It’d be ridiculous not to sympathise with women in academia using credentials as an antidote to mansplaining. Like, your input isn’t taken seriously because you’re a woman, well, here’s an objectively verifiable thing that says that actually your input should be taken more seriously than some rando’s. It’s very useful as a tactic.
However, I wish the message was less “shut up and listen, cause I have an advanced degree” cause I think that’s upholding a hierarchy of a different kind, and one that is also to some degree shitty.
And it’s really not the case that people who don’t have advanced degrees in my subject should just shut up and listen to me. Maybe there is also a difference between more body-of-knowledge heavy fields like the humanities and less body-of-knowledge heavy fields like physics. But to be honest, even physics is pretty body-of-knowledge heavy so I dunno.
what do you mean by body of knowledge heavy? cause physics seems really body of knowledge to me
Physics is much harder if you don’t know any of the things people learned before you, but you can re-derive the entire field from nothing in a cave if you’re comic-book super smart.
English Literature Criciticism is impossible if you don’t know any of the things people wrote before you. You can’t be smart enough to know what an author wrote 200 years ago.
Well, if you’re good enough at physics you could…
- If you wish to copy
- A library from naught
- You must first
- (shuffles deck)
- (reads card)
- …understand a timeless conception of physics that will let you create the four dimensional “universe crystal” containing everything that ever existed, then follow the angular sheer planes until you reach a frozen original of the library you wish to instantiate. A sufficiently skilled practitioner will not need to create a new universe crystal, but will instead realize they can just use the one they already exist in.