If you read this post by fellow Madison blogger, Jenna Pryor. In it she accuses Lisa Subek, another blogging Madisonian of being misandrous. And on what basis does she make this claim? On the post entitled Ma(n)dison which is a laundry list showing the make-up of various city committees by gender. And men are the overwhelming majority. Knowing the lefty views that Ms. Subek holds, it is obvious that she is concerned about the disparity. Yet nowhere does Ms. Subek attempt to explain why there are so many more men than women on the committees nor does she offer a remedy. Still, the mere act of posting such a list to a blog is grounds enough for charges of misandry by Ms. Pryor.
In the comments section of Ms. Pryor's post, there are exchanges on both sides to be found, including ripostes by Ms. Subek. Note that Ms. Pryor does not dispute the statistics that appear in the blog entry. A commenter, Shane, asks: "Why do you think she hates men and how is her post sexist?" At this point, Ms. Pryor just avoids the question at all costs and says: "Shane, if you can't answer those questions yourself by reading her post, then nothing I can say will help you." What kind of nonsense is this? Curiously enough, I had the same exact question as Shane in my mind when I read Ms. Subek's post. What leap of logic is required to extrapolate misandry from a list of statistics?
After Ms. Subek replies quite pointedly, "And to clarify, Jenna, I do not hate men. I am concerned, though, about gender inequity in government, in the workplace, and in society in general...Perhaps you think we've achieved gender equality in this country, or perhaps you think it's unnecessary."
See how Ms. Pryor now builds a straw-man: "Lisa, would forcing Madison committees to include a majority of female members do anything to help your perceived 'gender inequality'"? For her next trick, she makes a declaration with absolutely no proof, as she did in stating that Ms. Subek was misandrous: "No. It would only serve to exacerbate the 'problem.'" Exactly how would the problem be exacerbated? And what problem is she talking about? If you perceive the problem to be that there are not enough women on the committees of city government, then forcing them to include a majority of female members would certainly be one remedy. It is also here that Ms. Pryor does a bit of wishful thinking. Ms. Subek offered no cause nor remedy yet Ms. Pryor either pretends to be a mind reader or makes assumptions about what Ms. Subek thinks. The former notion is ridiculous and the latter is untenable given the post at issue. Again, Ms. Subek makes no claims whatsoever as to a remedy so Ms. Pryor takes it upon herself to just make one up on her behalf.
Ms. Pryor goes on to make a hasty generalization and another unsubstantiated assertion: "Lisa, please open your eyes--Madison, of all places, would not be sexist when choosing members of committees. Most likely, most women have kids, and simply don't have the time to sit on a committee that men do." So, against all odds, the Madison city government has created a mini-utopia at city hall. How nice. And let's see some statistical data about how much time "most women" do or do not have for being on committees.
If you are like Ms. Pryor in being against gender quotas, that's fine. I'm not nor, based on Ms. Subek's post and comments, is she out to crucify you. But to place words in her mouth is ridiculous. Ms. Pryor came across to me as someone trying to head off "typical liberal arguments" at the pass. That is, if a liberal points out a gender disparity, then immediately start attacking quotas. Is it a common tactic amongst conservatives to go after a liberal for a position that he or she hasn't even taken?
I read Ms. Pryor's blog and, though she and I disagree much of the time, she always provided food for thought. But this is just a travesty of logic. I sincerely hope that she doesn't include wishful thinking and hasty generalizations in her papers at school.
No comments:
Post a Comment