Clay Shirky does it again, or why pundits should stick to what they know.

So essentially, the blogosphere (recently a barren and lonely sphere indeed) has been buzzing like it's 2004 because clay shirky wrote a 'rant' about 'women' where he essentially...

(ahem, and when I say essentially I mean okay I skimmed because I find it irritating when people write stupid hella long blog posts that they don't bother to edit. It irritated me in 2004 and it irritates me even more now that I have managed to starve my attention span down to 144 characters in the service of finding reputable, readable journalism)

Anyways, Shirky is plus ou moin arguing that women don't put themselves forwards enough, and that's why there are more pundits like him, and fewer shrill gadflys with vaginas like me in the upper firmament of whatever, you name it, the government, NASA, the CIA, management at Walmart, elite terror cells in the middle of the Afghan dessert.

Regardless of context, Shirky suggests that if women were louder, promoted themselves, bullshitted a bit more (Apparently people with vageens don't lie on resumes. Why yes, that's why I call my snatch the truthometer) in short behaved like Shirky's no less stereotypical portrayal of 'men', we'd do a lot better for ourselves.

The argument fails not because what he says isn't provable (it's not). Nor because what he says doesn't take into account the larger context of misogyny and inequality that most women learn to negotiate early on (though it doesn't).

It fails because people aren't the same from context to context. The evidence he uses to support his points is largely anecdotal because when one tries to advance a thesis about how "women" or "men" do something, the generalization cannot in truth be extended to all women or all men. It's just impossible, you would never actually say, "all women lack arrogance" because someone would hold up a picture of Cleopatra and you'd be forced to go doh-p like Homer Simpson and hit yourself on the head.

So one has no choice *but* to use anecdote, the very subjectivity of which disproves the universal claims of the thesis.

But does that make Shirky stop and think, maybe I am talking some shit here, and maybe I oughter shut-up. No it does not. Because underneath all the anecdotes, his real argument is actually himself. "I am a success, I got here by talking a lot of shit, ergo women who want to be successful should learn to talk shit like me". What makes me so extra irritable, is that he genuinely thinks he is making a real argument. He can't even see how circular and annoying the logic, how indefensible the position.

*and worse yet, other people are supporting his belief by commenting on his post, or ranting about his rant, (like me yes in both instances), instead of ignoring it because it is actually kind of silly and ignore worthy*

What works for one person in one place, won't work for someone somewhere else. This is especially true where gender, a performative and subjective cultural construct that we all have to interact with to some degree is concerned.

Meh. I am going to go brush up my resume and lie some more about my qualifications, why would I tell the truth I'd only lose the job to some ass-hat who - oh no wait that's not what happened. I presented myself and my credentials honestly without lying or pumping myself up and I got the job of my dreams.

I must be the exception to the rule.