This Crackpot and These Women

[woodwardiocom]

-The fifth episode of the first season of The West Wing is titled "The Crackpots and These Women". The first part of the title is not relevant to this post; the second part comes from a conversation near the end of the episode. The staff are gathered to enjoy the president's chili, and are all talking in little groups. President Bartlet quietly says to Josh and Leo, "Just look at these remarkable women," and goes on to talk about the strength and beauty and intelligence of the women in the room, of C.J. and Mandy and Mrs. Landingham and Donna.

-I know how he feels.

-Every day I look around at the women I know, and am astounded. I look at the women I love, the women who are my friends, even the women I don't know that well, and I am constantly in awe of their beauty and intelligence. Of their wit and style and passion. Of their wisdom and kindness and grace. And I am constantly amazed that I am privileged to know them and be part of their lives. My luck astonishes me anew every day.

-Thank you.

Comments

[asciikitty.livejournal.com]

Sorry about the pre-coffee gender studies wanking. Had I known, I would have brewed you a pot! =)

thanks! :)

I commented on "missing the point" because... I believe that the one discussion wasn't helpful to the other. Jon says "shiny!" Wex says "you can't say that!" Jon says "but it's true!" etc... it's like... cookies and artichokes*. both very lovely, and useful, but when one wants cookies, one doesn't want artichokes (and the other way around.) it has gone sideways, into a meta-conversation about the converation we're having, but that's how these things work. and heck, it's more entertaining than my knitting...

(a note to your timeline though - Wex commented that Jon was missing the point before I felt the need to jump in. and I'm having fun, arguing gender politics.)

*apples and oranges are terribly similar, see....

[drwex]

I believe that the one discussion wasn't helpful to the other

Thus my attempt to bail, perhaps a bit belated, but still.

Jon says "shiny!" Wex says "you can't say that!"

*sets fire to your strawman*

I said nothing of the sort. I recognize you're still being flip, but let's keep to what I did say. I'm sure I provide enough ammunition on my own.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

-Hey, I'm back.

I said nothing of the sort.

-You said, directly or through clear implication, that my post was "sad", that it compared women to "dancing bears", that it was "problematic", "sad" again, "not worth" doing, and that posting it made me a poor feminist.

-The message I got was, "Jon, I think your post has sexist overtones, and it would have been better if you had not made it." You believe in freedom of speech, so you wouldn't come right out and say, "You can't say that," but you are attempting to convince me through argument to never say it again.

[asciikitty.livejournal.com]

yes. that's what I meant.

[drwex]

*hands asciikitty back her shovel*

If that's really what you think of me then I'm clearly better off not participating in this discussion.

[asciikitty.livejournal.com]

taking this to email

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

If that's really what you think of me then I'm clearly better off not participating in this discussion.

-If you were not, in fact, saying, "Jon, you shouldn't make posts like that," then you grossly misspoke, and I welcome your clarification on how you actually feel about my post.

-As for what I really think of you, I think you're a great, intelligent, kind guy who occasionally puts his foot in his mouth. And now you're trying to decide whether to chew, spit, or say, "What foot?"

(Well, more like, "Wha' 'oo'?" but you know what I mean.)

FWIW . . .

[rigel.livejournal.com]

I did not interpret drwex's initial comment to be directed at you. Despite beginning with, "While I sympathize with your gynophilia," which I consider a supportive statement, at no point does he reference you in the comment at all. I think the "while" may confuse the initial comment, however, leading it to seem more as though the whole thing is related to you.

He then mentiones "we (society)," leading me to connect the rest of his comments to opinions of society as a whole. There is the possibility that one could read, "I wonder if it's not just a bit of a "dancing bear" phenomenon to point out womens' excellence in particular," as being directed specifically at you, but again, I took it as a societal comment.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

I did not interpret drwex's initial comment to be directed at you.

-It's a comment in my LJ, on one of my posts, deriving from the content of that post. If he did not intend for it to be about my post (and I admit there's ambiguity either way), he has done an extremely bad job of communicating that.

[rigel.livejournal.com]

I can agree that drwex made a noticeable communication gear shift without a clutch, which likely adds to the feeling of unhelpfulness and the belief that he was talking about woodwardiocom the whole time. I didn't, however, perceive him as making a judgment about J. in specific nor stating he couldn't speak as he wished.

And you're right, W. did comment that J. was missing the point. Sorry for the omission; I focused on when people jumped in, and may have missed your point about why you jumped in.

[asciikitty.livejournal.com]

And I would like to state for the record (and here is as good a place as any) that not only am I overreacting, but I'm aware that I'm doing so. I'm just not really sure WHY, and I think that means it's time to sit with it for a while.

[tikvah.livejournal.com]

I don't think you've overreacted. I think that you're allowed to say that you enjoyed the compliment, and you didn't appreciate the compliment being analyzed to the point of sterilizing it.

I like rigel's comment about the communication gear shift without a clutch (an expression I will now have to borrow in the future, with appropriate credit, since I am often guilty of the same kind of shift).

woodwardiocom's comments were very specific to a group of people in his life. He wasn't trying to make social commentary beyond the context of that group. However, social commentary certainly could be extracted and analyzed in the way that drwex perceived it and responded to it. Since that was not want woodwardiocom had in mind, and since it was not what you perceived it to be, drwex's observations removed the layer of affectionate emotion in the initial post, and threw over it a layer of general interpersonal gender discussion.

That's always unfun. I can say this because I immediately saw the same thing in the original post that drwex did, but the difference is that I also saw woodwardiocom's intent, and from what little's I've gotten to know woodwardiocom, I have not seen him objectify women (other than the hard-wired reaction of "ooh, yum" that every single straight guy I've known tends to have to some degree toward women he finds attractive), so I had no desire to get into a discussion of the deeper sociological issues - precisely because I could see this exact sort of snafu as the most likely response.

[mizarchivist]

You rock my socks with the linguistical translations. If ever I need a mediator, I want you.

[rigel.livejournal.com]

Wow. *blush* Thank you. I do far better when I have a written trail to follow from, rather than my own incredibly spotty memory. I may have also been having an "on" day.