Evil is evil. That's not "seeking an enemy" that is recognizing one that is already there. I have no problem with speaking with others and finding understanding, but I do not believe that this means that righteous denunciation is not also needed. They are all components of political discourse.

I guess motives matter. Do they assume they are experts because of their class? Their race? Their age? Or are they innocent know-it-alls? It's not really surprising to me that people do similar things for different reasons.

I think Solnit was focused on a more narrow behavior than "mansplaining" has come to mean. She was speaking about the experience of having someone whose manner implies not, "I want to impress you with knowledge," but, "I must cure you of your ignorance." She also talks about the assumptions of third parties - that…

Plenty of disagreements make lifetime enemies and rightfully so. An opinion that is cruel, callous, or stupid is not sanctified by being called a disagreement.

I have a good eye. I can see a church by daylight.

Fey's comment seemed pretty mild to me. What can anyone say if something this gentle "calcifies" them?

Fair enough then. I'm sorry I misunderstood. I do think the term has been overused to the point of obnoxious meaninglessness.

Possibly. Though I don't think it's fair to criticize someone who wrote an entire essay on the subject because other people grabbed a term she uses within the essay and went bonkers.

I guess I'm not seeing the nuance. If power is a basis for assuming expertise (and assuming the less powerful lack it), it almost logically follows that men would frequently pointlessly "explain" to women. It's an expression of the general sexism in our society. Which is exactly what she said in her essay.

I think too there's a difference between someone sharing something they are excited about and this:

I'd say the term has been used so widely and randomly that it's becoming meaningless but in the original narrower way she coined it, yes it's real.

But when a peer pointlessly explains something to you, why do they think they have the power in the relationship? In your example, they thought it because they were living within the dominant culture and assumed their way was the way to be. In hers, it's because, as men, the explainers believed they (being men) were…

Are we supposed to think Beth was right? My impression was that she's being duped by a father who barely cares whether she lives or dies.

Have you gone there to check? When I went to the site last night, it was prominently displayed so if you're seeing it nowhere on the site, it might not be available that way anymore.

In a can, tomato is best. But my grandma makes chicken soup from scratch and it is phenomenal. The real thing is super good.

Why We Fight? I had a video of that as a kid too. That, and World at War. Both very good.

An actor's performance is only one part of a tv show and this article is about the episode.

So we don't have criticism? Or the only form is: "do people enjoy it?" People enjoy (or have enjoyed) all sorts of morally repulsive things. Racist humor. Gladiatorial matches. Antisemetic propaganda.

Is the goal of the artist the only consideration? What if the artist refuses to share the goal? Or claims there isn't one? Or claims to have one goal but plainly has another (see propaganda)? Or died and never told anyone what the goal was?

Yeah. I'd definitely agree that Olympia is a much better example of her genius. Triumph of the Will is more of an exercise in tedium and conspicuous consumption.