I also have a quite significant anxiety disorder (I’ve known about that for over a decade now). Put the two things together and it probably explains why I like social norms so much even when they mean I have to mask - they provide a framework or set of rules by which I can get through life knowing what to expect from others and what they expect from me.
But in part that's requesting every other person to mask (and I'm also not sure why we went from the scenario in the OP to one of physical danger).
Speaking for myself, on danger, I've noticed in a lot of social situations that sometimes I'm afraid of other people, and sometimes I'm afraid of myself. And it's important for me to discern the difference between the two. Sometimes it's hard to tell besides "I'm nervous about this situation and I'm not sure why."
I mean I can understand that, I don't understand how one gets there from the original OP though (the one in Purg).
I also have a quite significant anxiety disorder (I’ve known about that for over a decade now). Put the two things together and it probably explains why I like social norms so much even when they mean I have to mask - they provide a framework or set of rules by which I can get through life knowing what to expect from others and what they expect from me.
But in part that's requesting every other person to mask (and I'm also not sure why we went from the scenario in the OP to one of physical danger).
Speaking for myself, on danger, I've noticed in a lot of social situations that sometimes I'm afraid of other people, and sometimes I'm afraid of myself. And it's important for me to discern the difference between the two. Sometimes it's hard to tell besides "I'm nervous about this situation and I'm not sure why."
I mean I can understand that, I don't understand how one gets there from the original OP though (the one in Purg).
I'm not sure if I should let MtM answer this one since he's the queried, but it doesn't really bother me that much. So I'll take a swing and hope that's ok. Guy can speak for himself.
To be is to do. I am a certain person so I act a certain way. The way that I dress and identify will dictate the way that I perform my identity. The thread - if I recall - was about expecting people to fit themselves into certain-shaped social "holes," and it's less confusing for some of us if people conform to fixed social roles because then we know who we are in relation to other people. It makes the game of socializing easier to play, and it makes us less anxious by reducing the uncertainty and fear involved in social interaction.
This is one reason why I really like that the ship has clearly defined rules and - over years - I've gotten pretty good at self-consciously working within them.
I think for some folks, having people perform more traditional social roles makes social navigation easier. Dealing with people who slide around identities can be confusing.
That's my guess. It doesn't really seem that strange to me. Admittedly, I have a history of being someone who exists outside of these roles, so the struggle around gender roles and whatnot for me is less intense. I've been swimming in the genderqueer pool as a mostly-cis-guy for 20 years. But I can feel in my gut why some folks find it stressful.
It might also be that I have some contact with ex military folks and it's a vibe. If you spend time in a potentially dangerous, high-rules environment; low-danger, low-rules environments create anxiety.
I think for some folks, having people perform more traditional social roles makes social navigation easier. Dealing with people who slide around identities can be confusing.
That's my guess. It doesn't really seem that strange to me.
To be clear I don't find *that* strange either, I'm just wondering why one would go from there to a scenario involving physical danger, because personally I'd follow a similar reasoning to your thread here:
My sense is that at some point I started deciding social norms weren't worth the bother and started tinkering with my own, which explains why
.. and wonder whether policing one set of norms is sooner or later going to lead to policing other norms.
I think for some folks, having people perform more traditional social roles makes social navigation easier. Dealing with people who slide around identities can be confusing.
That's my guess. It doesn't really seem that strange to me.
To be clear I don't find *that* strange either, I'm just wondering why one would go from there to a scenario involving physical danger, because personally I'd follow a similar reasoning to your thread here:
My sense is that at some point I started deciding social norms weren't worth the bother and started tinkering with my own, which explains why
.. and wonder whether policing one set of norms is sooner or later going to lead to policing other norms.
Yep, that is a concern. I think the military thing might be a thing. I can't speak for @Marvin the Martian , but I think that people who experience violence and normalize it might start living in a world where that is what they expect, and social conventions are a way to feel safe from the possibility.
This is also why a lot of Americans get very serious about the 2nd Amendment. They want to know on some level that they're safe on the very remote chance that someone threatens them. At all times. And at some point that kind of attitude will make demands of everything around them for their own protection, very logically.
In a way, it's not unreasonable, given certain working assumptions. It might be a kind of PTSD if you want to make a clinical case of it, and no shade or shame involved, I've got some of that myself.
The question of the policing of those norms, and at what point that policing becomes irrational is a fundamental political question about public safety. What do we need to feel safe? For some people, safety becomes very expensive.
For instance, does our president want my city to put police officers on CTA trains in order to bankrupt public transit? Or is he really concerned with making passengers feel safer? I did witness an assault on the train a few weeks ago (second time in over 20 years.) But I don't think that kind of investment is necessary for my personal safety. That said, I do know some people who tell me honestly that they're afraid to take the train.
I might agree with you, but I'm also trying to make room for accepting that there is a logical process going on here and don't want to be dismissive of our friend Marvin's concerns, if I'm reading him correctly.
Of course, tying that general anxiety about a man's safety to gender performance is a bit of a stretch. I have heard people express concern that "trans women are sexual predators trying to sneak into female-only spaces so they can creep," which I think is nonsense, as do most of the women I know. And they'll usually express their contempt for such an attitude more vociferously than I. But if one is generally afraid of "other men," there's a certain logic to it. Some men (AMAB if you prefer) are monsters, so you never know if one you're dealing with is a monster. Better safe than sorry. <-- This is not my opinion, this is my attempt to understand an attitude and articulate it logically without animus.
To be is to do. I am a certain person so I act a certain way. The way that I dress and identify will dictate the way that I perform my identity. The thread - if I recall - was about expecting people to fit themselves into certain-shaped social "holes," and it's less confusing for some of us if people conform to fixed social roles because then we know who we are in relation to other people. It makes the game of socializing easier to play, and it makes us less anxious by reducing the uncertainty and fear involved in social interaction.
This is one reason why I really like that the ship has clearly defined rules and - over years - I've gotten pretty good at self-consciously working within them.
The way you reacted to me transgressing your understanding of the rules here illustrated how much it disrupted your equilibrium.
I don't find it hard to draw a parallel with how Marvin experiences transgression of his understanding of a particular set of norms.
To be is to do. I am a certain person so I act a certain way. The way that I dress and identify will dictate the way that I perform my identity. The thread - if I recall - was about expecting people to fit themselves into certain-shaped social "holes," and it's less confusing for some of us if people conform to fixed social roles because then we know who we are in relation to other people. It makes the game of socializing easier to play, and it makes us less anxious by reducing the uncertainty and fear involved in social interaction.
This is one reason why I really like that the ship has clearly defined rules and - over years - I've gotten pretty good at self-consciously working within them.
The way you reacted to me transgressing your understanding of the rules here illustrated how much it disrupted your equilibrium.
I don't find it hard to draw a parallel with how Marvin experiences transgression of his understanding of a particular set of norms.
Yeah, that's a piece of it. The other button you were hitting was treating personal trauma as abstract model and calling rank on something where - to me - you didn't carry authority. If you hadn't tried to junior host me I could've navigated the informal power dynamic with social maneuvering, but once you tried to junior host that escalated the conversation to a threat.
I'm a politics major. I understand institutional power. Junior hosting is seizing institutional power. I would appreciate it if non-host shipmates didn't do that.
Far as @Marvin the Martian goes with respect, I'm gonna let the man speak for himself. If he's like me (and I think is common) I have learned that guys like me find it deeply, viscerally unpleasant to be discussed in absentia. But yeah, your take feels truthy.
I'd rather not have a "Calling Marvin to Epiphanies" thread without his consent. That'd just be weird.
We seem to be a bit short on hosts for this thread who are around and aren't recused for various reasons - so as it doesn't concern my posting @Bullfrog and @pease please stop with the personal stuff about your previous disagreement or take it to Hell.
And a wee general reminder that shipmate accusations of junior hosting are also junior hosting... If you think someone is junior hosting please either wait for a host or contact a relevant host.
We seem to be a bit short on hosts for this thread who are around and aren't recused for various reasons - so as it doesn't concern my posting @Bullfrog and @pease please stop with the personal stuff about your previous disagreement or take it to Hell.
And a wee general reminder that shipmate accusations of junior hosting are also junior hosting... If you think someone is junior hosting please either wait for a host or contact a relevant host.
Of course, tying that general anxiety about a man's safety to gender performance is a bit of a stretch.
Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough, but this is what I was trying to say (it's also more of a stretch than other conclusions that could be drawn).
Yeah, at the same time I think sometimes autism plus anxiety can lead to a cognitive frame where you reach for control because fear makes a person do that. There's a threat-mind that wants to grasp for anything it can hold onto to make one's self feel safe. What is not-controlled is not-safe.
I am safe around people who agree with me, I am not-safe around people who do not agree with me. Gender performance is one clear space of agreement or disagreement, so disagreement is inherently threatening. I don't have an intuitive emotional trust in the people around me, so I need The Rules so I know how to manage my social environment. People who violate The Rules will always make me twitchy and nervous.
There might be some of this lurking in the background of the thread about holes and pegs. We have no king, so we need a master ruleset to set up as a king so we all know who we are, and how we all work and fit together, and gender roles are one way we can signal who our abstract "king" is.
As a Christian who accepts "Jesus is Lord" this can quickly get theological, but I don't necessarily want to make it into a theological conversation. I mean, for some of us everything is theological on some level.
And I'm not defending that mindset, and I'm a little nervous that I'm constructing a sloppy caricature, but that's something I'm feeling and observing as an amateur social scientist and diagnosed neurodivergent.
Comments
I mean I can understand that, I don't understand how one gets there from the original OP though (the one in Purg).
I'm not sure if I should let MtM answer this one since he's the queried, but it doesn't really bother me that much. So I'll take a swing and hope that's ok. Guy can speak for himself.
To be is to do. I am a certain person so I act a certain way. The way that I dress and identify will dictate the way that I perform my identity. The thread - if I recall - was about expecting people to fit themselves into certain-shaped social "holes," and it's less confusing for some of us if people conform to fixed social roles because then we know who we are in relation to other people. It makes the game of socializing easier to play, and it makes us less anxious by reducing the uncertainty and fear involved in social interaction.
This is one reason why I really like that the ship has clearly defined rules and - over years - I've gotten pretty good at self-consciously working within them.
I think for some folks, having people perform more traditional social roles makes social navigation easier. Dealing with people who slide around identities can be confusing.
That's my guess. It doesn't really seem that strange to me. Admittedly, I have a history of being someone who exists outside of these roles, so the struggle around gender roles and whatnot for me is less intense. I've been swimming in the genderqueer pool as a mostly-cis-guy for 20 years. But I can feel in my gut why some folks find it stressful.
It might also be that I have some contact with ex military folks and it's a vibe. If you spend time in a potentially dangerous, high-rules environment; low-danger, low-rules environments create anxiety.
To be clear I don't find *that* strange either, I'm just wondering why one would go from there to a scenario involving physical danger, because personally I'd follow a similar reasoning to your thread here:
.. and wonder whether policing one set of norms is sooner or later going to lead to policing other norms.
Yep, that is a concern. I think the military thing might be a thing. I can't speak for @Marvin the Martian , but I think that people who experience violence and normalize it might start living in a world where that is what they expect, and social conventions are a way to feel safe from the possibility.
This is also why a lot of Americans get very serious about the 2nd Amendment. They want to know on some level that they're safe on the very remote chance that someone threatens them. At all times. And at some point that kind of attitude will make demands of everything around them for their own protection, very logically.
In a way, it's not unreasonable, given certain working assumptions. It might be a kind of PTSD if you want to make a clinical case of it, and no shade or shame involved, I've got some of that myself.
The question of the policing of those norms, and at what point that policing becomes irrational is a fundamental political question about public safety. What do we need to feel safe? For some people, safety becomes very expensive.
For instance, does our president want my city to put police officers on CTA trains in order to bankrupt public transit? Or is he really concerned with making passengers feel safer? I did witness an assault on the train a few weeks ago (second time in over 20 years.) But I don't think that kind of investment is necessary for my personal safety. That said, I do know some people who tell me honestly that they're afraid to take the train.
I might agree with you, but I'm also trying to make room for accepting that there is a logical process going on here and don't want to be dismissive of our friend Marvin's concerns, if I'm reading him correctly.
Of course, tying that general anxiety about a man's safety to gender performance is a bit of a stretch. I have heard people express concern that "trans women are sexual predators trying to sneak into female-only spaces so they can creep," which I think is nonsense, as do most of the women I know. And they'll usually express their contempt for such an attitude more vociferously than I. But if one is generally afraid of "other men," there's a certain logic to it. Some men (AMAB if you prefer) are monsters, so you never know if one you're dealing with is a monster. Better safe than sorry. <-- This is not my opinion, this is my attempt to understand an attitude and articulate it logically without animus.
I don't find it hard to draw a parallel with how Marvin experiences transgression of his understanding of a particular set of norms.
Yeah, I caught myself making that error as I posted and was trying to cover. My bad, fairly called out.
Yeah, that's a piece of it. The other button you were hitting was treating personal trauma as abstract model and calling rank on something where - to me - you didn't carry authority. If you hadn't tried to junior host me I could've navigated the informal power dynamic with social maneuvering, but once you tried to junior host that escalated the conversation to a threat.
I'm a politics major. I understand institutional power. Junior hosting is seizing institutional power. I would appreciate it if non-host shipmates didn't do that.
Far as @Marvin the Martian goes with respect, I'm gonna let the man speak for himself. If he's like me (and I think is common) I have learned that guys like me find it deeply, viscerally unpleasant to be discussed in absentia. But yeah, your take feels truthy.
I'd rather not have a "Calling Marvin to Epiphanies" thread without his consent. That'd just be weird.
Back to gender norms!
@Bullfrog and @pease please stop with the personal stuff about your previous disagreement or take it to Hell.
And a wee general reminder that shipmate accusations of junior hosting are also junior hosting... If you think someone is junior hosting please either wait for a host or contact a relevant host.
Thanks very much!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Noted, thanks. I'm very happy to drop that one.
Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough, but this is what I was trying to say (it's also more of a stretch than other conclusions that could be drawn).
I am safe around people who agree with me, I am not-safe around people who do not agree with me. Gender performance is one clear space of agreement or disagreement, so disagreement is inherently threatening. I don't have an intuitive emotional trust in the people around me, so I need The Rules so I know how to manage my social environment. People who violate The Rules will always make me twitchy and nervous.
There might be some of this lurking in the background of the thread about holes and pegs. We have no king, so we need a master ruleset to set up as a king so we all know who we are, and how we all work and fit together, and gender roles are one way we can signal who our abstract "king" is.
As a Christian who accepts "Jesus is Lord" this can quickly get theological, but I don't necessarily want to make it into a theological conversation. I mean, for some of us everything is theological on some level.
And I'm not defending that mindset, and I'm a little nervous that I'm constructing a sloppy caricature, but that's something I'm feeling and observing as an amateur social scientist and diagnosed neurodivergent.