I always find it nice when someone reads my work.
My articles present a skeptic’s view on the world of politics. I don’t believe dogmatism creates a productive dialogue, but I will acknowledge that we all have opinions whether we like to admit them or not.
I am writing this rebuttal because someone commented on one of my articles: “Shame on you for calling an experienced politician’s opinion a waste of time. Bet you wouldn’t say that if she were male. Mansplain at someone else.”
I felt horrible when I read this comment for two reasons. First, no one likes to receive any negative commentary on their articles. Second, if the commenter were to actually have read the article with an open mind, she would have seen that her annoyance was uncalled for. I am not sure she even read the whole article.
The article in question was titled “Hillary Clinton’s new book and why I won’t waste my time with it.” My argument was that Hillary Clinton’s new book tries to offer a definitive account of the 2016 election. The problem with this (if it isn’t obvious) is that there are more views and causes that were left out of the narrative. I went on to argue that all people, politicians included, should study history to learn some key lessons, maybe even some that will help them not lose elections.
I can understand where the commenter is coming from. If she merely skimmed the article, read it without an open mind or only read the title, she would get the impression that I think Clinton’s opinion is not worth taking into account. I absolutely think it is worth taking into account, but I also believe that we need to hear other accounts to get the full picture.
If the commenter were to have fully read my article and maybe even some of my past work too, she would realize her comment — that I wouldn’t criticize male politicians in the same manner — is completely ludicrous. She would realize that I criticize everyone, no matter what gender, sexuality, color or creed. In the past, I have criticized Bill O’Reilly, Donald Trump, congressional Republicans, congressional Democrats, Fox News, CNN and many more people and organizations. Experienced politician or not, they are open to criticism.
Another interesting point arises from her comment. During the election, some men who didn’t support Clinton were immediately labeled sexists. Yes, some men definitely did it for sexist reasons, but a good portion of the men who didn’t support Clinton did it because they had different political views or were nervous about Clinton as a candidate. I addressed this in the last paragraph of the article by acknowledging how Clinton’s ties to Wall Street and her patronizing manner towards young people.
You are not a sexist if you disagree with a woman. You are a sexist if you think their opinion shouldn’t be acknowledged.
This last point is where this commenter may have thought I was saying that Clinton’s opinion was not worth acknowledging. The waste of time mentioned in the title is not because Clinton’s opinion is not worth acknowledging, it is because it is an incredibly biased opinion that doesn’t take other views into account.
I actually agree with most of Clinton’s opinions on why the election turned out how it did. But I did not say this in the article because it was not essential to my thesis. By saying it I would be relinquishing my allotted skepticism and would appear dogmatic.
It is easy to hide behind comments. It is easy to be dogmatic and close yourself off from conflicting viewpoints. The people in our social media communities often affirm our views, and when they don’t, we often unfriend them. However, you can’t just call everyone you disagree with a sexist, communist, racist, snowflake, etc.
If you want to tell someone why you disagree with them, argue with them in a constructive manner. If the commenter were to have actually made an argument about why I was wrong (in her opinion) then this rebuttal wouldn’t exist. We are here to learn from each other, not to alienate each other.
