This Tweet appeared recently. You can see my comment below it, and the 21st comment after that, which got over 200 “Likes”.
Dozens of tweets followed my “What nonsense!” tweet. Some, from men, were crass and insulting (You’re shit. Shut the fuck up moron), while women preferred joshing and taking the mickey. Just about everybody agreed I was mansplaining. For example, A tweeter called M commented:
This really is quite meta: a historical reference to mansplaining met by the the most peak of mansplainers ever imaginable.
While Raw posted this
I wrote more than 30 replies in 3 hours; a few were angry; many were ill considered; and many had mistakes (in one, I referred to Eleanor Marx as Karl Marx’s sister, for example); so I’m not pretending that I put my case coherently and cohesively and I’m not complaining about the reactions, either. I just want to state my case calmly here and make a couple of comments.
Louise Raw’s view
From the tweet, I judge Raw’s view to rest on the special status of Eleanor Marx. She was a Marxist scholar; she’d spent years working with Marx; she was chosen by Marx to carry on his work; and Marx entrusted her with the job of publishing the English version of Capital. In a famous quote (Florence, 1975) Karl Marx said “Tussy [Eleanor] is me”. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that the man who stood up at the end of her lecture and told her what Marx really meant knew better than she did what Marx meant. So the man is guilty of mansplaining.
Mansplaining is when a man explains something to a woman in a condescending or patronising way. If the man explained what Marx meant to to Eleanor in a condescending or patronising way, then he was mansplaining. But if the man offered an interpretation of some aspect of Marx’s work which contradicted Eleanor’s account, without stooping to condescension or patronisation, then he wasn’t mansplaining. The fact that he was talking to Eleanor Marx doesn’t mean that his remarks were necessarily condescending or patronising – or even wrong. Louise Raw gives no information about the man’s intervention, and without a reliable acount of what the man said and the way he said it, we can’t be sure he was mansplaining. Saying that the man “told her what Marx had really meant” could be seen as implying that he was being patronising & condescending, but Raw’s a historian – she should have supported her assertion of historical mansplaining with a reliable account of the man’s words and actions at the 1893 lecture given by Eleanor Marx in Aberdeen.
The False Claim: You say that the man knew better than Eleanor what Marx meant. Ergo: you’re anti-feminist.
Over 50 tweets had the same theme: I was called a “sexist”, “misongynist”, “old white man”, “woman hater” who “despised feminists”. The tweet from Audrey shown above says this:
So random man knew better what Karl meant than Karl’s own daughter who worked with him…. Were you related to that man by any chance?
Audrey puts words in my mouth and attributes completely false views to me. In no tweet did I say, or imply, that the man (now “random man” and perhaps my relative) knew better than Eleanor Marx what Marx meant, or question Eleanor’s expert status. But, never mind; the twisting of my words became an established “fact” from then on. Dozens of tweets supposed that I had indeed said that random man knew better, and, on that basis, accused me of bias and sexism. Today, this was posted:
That quote is not what I said; I don’t know where bb davey got it from; but there it is again: the false assumption that I had suggested that “random man” knew better.
A bit later Audrey says:
Yeah… How dare we thinking that a woman who is also his daughter would know better the subject she was working on?? We’re so silly Louise…. Aren’t we?
Ad Hominens or Gratuitous Insults?
Louise Raw’s tweets contained these remarks:
- (Geoff) is an heroic leftie whose politics are beyond question. As we know, loathing feminists & insulting women is no bar to this.
- (Geoff) doesn’t realise Eleanor Marx was one of the feminists he despises.
- (Geoff) sees no irony in getting furious with having HIS knowledge challenged whilst saying it was fine for a random dude to challenge ELEANOR’S
- (Eleanor) was absolutely Marx’s literary collaborator, as everyone acknowledges- apart from Geoff!
- (Geoff) came to us, calling us dummies and idiotic feminists, but is The Real Victim Here?
- Geoff likes to insult women whilst accusing US of ad hominems.
The Appeal to authority
Louise Raw says this: Karl Marx: ‘Eleanor IS ME’. He meant politically. So the mansplainer was doing the closest thing he could, after Karl’s death, to correct Marx himself on Marxism.
The actual quotation is ‘”Jenny is most like me, but Tussy (Eleanor) is me” (Florence, 1975, p. 57). I think it’s fair to say he meant politically, but to suggest that Eleanor Marx was the voice of Marx himself is surely taking things too far. Marx trusted his daughter to faithfully interpret hiis work, but that doesn’t mean she always did so. Marx died in 1883, and in 1884 Eleanor, along with other members of the Social Democratic Federation (SDF), including William Morris and Ernest Bax left the SDF and formed the Socialist League. It’s a mute point what Karl Marx might have advised. And it’s not sure whether father and daughter were entirely in agreement about sexual politics and the wrongs of the bourgeois family. In any case, while it’s perfectly reasonable to claim that Eleanor was a reliable source of information about Marx’s work – especially the later work, including Capital – that doesn’t mean she had – or should have had- the final word on all the myriad controversies and disagreements that raged in the 1890s about what Marx really meant, or that in her lecture that day she didn’t say anything that might be seen as offending the Marxist canon.
Here’s a tweet from Bygone (sic) Jim:
The pompous adage in the first sentence is followed by a completely unsupported criticism in the second. But my argument during the exchange, and now, more calmly here, is based on the first principle of critical thinking: Question everything: examine the logic of any assertion and ask for evidence; don’t believe what you’re told. In a polite exchange with Sue Lyon-Jones, she agrees that mansplaining is when a man tells a woman something she already knows in a way that is patronising and dismissive, and she thinks that Louise Raw’s tweet demonstrates that the man was guilty of it. Where’s the evidence? I ask. She replies:
Florence, R. (1975) Marx’s Daughters. Dial Press,