Like so many waves eroding the cliffs of the patriarchy (FEMINISM THREAD)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Like so many waves eroding the cliffs of the patriarchy (FEMINISM THREAD)

«‹›35 »

Defenestration: Aug 10, 2006; "It wasn't my fault that my first unconscious thought turned out to be-"
"Jesus, kid, what?"
"That something smelled delicious!"; Grimey Drawer

Jarmak posted:

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 .

you can hear the "Actually," in the front of this post

think about this: what have you added to the thread by making sure to tell me that the illustrative lesson I was giving based on a broad example of an exchange I had ten years ago was not QUITE the definition of the concept I was aiming for?

Especially when I know you haven't read the paper because I looked for it and can't find it myself. Must be on my external drive.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 22:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 05:59

Vindicator: Jul 23, 2007

Is there a point where you people will eventually tire of reminding the rotten feminists how you are owed explanations for any and every query that you might dream up? Because there's a lot of interesting content being smothered by posts that demonstrate no desire to actually engage with it. What are you doing here other than making this all about how mean the feminists are when you talk over them?

# ? Dec 28, 2016 22:50

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Our culture raises men to assume they should be leaders, which leaves them with no toolset for participating in a conversation about an issue they don't understand. The reason men keep butting in and going "actually..." or "you're doing feminism wrong" is because there's an instinctive assumption that they should be in charge. They literally don't know how to shut up and listen, or to ask constructive questions. Toxic masculinity classifies curiosity and openmindedness as weakness. Patriarchy divides human interactions into dominant and submissive, and women are supposed to be submissive so they should hush up and let the men decide what the conversation's about. This is also why so many people keep coming in here and wringing their hands about "circlejerks." They can't imagine a conversation that's not a conflict, because if there's no winner and no loser how do you know who's the real man?

It makes me sad that so many people can't imagine the benefit of a conversation between people who agree with each other about the fundamentals of what they're discussing. That's when the real fascinating stuff happens, when you can get into depth because no one's panicking and hitting the brakes because they can't keep up. Can really none of you imagine talking to someone who knows as much about something as you do and enjoying it? Sports, video games, nothing? Is a conversation really only for reassuring yourself that you know the most, or attacking someone you fear knows more than you?

Everyone needs to stop acting like women were just invented, at the very least. "Why should I care about women" is an unacceptable question. We are people.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 22:57

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Defenestration posted:

you can hear the "Actually," in the front of this post

think about this: what have you added to the thread by making sure to tell me that the illustrative lesson I was giving based on a broad example of an exchange I had ten years ago was not QUITE the definition of the concept I was aiming for?

Especially when I know you haven't read the paper because I looked for it and can't find it myself. Must be on my external drive.

You weren't slightly off you were completely wrong, and the point you were trying to make with your anecdote was completely wrong, the way you presented the concept was completely wrong, and the poster was in no way, shape, or form using a straw man arguement

And of course I didn't read your paper, hence "as presented"

# ? Dec 28, 2016 22:58

falcon2424: May 2, 2005

OwlFancier posted:

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.

The details invite empathy. But the question core question is still, "Why should I care?"

That phrasing might not be the one that an educated, upper-middle class person would use. But activism and debate aren't there to convince the converted.

Basically, I agree with this: http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/01/29/i-dont-know-what-to-do-you-guys/

Freddie deBoer posted:

So, to state the obvious: Jon Chait is a jerk who somehow manages to be both condescending and wounded in his piece on political correctness. He gets the basic nature of language policing wrong, and his solutions are wrong, and he�s a centrist Democrat scold who is just as eager to shut people out of the debate as the people he criticizes. That�s true.

Here are some things that are also true.

I have seen, with my own two eyes, a 19 year old white woman � smart, well-meaning, passionate � literally run crying from a classroom because she was so ruthlessly brow-beaten for using the word �disabled.� Not repeatedly. Not with malice. Not because of privilege. She used the word once and was excoriated for it. She never came back. I watched that happen.

I have seen, with my own two eyes, a 20 year old black man, a track athlete who tried to fit organizing meetings around classes and his ridiculous practice schedule (for which he received a scholarship worth a quarter of tuition), be told not to return to those meetings because he said he thought there were such a thing as innate gender differences. He wasn�t a homophobe, or transphobic, or a misogynist. It turns out that 20 year olds from rural South Carolina aren�t born with an innate understanding of the intersectionality playbook. But those were the terms deployed against him, those and worse. So that was it; he was gone.

I have seen, with my own two eyes, a 33 year old Hispanic man, an Iraq war veteran who had served three tours and had become an outspoken critic of our presence there, be lectured about patriarchy by an affluent 22 year old white liberal arts college student, because he had said that other vets have to �man up� and speak out about the war. Because apparently we have to pretend that we don�t know how metaphorical language works or else we�re bad people. I watched his eyes glaze over as this woman with $300 shoes berated him. I saw that. Myself.

These things aren�t hypothetical. This isn�t some thought experiment. This is where I live, where I have lived. These and many, many more depressing stories of good people pushed out and marginalized in left-wing circles because they didn�t use the proper set of social and class signals to satisfy the world of intersectional politics. So you�ll forgive me when I roll my eyes at the army of media liberals, stuffed into their narrow enclaves, responding to Chait by insisting that there is no problem here and that anyone who says there is should be considered the enemy.

If your standard would lead to 'activists' telling off people as eminently convertible as Trump-supporting women, then it seems like a poor form of activism.

Again, the "it's not my job to educate you!" standard is excellent everywhere else. Outside of activism and debate forums, that's really not people's job. Inside them, it totally could be.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 22:58

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

falcon2424 posted:

The details invite empathy. But the question core question is still, "Why should I care?"

That phrasing might not be the one that an educated, upper-middle class person would use. But activism and debate aren't there to convince the converted.

Basically, I agree with this: http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/01/29/i-dont-know-what-to-do-you-guys/

If your standard would lead to 'activists' telling off people as eminently convertible as Trump-supporting women, then it seems like a poor form of activism.

Oh hey look it's a case study in everything I was talking about. "Why should I care about women p.s. I know more than feminists do about how they should be feminists."

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:00

wateroverfire: Jul 3, 2010

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.

Nah.

It's because the men's thread is a joke constructed to make the women's thread more agreeable for several extremely vocal and sensitive activist posters.

But it's those very vocal posters who, by reacting to disagreement by lashing out or being dismissive, derail the thread by being antisocial. No one is required to answer or acknowledge a question they don't want to spend time on. No one has a gun to anyone's head forcing them to dive into a slap fight about whether a poster is trolling or not. No one is required to get self righteous about their "safe space" and how anyone who isn't with their program should GTFO - a tack that is 100% guaranteed to bring the thread to a screeching halt because nothing draws attention like blood in the water. If posters want to seriously discuss feminist issues, all they have to do is :justpost:

. You're a mod and you've been on the internet before [citation needed?] and I know I'm not saying anything you don't already know.

But I am saying something I think you don't want to hear. The problem posters are here, being encouraged by you, rather than in the men's thread. And that's why it continually turns to poo poo while the men's thread stays unserious but pretty civil and productive as these things go.

tldr - there are posters who are on the "right" side of the thread's politics while being on the way wrong side of being good posters and the problem is that they're terrible posters and not that they don't have a safe enough space.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:01

Colin Mockery: Jun 24, 2007; Rawr

Actually, "why should men care about women's feelings and well-being" sounds like exactly a question for the "men's issues as they relate to feminism" thread.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:02

Flowers For Algeria: Dec 3, 2005; I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.

Jarmak posted:

You weren't slightly off you were completely wrong, and the point you were trying to make with your anecdote was completely wrong, the way you presented the concept was completely wrong, and the poster was in no way, shape, or form using a straw man arguement

And of course I didn't read your paper, hence "as presented"

Stop hitting yourself goddamnit

falcon2424 posted:

If your standard would lead to 'activists' telling off people as eminently convertible as Trump-supporting women, then it seems like a poor form of activism.

Again, the "it's not my job to educate you!" standard is excellent everywhere else. Outside of activism and debate forums, that's really not people's job. Inside them, it totally could be.

Yes, it could be, but perhaps outside of a thread that is not devoted to the basics of feminism. The good thing about forums on the Internet is that we can have several threads, and even threads for the initiated.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:05

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

falcon2424 posted:

The details invite empathy. But the question core question is still, "Why should I care?"

That phrasing might not be the one that an educated, upper-middle class person would use. But activism and debate aren't there to convince the converted.

Basically, I agree with this: http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/01/29/i-dont-know-what-to-do-you-guys/

If your standard would lead to 'activists' telling off people as eminently convertible as Trump-supporting women, then it seems like a poor form of activism.

Again, the "it's not my job to educate you!" standard is excellent everywhere else. Outside of activism and debate forums, that's really not people's job. Inside them, it totally could be.

TB basically put it better than I likely would. "Why should I care about women" is a loving appalling question and people who need to ask that question need to look at themselves and do some serious thinking, because you should not find that an appropriate question to ask.

I can appreciate that you may not realise you're asking it, but if it has been pointed out to you, I don't think it's correct to defend it.

wateroverfire posted:

Nah.

Thankyou for informing the thread about who it should consider worth listening to, we would all be incapable of deciding that without your input.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Dec 28, 2016

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:07

Vindicator: Jul 23, 2007

wateroverfire posted:

Nah.

It's because the men's thread is a joke constructed to make the women's thread more agreeable for several extremely vocal and sensitive activist posters.

But it's those very vocal posters who, by reacting to disagreement by lashing out or being dismissive, derail the thread by being antisocial. No one is required to answer or acknowledge a question they don't want to spend time on. No one has a gun to anyone's head forcing them to dive into a slap fight about whether a poster is trolling or not. No one is required to get self righteous about their "safe space" and how anyone who isn't with their program should GTFO - a tack that is 100% guaranteed to bring the thread to a screeching halt because nothing draws attention like blood in the water. If posters want to seriously discuss feminist issues, all they have to do is . You're a mod and you've been on the internet before [citation needed?] and I know I'm not saying anything you don't already know.

But I am saying something I think you don't want to hear. The problem posters are here, being encouraged by you, rather than in the men's thread. And that's why it continually turns to poo poo while the men's thread stays unserious but pretty civil and productive as these things go.

tldr - there are posters who are on the "right" side of the thread's politics while being on the way wrong side of being good posters and the problem is that they're terrible posters and not that they don't have a safe enough space.

So we're encouraging shitposters to enter a thread they're not interested in, in order to not contribute any productive discussion.

Is it what we're wearing?

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:10

falcon2424: May 2, 2005

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Oh hey look it's a case study in everything I was talking about. "Why should I care about women p.s. I know more than feminists do about how they should be feminists."

I didn't take OwlFancier's post as anti-feminist at all. It's a conversation between people who agree with each other about the fundamentals of what we're discussing. Sexism is real. It should be fought. Our core disagreement is totally within that.

Please don't worry that I'm offended here. I'm perfectly able to keep up. No need to panic and hit the brakes on my behalf

Though, I'll agree that my "Feminism should be intersectional and reach out across class" position is pretty 101. If you have a topic that will invite a higher-level back-and-forth, I'd love to read it.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:10

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

falcon2424 posted:

I didn't take OwlFancier's post as anti-feminist at all. It's a conversation between people who agree with each other about the fundamentals of what we're discussing. Sexism is real. It should be fought. Our core disagreement is totally within that.

Please don't worry that I'm offended here. I'm perfectly able to keep up. No need to panic and hit the brakes on my behalf

Though, I'll agree that my "Feminism should be intersectional and reach out across class" position is pretty 101. If you have a topic that will invite a higher-level back-and-forth, I'd love to read it.

I'm talking to you, genius. You are asking why you should care about women, you are trying to backseat-drive feminism, and you have been told to stop doing this for at least as long as I've been around in D&D so you have no excuse, especially since you clearly define your self-worth by how "smart" you are. Smart people are capable of learning things in under a couple-dozen attempts, case study.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:14

falcon2424: May 2, 2005

OwlFancier posted:

TB basically put it better than I likely would. "Why should I care about women" is a loving appalling question and people who need to ask that question need to look at themselves and do some serious thinking, because you should not find that an appropriate question to ask.

I'm not sure where we disagree.

"Why should I care" could be read as, "I'm about to vote. Why should I care about this more than X?" or it could be read as "Why should I care about women at all?"

We seem to agree that the former is legitimate. And it's something that I'd really like people to find an answer to. Trump shouldn't get a second term.

We also agree that the latter is totally illegitimate and has no place in a thread that assumes sexism is real.

Is the debate just about how we're parsing "Why should I care?" on average? If so, that's an english-use question where I don't have enough of an opinion to mount a defense.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:15

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

Defenestration posted:

My friend has a saying, it goes "White Man, Sit Down."

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.

In fairness to me, the brilliance of my opinions has nothing to do with me being a man and everything to do with me being me. A space denied to me is a sin; a conversation I am not privy to is sacrilege; a thought not reported to me is a crime.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:16

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

wateroverfire posted:

Nah.

It's because the men's thread is a joke constructed to make the women's thread more agreeable for several extremely vocal and sensitive activist posters.

But it's those very vocal posters who, by reacting to disagreement by lashing out or being dismissive, derail the thread by being antisocial. No one is required to answer or acknowledge a question they don't want to spend time on. No one has a gun to anyone's head forcing them to dive into a slap fight about whether a poster is trolling or not. No one is required to get self righteous about their "safe space" and how anyone who isn't with their program should GTFO - a tack that is 100% guaranteed to bring the thread to a screeching halt because nothing draws attention like blood in the water. If posters want to seriously discuss feminist issues, all they have to do is . You're a mod and you've been on the internet before [citation needed?] and I know I'm not saying anything you don't already know.

But I am saying something I think you don't want to hear. The problem posters are here, being encouraged by you, rather than in the men's thread. And that's why it continually turns to poo poo while the men's thread stays unserious but pretty civil and productive as these things go.

tldr - there are posters who are on the "right" side of the thread's politics while being on the way wrong side of being good posters and the problem is that they're terrible posters and not that they don't have a safe enough space.

Yep, that's definitely the problem. Not people coming in just to whine about ~~~the hivemind~~~ and post passive-aggressive poo poo like this:

wateroverfire posted:

Almost certainly for the best.

And contribute nothing. So I think I'll side with the people I saw making long, interesting effortposts about the thread subject, even if I disagree with them. And the thread I made, which exists because I think they're legitimate issues to discuss, will continue to exist. And maybe some women will be able to get a word in edgewise in discussing feminism.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:18

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

falcon2424 posted:

I'm not sure where we disagree.

"Why should I care" could be read as, "I'm about to vote. Why should I care about this more than X?" or it could be read as "Why should I care about women at all?"

We seem to agree that the former is legitimate. And it's something that I'd really like people to find an answer to. Trump shouldn't get a second term.

We also agree that the latter is totally illegitimate and has no place in a thread that assumes sexism is real.

Is the debate just about how we're parsing "Why should I care?" on average? If so, that's an english-use question where I don't have enough of an opinion to mount a defense.

I have consistently used "why should I care" to mean the latter, if you wish to try to use it to mean the former that is unrelated to the discussion, asking basic questions about feminism that can be answered by a small amount of individual research is a form of the latter. It is asking why you should care in the slightest about the concept of systematic injustice directed against women, even enough to type it into google and spend a small amount of time reading.

You may start a different discussion if you want to but I would appreciate it if you would not try to draw equivalence between people asking specific questions from a position of even rudimentary experience, and people who are very, very clearly asking half the human population to justify why they merit a moment's concern.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:20

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

FactsAreUseless posted:

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.

I don't care about whether it is unfair. It's something you have to do if you're trying to convince a majority of people who don't really care.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:37

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

blowfish posted:

I don't care about whether it is unfair. It's something you have to do if you're trying to convince a majority of people who don't really care.

This thread is a conversation about feminism. If you are not interested in contributing constructively to a conversation about feminism you should leave. This is not a thread about your feelings, or your ignorance.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:39

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

blowfish posted:

I don't care about whether it is unfair. It's something you have to do if you're trying to convince a majority of people who don't really care.

Thank you for pointing out that the world is not fair and that attempts to make it so are difficult, you are a beacon of enlightenment and support in this, the feminism thread.

E: Beaten again.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:40

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

^^ I enjoy the contrast of the above two red titles. Something Awful, ladies and gentlemen.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:42

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

To take people in good faith who probably shouldn't be for a moment, I think at least some of the tension comes from the general expectations of a forum like this. Does a thread about [x] mean for any and all aspects of [x]? Or is it about a specific part? Is it for people who are advanced and familiar with the topic or anyone? By way of a bad comparison, a goon who just got Witcher 3 for Christmas and wanders into the Witcher megathread in games to ask "Hey how do I witch?" might get a couple of people jeering at them for not reading the OP but they're also going to get pointers and probably links to more thorough stuff. I'm not saying this in an effort to defend shitposters or people making bad-faith arguments, but I can see where at least some people assume the thread will be open to all and proceed thence to ask something that topic regulars have already answered 153,000 times.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:45

-Blackadder-: Jan 2, 2007; Game....Blouses.

^^^ Yeah, almost seems like you(e: was responding to FactsAreUseless) need to make a thread for "talking about talking about feminism", since that's what seems to be occupying the majority of this thread now.

In any case, for anyone interested, I'll reiterate my previous questions. Given the election results, including the fact that the majority of white women voted for a blatantly anti-feminist candidate what does this say about the state of the feminist movement in the U.S. and the state of the country in regards to gender politics? Additionally how can people can go about addressing the disparity between the election results and where the movement wants to be, going forward? Clearly, if the feminist movement wants to garner more support, there's more work to be done. But what work and how to go about it?

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:47

proletarian_pixie: Jun 21, 2016

In the spirit of getting this thread back on the rails...

I've been thinking a lot about gender socialization lately, due to the fact that I am a trans woman who has lately had to come to terms with the reality that, despite my gender identity and expression, I am still a person who was socialized male, with ongoing consequences for my behavior. I live in an extremely messy manner. I express my political opinions on whatever topic freely and loudly. If someone does or says something that bothers me, I tell them so to their face.

Rationally, I am aware that it is unreasonable to expect people who are socialized female to behave in these same ways after society has taught them the opposite their whole life. Yet there is still a part of me that resents it when assigned-female-at-birth people don't act these ways. To give a concrete example: in my experience with organizing spaces, I've sometimes found out after the fact that something I said or did bothered a woman I was working with, and rather than telling me so, they simply disengaged from the space. This actually may have played a significant role in the collapse of a socialist organization I tried to help launch at my university. Obviously there are good reasons why AFAB people would choose this course of action--AMAB people aren't known for being good at taking criticism. We have the tendency to retaliate, emotionally and rhetorically if not physically. Yet at the same time, I still feel angry that they made a choice to simply stop working with me rather than telling me what I did wrong so we could move forward together.

I guess what I'm getting at is that--when it comes to expressing opinions, I really think we should be socializing AFAB people closer to the way we currently socialize AMAB people, rather than the reverse--i.e. everyone should say what they think all the time. Outspokenness is a good thing and shouldn't be considered a "masculine" trait--much less "toxic masculinity". Yes, men--and those, like me, who are on the MTF spectrum but are still working through the effects of our masculine socialization--will have to get better at listening and accepting criticism so that women can feel safe doing this. But shouldn't there be a reciprocal responsibility for AFAB people to speak their criticisms more often so the rest of us have a chance to learn and improve?

What do you think--do these feelings have any legitimacy, or are they just male-socialized biases I will have to unlearn? I genuinely want feedback here because I take leftist organizing seriously and want to be better at so situations like what happened at my university don't happen again.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:49

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

Mister Adequate posted:

To take people in good faith who probably shouldn't be for a moment, I think at least some of the tension comes from the general expectations of a forum like this. Does a thread about [x] mean for any and all aspects of [x]? Or is it about a specific part? Is it for people who are advanced and familiar with the topic or anyone? By way of a bad comparison, a goon who just got Witcher 3 for Christmas and wanders into the Witcher megathread in games to ask "Hey how do I witch?" might get a couple of people jeering at them for not reading the OP but they're also going to get pointers and probably links to more thorough stuff. I'm not saying this in an effort to defend shitposters or people making bad-faith arguments, but I can see where at least some people assume the thread will be open to all and proceed thence to ask something that topic regulars have already answered 153,000 times.

Feminism is not a video game.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:49

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Mister Adequate posted:

To take people in good faith who probably shouldn't be for a moment, I think at least some of the tension comes from the general expectations of a forum like this. Does a thread about [x] mean for any and all aspects of [x]? Or is it about a specific part? Is it for people who are advanced and familiar with the topic or anyone? By way of a bad comparison, a goon who just got Witcher 3 for Christmas and wanders into the Witcher megathread in games to ask "Hey how do I witch?" might get a couple of people jeering at them for not reading the OP but they're also going to get pointers and probably links to more thorough stuff. I'm not saying this in an effort to defend shitposters or people making bad-faith arguments, but I can see where at least some people assume the thread will be open to all and proceed thence to ask something that topic regulars have already answered 153,000 times.

Well Stonecold has repeatedly said this isn't a 101 thread, and there's an unusually long OP spelling out exactly what this topic is about, but when women talk men mysteriously go deaf, don't they.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:49

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Getting very obviously baited over and over is not contributing to this thread. Just say no. e: beaten by proletarian_pixie. gently caress.

So let's talk about women's depiction in media that potential alt-righters are most likely to consume. Battlefield 1 surprised me by a) not having a throwaway campaign and b) having a woman be the playable character in the final episode that also featured Lawrence of Arabia. I ended up doing some reading on the actual Middle Eastern woman she's kinda sorta based on who had relationship with Lawrence and taught him Arabic. I assume the character's also intended to represent the general fact that the Bedouins have traditionally been more open to women in combat roles than some Western societies, including in WW1. The nice thing about telling historical stories (or historical fiction that have a strong basis in reality) is that it helps to short-circuit the feminist propaganda line because, hey, it all actually happened.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:49

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Mister Adequate posted:

but I can see where at least some people assume the thread will be open to all and proceed thence to ask something that topic regulars have already answered 153,000 times.

This. Unless the OP begins with something like "NOOBS GET THE gently caress OUT" I assume every SA thread is for people of all levels of expertise regarding the topic and will get repeats of the basic questions every three pages. And unless a thread for noobs is linked immediately after I'd think the OP is an rear end.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:51

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

blowfish posted:

This. Unless the OP begins with something like "NOOBS GET THE gently caress OUT" I assume every SA thread is for people of all levels of expertise regarding the topic and will get repeats of the basic questions every three pages. And unless a thread for noobs is linked immediately after I'd think the OP is an rear end.

Nobody cares what you think.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:53

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

botany posted:

Nobody cares what you think.

Ok. Nobody cares what you think either. This is clearly a very productive form of discussion.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:55

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

blowfish posted:

This. Unless the OP begins with something like "NOOBS GET THE gently caress OUT" I assume every SA thread is for people of all levels of expertise regarding the topic and will get repeats of the basic questions every three pages. And unless a thread for noobs is linked immediately after I'd think the OP is an rear end.

"Read the OP" has been a consistent standard in threads on SA for more than a decade, and you've only posted in this thread to say how having to read stuff is a dumb waste of time and people are obligated to make things even easier for you than the OP. Which like... if you're demanding to be educated, it's there. The "this is what we're assuming people have read" material is there. And you don't even have to read all of it. But it's also, and I want to emphasize this, okay to read a thread without posting in it. You can read a thread for a while, and get a sense for it, and learn some things, and then post in it. But your first post in this thread was to come in and say that reading was hard. So I dunno, maybe just follow the SA-standard "does my post contribute anything" rule?

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:55

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

blowfish posted:

Ok. Nobody cares what you think either. This is clearly a very productive form of discussion.

You are not talking about feminism. This is a thread for talking about feminism. If you do not want to talk about feminism you should leave. Go find some other thread to throw a fit about.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:56

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Again the only thing certain men can think to do when the see women doing something is to scream at them that they're doing it wrong. This thread was created for people who want to talk about feminism, not people who don't want to talk about feminism. People who don't want to talk about feminism might enjoy reading and posting in a thread that is not about feminism, of which this site has thousands.

# ? Dec 28, 2016 23:59

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

proletarian_pixie posted:

In the spirit of getting this thread back on the rails...

I've been thinking a lot about gender socialization lately, due to the fact that I am a trans woman who has lately had to come to terms with the reality that, despite my gender identity and expression, I am still a person who was socialized male, with ongoing consequences for my behavior. I live in an extremely messy manner. I express my political opinions on whatever topic freely and loudly. If someone does or says something that bothers me, I tell them so to their face.

Rationally, I am aware that it is unreasonable to expect people who are socialized female to behave in these same ways after society has taught them the opposite their whole life. Yet there is still a part of me that resents it when assigned-female-at-birth people don't act these ways. To give a concrete example: in my experience with organizing spaces, I've sometimes found out after the fact that something I said or did bothered a woman I was working with, and rather than telling me so, they simply disengaged from the space. This actually may have played a significant role in the collapse of a socialist organization I tried to help launch at my university. Obviously there are good reasons why AFAB people would choose this course of action--AMAB people aren't known for being good at taking criticism. We have the tendency to retaliate, emotionally and rhetorically if not physically. Yet at the same time, I still feel angry that they made a choice to simply stop working with me rather than telling me what I did wrong so we could move forward together.

I guess what I'm getting at is that--when it comes to expressing opinions, I really think we should be socializing AFAB people closer to the way we currently socialize AMAB people, rather than the reverse--i.e. everyone should say what they think all the time. Outspokenness is a good thing and shouldn't be considered a "masculine" trait--much less "toxic masculinity". Yes, men--and those, like me, who are on the MTF spectrum but are still working through the effects of our masculine socialization--will have to get better at listening and accepting criticism so that women can feel safe doing this. But shouldn't there be a reciprocal responsibility for AFAB people to speak their criticisms more often so the rest of us have a chance to learn and improve?

What do you think--do these feelings have any legitimacy, or are they just male-socialized biases I will have to unlearn? I genuinely want feedback here because I take leftist organizing seriously and want to be better at so situations like what happened at my university don't happen again.

This is a very interesting topic I think because I would probably agree with you as far as encouraging outspokenness, but primarily I would do so in reaction to the society we live in, ideally I would argue exactly the opposite on probably every other aspect of masculinity/femininity as socialized into people. As in, we should be socializing everyone as we currently do AFAB people.

There is the concern that outspokenness is sort of tied into violent tendencies, assertiveness into aggressiveness, which is definitely something I would describe as toxic masculinity. And I wonder personally if the main reason why outspokenness is beneficial to people is because of its pervasiveness. Sort of like a gun control argument, you only need them if everyone else is using them. You only need to be assertive if you'll be run roughshod over because you aren't.

# ? Dec 29, 2016 00:00

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

blowfish posted:

Ok. Nobody cares what you think either. This is clearly a very productive form of discussion.

Let me rephrase: nobody cares what you think about the OP of the feminism thread. You have never shown any earnest interest in the topic, your posts ITT are garbage, you clearly haven't read the OP anyway. Your opinions on this issue (not on other issues) are worthless and nobody here is interested in them. I hope this clears up what I meant.

# ? Dec 29, 2016 00:00

Wendigee: Jul 19, 2004

I've been really bored because I lost my gaming computer...

I watched all 3 seasons of Transparent on amazon which is like all about trans people and feminism and lesbians and bi and it was a decent show but good lord some of the feminists in it are not nice to trans at all.

# ? Dec 29, 2016 00:06

Hexmage-SA: Jun 28, 2012; DM

Mister Adequate posted:

To take people in good faith who probably shouldn't be for a moment, I think at least some of the tension comes from the general expectations of a forum like this. Does a thread about [x] mean for any and all aspects of [x]? Or is it about a specific part? Is it for people who are advanced and familiar with the topic or anyone? By way of a bad comparison, a goon who just got Witcher 3 for Christmas and wanders into the Witcher megathread in games to ask "Hey how do I witch?" might get a couple of people jeering at them for not reading the OP but they're also going to get pointers and probably links to more thorough stuff. I'm not saying this in an effort to defend shitposters or people making bad-faith arguments, but I can see where at least some people assume the thread will be open to all and proceed thence to ask something that topic regulars have already answered 153,000 times.

Thank you. It's odd to me that one would expect to have a discussion for Female Feminists only on a public debate and discourse forum that is itself not explicitly dedicated to Feminism. I'd think a dedicated Feminist forum with strict moderation would be more conducive for facilitating discussion that isn't intended for outsiders.

# ? Dec 29, 2016 00:08

Octatonic: Sep 7, 2010

Okay, so you loving goons want some feminism 101? Here's some feminism 101:

The Personal is Political

You may or may not be familiar with the "second wave" slogan, which has been attributed to basically everyone at one point or another, and, like many bits of political jargon, has meant multiple things over the years (there's a post about the history of the word gender rattling in my brain that I might write if we deserve it ITT). To really unpack what we mean when we say it, let's start at the top.

As mentioned in the OP, Patriarchy is a system, and there is a long line of discussion of gender as a system going all the way back to the second sex, and probably hitting a local zenith with Judith Butler's Gender Trouble in the 1990s. Like any social system, the patriarchy isn't some cabal of rich dudes with templed fingers and too much money, but is rather a way of collecting and conceptualizing how we create and enforce social norms, which, as it so happens, have the effect of making lives for women on the whole shittier than lives of men. The thing about systems, and any sociologist, data scientist, or marxist will tell you, is that humans are loving lovely at understanding and working with systems*. When we live our lives, we see individual actions, done by individual actors, for individual reasons and rationalizations. What the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s sought to do was to expose the pattern, and to raise consciousness among women.

When I say "the personal is political" it means that our lives occur within a context, one that is capable of, and worth being analyzed, problematized, and discussed. Do you do the vast majority of domestic maintenance and childcare? Do you find yourself doing all of the cleaning in the office that's not explicitly the job of the janitorial staff? Do you find that men talk over you in conversation? Does a new business partner look towards your less senior male coworker as though he has authority? Do you find that your anger is always seen as unwarranted, your complaints dismissed as trivial, and your needs put last? Are you exhausted all of the time? You are not the only one. All of this, this is the patriarchy. Your life happens amid political strife, and as you navigate the changing social structure of our world, you are living through class conflict.

This is where a lot of the time, I think, that miscommunication occurs between radicals and liberals, or between any in-group and out-group occurs. If you do not recognize the larger context of your actions and beliefs, it's easy to fool yourself into thinking that they don't have wider meaning. Anyone who objects to someone "bringing politics in" to a discussion about a trend, an event, or piece of media is doing this. While you are a tiny cog in the machine, and the little ripples you make in your personal life are small, you are still doing politics. When you talk about your struggles and find common ground with your sister, you are doing politics, when you get catcalled walking to the bus, the jerkass making your day worse is doing politics. When you organize, your politics are magnified. To me, it leads very easily to a radical approach to politics, of gender, or otherwise. To go the root of the problem** you have to change the entire way that society is structured. Gendered division of labor, gendered divisions of society, all of the things that make up "gender roles" should be examined. Do everything that you can to resist the forces humans into roles that they don't want to be.

There's a dialectic though. If you think systematically to the exclusion of recognizing the differences in our individual experiences, you end up with sloppy analysis, and risk erasing the subjectivity of your population. The need for intersectional analysis, and many of the ideas associated with liberal feminism come exactly from these missteps. A systematic approach remains useful, however, for understanding your place in the world, and for knowing what you're working against. It's also worth noting, if you're someone in a privileged position, in my case, as a westerner, as a white, as middle class, that I am part of a continuity of actions.

_{_{*Foucault argues that Liberalism as an ideology is particularly bad at it, and I'd love to have someone to talk with about biopolitics on the internet, but that's a post for another day.}}
**_{_{radicalis, latin: of or having roots}}

# ? Dec 29, 2016 00:10

Hexmage-SA: Jun 28, 2012; DM

-Blackadder- posted:

In any case, for anyone interested, I'll reiterate my previous questions. Given the election results, including the fact that the majority of white women voted for a blatantly anti-feminist candidate what does this say about the state of the feminist movement in the U.S. and the state of the country in regards to gender politics? Additionally how can people can go about addressing the disparity between the election results and where the movement wants to be, going forward? Clearly, if the feminist movement wants to garner more support, there's more work to be done. But what work and how to go about it?

This is what I'm personally most interested in, but I get the feeling that finding viable ways to spread Feminist influence is ironically not welcome in the Feminism thread.

Seriously, thinking we can solve sexism by telling people to self-educate is about as realistic as thinking we can solve obesity by telling people not to eat so much.

# ? Dec 29, 2016 00:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 05:59

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Hexmage-SA posted:

This is what I'm personally most interested in, but I get the feeling that finding viable ways to spread Feminist influence is ironically not welcome in the Feminism thread.

Seriously, thinking we can solve sexism by telling people to self-educate is about as realistic as thinking we can solve obesity by telling people not to eat so much.

Sorry our strawman delivery already came today. Perhaps you meant to stop by the ghetto thread? Black people haven't been told they're animals trying to destroy white america in a while.

# ? Dec 29, 2016 00:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Like so many waves eroding the cliffs of the patriarchy (FEMINISM THREAD)

«‹›35 »