Womansplaining

123457

Comments

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    "I'm not a sexist, I'm an arsehole" isn't all that great a defense 'cause sexism is bad, but it's not the only bad thing.

    In the court of public opinion at this time, being sexist is considerably worse than merely being an asshole. In fact, in terms of how people see you it's probably better to be a massive asshole to everyone than a bit of an asshole but only to women.

    To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.

    First, that particular quote was not me, it was Leorning Cniht.

    Apologies to you both.
    Second, I think you are incorrect. One might get pointed to for being a sexist more often, though ISTM that could easily be more perception than reality. However what bad behaviour is accepted from a person is quite a mix of factors and sorting out what is a bigger trigger is actually difficult and situational.

    You don't get online campaigns for someone to lose their job because they're an asshole. You do if they're sexist.
  • amyboamybo Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    A person who explains to everyone is just arrogant or egocentric.*

    Or genuinely knows a lot about the subject being discussed, and enjoys sharing that knowledge.
    If a woman assumes a sexist motivation where there wasn't one, she would be incorrect.

    Should be obvious, so what is your gotcha?

    No gotcha. But I do find myself wondering exactly what you think men who know a lot about a subject and enjoy sharing that knowledge with others should do. Only share it with other men? Not share it at all? Or just accept that they're going to be called sexist for doing so whether that's valid or not?

    Been stated already, but it's called learning to read the room.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    "I'm not a sexist, I'm an arsehole" isn't all that great a defense 'cause sexism is bad, but it's not the only bad thing.

    In the court of public opinion at this time, being sexist is considerably worse than merely being an asshole. In fact, in terms of how people see you it's probably better to be a massive asshole to everyone than a bit of an asshole but only to women.

    To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.

    First, that particular quote was not me, it was Leorning Cniht.

    Apologies to you both.
    Second, I think you are incorrect. One might get pointed to for being a sexist more often, though ISTM that could easily be more perception than reality. However what bad behaviour is accepted from a person is quite a mix of factors and sorting out what is a bigger trigger is actually difficult and situational.

    You don't get online campaigns for someone to lose their job because they're an asshole. You do if they're sexist.

    Give an example of this you think was unreasonable ?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    "I'm not a sexist, I'm an arsehole" isn't all that great a defense 'cause sexism is bad, but it's not the only bad thing.

    In the court of public opinion at this time, being sexist is considerably worse than merely being an asshole. In fact, in terms of how people see you it's probably better to be a massive asshole to everyone than a bit of an asshole but only to women.

    To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.

    First, that particular quote was not me, it was Leorning Cniht.

    Apologies to you both.
    Second, I think you are incorrect. One might get pointed to for being a sexist more often, though ISTM that could easily be more perception than reality. However what bad behaviour is accepted from a person is quite a mix of factors and sorting out what is a bigger trigger is actually difficult and situational.

    You don't get online campaigns for someone to lose their job because they're an asshole. You do if they're sexist.

    It's pretty hard to find an arsehole who isn't one or more of sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    "I'm not a sexist, I'm an arsehole" isn't all that great a defense 'cause sexism is bad, but it's not the only bad thing.

    In the court of public opinion at this time, being sexist is considerably worse than merely being an asshole. In fact, in terms of how people see you it's probably better to be a massive asshole to everyone than a bit of an asshole but only to women.

    To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.

    First, that particular quote was not me, it was Leorning Cniht.

    Apologies to you both.
    Second, I think you are incorrect. One might get pointed to for being a sexist more often, though ISTM that could easily be more perception than reality. However what bad behaviour is accepted from a person is quite a mix of factors and sorting out what is a bigger trigger is actually difficult and situational.

    You don't get online campaigns for someone to lose their job because they're an asshole. You do if they're sexist.
    Because sexism is more easily defined. Because sexism is a behaviour that targets people because of who they are. Because targeting people for who they are has an effect on the group whereas random arseholery has random effect.
  • You don't get online campaigns for someone to lose their job because they're an asshole. You do if they're sexist.

    Generally, the people who are big arseholes have either been already fired, or not hired, because arseholes tend to be sufficiently disruptive that they have a massive negative effect on the workplace. Big sexists, on the other hand, have traditionally been excused as "boys will be boys" or whatever.

    Milder arseholes certainly abound in the workplace. I'm familiar with a couple of people who generally behave poorly, but are excused because their skills are in demand, and the people they work with learn to work around their arseholiness. These people don't do good things for the workplace, and I think we'd be better off not tolerating their misbehaviour. I have the impression that the shift towards not tolerating sexism and racism in the workplace has also included as a side effect less tolerance of this kind of equal-opportunity arsehole.


  • You don't get online campaigns for someone to lose their job because they're an asshole. You do if they're sexist.

    Sort of tangent, 'cos I know it's not what you mean. But when I read this I instantly thought 'aren't some elections most definitely about campaigning for someone to lose their job - eg, President - because they're an asshole?'

    I can't think of any immediate examples but aren't there online petitions and such-like to get people out of their jobs because of cronyism or bullying, or incompetence - asshole behaviour like that? I'm pretty sure my spam feeds get invitations to object to so-and-so as minister for that, or such-and-such as new appointment for whatever.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    No gotcha. But I do find myself wondering exactly what you think men who know a lot about a subject and enjoy sharing that knowledge with others should do. Only share it with other men? Not share it at all? Or just accept that they're going to be called sexist for doing so whether that's valid or not?

    ISTM it’s partly analogous with holding doors open for people, which I routinely do. Occasionally (rarely IME) a woman will take offence. I just regard it as an indirect negative impact for me, on this occasion, of the sexism which has such a direct negative impact on so many women. If conversation is possible I might seek to explain, but otherwise I just have to suck up and deal.
    Where I've noticed this most is in men. Especially "manly" men.A significant percentage of them seem to really not like anyone holding the door for them.

    Which makes it so much fun holding doors for men. You get the ones who look surprised and grateful, the ones who look awkward, and the ones who get downright offended. (I have another private rule that whenever a PoC and I are coming to the same point at the same time* I always am the one to give way. But if it's a white man, I am never** the one to give way. You can generally offend the same people that way.

    *I live in a large city, so this happens regularly
    *With exceptions including age, ability, and number of burdens they are carrying.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Where I've noticed this most is in men. Especially "manly" men. A significant percentage of them seem to really not like anyone holding the door for them.

    I'm far from manly. What I hate is when someone holds the door for me when I'm 100 yards away and I feel like I need to walk faster or run so they don't have to hold it as long. I haaaate thaaaat.
  • Mwuahahahahahahaha
  • mousethief wrote: »
    I'm far from manly. What I hate is when someone holds the door for me when I'm 100 yards away and I feel like I need to walk faster or run so they don't have to hold it as long. I haaaate thaaaat.

    I take the view that anyone can see the speed at which I am walking, and if they're happy to stand and hold the door while I approach, why should I complain? Perhaps they're not in a hurry. Perhaps they're waiting for someone, and are hanging around opening the door while they do. It's not really my business why they're doing it, but I don't see that I should let it bother me.

    The thing I hate is the last-minute lunger: the person that waits until I'm almost at the door, then lunges in front of me in order to open it and hold it. Typically, this person only acts when I'm carrying things, and thinks that I should be grateful for their help because I'm carrying something and they held the door for me. Except that they left it so late that I had already lined up my motion to open the door with my arse / elbow / foot / other available body part, and their sudden action risks causing me to jerk and drop something. These people cause accidents.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    "I'm not a sexist, I'm an arsehole" isn't all that great a defense 'cause sexism is bad, but it's not the only bad thing.

    In the court of public opinion at this time, being sexist is considerably worse than merely being an asshole. In fact, in terms of how people see you it's probably better to be a massive asshole to everyone than a bit of an asshole but only to women.

    To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.

    First, that particular quote was not me, it was Leorning Cniht.

    Apologies to you both.
    Second, I think you are incorrect. One might get pointed to for being a sexist more often, though ISTM that could easily be more perception than reality. However what bad behaviour is accepted from a person is quite a mix of factors and sorting out what is a bigger trigger is actually difficult and situational.

    You don't get online campaigns for someone to lose their job because they're an asshole. You do if they're sexist.
    Because sexism is more easily defined. Because sexism is a behaviour that targets people because of who they are. Because targeting people for who they are has an effect on the group whereas random arseholery has random effect.

    So are you now agreeing with me that sexism is worse?
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    When I could walk, I held the door for anyone coming close behind me, sticking around longer for those with burdens, mothers pushing strollers, those in wheelchairs, and so forth.

    I always thanked anyone holding the door for me.

    Now that I’m the one in the wheelchair, I appreciate those who hold the door even more. (One might be surprised by how few doors are equipped with power doors or automatic openers even in hospitals.)

    I’m generally opposed to social media campaigns to get people fired; they smell too much of the lynch mob for comfort.

    I came close to making an exception for the arrogant Manhattanite who called the cops on the black birder who politely pointed out that they were in a part of Central Park in which dogs are required to be leashed, and asked her to leash hers. But, in the age of doxxing and death threats, I just couldn’t. Not even with such a world-class arsehole.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Please pardon the second post, but I feared that the last would qualify as tl;dr for too many people.

    I just wanted to note, @Marvin the Martian and @Russ, that I have never encountered “womansplaining,” and I don’t really believe it exists.

    The balance of power is just too lopsided; too many men (and some unfortunate women, such as the nominee to take RBG’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court) truly believe that men are better and smarter and not to be contradicted.

    I have never seen anything like it, certainly, and I’m pretty sensitive to these things. (I’m sure that the male history master’s degree student who condescended to a distinguished female professor/historian whose work focused on another era and landmass thought that he was a victim of that imaginary syndrome after she - in a few brief but well-chosen phrases - ripped him another one, though.)
  • With people in wheelchairs or using other mobility aids, I tend to ask if they would like me to open the door, so as not to look like I'm trying to take away their agency/independence. I've never had bad results from this; some say yes please and others say no thank you.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    "I'm not a sexist, I'm an arsehole" isn't all that great a defense 'cause sexism is bad, but it's not the only bad thing.

    In the court of public opinion at this time, being sexist is considerably worse than merely being an asshole. In fact, in terms of how people see you it's probably better to be a massive asshole to everyone than a bit of an asshole but only to women.

    To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.

    First, that particular quote was not me, it was Leorning Cniht.

    Apologies to you both.
    Second, I think you are incorrect. One might get pointed to for being a sexist more often, though ISTM that could easily be more perception than reality. However what bad behaviour is accepted from a person is quite a mix of factors and sorting out what is a bigger trigger is actually difficult and situational.

    You don't get online campaigns for someone to lose their job because they're an asshole. You do if they're sexist.
    Because sexism is more easily defined. Because sexism is a behaviour that targets people because of who they are. Because targeting people for who they are has an effect on the group whereas random arseholery has random effect.

    So are you now agreeing with me that sexism is worse?
    Whilst I do think that sexism is worse than equal opportunity arseholery, that is not what I was saying my reply to you.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.

    If only it was that benign.

    Aspring to treat everyone the same way would be a huge step up from where some people are.

    Which is thinking that it's OK to treat people badly if they're from a group that historically hasn't been.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    "Victim culture"? Oh, @Russ, that's bad, even for you.

    Not sure if you're getting my intended meaning. But if you haven't come across the concept, then I'd have to explain it to you, and this probably isn't the right thread...

    In response to the experience you relate, I'm glad you made it through. Your decisions seem to me both totally understandable and totally yours to make.

    If men are hard-wired to perceive your loss as a loss to the world at large, that's no excuse for expressing it to you tactlessly.

    Your story makes me wonder how far prejudice can be justified by experience. How many men have to say the same thing to you before you conclude "men, they're all the same" ?



  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.

    If only it was that benign.

    Aspring to treat everyone the same way would be a huge step up from where some people are.

    Which is thinking that it's OK to treat people badly if they're from a group that historically hasn't been.




    And the 2020 nomination for the prize for the most ridiculous absolute bullshit ever posted on SoF goes to - Russ.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Which is thinking that it's OK to treat people badly if they're from a group that historically hasn't been..

    Victim Culture is a facet of right-wing culture: the self-aggrandising belief that white people, especially white men, are the victims of the left or progressives or political correctness or cultural Marxists or whatever else the rights wants to rail against.

    Here Russ is whining that "it's OK to treat people badly if they're from a group that historically hasn't been", a claim made on no evidence, to justify the idea that white men deserve special privileges as victims

    For example, Russ thinks it's wrong to think that 'this man is probably doing this apparently sexist thing because he's sexist' or 'this white person is probably doing this apparently racist thing because they're racist'. But Russ thinks it's ok for a bartender to exclude someone from an ethnic minority from the bar based on generalisations about that ethnic minority regardless of anything that particular person has done.
    White men get special treatment in Russ' world because Russ considers them victims.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Whilst I do think that sexism is worse than equal opportunity arseholery, that is not what I was saying my reply to you.

    Thank you for agreeing with my underlying point that sexism is worse than equal-opportunity assholery.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I suppose someone who is a selective asshole is more likely to get away with it, particularly if they select the same people as other selective assholes. (Not that that's all there is to sexism.)
  • Male managers are like "but he's not an asshole to *me*!" and so the asshole gets a pass.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Male managers are like "but he's not an asshole to *me*!" and so the asshole gets a pass.
    This. It is rare that people are the same level of problematic to those who have control over them.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Whilst I do think that sexism is worse than equal opportunity arseholery, that is not what I was saying my reply to you.

    Thank you for agreeing with my underlying point that sexism is worse than equal-opportunity assholery.
    Honestly, I didn't think that was what you were saying. When you said
    In the court of public opinion at this time, being sexist is considerably worse than merely being an asshole.
    This sounds like you are stating the perception, but not agreeing with it.


  • amyboamybo Shipmate
    .
    Russ wrote: »
    To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.

    If only it was that benign.

    Aspring to treat everyone the same way would be a huge step up from where some people are.

    Which is thinking that it's OK to treat people badly if they're from a group that historically hasn't been.

    I'm genuinely curious; are you concerned that if women or BIPOC gain equal footing with men or white people, that we/they will treat their oppressors as badly as we/they have been treated? If so, what makes you thing that, truly? The only people I have ever encountered with this idea have been white men, so I'd like to know where it's coming from.
  • amybo wrote: »
    .
    Russ wrote: »
    To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.

    If only it was that benign.

    Aspring to treat everyone the same way would be a huge step up from where some people are.

    Which is thinking that it's OK to treat people badly if they're from a group that historically hasn't been.

    I'm genuinely curious; are you concerned that if women or BIPOC gain equal footing with men or white people, that we/they will treat their oppressors as badly as we/they have been treated? If so, what makes you thing that, truly? The only people I have ever encountered with this idea have been white men, so I'd like to know where it's coming from.
    Russ is either a troll or a bigot trying to justify his bigotry. The inconsistency of the way he has presented his POV would indicate troll. But he could also be an incompetence bigot. I don't see a redeeming arc for with ones, so...
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Male managers are like "but he's not an asshole to *me*!" and so the asshole gets a pass.

    There are also those semi-intelligent assholes who aim their assholery downward (not toward upper management) and those completely un-intelligent managers who believe that assholes can't aim--and therefore complaints from the lower-downs are always fabricated.
  • amybo wrote: »
    I'm genuinely curious; are you concerned that if women or BIPOC gain equal footing with men or white people, that we/they will treat their oppressors as badly as we/they have been treated? If so, what makes you thing that, truly? The only people I have ever encountered with this idea have been white men, so I'd like to know where it's coming from.

    To be fair, "I abuse my position of power. If other people had my position, they would abuse it too" has a certain amount of logic to it.
  • One person's idea of "banter" is another's (the recipient's) experience of bullying. That's whoever does it, wherever it is done and whenever it is happening.

    That said, there are those groups who need support, help, care (everything) as a first step given historic issues which affect present engagement.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    amybo wrote: »
    I'm genuinely curious; are you concerned that if women or BIPOC gain equal footing with men or white people, that we/they will treat their oppressors as badly as we/they have been treated? If so, what makes you thing that, truly? The only people I have ever encountered with this idea have been white men, so I'd like to know where it's coming from.

    I'm not saying anything here about how any group will use whatever power they have. (But I do tend to the view that power corrupts, which might answer your question.)

    What I'm saying can be illustrated by justice traditionally pictured as blindfolded, as a statement of a noble ideal, that what is just does not depend on anyone's identity.

    And contrasting that with a common worldview around here, that combines:

    - an ethic of "punching up", which says that it's OK to do as you would not be done by, provided that the person you do it to has more status than you have

    - a doctrine as to which groups of people count as lower-status "victim groups" (often regardless of the actual circumstances of the individuals involved).

    This combination I refer to as "victim culture" - the notion that victims can do no wrong. But you may have a better name...

    The phenomenon can be observed across many many threads in Purg, and here.

    What struck me on this thread was how lilbuddha seems quite willing to accept the obvious truth that women can be sexist (make unwarranted presumptions as to male competence) too. Provided it is expressed within a context (? three paragraphs ?) of agreement that women are victims and that M-to-F sexism is The Problem. Rather than expressed as a standalone fact, from which one might infer some level of symmetry between the sexes.
  • But there isn't, and has not been since whenever, a level of symmetry between the sexes.
    There are, of course, nasty women, and they can make life hell for both other women and men around them, but they do not operate in a society which is predicated on rule by men.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited October 2020
    Penny S wrote: »
    But there isn't, and has not been since whenever, a level of symmetry between the sexes.
    There are, of course, nasty women, and they can make life hell for both other women and men around them, but they do not operate in a society which is predicated on rule by men.
    Reason doesn't work on Trolls. Attention is how they feed and whilst they typically seem to derive more sustenance from ire, a reasonable reply will sustain them.
    And yes, I am well aware of the irony of my post.
  • Russ wrote: »
    And contrasting that with a common worldview around here, that combines:

    - an ethic of "punching up", which says that it's OK to do as you would not be done by, provided that the person you do it to has more status than you have

    - a doctrine as to which groups of people count as lower-status "victim groups" (often regardless of the actual circumstances of the individuals involved).

    This combination I refer to as "victim culture" - the notion that victims can do no wrong. But you may have a better name...

    "Russ's delusion"?

    "Russ's attempt to shit on anyone who stands with the oppressed"?

    "Russ's pre-emptive strike on decency?"
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    edited October 2020
    2
    Penny S wrote: »
    But there isn't, and has not been since whenever, a level of symmetry between the sexes.
    There are, of course, nasty women, and they can make life hell for both other women and men around them, but they do not operate in a society which is predicated on rule by men.

    I see my last sentence does not make sense as I wrote it. "they do not, as men do, operate in a society which is predicated on rule by their sex."
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    This combination I refer to as "victim culture" - the notion that victims can do no wrong. But you may have a better name...
    Isn't the phrase victim culture better reserved for you and your beliefs?
    After all you're alleging without evidence the idea that white men are being victimised and treated unjustly.
    And you're claiming that there's no evidence of systematic racism or sexism: that white men as victims of the left can't engage in systematic injustice.
    Really, you fit your definition much better than anyone else on the board.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Thanks Dafyd, You clearly encapsulated what I was thinking, but was struggling to express.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Russ is either a troll or a bigot trying to justify his bigotry. The inconsistency of the way he has presented his POV would indicate troll. But he could also be an incompetence bigot. I don't see a redeeming arc for with ones, so...
    A bigoted troll, perhaps? (You've posted some great posts on this thread - thank you!)
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    This combination I refer to as "victim culture" - the notion that victims can do no wrong. But you may have a better name...
    Isn't the phrase victim culture better reserved for you and your beliefs?
    After all you're alleging without evidence the idea that white men are being victimised and treated unjustly.
    And you're claiming that there's no evidence of systematic racism or sexism: that white men as victims of the left can't engage in systematic injustice.
    Really, you fit your definition much better than anyone else on the board.
    Brilliant, @Dafyd. Thank you.


  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Huia wrote: »
    Thanks Dafyd, You clearly encapsulated what I was thinking, but was struggling to express.
    I'm not the first person to observe that the term victim culture fits the pro-racist right better than it fits the people of whom the right use the term.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Huia wrote: »
    Thanks Dafyd, You clearly encapsulated what I was thinking, but was struggling to express.
    I'm not the first person to observe that the term victim culture fits the pro-racist right better than it fits the people of whom the right use the term.

    Almost everything the right says is projection.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Huia wrote: »
    Thanks Dafyd, You clearly encapsulated what I was thinking, but was struggling to express.
    I'm not the first person to observe that the term victim culture fits the pro-racist right better than it fits the people of whom the right use the term.

    Quite. One particularly notes how they complain that they're not allowed to say what they are, in fact, saying.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Huia wrote: »
    Thanks Dafyd, You clearly encapsulated what I was thinking, but was struggling to express.
    I'm not the first person to observe that the term victim culture fits the pro-racist right better than it fits the people of whom the right use the term.
    Just like the term snowflake

  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Russ is either a troll or a bigot trying to justify his bigotry. The inconsistency of the way he has presented his POV would indicate troll. But he could also be an incompetence bigot. I don't see a redeeming arc for with ones, so...
    A bigoted troll, perhaps? (You've posted some great posts on this thread - thank you!)
    Thank you



  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited October 2020
    amybo wrote: »
    .
    Russ wrote: »
    To put it another way, whether you treat everyone the same way is seen as more important than how well you're actually treating them.

    If only it was that benign.

    Aspring to treat everyone the same way would be a huge step up from where some people are.

    Which is thinking that it's OK to treat people badly if they're from a group that historically hasn't been.

    I'm genuinely curious; are you concerned that if women or BIPOC gain equal footing with men or white people, that we/they will treat their oppressors as badly as we/they have been treated? If so, what makes you thing that, truly? The only people I have ever encountered with this idea have been white men, so I'd like to know where it's coming from.

    I have encountered at least one woman who actively advocated turning around and treating men as badly as men had treated women.

    Because hey, some people like revenge. And I doubt that either men or women have a monopoly on liking revenge.

    Having said that, I wouldn't for a moment think that she was representative of "women" in general. She was just herself, as an individual, being her own pain in the butt self.
  • There are in fact people who cannot be satisfied until other people suffer as they themselves have suffered, and they come in both sexes. I'm not really sure what to do about them, because they are so damaged, and they think they are righteous, so they are not inclined to seek help.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    There are in fact people who cannot be satisfied until other people suffer as they themselves have suffered, and they come in both sexes. I'm not really sure what to do about them, because they are so damaged, and they think they are righteous, so they are not inclined to seek help.
    Ahh-men.

  • No gender, indeed no group, owns any particular sin.
    Any given individual can be as horrible as any other, regardless of what descriptors apply.
    However, not all groups have the same effect as each other. And often the bad behaviour by people in the more oppressed groups is a result of the repression, so the solution is the same one.
    For example, female sexism is rooted in the dominant paradigm of male sexism, so solving male sexism solves both.*
    When we talk about Anyone can be an arsehole, we run the risk of sounding like we are saying everyone is the problem. And this is rarely the case.

    *Simplified, but true in the main.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    amybo wrote: »
    I'm genuinely curious; are you concerned that if women or BIPOC gain equal footing with men or white people, that we/they will treat their oppressors as badly as we/they have been treated? If so, what makes you thing that, truly? The only people I have ever encountered with this idea have been white men, so I'd like to know where it's coming from.

    I think for some white people -- and not just some white men, but some white women as well -- this is a real fear. If you're treating someone badly, you do have to be afraid of what they might do in return, given the opportunity. Plenty of people subscribe to the basic idea that if you do a shitty thing to someone, that person is justified in seeking revenge. And they know how angry they would be if they were treated as badly as Black people are treated.

    I'm sure many here have seen the video of Kimberly Jones talking about why some Black people occasionally burn things to the ground in protests. If anyone hasn't seen it, do watch the whole thing. But here's a transcript of the conclusion:
    You broke the [social] contract when for 400 years we played your game and built your wealth. You broke the contract when we built our wealth again on our own, on our bootstraps on Tulsa, and you dropped bombs on us when we built it in Rosewood, and you came in and slaughtered us. You broke the contract, so fuck your Target. Fuck your Hall of Fame. Far as I'm concerned, they could burn this bitch to the ground, and it still wouldn't be enough. And they're lucky that what Black people are looking for is equality and not revenge.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    I think for some white people -- and not just some white men, but some white women as well -- this is a real fear. If you're treating someone badly, you do have to be afraid of what they might do in return, given the opportunity.
    I do not doubt that this fear exists for some people.
    However, I think for most, the fear is of losing one's identity. One's "place" is part of one's identity. Changing the order threatens that identity. This is an existential fear, one that most people do not understand, much less consciously recognise.
    It is the same fear that generates reactions to the burning of a piece of cloth or the toppling of a piece of bronze of marble. And this is also why logic rarely works. It cannot easily penetrate the armour of their fear.
  • amyboamybo Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    amybo wrote: »
    I'm genuinely curious; are you concerned that if women or BIPOC gain equal footing with men or white people, that we/they will treat their oppressors as badly as we/they have been treated? If so, what makes you thing that, truly? The only people I have ever encountered with this idea have been white men, so I'd like to know where it's coming from.

    I think for some white people -- and not just some white men, but some white women as well -- this is a real fear. If you're treating someone badly, you do have to be afraid of what they might do in return, given the opportunity. Plenty of people subscribe to the basic idea that if you do a shitty thing to someone, that person is justified in seeking revenge. And they know how angry they would be if they were treated as badly as Black people are treated.

    I'm sure many here have seen the video of Kimberly Jones talking about why some Black people occasionally burn things to the ground in protests. If anyone hasn't seen it, do watch the whole thing. But here's a transcript of the conclusion:
    You broke the [social] contract when for 400 years we played your game and built your wealth. You broke the contract when we built our wealth again on our own, on our bootstraps on Tulsa, and you dropped bombs on us when we built it in Rosewood, and you came in and slaughtered us. You broke the contract, so fuck your Target. Fuck your Hall of Fame. Far as I'm concerned, they could burn this bitch to the ground, and it still wouldn't be enough. And they're lucky that what Black people are looking for is equality and not revenge.

    I loved that quote. Note that she talks about equality at the end, starkly contrasting it with revenge. We've erased systemic racism and sexism so much that the Russes and fellow assholes have never learned that actual peoples' lives are on the line.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Yes, I agree. And I think the fear of losing their identity is operating for both men and women who oppose feminism and the societal changes feminists advocate and work for.
Sign In or Register to comment.