|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Hi all! I'm going to talk about silencing today. It's come up in the thread a bit, since it's pretty common and widely experienced, but I figure I can give a bit more of a 'theoretical' perspective to it. What is silencing, you ask? I'm seeing the right co-opt that term (along with other terms like safe space) and claim that they are being "silenced" when people criticize their hate speech or protest against rapists like Roosh V coming to campus. It's important to remember that silencing is not "Milo doesn't get to be on television" or "a woman told me to shut up and not bring my stupid opinions and poo poo all over a women's space" Content, people. We need content, otherwise it's going to be all trolls and drama all the time
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
stone cold posted:How tedious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:16
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Defenestration posted:This is a good post, thanks Ghost of Reagan Past. Yeah, that was a very good post. This co-opting of terms is extremely distressing, but I hadn't seen it come up for safe space yet. How has the right-wing been using that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
stone cold posted:When the question was prefaced by "this is an impossible question" and "please tell me what feminism is today" that's not acting in good faith, that's an idiot man coming here and wanting us to do his homework for him. You have a fairly decent FAQ in your OP. In cases of doubt I think "Read the OP" is a decent response. There's not really anything leading a troll can counter that with, right? At least more productive than "get out". I realize this sounds like tone policing. I'm not asking you to spare anyone's feeling. It's a simple choice between whether you want discussion to happen here on a long-term basis or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Yeah, that was a very good post. In common parlance "silencing" means "preventing from speaking", of which "being either intentionally or unintentionally shouted down" is at best a minor subset. I suspect it's more that the new right are full of hypersensitive whiny idiots unthinkingly claiming to be silenced than actively going out of their way to co-opt the term.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:You have a fairly decent FAQ in your OP. In cases of doubt I think "Read the OP" is a decent response. There's not really anything leading a troll can counter that with, right? At least more productive than "get out".
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Yeah, that was a very good post. And I don't think there's a substantive difference whether they're co-opting the term by 'accident' or as a coherent effort. Lord knows there's little the misogynist right can do as a coherent effort that isn't "harass, abuse, and complain about women" I highly recommend We Hunted the Mammoth for a thorough mocking of the latest in the manosphere. http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
A humble suggestion for anyone going down the rabbit hole of the manosphere, especially on YT - please do it incognito. Your recommendations will thank you. Anyone have favorite podcasts/YT channels? Kristi Winters is consistently on-point and I will never not namedrop her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:A humble suggestion for anyone going down the rabbit hole of the manosphere, especially on YT - please do it incognito. Your recommendations will thank you. Contrapoints is fun if you like people making fun of idiots. And people crossdressing a lot. And if you want a somewhat outsider perspective who isn't a tit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
stone cold posted:How tedious. Why don't we go door-to-door giving everybody free copies of a Feminism 101 book so everyone can self-educate, then? I can just imagine a Christian missionary throwing a box of Bibles into the middle of a village somewhere and yelling "read this poo poo and don't ask me any questions, fuckers!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Hexmage-SA posted:Why don't we go door-to-door giving everybody free copies of a Feminism 101 book so everyone can self-educate, then? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
If You Won’t Educate Me How Can I Learn Whilst seemingly simple on the surface, there is some intertwining subtext embedded within this one. First of all, you’re placing responsibility for your education back onto the marginalized person. As they are obviously engaged with these issues, and care about them, they are hopeful that privileged people may one day start listening and taking on board what they have to say. By placing responsibility to educate in their hands, you tug at this yearning. You may even successfully make many question themselves and their selfish expectations that you utilize the hundreds upon hundreds of resources on the subject available to you as a privileged person! After all, anyone who expects you to be able to research a topic by yourself also clearly expects you to be far more of a functioning adult than you’re acting! By insisting you can only learn if they right then and there sacrifice further hours of time going over the same ground they have so often in the past, you may also make them give up and go away altogether, enabling you to win by default. But further, you give the impression that you really want to learn, but they’re holding you back! That’s right, using this tactic you can suggest that full understanding is what you crave – you want to be a better, more connected and compassionate person – but it’s not your fault! Nobody ever gave you the education! And now that someone is here who is so obviously qualified, they’re denying you your privilege given right to have everything you want handed to you on a platter! Which brings us to another key component of this argument – it is very important, in conversations with Marginalized people to constantly remind them that you are, indeed, privileged. By demonstrating your belief that marginalized people should immediately gratify your every whim, you remind them of their place in society. After all, they’re not there to live lives free of discrimination and in happy, independent and fulfilling ways! Please! marginalized people exist for your curiosity and to make you generally feel better about your place in society and don’t let them forget it! Point one to you! If You Cared About These Matters You’d Be Willing To Educate Me This is the natural follow-up to the above argument, although it can also be used independently. You see, often in these discussions a marginalized person will tell you it’s not their responsibility to educate you. This is because marginalized people believe that they have other priorities in life, like working and studying and being with their families for example. Clearly, they are laboring under a misconception – as a privileged person you have far more right to their time than they do, and besides, don’t they want to make the world a better place? Isn’t that why they alerted you to the fact you were being offensive in the first place? Well, now clearly your education is their responsibility! By placing this burden of responsibility onto them you remind them of just how daunting a task that is and how their lives are constantly being monopolized by the privileged, even in something that should be empowering to them, like deconstructing discrimination.You trivialize their lives, needs, interests and obligations by suggesting they should be spending all of their time and energy in engaging with clueless Privileged People®, putting in hours and hours of effort in repeating the exact same thing they’ve already said three thousand times to three thousand other privileged people in their past. And furthermore, you remind them that, if they really cared about their own issues, they’d willingly take that task on! Surely it’s a small price to pay to change people‘s minds? Well, you want them to think that, but of course it isn’t After all, most of the conversations they have with Privileged People® often feel to them like beating their heads repeatedly against a brick wall embedded with rusty spikes. Which is entirely the point. Keep them worn out and exhausted and maybe they’ll just go away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
I wonder why this isn't happening in my "men's issues in a feminist lens" thread? Oh right, because that is a space explicitly set out for men, so men don't feel threatened by it and freak the hell out and come in to be like BUT WHAT ABOUT MY VIEWPOINTS because they see women talking, women who might even be happy to talk to each other without them around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I think there are way more interesting and important things than whether men can call themselves feminists and it's not worth getting bogged down in the question. I and a lot of other people happen to think men can be feminists (Feminism is for Everybody, after all), but if someone disagrees I don't think it's worth wringing my hands over--since we're all hopefully after the same things at the end of the day (equality for women and the end of sexism). It turns out that feminism isn't some lock-step ideology; there's widespread disagreement on almost everything among feminists, except for the claim that sexism persists today and that equality is a good thing. I agree with the bold. "Feminism" is a principle that unites a bunch of very different ideologies. It's not really an ideology on it's own. Discussions and FAQs would get a lot better if people acknowledged that they were working from a specific branch of the ideology. Otherwise, discussions amount to a Catholic writing about basic Catholic concepts and labeling it a "Christianity FAQ". It's true that there are Christians who believe in Transubstantiation. And there are Christians who see that it's core to their Christianity. But there are plenty of sincere Christians who hold a a different view. The problem is that the label will lead to an (extremely boring) fight about definitions. Imprecise labels make it hard for the Catholic who wrote that FAQ to distinguish Methodist critiques (which accept basic Christian assumptions) from Atheist ones (which don't). So, a "Feminist FAQ" is fine. But it's going to be like 3 bullet points. What we want are FAQs that are coming from a place that's way more specific than "Sexism Exists" and "Equality is Good".
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
I understand the feeling of being lost that stems from doing your own research. And indeed, what if you get it wrong, what if you end up agreeing with someone who the person who told you to go do research would not agree with? What if you end up with an imperfect understanding under your own power, what if you don't get it quite right. Then you have gained an understanding of something relevant to the subject, you have a position you can argue from, you don't have to post "I know nothing please make me know something" because you now know something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:I wonder why this isn't happening in my "men's issues in a feminist lens" thread? Oh right, because that is a space explicitly set out for men, so men don't feel threatened by it and freak the hell out and come in to be like BUT WHAT ABOUT MY VIEWPOINTS because they see women talking, women who might even be happy to talk to each other without them around. The men's feminism thread had a clearer focus from the beginning, as opposed to this thread, where stone cold had to repeatedly update the OP to narrow the scope of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Which brings us to another key component of this argument – it is very important, in conversations with Marginalized people to constantly remind them that you are, indeed, privileged. By demonstrating your belief that marginalized people should immediately gratify your every whim, you remind them of their place in society. After all, they’re not there to live lives free of discrimination and in happy, independent and fulfilling ways! Please! marginalized people exist for your curiosity and to make you generally feel better about your place in society and don’t let them forget it! If someone comes to interpret any questions asked of them in this way then maybe it's better if they leave proselytizing to someone cut out for it. I mean, can you imagine someone reacting this way to any non-Social Justice issue? Person A: "Anthropogenic climate change is real and a very serious issue!" Person B: "I'd always heard climate change is natural, though! How do you know it's manmade?" Person A: "Goddamn I'm sick of this poo poo...I don't have to prove anything to you! I bet you're just a climate change denialist who's trying to waste my time. Look it up for your loving self if you're so goddamn curious!" *Person B Googles "climate change", first result is "Climate Change is Marxist Conspiracy to Destroy America"*
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Hexmage-SA posted:If someone comes to interpret any questions asked of them in this way then maybe it's better if they leave proselytizing to someone cut out for it. If person B then does not look past the first google result they probably weren't very interested to begin with. The request then becomes not "tell me what is true" but instead "tell me why I should care"
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If person B then does not look past the first google result they probably weren't very interested to begin with. How is that a problem? If you accost me in the supermarket and demand, "Tell me why I should care about climate change!" then that's rude and weird. You'd be interrupting my private life. Marginalized people shouldn't be expected to randomly defend their group, either. People have a right to pick when they want to debate and discuss stuff. But that seems like a perfectly reasonable question for a thread I posted in a debate and discussion forum. The question could be off topic if there was an active back-and-forth about some more interesting sub-topic. But absent that back-and-forth, the Climate Change 101 questions aren't really even off-topic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Hexmage-SA posted:If someone comes to interpret any questions asked of them in this way then maybe it's better if they leave proselytizing to someone cut out for it. The tutor pointed to this part of my paper and said "that's a straw man. don't ever do that." http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If person B then does not look past the first google result they probably weren't very interested to begin with. Problem is Feminism has a lot of concepts that are far shakier than the science on Climate Change. As noted earlier, Feminism is very similar to Christianity in that there are many branches of Feminism with many different opinions. Sarkeesian is a well-known individual and was mentioned upthread, so let me use her for example. Though she has a lot in common with many other Feminists, Sarkeesian also has a few qualities that make her unique. For example, she offended some pro-sex Feminists by exclusively using the phrase "prostituted women" instead of "sex workers" in one of her videos. She is also pacifistic; while many Feminists were praising "Mad Max: Fury Road", Sarkeesian condemned the movie by saying that the goal of Feminism should be to move past "male violence" rather than encourage women to join in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Hexmage-SA posted:Look up "siege mentality". It's incredibly relevant to online social justice "discussions". Yeah, but this doesn't necessarily mean it's the wrong thing to do, right? Like, letting in a bunch of misogynists is often sufficient to completely derail a discussion, so also closing off the discussion to a minority of honest people might be an unavoidable price to pay. I would love if there were some better way to somehow filter people, but I can't really think of one. If I absolutely had to come up with an idea, the best thing I can think of is to give a poster one chance at a polite response and if they're obviously disingenuous after that ban them from the thread, but I don't think the OP can do that on SA, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:The men's feminism thread had a clearer focus from the beginning, as opposed to this thread, where stone cold had to repeatedly update the OP to narrow the scope of the thread. gently caress off. The op got updated to add FAQs and more links, you crybaby. I didn't think it was gonna be necessary to add a rule that said "keep it about feminism" when I already had the "keep it relevant rule, but I'm glad shitheads like you exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:How is that a problem? Because the answer to that question, in the context of societal inequality, is quite simple, it is "because group X is suffering because of systemic injustice" and that isn't a thing you really need explaining to you, you're already aware of that idea. From there, you either accept that and should be motivated to perform basic research, or you do not, in which case you're essentially saying "well, I heard that y'all were being poo poo on by society but I don't think that's true, tell me why it is" which is not a good attitude to approach people with. I suppose the other option is that you accept that the injustice is present and just don't give a poo poo in which case you're a knobhead. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:I wonder why this isn't happening in my "men's issues in a feminist lens" thread? Oh right, because that is a space explicitly set out for men, so men don't feel threatened by it and freak the hell out and come in to be like BUT WHAT ABOUT MY VIEWPOINTS because they see women talking, women who might even be happy to talk to each other without them around. It's not happening in the "men's issues" thread because this isn't specifically a men's issue in Feminism. If that thread is meant to actually be a ghetto for men so that female Feminists can speak without having to engage with anyone who doesn't belong in the fortress then it wasn't properly communicated. And to nip this in the bud before this argument is brought up, we're talking about things like this instead of issues like the wage gap because this is a debate forum and controversial issues are more conducive to debate than ones that most people agree upon. If this is also meant to be a thread for largely non-controversial issues then perhaps a more narrowly-focused thread would be better than a catch-all example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Hexmage-SA posted:Problem is Feminism has a lot of concepts that are far shakier than the science on Climate Change. As noted earlier, Feminism is very similar to Christianity in that there are many branches of Feminism with many different opinions. If Sarkessians branch of feminism does not want women to join in "male violence", then isn't that reinforing the patriarchal attitude that women are peaceful and unable to fight? Is there a "female violence"? I mean, if feminism wants men and women to be equal, then a girl should be able to become a Mixed martial artist or a hunter, and a guy should be able to become a nurse or a elementary school teacher. It just baffles me that women in combat in real life and fiction can be condemned by feminists for joining in "male violence."
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:When I was studying abroad, I wrote a paper on structuralism in my literary theory tutorial. In it I included a whole section that, in an attempt to explicate what structuralism was, made use of hypothetical Structuralist A and Formalist B. That part went something like "A structuralist would analyze this passage by saying XYZ. Meanwhile a formalist would say ABC." I never thought of it that way, but you're right. I'll keep that in mind from now on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Hexmage-SA posted:If someone comes to interpret any questions asked of them in this way then maybe it's better if they leave proselytizing to someone cut out for it. All the time you've spent shitposting could have been spent reading the OP. You wouldn't be posting that sort of things. (Also your example is quite amusing because there's literally no one in the climate change thread who is asking climate change 101 questions.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:I wonder why this isn't happening in my "men's issues in a feminist lens" thread? Oh right, because that is a space explicitly set out for men, so men don't feel threatened by it and freak the hell out and come in to be like BUT WHAT ABOUT MY VIEWPOINTS because they see women talking, women who might even be happy to talk to each other without them around. There is a certain kind of (sadly very prevalent) privileged person who does not and cannot understand why a space might not be for him. He cannot understand why his opinion may not be welcome. After all, in the other spaces of his life, people defer to his opinion constantly. In fact, he is told that expressing his opinion in every situation is not only his right, it's a moral necessity. So when he's told to maybe be quiet and his opinion is not what is important here, he takes it as a personal ego trip. White man, sit down. I promise everything will be ok even if you don't participate in every conversation, or occupy every space. The maze is not meant for you. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Hexmage-SA posted:I never thought of it that way, but you're right. I'll keep that in mind from now on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Hexmage-SA posted:Problem is Feminism has a lot of concepts that are far shakier than the science on Climate Change. As noted earlier, Feminism is very similar to Christianity in that there are many branches of Feminism with many different opinions. Right, and as I said, if you adopted Sarkeeesian's position you would be quite capable of debating sex positivity and the valdity of violence in the fight for justice which is quite an intersectional issue. "I might not accept the right sort of feminism" assumes that there is a single, universally accepted right form of feminism, everyone has their own opinion, but in a discussion we hope that everyone will have an at least moderately informed position from which to argue. If what you are seeking is to be told how to be accepted by everyone because you have Correct Views then there is no answer for you. What will make you friends is a demonstration of genuine concern for the welfare of others and a willingness to meet them at least half way when they disagree with some of the specifics. Neither of which is demonstrated by saying "uhh I don't know anything and I don't really care please fix both of those for me so people will stop telling me I'm a horrible troglodyte"
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Edit. Misread a thing. Cheers for feminism
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:The men's feminism thread had a clearer focus from the beginning, as opposed to this thread, where stone cold had to repeatedly update the OP to narrow the scope of the thread. This is a textbook example of the assumed incompetence problem people were talking about earlier. You hate a woman talking, so a women talking must have done it incorrectly. If Stonecold hadn't updated her OP magically that would be proof of her incompetence. Thanks for providing the visual aid. I'm sure you'll provide many more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because the answer to that question, in the context of societal inequality, is quite simple, it is "because group X is suffering because of systemic injustice" and that isn't a thing you really need explaining to you, you're already aware of that idea. In both cases, I'd assume that the person is really asking, "why should I care as much as you want me to care?" or "explain to me why you think these effects are going to be big?" And, again, those questions seem perfectly fair. Donald Trump won 42% of the women's vote. That's millions of women. Those women aren't ignorant of sexism. They just have different ideas about how it should be prioritized. It should be perfectly acceptable for a female Trump supporter to ask a question (in a debate and discussion forum) like, "When I'm voting, why should I prioritize anti-sexism above the other things I'd care about?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:If Sarkessians branch of feminism does not want women to join in "male violence", then isn't that reinforing the patriarchal attitude that women are peaceful and unable to fight? Is there a "female violence"? That would depend on whether you view most violence as an aspect of toxic masculinity, a thing primarily created to satisfy the masculine aspects of our culture. Viewing unwillingness or inability to pursue violence as a bad thing also would depend on whether you view pacifism as weakness, which you may if you have internalized the idea that capacity for violence is strength.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:If Sarkessians branch of feminism does not want women to join in "male violence", then isn't that reinforing the patriarchal attitude that women are peaceful and unable to fight? Is there a "female violence"? It's a little more nuanced than that. To start with, feminism is not a monolith, and there is such a thing as difference feminism which puts more emphasis on traditionally feminine values, while maintaining the essential personhood status of both men and women. But secondly, I don't think it's unreasonable for certain people to discourage violence. As bell hooks put it in her review of lemonade: quote:Contrary to misguided notions of gender equality, women do not and will not seize power and create self-love and self-esteem through violent acts. Female violence is no more liberatory than male violence. And when violence is made to look sexy and eroticized, as in the Lemonade sexy-dress street scene, it does not serve to undercut the prevailing cultural sentiment that it is acceptable to use violence to reinforce domination, especially in relations between men and women. Violence does not create positive change. I don't necessarily agree with the notion, and I think female violence is good, but I understand where it comes from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:This is a textbook example of the assumed incompetence problem people were talking about earlier. You hate a woman talking, so a women talking must have done it incorrectly. If Stonecold hadn't updated her OP magically that would be proof of her incompetence. Thanks for providing the visual aid. I'm sure you'll provide many more. https://thenib.com/destructive-criticism 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:In both cases, I'd assume that the person is really asking, "why should I care as much as you want me to care?" or "explain to me why you think these effects are going to be big?" That is a rather more specific question than just "why should I care", it's quite specifically asking for priorities between two choices and touches on a good few subjects, such as presumably anything that the questioner thinks is more important than the sexist tendencies of the presidential candidate. It is also a bit different if say, a woman asks that question because she will likely have more experience with the effects of sexism than a man will and is thus probably asking it from a position of at least some personal experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:cool, thanks. I was embarrassed when my teacher said that but it was an important lesson for sure! To save embarrassment later Either your teacher was wrong or you've misunderstood what they were actually criticizing, that wasn't a strawman as it was presented, though it's usually better form to use "might say" rather then "would say". To over-simplify a bit: it's only a strawman if you're misrepresenting the other side of the arguement .
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
It is actually very easy to type "Feminism 101" into Google and follow the links. Easier, in fact, then arguing here for women to do all the work for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 22:46
|
|
