Clik here to view.
“A lady on the internet had a Thought about a Thing! THIS ANGERS ME DISPROPORTIONATELY!”
Clik here to view.
“AND FURTHERMORE, she used a critical tone when speaking about the thing, which happens to be a Thing That I Have Strong Opinions On!“
Clik here to view.
“HOW DARE THAT BITCH TALK SHIT ABOUT A THING I LIKE AS IF SHE HAS ANY AUTHORITY!”
Clik here to view.
“Actually, as a professional evolutionary biologist, I’ve got the authority to call bullshit on your claim that ‘humans will stop rape once we all evolve beyond sexual reproduction.’ So far, there has been no evidence to suggest the existence of an inherent biological drive to rape, and further, evolution simply doesn’t work that way. You’re really quite wrong, and you’re coming across as frightfully ignorant.”
- Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
- “OH YEAH, WELL, EDUCATE YOURSELF”
- Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.“Also, how dare you accuse me of being sexist.”
Thanks, Guy from 12 Angry Men! Thanks, Smokin’ 1920s Lady Chemist! (I love your shoes. Call me.) You have provided a fantastic demonstration of testostifyin’.
What are some examples of testostifyin’?
- Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.“YOU STUPID IDIOT, SEXISM IN POPULAR MEDIA IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE KING ARTHUR ISN’T REAL!”
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Yesterday I got a pingback on my blog, so I went to check it out. On a blog called The Passive Voice, fans were discussing that feature Foz Meadows did on overlooked women, POC, and queerfolk in history and legend. Because Foz is nice, she cited my post on “Knights of Color” in her feature. Anyway, this guy, Richard Forrester from Birmingham, had a problem with both of us. The quote he starts with is a sentence of mine:
“Never mind that no less than three Arthurian Knights of the Round Table – Sir Palamedes, Sir Safir and Sir Segwarides – are canonically stated to be Middle Eastern”
Canonically stated? Way to confuse history with fiction. Sir Palamedes, Sir Safir and Sir Segwarides were fictional characters, appearing first in the Tristan poems then reinvented by Mallory; both works of fiction. There is no evidence for their historical existence, nor for that matter is it likely Arthur existed. Robin Hood too for that matter.
This whole article is nonsense. European history is full of powerful female figures, Joan of Arc, Boudica, Queen Elizabeth I, Mary Queen of Scots, in fact you can go all the way back to Helen of Troy and Cleopatra to find powerful female figures. The same is true of non-white historical figures: The Moors, Moguls, Mongols, history books are full of them.
Yep. There you have it: “STUPID WOMENS! THERE IS NO SEXISM IN FANTASY LITERATURE BECAUSE KING ARTHUR ISN’T REAL. Also, there were at least six women in history, so this article is nonsense [train of thought needed?]“
…
Right.
Anyway, when I saw this, it blew all other blog-post-ideas out of the water, because it is such a sparkly example of a wild testostifier in his natural habitat: getting overemotional and wildly offended, while lacking the facts and getting everything spectacularly wrong. I thought it would be a really useful test case to demonstrate how to spot a testostifier in the wild. Perhaps something like a birdwatching guide!
(Another lovely example of a testostifier was the remarkable Brian, who took offense at my statement that “culture, rather than nature, dictates beauty ideals” and proceeded to write 400 words scolding me “because culture – RATHER THAN NATURE – dictates beauty ideals!” Sadly, he hasn’t come back.)
What is testostifyin’?
If you are a gentlemanblogger with wildly progressive opinions, or a ladyblogger with any sort of opinions at all, you are sure to cross paths with someone who takes offense with your opinions. These characters feel very sensitive and defensive about something that you’ve said. Further, they think it is your responsibility to take ownership of their feelings - even though most reasonable people would not take offense with your work. Under the weight of this onslaught you are expected to crumble, to apologize, to STFU.
Instead, you, the gentleman-or-ladyblogger, will be left asking yourself, “Quoi the fuck?”
You’ll spot testostifiers coming out in force when you criticize things that they identify strongly with. Critiquing popular media like Game of Thrones or The Hobbit will bring out hordes of fans who insist that the media in question is perfect, and anyone who criticizes it is stupid; they’re reacting this way because they believe that liking Game of Thrones is a huge part of their personality, and anyone who talks about racism in the show is calling them racist. Another dead horse is evolutionary psychology – point out a flaw in their favorite pop-sci theory, and the testostifier believes that you are personally attacking him. Talk about how you distrust men, and a furious man will assume that you are talking about how much you hate him – and he will attack you accordingly.
Why is it called testostifyin’?
To testify is to bear witness; it’s a Latin word that shares its root with testicles. The original meaning of the word testify was based on “the act of swearing upon one’s testicles.” This is annoying, since people with all kinds of genital configurations can swear in a court of law, and honesty has nothing to do the presence or absence of testicles.
Clik here to view.
This gif demonstrates how to testify.
The use of “mansplain” can be a problematic term, since it can be gender-reductionist and can make male-identified dudes feel bad, but it also has some value as a term to clarify privileges in communication (see also: whitesplaining, straightsplaining, and general ‘splaining.) This comment, posted on the article “Why You’ll Never Hear Me Use The Term Mansplain,” is in line with my feelings:
Basically, it all boils down to “do we use this concept as a tool for exclusion, or one for the discussion of privileges”?
Unlike ‘splaining, which is where a privileged person talks over a non-privileged person, testostifyin‘ comes from a place of defensiveness: the privileged person equates “general critique” with “a personal attack,” and thus responds disproportionately.
Can those without testicles testostify?
They can and do!
Dr Frack-Land, a geophysicist friend, is regularly pestered by lady-testostifiers who are enraged that he supports sustainable fracking. They write furious letters to local newspapers, questioning his credentials. There is absolutely no reasoning with them, even if you speak their language (“The author of the Gaia Theory supports sustainable fracking as the best way to harvest clean renewable energy from the bountiful bosom of Mother Earth!”) They have unanimously decided that Fracking = Evil, Therefore Dr Frack-Land = Evil Government Plant Sent By Martial Aliens. Nothing can be done about this.
To his credit, the good Doctor has remained a gentleman and a scholar and has not taunted them by unzipping his skin to reveal the evil velociraptor lurking inside.*
* Note: Dr Frack-Land is not a velociraptor.
Basic Anatomy of Testostifyin’
Testostifiers are hard to deal with because they deny you the authority to speak, yet they themselves get everything wrong. In this study case, I don’t believe Forrester actually read Foz’s article, or my post, and is therefore reacting without having all the facts. This is a common opening gambit, and it’s rather disarming! How can you argue with someone who’s making up what you’re arguing about? On what ground can I logically engage with someone who dismisses my entire research article because he thinks I believe in King Arthur?
Clik here to view.
Perhaps we could fight a duel on the moon?
In our study case, Forrester is reacting this way because he feels an emotional investment in his part. Testostifiers react on an emotive level, rather than approaching debate logically; first they decide that you’re wrong, then they try to find evidence of this.
Why is this? Well, the article, and the extracts our subject has read of it, discuss the idea that the lack of historical female heroines is probably due to biased record-keeping rather than lack of female motivation. The tone may place some readers on the defensive, because the class they belong to is being blamed for something. Further, the extracts play up the political side of Foz’s article – the assertion that politically powerful people (in this case, comfy white guys) have ignored or erased the historical contributions of those who were politically marginalized.
Here, therefore, is the emotive train of thought.
An uncritical reader typically reacts by reading this as “Comfy white dudes are racist and sexist?!”
They then go on to think, “But I am a comfy white dude!”
Then, “Racism and sexism are bad things!”
“But I am not a bad person!”
“Well, then, I simply cannot be racist or sexist, and nobody who is like me can either.”
“Clearly, this person is WRONG! And everything they wrote is also wrong.”
“Now I just need to find out how they’re wrong, and I’m not a bad person. Whew! What a relief!”
This is the basic process that is common to all testostifiers. In Brian’s case, it was something like:
“Elodie says that there’s nothing inherently wrong with fat people…
but I don’t want to fuck fat women!
But Elodie’s saying that viewing fat people as less-than-people is bad!
Since I’m not a bad person, Elodie is clearly wrong.
I know this because of the supporting evidence of my boner.”
Keep an eye out for this train of thought! It’s a gut reaction, pure and emotional, provoked by the belief that you’re attacking the testostifier in some unjust way. If you can spot this train of thought, lay down your weapons; there’s no fight to be had here. Your Earth Logic will not reach the testostifier; their anger comes from the Imaginary Moon of Insecurity.
Fixating on a single piece of vocabulary is another common derailing tactic of the testostifier. In our study case, the poor gentlemen has gotten terribly offended about my use of “canon” to refer to… well… the Arthurian canon. (“Canon” is a phrase used to include a body of literary or religious work, and I used it correctly here.) I don’t know why testostifiers think that we can’t use words?
Clik here to view.
“SIX WOMEN! SIX WOMEN IN HISTORY! ARE YOU NOT SATISFIED?!”
The testostifier denies you, the writer, the authority to speak on the topic that you love; he gives himself authority because he’s read “history books.”
And he usually expects you to be impressed with the length and depth of his classical education, sad to say.
Clik here to view.
Engaging With the Testostifier
The testostifier usually responds to your perceived attack on them by violently attacking you – and that can be tough to deal with. There you are, innocently writing an article about Tolkien or shale-gas extraction, and suddenly someone’s on your blog howling insults at you and possibly getting their friends to join in. They’re implying that you’re stupid and unfuckable and that your university degree is scrawled in crayon on the back of a damp beer mat. Surely you should respond, right?
Well, no.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Because of their defensiveness, they are usually too emotional to engage in rational argument.
I try to remember the advice given to me by a sage old mentor with an English accent. “People who attack your work on an emotive level cannot be reached by logic. They are being reactive; they are speaking from their visceral feelings, feelings you cannot argue with or change. You cannot have a productive debate with them. In some cases, it is dangerous to try.”
What he meant is that people who fundamentally disagree with your scientific research may try to bomb your car, but I think the point stands when discussing things on the Internet. In some cases, it’s dangerous to try. In all cases, you can’t argue with how people identify themselves. You can provide evidence for one thing or another, but people’s identities are their own business. You can’t tell a person what their sexuality is; you can’t tell someone to stop idolizing horrible people; you can’t argue with deeply held beliefs. That’s why they’re beliefs.
Unfortunately, this means that the testostifier doesn’t get much education from your work. In the study case, Robert Forrester doesn’t decide to read more about the role of marginalized people in history: he decides that “only racists or sexists care about this stuff,” and therefore he doesn’t have to learn any more, because he isn’t a bad person. In fact, it would go against his principles to add another interesting historical woman to his roster of six.
It’s also possible that Forrester’s emotional issues stem from the fact that he’s from Birmingham, a sad city ruled by savage fog and giant crabs, where hope is a thing long-lost and all the remaining cats have been eaten. But I won’t testostify about Birmingham here: see, instead, this Guide to British Cities for Foreign People. In the end, we cannot judge the people who come from Birmingham; we can only strengthen our walls against them, and commit our souls to the Light.
I’m a testostifier; what should I do?
Well, first, recognize that you’re not being the Tower of Logic that you think you are – you’re a Swamp of Emotion and Steaming, Irrational Anger. This is not very high moral ground to occupy. Like any well-cultured person, you should recognize when you are being emotionally triggered, and handle yourself accordingly. It is perfectly fine to be angry, passionate and emotional in discussions, online or in real life, but you’re simply coming across as aggressive and reactive. You’re trying to shut down the debate because of your hurt feelings; no wonder you’re not welcome!
You might try learning to have a conversation. In the long run, it will serve you well. I’ll direct you again to this interesting column in Bullish Life; pay particular attention to the author’s example of a productive debate between two women.
No one interrupts anyone. Harris-Perry says, “As an academic, I love nuance.” Eltahawy acknowledges that her goal in talking about oppression against women in the Muslim world is to “go for the jugular.” Ahmed argues against giving fodder to people who simply hate Muslims. Around the 17 minute mark, things get a little heated. Eltawhy is speaking and Ahmed says, “Can I just give you an example of some of the complications?” Eltahawy says “Sure, please!”
I mention the actual arguments in this debate to point out that EVERYONE GETS TO SPEAK IN COMPLETE SENTENCES. Can you tell me somehow that this is inferior to a bunch of men shouting at and interrupting each other? It isn’t.
Instead of howling each other down, the women say things like “I see what you mean, but have you considered X, Y and Z?” I forget where I read this, but I learned somewhere that even when women are disagreeing with each other, they tend to try and continue the conversation by saying things like “Yes, but…” While men are more likely to shut down the entire block by saying “NO, BECAUSE.” One continues the debate, the other stops it.
Finally, dudes, it’s not the end of the world if people call something you like racist, or sexist, or anything else that you recognize as a Bad Word. For all you know, you could be. Everyone’s got unexamined privileges, and everyone can learn about these and start fixing them; if you need to start this work, wouldn’t you rather hear about it now from an Internet stranger than your future boss?
There are lots of benefits to enriching your life perspective. Forrester, for example, appears to be an author. Maybe I’ve been a bit hard on him, but he’ll surely benefit from improving skills like critical reading and literary analysis. Learning to recognize things like racism and sexism in Western history and popular media improves your ability to appreciate the perspectives and experiences of others, which is a valuable way to form relationships, network, and generally improve your life. Plus, Forrester’s outright dismissal of things he doesn’t like (“This is nonsense!”) shows that he would do well to work on his empathy. Empathy is a great thing for a writer to possess; otherwise, the only world you can build is a pale shadow of the rather limited one that you live in, and the only characters you can create are thinner versions of yourself. Angry Birmingham Writer Stumbles Angrily Around Fog-Land Where There Are Only Six Women In History. Who would want to read that book?
In conclusion, why would you testostify when you can learn, instead?
Filed under: Blogging, Classical Education, Debunkery, Society Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
