Academic Hate Mail

I think that is the hardest I’ve ever laughed at a CHE post/blog/essay/article. Well done, and thank you.

Just say, “Thank you for your feedback.”  TPlummer just wanted to be heard and acknowledged, something that most of us need/want from time to time.  It doesn’t cost you anything, doesn’t take more than a minute of time, and needs no psychological investment. 

Through parenting, I’ve learned much about that applies to collegial exchange.  I used to stress about my teenage daughter’s behavior–was her silence a symptom of her disdain for me, drug use, sexual misconduct?–when a friend, who had been through it all before with 2 teenage daughters, said, “99% of the time it’s not about you. It’s about her hair.”  While we do want to be vigilant, as parents and as professionals, for signs of trends that we may need to address, most of the time it’s something inconsequential.  TPlummer may have been cut off on the highway en route to the office, got the dregs at the bottom of the coffee pot, been dissed by the dean  in a meeting, and a surly student; then, feeling particularly impotent, read your essay and felt the need to make a mark.  Rather than give this incident more importance than it deserves, let it go, quickly and gracefully.

Art Linkletter wrote that when he received abusive mail with a return address, he returned the letter with a form letter explaining that he thought the addressee should know that some unbalanced person was misusing that name and address as a cover. He said the wonderful thing was how many thank-you letters he received.

I have read many of your pieces on S&W, and I must say I haven’t perceived them as arrogant or offensive.  I find them screamingly funny.  Perhaps the fault is simply in Mr. Plummer’s sense of humor.

Interesting commentary. Why do you assume that T. Plummer is male?

That’s hate mail?  The normal Lingua Franca interaction must be rather Victorian.

I don’t think that was hate mail either. I wonder if the blog author has ever worked in retail?

I ran into this conundrum after a recently published article.  I responded to the email attacks with how sad I felt that the author really had nothing better to do than berate me.  As this author said, usually I just stop reading if I’m not enjoying an article.  I don’t know what it is about the current human condition, except the permissiveness of the internet, that makes people think there aren’t real feelings attached to those they insult.  That is why I wrote back.  To make sure I got that through their head.  All except one apologized.  The other just complimented me on my use of the word “ad hominem”.  Some people see the error of their ways but never think you can win an argument with an ignorant person.

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2011/12/j-savaged-jews-women-and-mormons-at.html

I loved your post and here is the answer to your question.  Sorry about my doppelgänger, but she can be a mean one when she is sipping the vino. 

I’m not Claire.

In my experience, the term “mansplaining” isn’t itself a refutation of an argument, but a way to characterize that argument. A mansplanation can be factually correct while still being objectionable as a toxic derailment or example of exactly what we’re talking about when we talk about the patriarchy. An illogical argument may or may not be mansplaining, a mansplainer may or may not be deluded as to facts (though in the view of the responder who labels the mansplanation he is certainly deluded wrt his privilege). When a comment on a blog is dismissed as “mansplaining” that’s a statement that that form of discourse isn’t welcome in that particular space. The mansplaining statement may also be challenged on its merits of course, which addresses your concerns, but often feminists like other people choose to pick our battles and expend energy where it may do some good rather than on seemingly hopeless mansplainers.

The term is an acknowledgment that discussions like this don’t take place outside the patriarchal structures they critique but inside, and are often thoroughly infested with them. It’s like a historian of war attempting to write and theorize while actually on the freaking battlefield – a lot of good work can theoretically get done, but you have to dodge the bullets too and naming mansplaining is part of that.
 
Again, this is just my opinion and Claire, Historiann, Origami_Isopod or others may see it differently.

“Blogge”?

Jason, you can check out links at my pasture and at Trooper York’s place. 

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com

http://trooperyork.blogspot.com/

Once again history professor, you either are intentionally misconstruing what I write, or just damn stupid.

I never said you taught women’s studies, I asked if you learned to argue in such a dishonest manner in the women’s studies department (as a student.)

I would think a historian would be extra careful to quote people correctly, and properly present their arguments.

You seem to go out of your way to deceive your readers.

Have you ever heard of “hate speech” or ad homenein attacks?  And, what is your problem with scholars in “gender studies”?

Nothing is gained by having a discussion with the Althouse hordes who came over here, divebombing into threads and insulting people left and right. I was “Keshii” (changed my name to give up my anonymity) and had some legitimate questions to raise about this whole kerfluffle, but then you and others firmly demonstrated the reason why feminist bloggers have to  constantly deal with sexist hectoring, as if such insults are in any way part of a legitimate “discussion” or “argument.” 

Why all the hostility toward scholars in gender studies?  It doesn’t make sense.

Evidence before drawing conclusions?