Bianca Steele

Okay, Now I Know what 'Mansplaining' Means

This is hilarious (h/t New Apps blog):

At a major conference I attended as a PhD student, I presented a paper on a fraction of my research in hybrid digital and human networks. As the panel concluded, an angry man approached me and accused me of “using” “his” work without citing him. Between the shouting and gesturing, I came to understand that he believed the only possible source of one of my presentation examples was his (unpublished) research. As a novice scholar, I was too stunned by the aggression and implicit accusation to do more than stand there. Eventually he stormed off promising to follow up. A few days later, he emailed me a citation of a forthcoming journal article he had co-written. In his email he insisted I either cease discussing the broad topic or refer to his work *whenever* I did. He also demanded I *never* return to that particular conference to engage in similar discussions. 

I also liked the post titled “Home Economics Is Roughly the Same as Electrical Engineering.”  I’ve actually had the contrary experience.  Someone on a listserv once took the time to e-mail me off-list to explain that when he thinks of engineering, what he thinks of is in fact EE, and that to him software engineering is more on a par, probably, with “domestic engineering”—which I suppose is basically home ec (rather than “social engineering” done by the NSA, as opposed to CIA, or something).  And then again it could have been a woman letting me know what the dominant male culture thinks of what I do for a living.  Really, it could have been. 

On the other hand, some people are just jerks.  I’ve heard similar behavior to some of this—a college junior saying, “if you want to know everything there is about cryptography, come see me, because I did a research paper on it last year,” announcing this to a whole room of undergraduate and graduate students, and at least 80% men.  I’m sure that in private women get a lot more of it, and unattached from any kind of friendly rivalry where the same would be expected in return.  But a lot will be new to people who haven’t thought about it before. 

Also this one.  I have to say, if I ran across that on the Internet (rather than a close friend on Facebook whose judgment I trusted in other things), I’d assume the guy was either mentally disturbed or a character in a Harry Frankfurt essay (that link only works sometimes for me, try this if it doesn't).  At least on Facebook you could ignore the guy, instead of feeling you had to defend your honor and reputation by refusing to let him get the best of you.

Canine Linguistics

At Language Log, commenter “anon” (who I'd guess is British) says:

Many years ago, some Army combat engineers tried to teach dogs to sniff out explosives. They taught the dogs to bark once for a land mine, twice for an unexploded bomb, and so forth. Unfortunately, when the dogs encountered explosives for which they had not been taught barking and growling patterns, the dogs ignored the explosives, and some of the dogs and their trainers were blown to bits.

The engineers concluded that the dogs' ability to detect explosives depended on the words for explosives in the dogs' language.

This is called the Sapper-Woof hypothesis.

(Explanation: here or here).

How out of touch are conservative pundits?

Here is a quote from ex-Bush speechwriter and GOP strategist David Frum (as told to Barron YoungSmith of The New Republic). He’s talking about Sarah Palin:

Here's a candidate who embodies and epitomizes not just conservative values but a conservative style. At the same time, she's a person who inspires very little confidence in her ability to run a modern government. Which of these things is more important to you?

Frum voted for the McCain/Palin ticket, and said he thought there was nothing to choose between Palin and Obama when it came to fitness for high office.  He's the most well known of those Republicans who criticized the Palin VP pick very harshly (as did his wife, Danielle Crittenden, at the Huffington Post), and he writes genial posts on occasion about the English and American novel, but he is the farthest thing from "nonpartisan" that can be imagined.

He and others are trying to find a new direction for “conservatism,” by which they mean the Republican party. To begin to see why they are unlikely to succeed, and why David Frum is not a good ally for those who might consider themselves to be “cultural conservatives” without strong ties to either party, try to answer the following questions:

1. What are “conservative values”?
        a) Values typically possessed by the mass of people who accept things as they are
        b) Opposition to values typically possessed by those who can’t rightly be considered part of
“the mass of people who accept things as they are”
        c) Values that derive from conservative institutions, such as Christianity, the writings that constitute “Western Civilization,” and the medical professions
        d) Values that my parents, grandparents, and teachers shared

2. What best characterizes a “conservative style”?
        a) “Of the people,” practical-minded, taking cues from the past
        b) Proudly defiant and defiantly anti-intellectual
        c) Calm, staid and dignified
        d) Reminds me of the most respected members of the community in which I spent the most time as a child

3. What would “inspire confidence in [a person’s] ability to run a modern government” or other large organization?
        a) Has worked in large organizations, had management positions within them, got things done effectively and reasonably efficiently, left behind a good reputation among other people in those organizations
        b) Knows everything without having to ask or to look it up, and doesn’t take no for an answer or let anyone push him/her around
        c) Good manners, conservative moral values, requires hard work from themselves and others, makes the bottom line a priority
        d) Reminds me of the people my teachers and past employers had labeled as having “leadership qualities”

4. Which set of answers would be given by
        a) Ramesh Ponnuru?
        b) Ross Douthat?
        c) Andrew Sullivan?
        d) David Frum?
        e) Leon Wieseltier?
        f) Jim Manzi?

5. Who can the GOP most easily do without?

6. Who is most likely to stick with the GOP no matter what?

7. Why do conservatives feel that “values” and “style” are appropriate criteria for choosing a president?

8. Who or what is responsible for the fact that global warming and obesity are considered partisan issues?
        a) Human nature
        b) Capitalism
        c) Secular humanism
        d) “Arrogant libruls always telling people what to do”
        e) National Review and rightwing talk radio

9. Who or what is responsible for the fact that “modern art” was long considered a partisan issue?

10. What is the difference -- if any -- between a policy argument and a strategy argument?

Also see this analysis from a civic republican point of view by Jim Sleeper at openDemocracy.

Trust But Confirm

Jan Freeman, in her language column in today’s Boston Globe, shares a complaint she’s been sent from readers: people asking us to “confirm” or to “verify” information when what they really mean is, “give me the information yourself.” Freeman’s answer: (nicely) get over it.

Of course if we just got over it, Freeman and other language writers wouldn’t have much to say. And it’s fun to bring up peeves. When I read the first paragraph of her column to my husband, he brought up his own -- that when you’re on a plane and about to land, the pilot says you are making your “initial descent.” Why an “initial” descent? Does the pilot envision that you’ll some of the time have to climb again and then start over?