A remarkably lengthy comment recently failed to make it through moderation here at Hathor. I thought it might be fun to post it here and take it apart, but as I was researching some of its “points” I discovered – it’s already all over the web. Rather than post the content here and give him the attention I suspect he craves, I’ll just link to it in a forum.
Note how he gets ignored, because he’s bizarre and lecturing – not interacting with people. Then as people talk amongst themselves, he takes that as a direct response to him (it’s not) and responds in kind. This isn’t a case of poor social skills. This is someone with such a low emotional IQ he doesn’t even realize he needs social skills to engage in discussion. Given that he’s clearly a dedicated misogynist going to much trouble to twist facts and fiction to “mansplain” to the whole world how men are superior to women without having the slightest clue how to talk to people, he’s probably a narcissist who figures everyone should just go wide-eyed at his brilliance the moment they come in contact with his words.
Did I mention he’s a plagiarist? Yeah. The comment appears to be cobbled together verbatim from a number of sources, like this one by Charles Murray, author of “The Bell Curve” attempting to defend his debunked work (see here and here, too). Even Murray acknowledges the question of nature v. nurture in passing (“The question is whether the social and legal exclusion of women is a sufficient explanation for this situation, or whether sex-specific characteristics are also at work”) before devolving into a blithering of old data (since contradicted) colored with his opinions stated as fact (students are more likely to hear about Curie than Einstein? Really?). Another source for this commenter (the stuff about how men improved on childbearing) is this essay, which is also crap.
It’s almost but not quite amusing to receive a lecture on my gender’s inherent mental inferiority from someone who has the intellect of a copy machine.
He also left the comment here, prompting the author to quote it in a comment herself for discussion. Another commenter responds: “He’s stopped by our blog in the past to “correct” us. Don’t lose any sleep over it. He’s a lune!” The author then sends his comment to some classical radio stations for their thoughts. One of the responses: “Mr. Petrella’s email is, to be kind, lacking in intellectual rigor. I think if you survey our playlist on any given day, you’ll see that we feature a broad range of women as instrumentalists, singers, composers and conductors. It would take a lot of effort not to.”
We got the comment in response to If anything makes women hate men, it’s not feminism: it’s patriarchy, an article which explains how it’s not feminism that pits women against men, it’s patriarchy. We actually have articles where his, uh, response might have seemed almost relevant, but those aren’t the ones he chose. Maybe he’s so busy being superior at abstract reasoning that plain concrete rationality confuses him.
I guess this means we’re doing our job, fellow e-equality activists.