Dr. Jane Clare Jones seems like a nice, intelligent person, but my tweet about the ethos of the Intellectual Dark Web prompted a strongly negative response and this chain of exchanges:
Dr. Jones replied:
I responded, as did she:
And with a helpful clarification that she also disagrees with the authoritarian Left:
Me on the power/oppression issue:
And whether it’s about Jordan Peterson in particular:
On classical liberalism’s analysis of human identity and power:
Out comes the résumé and a shift to feminism’s relation to liberalism:
My replies to those two points:
And a follow-up from me on what seems to be a rhetorical and psychological similarity between Identity Politics and Religious Fundamentalism:
She informs “Dude” what she hears him saying:
In almost-closing, “mansplaining,” “saturated with power,” “ad hominem” and “faux-victim” barbs are exchanged:
And then a barrage of tweets from Dr. Jones ending with this:
Posted as representative of how discussion even among academics can go, even on an open and neutral forum like Twitter.
If one engages with Dr. Jones on the Twitter feed, please be civil. I say that because we all know how easily misinterpretations and emotions can get out of control.
Nice temper holding. I see you and the IDW team as our Virgil’s. We are like Dante, along for a guided tour and a lesson in the ways of the world.
Reply
Thanks for sharing this, Stephen. I’m so glad you remained civil and on point -and, man it can be hard when emotional, accusational “experts” engage as she did.
Reply
One’s enemies only attack when you start to succeed. Keep up the good work.
Reply
I was fascinated how she kept emphasizing how exasperated she was with the idw, you, and the whole conversation. As if that emotion was actually a part of her argument. I see this as a crucial negative result of the destruction of academic standards that went into overdrive during the 1960s. I’ve read many postmodern papers that advocate, in jargon-laden terms, for “non-logical” forms of argumentation. The idea being that logic is part of the patriarchal attempts to control women’s power.
Reply
Entropic ebola.
Reply
Just encountered her, thanks for this, it has helped me be careful and not get sucked into a random argument.
Reply
Yep, you really were mansplaining there. It’s a familiar pattern for any woman who knows anything about a particular field, let alone a doctor of philosophy. Thing is, women who engage in any kind of debate can expect one of two likely outcomes – overt abuse, of the kind mentioned in JCJ’s first tweet, or what you’ve done here, which is to play the calm, rational and slightly-bewildered-at-women’s-irritation-with-mansplaining average joe, all the while being a patronising mansplainer – and I’m pretty sure you’re well aware of what you’re doing; if not, consider this as a kindly-meant attempt to educate you. Rare is the occasion, in my experience, on which a man will actually engage sincerely with a woman’s perspective.
Reply
Thanks for the womansplaining, Sorcha, or whatever the touchy feminist version of that phenomenon is. If actually being “calm” and “rational,” as you describe me in discussion, isn’t good enough — then perhaps that says more about your biases than the social facts on the ground.
A question about being willing to “actually engage sincerely with a woman’s perspective”: Do you know who my favorite philosopher is? Or my favorite philosopher of education? Or my favorite philosopher of science? You might think about doing some homework before making accusations against particular individuals. Otherwise, you’re adding ignorance to bias.
Reply