided a feminist reading of this video. This is self-evident. Why you think this is some great mystery that needs to be revealed, I have no idea. I’m glad that you and “some other individuals” manage to see something extremely obvious. Yip-dee-do. Can we move ahead now that we have cleared up this non-existent mystery?
At this pace, I will soon discover that these are just my opinions I;m publishing here.
LikeLike
Are you always right?
LikeLike
I said to somebody yesterday that you were capable of not spamming but now I’m seeing that I was wrong. So no, not always.
LikeLike
Nice. 🙂
LikeLike