The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: chaskavitch on September 19, 2018, 06:50:18 AM
-
In addition to the current accusation against Brett Kavanaugh being everywhere on the news, I just listened to an episode of NPR's podcast Invisibilia about "Callout" culture, and how once someone is ostracized for bad behavior, they are often never accepted back into their former life and friends, and it brought up this question in my mind.
When is it enough? I'm absolutely NOT saying Kavanaugh has done anything to engender forgiveness or sympathy if he assaulted even one person in HS, especially given the rest of his life choices regarding women's rights. However, what sort of apology or turning your life in a new direction IS enough?
If a public figure was a terrible person in high school, but has since made statements (in passing, regarding slightly related topics, or very specifically) that they recognize that fact, are saddened by and sorry about it, made a general public or specific private apologies, and has made choices that reflect that change of heart, what happens when they're accused by someone from their past? If they committed an actual crime, and they admit to it, I think they should receive the appropriate punishment. But what if they were a jerk who intimidated women with lewd jokes or something, and never actually assaulted or threatened anyone? Does turning their life around and trying to make amends in the intervening years mean anything?
I feel like there's got to be some tipping point, that we can't indefinitely punish someone for past mistakes that they've tried to correct, but I can't decide within myself where that point is.
-
Well, part of the difficulty in responding to your question is that we have so precious few of those examples in current public life.
Apologizing only when your behavior is publicly called out, as an expedient way to jump over it in pursuit of your own goals? Not enough. (And that’s what we’ve been seeing, if even that, for the most part.)
A non-apology apology? (“I’m sorry if any behavior in my past offended anybody...”) Not enough.
Actually recognizing, on your own, that you did something wrong, actually apologizing to the person (privately, sincerely), actually taking steps to atone for and grow from your mistakes, and not just as a way to push it out of the way so you can get on with your life unimpeded? Maybe even, as a public figure, confessing this before it is found out, and using your example to try to make things better in the world? Now we’re getting there.
But wow. I’m racking my brain trying to think of one of those anytime recently.
-
I think that the answer to the question is complicated.
If someone was a pedophile convicted of assaulting a dozen kids 20 years ago (and has had no problems with the law since), should they be allowed to teach a kindergarten class today? Most would probably say no, because the risk is too great and the crime was so severe.
If someone was caught shoplifting something 20 years ago (and has had no problems with the law since), should they be allowed to work as a security guard at a bank today? Most would probably say yes, because the crime was so minor and the risk is relatively small.
Rehabilitation is certainly possible, and people can turn their lives around. Having a person who makes a mistake and tries to fix their life be forgiven is vitally important to keeping our society running productively. That said, it's very important that people in positions of power and authority be trustworthy . . . and I'm not sure that it's ever possible to fully regain trust for certain crimes or actions.
Individual circumstances of a case and what they reveal about a person's thought process matter a whole lot too. Take cannibalism. If you murder the postman and cut him up and eat him because you didn't want to go to the corner store and pick up bread . . . that's going to be viewed differently than if you were stranded in the arctic and you ate some of your dead copilot to survive. The former indicates a particular mindset that I'm not sure can ever be rehabilitated, the latter is forced by circumstances.
-
Never taken back into society? Do you have any public examples?
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, perhaps? Ostracized all these years. So sad.
Former President Bill Clinton, perhaps? Ostracised all these years. So sad.
-
Never taken back into society? Do you have any public examples?
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, perhaps? Ostracized all these years. So sad.
Former President Bill Clinton, perhaps? Ostracised all these years. So sad.
The "never taken back into society" was more in reference to the podcast I listened to. The examples they gave were in regard to people in a specific, but large, music/lifestyle scene, I believe. People who were accused of sexual assault or gender-related violence or bullying were often dropped by all of their friends, not allowed to enter any concerts or events, and generally yelled at/hated/ignored by everyone they came in contact with, until they ended up leaving that life completely behind and building a new one elsewhere, often in a new city. This happened regardless of if it was years in the past and they'd done a 180 in their actions. One girl was even an influential person starting the movement of female rights in the music scene that ended up kicking her out for being a bully in HS.
I don't have any really public examples, no.
-
People who were accused of sexual assault or gender-related violence or bullying were often dropped by all of their friends, not allowed to enter any concerts or events, and generally yelled at/hated/ignored by everyone they came in contact with, until they ended up leaving that life completely behind and building a new one elsewhere, often in a new city.
Individuals are well within their rights to hate, refuse to associate with, and completely cut out of their lives someone who has hurt them or others in the past. Each person is responsible for their own actions, and the repercussions of those actions.
My personal view on the matter is that it takes a lot of energy to hate that would be better employed on more productive pursuits (forgiving someone else who appears truly contrite tends to benefit both parties in most cases), but I certainly wouldn't try to force anyone else to my viewpoint on this.
-
One example is Christian Picciolini. You can read about his history on Wikipedia or in Romantic Violence: Memoirs of an American Skinhead.
The short summary is that he was a high ranking skinhead, leader in the white power movement, and did some truly appalling things. He completely renounced his past and has been working to pull people out of hate groups for the past two decades and has done a tremendous amount of good in that time. I think part of what has helped him overcome his horrific past is that he fully admits to what he did and doesn't shy away from it at all. In addition he's dedicated his life to exactly the opposite of his skinhead beliefs. I have to go to work so I can't write more, but - wow, his life has been crazy and I think it would be hard to find many people who put themselves right in the middle of dangerous situations to pull people out of the violent white power movement.
-
One example is Christian Picciolini. You can read about his history on Wikipedia or in Romantic Violence: Memoirs of an American Skinhead.
The short summary is that he was a high ranking skinhead, leader in the white power movement, and did some truly appalling things. He completely renounced his past and has been working to pull people out of hate groups for the past two decades and has done a tremendous amount of good in that time. I think part of what has helped him overcome his horrific past is that he fully admits to what he did and doesn't shy away from it at all. In addition he's dedicated his life to exactly the opposite of his skinhead beliefs. I have to go to work so I can't write more, but - wow, his life has been crazy and I think it would be hard to find many people who put themselves right in the middle of dangerous situations to pull people out of the violent white power movement.
I think that working against the wrongs you committed in the past should play a role in coming back to normalcy. One aspect that makes me feel some shouldn't fully ever get back to what they once were (and of course this depends on the egregiousness of the crime) is that they person they harmed may never get their prior life back either. In the alleged case with Kavanaugh his victim has brought the incident up throughout her life with therapists and could very well have harmed her in ways that even she is not aware of.
On the other hand, if the perpetrator takes an active role in preventing the future occurrence of similar abuse, to what extent does that negate their wrongs?
Also, this may be more difficult for sexual abusers. A registered sex offender working with women to prevent sexual abuse? Maybe they should just give some money and pick another issue to tackle like starving children.
-
I think it's a complicated issue.
Overall, I'd say: can the person turn their life around? Yes, and if they do so, are genuinely remorseful about what they have done (not just the fact they got caught), have stopped doing the things which they did which were wrong, and have served any sentences given to them by the law, then they should be allowed to live their life. However, the people that they originally wronged are not required in any way to forgive them, so if the person really wants to start a new life and has fixed their clearly previously broken moral compass, then they're probably better moving to a new city or something where they won't be running into the people they wronged all the time (though they should possibly send them an apology letter or something, with no obligation to reply).
-
Rehabilitation is certainly possible, and people can turn their lives around. Having a person who makes a mistake and tries to fix their life be forgiven is vitally important to keeping our society running productively. That said, it's very important that people in positions of power and authority be trustworthy . . . and I'm not sure that it's ever possible to fully regain trust for certain crimes or actions.
I'm responding to the title 'When does an apology/turning your life around become "enough"?' rather than the specific issue of sex accusations or the more specific issue of Kavanaugh.
I think that requiring perfection of government officials is unrealistic and ultimately self-defeating. Everyone has both crimes and misdeeds in their past. Outside of extreme cases, of which there are not many, the main factors that determine the outcomes are the personal characteristics (race, gender, wealth) of the individual -- not what they did or didn't do, or whether their pattern of actions has changed.
I don't think that any sane person would want to run for or be appointed to high office in an environment where i) personal attacks are used to achieve political objectives and ii) there is no forgiveness. If the sane people quietly tiptoe away, the insane will be in charge -- people who have have such big axes to grind that they're willing to walk through all kinds of fire in order to achieve their objectives. We could also produce a cadre of professional super-liars. If people who make mistakes are disqualified, the only folks who will be able to present themselves as perfect are the very best of liars and con-artists.
Going to the issue of Kavanaugh, I think that he would be a bad supreme court justice, but that he will be confirmed anyway. My personal biases lead me to feel like we end up with justices like him in part because the more balanced folks have quietly tiptoed away.
-
I think that requiring perfection of government officials is unrealistic and ultimately self-defeating.
Agreed.
Everyone has both crimes and misdeeds in their past.
Not agreed. There are a lot of good people in the world. Let's not normalise "everyone has crimes in their past". Not every 17 year old male is an attempted rapist. Not everyone has a criminal record. Not everyone even should have a criminal record. The societal norm is law-abiding and non-violent.
Other than crime, yes we all make mistakes, but those mistakes do not necessarily rise to the category of "misdeeds".
I don't think that any sane person would want to run for or be appointed to high office in an environment where i) personal attacks are used to achieve political objectives and ii) there is no forgiveness. If the sane people quietly tiptoe away, the insane will be in charge
Agreed. Good people are too often discouraged. It does seem though that in current US politics there is a new cadre of candidates, often women and minorities, who have been emboldened to make the effort as the result of the election of Trump and the utter turpitude of the old guard.
Regarding the Supreme Court, none of the many proposed justices between Thomas and Kavanaugh were accused of sexual misdeeds. The credible accusations against those two people appear to be a function of the people they are/were. There is no indication that similar accusations would be levelled in circumstances in which they were not credible.
-
I think that requiring perfection of government officials is unrealistic and ultimately self-defeating.
Agreed.
Everyone has both crimes and misdeeds in their past.
Not agreed. There are a lot of good people in the world. Let's not normalise "everyone has crimes in their past". Not every 17 year old male is an attempted rapist. Not everyone has a criminal record. Not everyone even should have a criminal record. The societal norm is law-abiding and non-violent.
I disagree here. If every crime were detected and prosecuted, nearly everyone would have a criminal record. The two most common are probably use of drugs in a place where it was not legal and driving with enough alcohol in their system that they would fail a breathalyzer if one were given. Those two probably cover 90% of the population.
These are not the same as sex crimes, but then I was talking about our overall approach to misdeeds rather than anything to do with sex or Kavanaugh. Going into politics here: In the long run, the real weight of a drive to more punishment and less "normalization" will fall on poor minorities rather than potential supreme court justices.
-
Aside from criminal issues, which need to be dealt with by the justice process, it's between the offender and the victim, and not the business of the rest of us.
Now, when you are not the victim, but are just disgusted by the person's behaviour, well anyone is free to associate or not associate with someone as they wish. I've let friends drift away because I didn't like how they lived their lives, even though their victims (if we may call them that) forgave them.
I think that requiring perfection of government officials is unrealistic and ultimately self-defeating. Everyone has both crimes and misdeeds in their past.
I signed a petition sponsored by a minor political party which is unlikely to get any seats in the coming state election, and they recently sent out a mass email asking for candidates; just having lots of candidates helps a party's overall profile and gets their ideas out there even if they don't win a single seat. Now, I don't agree with enough of this party's policies to stand for them, but even if I did, it's not something I'd do.
Being a political candidate makes you probably, and actually winning makes you certain, to come under the kind of scrutiny almost none of us could get through without looking very bad. The social media age is the Age of Public Shaming, and some people are not content until you lose your job or business, your spouse and children, and everyone who associates with you.
The nature of mob justice is that it's uneven. One man murders his wife and a few years later is able to continue drawing on his wealth to live an idle life of luxury, another man grabs a woman's arse and is reduced to lonely ruin and commits suicide. The family of the man who defended the murderer go on to become famous for being famous, and indeed one is able to, with a straight face, ask the world to donate to her so she can become the world's youngest woman billionaire, and this wealthy person's panhandling does not lead to her being smacked down in the press, but indeed she gets praise for it.
We have all done something nasty or at least inappropriate, said something prejudiced, excluded someone unfairly, associated with someone who turned out to have done something truly awful, or annoyed someone enough for other reasons that they might decide to become creative with the truth. Many of us have been drunk, and all of us have been stupid. Becoming a member of parliament or the like is, for the common citizen, simply too risky in this Age of Shaming.
The other day I took my toddler daughter to the park, and took her to the toilet. A woman with a daughter the same age accosted me and demanded to know where I was taking that child, and why. Being a stay-at-home father makes you the target of suspicion from busybody strangers. Being a member of parliament would be even worse.
Aside from criminal matters, it's between the offender and the victim.
-
I think that requiring perfection of government officials is unrealistic and ultimately self-defeating.
Agreed.
Everyone has both crimes and misdeeds in their past.
Not agreed. There are a lot of good people in the world. Let's not normalise "everyone has crimes in their past". Not every 17 year old male is an attempted rapist. Not everyone has a criminal record. Not everyone even should have a criminal record. The societal norm is law-abiding and non-violent.
I disagree here. If every crime were detected and prosecuted, nearly everyone would have a criminal record. The two most common are probably use of drugs in a place where it was not legal and driving with enough alcohol in their system that they would fail a breathalyzer if one were given. Those two probably cover 90% of the population.
Can we please not normalise behaviour which is in the minority? Going around saying "90% of people take illegal drugs or drink and drive" is particularly harmful to young people who are unable to judge what is normal adult behaviour and what isn't.
As far as I am aware there are no statistics which sugggest that anything other than a small minority of the population take illegal drugs (around 9% in the UK, maxing out at 19% among young adults) https://www.drugwise.org.uk/how-many-people-use-drugs/
Also in the UK, about 4% of road accidents involve drink driving. If you consider that accidents are more likely when someone has been drinking, the drink-driving population is probably below 4%. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/635345/road-accidents-illegal-alcohol-levels-2015-final.pdf
Anecdotally, most of the people I know do not take illegal drugs and have never taken illegal drugs. You may of course live among a different section of the population.
-
I disagree here. If every crime were detected and prosecuted, nearly everyone would have a criminal record. The two most common are probably use of drugs in a place where it was not legal and driving with enough alcohol in their system that they would fail a breathalyzer if one were given. Those two probably cover 90% of the population.
Can we please not normalise behaviour which is in the minority? Going around saying "90% of people take illegal drugs or drink and drive" is particularly harmful to young people who are unable to judge what is normal adult behaviour and what isn't.
As far as I am aware there are no statistics which sugggest that anything other than a small minority of the population take illegal drugs (around 9% in the UK, maxing out at 19% among young adults) https://www.drugwise.org.uk/how-many-people-use-drugs/
Also in the UK, about 4% of road accidents involve drink driving. If you consider that accidents are more likely when someone has been drinking, the drink-driving population is probably below 4%. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/635345/road-accidents-illegal-alcohol-levels-2015-final.pdf
Anecdotally, most of the people I know do not take illegal drugs and have never taken illegal drugs. You may of course live among a different section of the population.
@electriceagle didn't say that 90% of the population takes drugs and drives drunk regularly. They said that probably 90% of the population has done these things at some point in time.
Personally, I think if you throw in traffic laws (speed limit, crossing against a signal, jaywalking), you get to 100% of adults.
So, former player, if you have never, not even once, used illicit drugs, driven after drinking, or broken a traffic law, bully for you. But representing this as some sort of standard adult behavior is disingenuous.
-
I disagree here. If every crime were detected and prosecuted, nearly everyone would have a criminal record. The two most common are probably use of drugs in a place where it was not legal and driving with enough alcohol in their system that they would fail a breathalyzer if one were given. Those two probably cover 90% of the population.
Can we please not normalise behaviour which is in the minority? Going around saying "90% of people take illegal drugs or drink and drive" is particularly harmful to young people who are unable to judge what is normal adult behaviour and what isn't.
As far as I am aware there are no statistics which sugggest that anything other than a small minority of the population take illegal drugs (around 9% in the UK, maxing out at 19% among young adults) https://www.drugwise.org.uk/how-many-people-use-drugs/
Also in the UK, about 4% of road accidents involve drink driving. If you consider that accidents are more likely when someone has been drinking, the drink-driving population is probably below 4%. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/635345/road-accidents-illegal-alcohol-levels-2015-final.pdf
Anecdotally, most of the people I know do not take illegal drugs and have never taken illegal drugs. You may of course live among a different section of the population.
@electriceagle didn't say that 90% of the population takes drugs and drives drunk regularly. They said that probably 90% of the population has done these things at some point in time.
Personally, I think if you throw in traffic laws (speed limit, crossing against a signal, jaywalking), you get to 100% of adults.
So, former player, if you have never, not even once, used illicit drugs, driven after drinking, or broken a traffic law, bully for you. But representing this as some sort of standard adult behavior is disingenuous.
I agree with you on traffic laws generally: if you drive you've probably broken a law. But only 45 million of the UK population have a driving licence, so nowhere near 100%. There are even adults in the USA without driving licences, so again not 100% (although a lot closer).
Proportion of UK population who have ever taken illegal drugs is 31%. One third. Again, nowhere near a majority, let alone 90%. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/05/-sp-drug-use-is-rising-in-the-uk-but-were-not-addicted https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/05/-sp-drug-use-is-rising-in-the-uk-but-were-not-addicted. Even assuming the 4% or less each year who drive drunk aren't in the same population as the illegal drug takers, over a lifetime they aren't going to bring that 31% figure up to 90%.
I'm not saying everyone's perfect. I'm not even saying I'm perfect. I am saying that the statistics for illegal drug use and drink driving don't add up to 90% of the population and that implying that everyone, or nearly everyone, does these things is both inaccurate and problematic.
-
There's some crazy false equivalence going on in this conversation.
Saying that everyone breaks the law, therefore we shouldn't hold that judge a person's behaviour by their criminal past is silly. Not all crimes are equal.
Getting a fine for jaywalking is very different from being arrested driving drunk. While neither are good, the second shows much more worrying judgement than the first. While both are examples of breaking the law (and of the specific traffic section of the law), the second is not a common occurrence, is more likely to cause property damage/death to other people . . . and warrants greater scrutiny for that reason.
I can accept that most people break one law or another during their lifetime. It would be unreasonable to spend a lot of time on a supreme court nomination talking about having a speeding ticket for going 5 miles an hour over the limit. It is not unreasonable for a supreme court nominee explain why they attempted to rape a woman. These are not equivalent crimes.
It's also not unreasonable for a person being selected for an important position of trust to be held to a much higher standard than the average person. This isn't a random person, they will have power that only a tiny minority of those in the country ever will . . . they should be selected from the best of the best to avoid abuses of that power.
-
I agree that you need to do more than just say "I'm sorry". There needs to be some sort of "penance", and even then, yes, there may be some avenues that remain closed off. e.g. the example of whether or not a pedophile should ever be allowed to teach kindergarten...I think in that case the offender would hopefully realize that such a position is too much temptation and I'd be pretty suspicious of a one-time pedophile insisting they wanted to teach kindergarten. Would you trust a former alcoholic to run a liquor store? Would an alcoholic who is serious about staying sober even ATTEMPT to run a liquor store? I sure hope not.
In cases like Kavanaugh's, he is going to be in a position of moral authority, and what he's accused of doing goes beyond just behavior that's in poor taste. I would argue it is also much worse than something like smoking weed a couple of times in HS because another person was harmed. There also now seems to be a suggestion, based on things like the societies he was in at university, that if the allegations are true, they aren't an isolated out-of-character incident--he was part of a "boys will be boys" culture of partying and demeaning women. That's a bit different from getting drunk at a party once. Even if there are no other victims, it says a lot about his views on women and he's now going to be on the highest court in the country where the population is 50% female? While he has said a lot about his wife and daughters and mentioned things like hiring more female clerks, he is also denying the accusations and so far hasn't said anything to address the culture he was apparently part of and participating in in high school/university. No saying that he regrets the hard partying, drunken, atmosphere, no evidence that he has done anything to contribute to a change in that culture (instead we have quotes of him saying "what happens at Georgetown prep stays at Georgetown prep, har har"). He might be an intelligent and well-behaved person now and I'm sure there are jobs he is well-suited for, some of which probably pay very well and would allow him to live a nice lifestyle. Nobody would argue Kavanaugh was a "failure" if "all" he ever did was make partner at a law firm. But Supreme Court justice? I would say if these allegations are true he 100% does not belong there. If they are not, he still ought to be showing some awareness that the culture he belonged to in high school/university is not okay and not one he condones now.
There's another active thread on here about a woman who had her first child at 16 and has been struggling ever since. People are piling on her saying she made bad decisions to have too many kids with deadbeat partners and now she has to live with the consequences. She is paying for her teenage bad behavior every single day and probably will pay for the rest of her life, because our society doesn't provide decent support for the poor or single parents, to help them dig out of their holes. And there are apparently plenty of people who are 100% okay with that state of affairs. But the GOP wants me to just forgive what appear to be multiple years of hard-partying lifestyle (that could have potentially resulted in a teenage pregnancy, if Ford's allegations are true) and be okay with this guy getting a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? No thanks.
-
Did anyone read the Caitlin Flannagan story or hear her interviewed on The Daily recently about her story in The Atlantic? That's what a sincere apology should look like. But even if Kavanaugh had apologized to Ford the very next week, the fact that he had an accomplice, turned up the music to cover his crime, and put his hand over her mouth would make it hard to forgive. It seems too premeditated to be forgiven as just a drunk mistake or rough horseplay. It indicates a deeply flawed character and an assumption that his priviledge would protect him even if he committed serious crimes.
Another (but different) case that comes to mind is Derek Black (if you just google him, you'll see tons of stuff). White nationalist kid goes to college, meets people different from him, and changes his mind, even though it alienates him from his family. When you make such a thorough change and then talk about it publicly, I'll buy that it's real and forgive you.
Kavanaugh? It's too late for him to ask for forgiveness. If he did, it would be obvious that it was in the name of political expediency without an iota of sincerity.
-
It really bothers me that people in general refer to wrong-doings as a "mistake." To me, a mistake is something that happens unintentionally. The above are examples of poor judgment and purposeful harm to others. In my opinion, this is on par with people apologizing with a statement that they are sorry for "what happened," rather than for "what I did." Both ways, people are not taking responsibility.
-
It's also not unreasonable for a person being selected for an important position of trust to be held to a much higher standard than the average person. This isn't a random person, they will have power that only a tiny minority of those in the country ever will . . . they should be selected from the best of the best to avoid abuses of that power.
Perhaps the scrutiny needs to be less of their past to see if they are "worthy" to have the power, and more of... how they actually use their power.
-
It's also not unreasonable for a person being selected for an important position of trust to be held to a much higher standard than the average person. This isn't a random person, they will have power that only a tiny minority of those in the country ever will . . . they should be selected from the best of the best to avoid abuses of that power.
Perhaps the scrutiny needs to be less of their past to see if they are "worthy" to have the power, and more of... how they actually use their power.
Yeah, that's largely how I'd judge 'worthiness'.
A person who chooses to drink and drive is abusing the power that their car gives them (and risking other's lives while doing so), a guy who attempts to rape a woman alone at a party is abusing the power that the situation and his physical strength gives him, a person with a history of stiffing illegal workers for pay is abusing his power, etc.
-
Lance Armstrong has an interesting podcast that is not too far off from this topic. It's called the forward, and it's about people who have made mistakes and how they choose to move forward in their lives.
Lance himself seems to have earned a reputation as a bully and a psychopath (and I think he thinks/thought the hate was just for cheating, and that he was singled out and punished because he was the best) but also seems to have come a long ways in terms of realizing how he let people down.
-
Lance Armstrong has an interesting podcast that is not too far off from this topic. It's called the forward, and it's about people who have made mistakes and how they choose to move forward in their lives.
Lance himself seems to have earned a reputation as a bully and a psychopath (and I think he thinks/thought the hate was just for cheating, and that he was singled out and punished because he was the best) but also seems to have come a long ways in terms of realizing how he let people down.
Lance is a charismatic and manipulative person, who is hyper-aware of his public image. He knows that the image control attempt he made with Oprah failed spectacularly so has reformed his strategy. I have zero doubt in my mind that given the same scenario he would do exactly the same thing again. Not really sure that's something I'd consider reform.
-
Lance Armstrong has an interesting podcast that is not too far off from this topic. It's called the forward, and it's about people who have made mistakes and how they choose to move forward in their lives.
Lance himself seems to have earned a reputation as a bully and a psychopath (and I think he thinks/thought the hate was just for cheating, and that he was singled out and punished because he was the best) but also seems to have come a long ways in terms of realizing how he let people down.
Lance is a charismatic and manipulative person, who is hyper-aware of his public image. He knows that the image control attempt he made with Oprah failed spectacularly so has reformed his strategy. I have zero doubt in my mind that given the same scenario he would do exactly the same thing again. Not really sure that's something I'd consider reform.
Which brings us back to the concept of redemption through public prostration and apology, which is often done as a required part of trying to rehab an image.
There’s no surprise that people need more than words from someone who had broken the public trust before the public is willing to respect them again. Of course they will try and say all of the right things because if they can, they will pay PR experts to tell them exactly how and when to say all of the right things.
Pretty and thoughtful words don’t entitle anyone to forgiveness or respect that has been lost. They are simply the minimum first step towards regaining footing to try and repair and reestablish a reputation through consistent positive actions.
A well crafted PR strategy can definitely work to restore someone’s reputation, but only if they consistently back it up with improved behaviour and don’t get caught continuing to be a fuck up.
Hmm, it's definitely true that merely saying you have changed is not enough. You have to actually back it up by not doing whatever the bad thing was that you did before, even in situations where you think nobody is watching - i.e., your internal beliefs on the issue need to have changed enough that you are no longer at risk of doing the bad thing, if you want people to hire you/respect you/befriend you based on the fact that you have changed and don't do that type of thing any more.
(I should note, by the way, that, being UK-based I also have no real idea who this Brett guy is, and so am addressing the more general question of the OP.)
-
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend recently.
Context: We are both professionals, college educated, with certifications, and paid pretty well to 'think.'
We were talking about the dumb things we did in HS, college, at music festivals, and how we have friends who got caught doing those same things. Those friends, who we consider just as smart as ourselves, don't have similar jobs now. These professional careers with certifications won't consider someone who got caught with marijuana in college, someone with a DWI, someone who was charged with assault when they got in a fight at 18, etc. The more we talked about it the more we realized how many of our friends without nice jobs got caught doing something stupid, and how many of our friends with great jobs did the same things but didn't get caught.
Summary: most people do things that society has designated 'illegal,' especially between the ages of 16 and 24. Some are obviously significantly more serious than others, but one minor mistake at 18 can still have a drastic impact on someone's employment and income over the rest of their life.
If almost everyone has done something dumb, why do we have such harsh punishments for the people who were unlucky enough to get caught?
Just so it's said; I'm not referring to violent crimes(outside of a fist fight) or sex crimes at all here. If you ruin or end someone's life there should be serious consequences.
-
Here's a crazy idea: you have made sufficient amends for your sins when all of the people you have wronged have personally and sincerely forgiven you for everything you have done. Maybe let the victims decide what is "enough"?
-
Victims & victimizers. It's so awful. But after teaching for close to 4 decades at the high school level and dealing with so many victims and victimizers, and then seeing them as adults, (and some of them are now in their middle 50's), I've come to a conclusion. For the most part, everyone turns out. The victims turn out and so do the victimizers. Even the rotten ones. It's not fair that they don't suffer as much as their victims, but by all appearances, they don't. NOT FAIR!
But the victims who have done the best (according to my anecdotal information) made forgetfulness more important than forgiveness. Oh, and the victimizers also practice a lot of forgetfulness of what they did! Again, NOT FAIR!
-
In addition to the current accusation against Brett Kavanaugh being everywhere on the news, I just listened to an episode of NPR's podcast Invisibilia about "Callout" culture, and how once someone is ostracized for bad behavior, they are often never accepted back into their former life and friends, and it brought up this question in my mind.
When is it enough? I'm absolutely NOT saying Kavanaugh has done anything to engender forgiveness or sympathy if he assaulted even one person in HS, especially given the rest of his life choices regarding women's rights. However, what sort of apology or turning your life in a new direction IS enough?
For a public figure? Possibly never, and that's probably appropriate.
For an interpersonal relationship? That obviously depends on what they did. Some things are truly unforgivable.
But I absolutely see the danger of trying people in the court of public opinion when they are 53 for the things they did when they were 17. In general, if the statue of limitations has ran out, or they have served their term, I do think that society should move on. Not that we really do that today, you try being a convicted felon. But that might not apply to Senators, Presidents, and supreme court justices. After all, we deserve the absolute best candidates for those jobs, right?
-
In addition to the current accusation against Brett Kavanaugh being everywhere on the news, I just listened to an episode of NPR's podcast Invisibilia about "Callout" culture, and how once someone is ostracized for bad behavior, they are often never accepted back into their former life and friends, and it brought up this question in my mind.
When is it enough? I'm absolutely NOT saying Kavanaugh has done anything to engender forgiveness or sympathy if he assaulted even one person in HS, especially given the rest of his life choices regarding women's rights. However, what sort of apology or turning your life in a new direction IS enough?
For a public figure? Possibly never, and that's probably appropriate.
For an interpersonal relationship? That obviously depends on what they did. Some things are truly unforgivable.
But I absolutely see the danger of trying people in the court of public opinion when they are 53 for the things they did when they were 17. In general, if the statue of limitations has ran out, or they have served their term, I do think that society should move on. Not that we really do that today, you try being a convicted felon. But that might not apply to Senators, Presidents, and supreme court justices. After all, we deserve the absolute best candidates for those jobs, right?
If a 17 year old tortured, raped, and eventually murdered a dozen toddlers and the statute of limitations has run out . . . you believe that there's no problem with this same person being a teacher at the age of 53? Or maybe a doctor in a maternity ward? Or an early childhood educator in a daycare? What about working in a kids amusement park as an entertainer?
-
If a 17 year old tortured, raped, and eventually murdered a dozen toddlers and the statute of limitations has run out . . . you believe that there's no problem with this same person being a teacher at the age of 53? Or maybe a doctor in a maternity ward? Or an early childhood educator in a daycare? What about working in a kids amusement park as an entertainer?
I believe that we are a nation of laws. You can't just form a lynch mob after the statute of limitations has expired, keeping in mind that the statue of limitations main purpose it to prevent wrongful convictions after evidence has gotten old and witnesses have died. With that said, statutes of limitations date back to Athens where there was no statute of limitation on murder. I know of no state with a statute of limitations on murder for adults. Furthermore, the people are sovereign. If we wanted to have no statue of limitations on rape and kidnapping, we could make that choice, and I would respect it (if not support it).
Now, the juvenile case is more complicated. In many states for hundreds of years juveniles could not be punished for their crimes after their ~25th birthday.* This was the case until 1994 in Oregon.** The theory being that the juvenile justice system did not exist as a means of punishment, but as a means of raising full and complete citizens. If we brought back this idea it would have a damning effect on the school to prison pipeline. I fully support a more traditional juvenile justice system where you could indeed be a teacher when you are 53 even if you murdered a child when you were 17. After all, children are a product of their environment.
* - But please note: if they stay clean between their 18th birthday and their 25th birthday, do we still need to "correct" their behavior?
** - This is still the case for children under 15. As a though experiment, say an 11 year old kills someone and you don't figure it out until they are 53. What should you do about it?
-
I think that part of forgiveness is acceptance of your sins. I'm not sure you can or should be forgiven for rape if you go on television and deny that it ever happened, or brag about it to your friends, or promise to do it again. No matter how long it's been since you last raped someone.
Yes, we have a statue of limitations for criminal conviction. I didn't think this thread was about criminal liability, though. Lots of people who have served their time for crimes they committed years ago are still active criminals who have offered no apologies, and have not tried to turn their lives around.
Note the statue of limitations for criminal liability is basically unrelated to when you've done "enough" to atone for your mistakes. You can't just unrepentantly wait out a crime's liability window and have it not be wrong anymore. And conversely, I think you can absolutely atone for your mistakes and be truly reformed while still serving a prison sentence.
-
If a 17 year old tortured, raped, and eventually murdered a dozen toddlers and the statute of limitations has run out . . . you believe that there's no problem with this same person being a teacher at the age of 53? Or maybe a doctor in a maternity ward? Or an early childhood educator in a daycare? What about working in a kids amusement park as an entertainer?
I believe that we are a nation of laws. You can't just form a lynch mob after the statute of limitations has expired, keeping in mind that the statue of limitations main purpose it to prevent wrongful convictions after evidence has gotten old and witnesses have died. With that said, statutes of limitations date back to Athens where the was no statute of limitation on murder. I know of no state with a statute of limitations on murder for adults. Furthermore, the people are sovereign. If we wanted to have no statue of limitations on rape and kidnapping, we could make that choice, and I would respect it (if not support it).
Now, the juvenile case is more complicated. In many states for hundreds of years juveniles could not be punished for their crimes after their ~25th birthday.* This was the case until 1994 in Oregon.** The theory being that the juvenile justice system did not exist as a means of punishment, but as a means of raising full and complete citizens. If we brought back this idea it would have a damning effect on the school to prison pipeline. I fully support a more traditional juvenile justice system where you could indeed be a teacher when you are 53 even if you murdered a child when you were 17. After all, children are a product of their environment.
* - But please note: if they stay clean between their 18th birthday and their 25th birthday, do we still need to "correct" their behavior?
** - This is still the case for children under 15. As a though experiment, say an 11 year old kills someone and you don't figure it out until they are 53. What should you do about it?
I don't know what you should do about it, but determining what action is taken needs to depend to some extent on the type and severity of the crime.
For a great many crimes, mistakes can be made and forgetting them after a period of time makes sense. For some crimes though it doesn't sit right to forgive them . . . because I suspect that they show the inner workings of a person's mind. I don't know if it will ever be possible to rehabilitate someone who voluntarily tortures several other people to death (for example). It's not possible to do the crime without being fundamentally broken in (what I suspect is) an unfixable way. The person will always be a danger to society (although they may eventually get very good at hiding what they do).
-
This article speaks specifically of the Jewish perspective on atonement, but I thought it was an excellent way to look at the issue, in terms of what should be expected of the offender:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/famous-abusers-seek-easy-forgiveness-rosh-hashanah-teaches-us-repentance-is-hard/2018/09/06/c2dc2cac-b0ab-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html?utm_term=.6f682d24c3fa (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/famous-abusers-seek-easy-forgiveness-rosh-hashanah-teaches-us-repentance-is-hard/2018/09/06/c2dc2cac-b0ab-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html?utm_term=.6f682d24c3fa)
-
If a 17 year old tortured, raped, and eventually murdered a dozen toddlers and the statute of limitations has run out . . . you believe that there's no problem with this same person being a teacher at the age of 53? Or maybe a doctor in a maternity ward? Or an early childhood educator in a daycare? What about working in a kids amusement park as an entertainer?
I believe that we are a nation of laws. You can't just form a lynch mob after the statute of limitations has expired, keeping in mind that the statue of limitations main purpose it to prevent wrongful convictions after evidence has gotten old and witnesses have died. With that said, statutes of limitations date back to Athens where the was no statute of limitation on murder. I know of no state with a statute of limitations on murder for adults. Furthermore, the people are sovereign. If we wanted to have no statue of limitations on rape and kidnapping, we could make that choice, and I would respect it (if not support it).
Now, the juvenile case is more complicated. In many states for hundreds of years juveniles could not be punished for their crimes after their ~25th birthday.* This was the case until 1994 in Oregon.** The theory being that the juvenile justice system did not exist as a means of punishment, but as a means of raising full and complete citizens. If we brought back this idea it would have a damning effect on the school to prison pipeline. I fully support a more traditional juvenile justice system where you could indeed be a teacher when you are 53 even if you murdered a child when you were 17. After all, children are a product of their environment.
* - But please note: if they stay clean between their 18th birthday and their 25th birthday, do we still need to "correct" their behavior?
** - This is still the case for children under 15. As a though experiment, say an 11 year old kills someone and you don't figure it out until they are 53. What should you do about it?
I don't know what you should do about it, but determining what action is taken needs to depend to some extent on the type and severity of the crime.
For a great many crimes, mistakes can be made and forgetting them after a period of time makes sense. For some crimes though it doesn't sit right to forgive them . . . because I suspect that they show the inner workings of a person's mind. I don't know if it will ever be possible to rehabilitate someone who voluntarily tortures several other people to death (for example). It's not possible to do the crime without being fundamentally broken in (what I suspect is) an unfixable way. The person will always be a danger to society (although they may eventually get very good at hiding what they do).
I think this is the thing with forgiveness, repentance, etc. If someone raped and murdered toddlers when they were 17, then, logically speaking, it would in fact be safe to allow them to teach toddlers when they were 53, IF AND ONLY IF they were genuinely repentant and remorseful, regretted their past actions deeply, and had managed to change their moral system and/or emotional stability far enough that they would never do anything like that again. But the thing with this type of horrific crime is that the type of person who would commit it is not a type of person particularly likely to feel genuine remorse about it, so for most people who had done that, then it wouldn't be safe to have them be a teacher.
-
Here's a crazy idea: you have made sufficient amends for your sins when all of the people you have wronged have personally and sincerely forgiven you for everything you have done. Maybe let the victims decide what is "enough"?
But that would give all the power to the victim...clearly not acceptable. What if they never forgive you?
When you’re use to taking whatever you want, why not force forgiveness too? Make rules to force victims to forgive, call it statute of limitations. Tell them they’re unreasonable for holding a grudge, it’s their fault they feel horrible.
(I agree with Sol)
-
For a great many crimes, mistakes can be made and forgetting them after a period of time makes sense. For some crimes though it doesn't sit right to forgive them . . . because I suspect that they show the inner workings of a person's mind. I don't know if it will ever be possible to rehabilitate someone who voluntarily tortures several other people to death (for example).
The organisers of the Women's March disagree (https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/30/donna-hylton-background/) with you.
The issue of criminal responsibility is a different one to moral culpability and forgiveness and so on. As I said earlier, that's between the one who committed the act and the victim. And yes, the Jewish perspective is a useful one, you must actively make restitution, if such is possible. I'm reminded of the story of the Hindu-Moslem riots, where Ghandi told a Hindu killer and a Moslem killer that each had to take an orphaned child of the opposite faith and bring them up in that opposite faith. It's one of those stories that's too neat to be true, but it's still a useful way to think of things.
For example, the torturer I linked above, Donna Hylton, is an advocate for prisoners. Now, this is a good thing to do, as many prisoners have unfair conditions, and are not given a fair chance after release. Nonetheless, her advocating for prisoners is essentially her advocating for herself. We would be more convinced of her remorse if she were an advocate not for criminals but for the victims of crime.
-
I think this is the thing with forgiveness, repentance, etc. If someone raped and murdered toddlers when they were 17, then, logically speaking, it would in fact be safe to allow them to teach toddlers when they were 53, IF AND ONLY IF they were genuinely repentant and remorseful, regretted their past actions deeply, and had managed to change their moral system and/or emotional stability far enough that they would never do anything like that again. But the thing with this type of horrific crime is that the type of person who would commit it is not a type of person particularly likely to feel genuine remorse about it, so for most people who had done that, then it wouldn't be safe to have them be a teacher.
Surely someone who genuinely felt remorse for raping and murdering toddlers would recognise that it would be completely inappropriate for them ever to have a professional role relating to toddlers or children of other ages? If for no other reason, that it is unfair to the children to have that association in their young lives. So I would be deeply suspicious of such a case, and cannot see the moral argument for allowing it or for the perpetrator wanting it.
-
I think this is the thing with forgiveness, repentance, etc. If someone raped and murdered toddlers when they were 17, then, logically speaking, it would in fact be safe to allow them to teach toddlers when they were 53, IF AND ONLY IF they were genuinely repentant and remorseful, regretted their past actions deeply, and had managed to change their moral system and/or emotional stability far enough that they would never do anything like that again. But the thing with this type of horrific crime is that the type of person who would commit it is not a type of person particularly likely to feel genuine remorse about it, so for most people who had done that, then it wouldn't be safe to have them be a teacher.
Surely someone who genuinely felt remorse for raping and murdering toddlers would recognise that it would be completely inappropriate for them ever to have a professional role relating to toddlers or children of other ages? If for no other reason, that it is unfair to the children to have that association in their young lives. So I would be deeply suspicious of such a case, and cannot see the moral argument for allowing it or for the perpetrator wanting it.
Well, I'm not exactly a psychology expert, so I'm not sure if any of that type of person would have a good reason for it or not. It would, indeed, be very hard to tell if such a person was truly remorseful, though.
-
For a great many crimes, mistakes can be made and forgetting them after a period of time makes sense. For some crimes though it doesn't sit right to forgive them . . . because I suspect that they show the inner workings of a person's mind. I don't know if it will ever be possible to rehabilitate someone who voluntarily tortures several other people to death (for example).
The organisers of the Women's March disagree (https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/30/donna-hylton-background/) with you.
The issue of criminal responsibility is a different one to moral culpability and forgiveness and so on. As I said earlier, that's between the one who committed the act and the victim. And yes, the Jewish perspective is a useful one, you must actively make restitution, if such is possible. I'm reminded of the story of the Hindu-Moslem riots, where Ghandi told a Hindu killer and a Moslem killer that each had to take an orphaned child of the opposite faith and bring them up in that opposite faith. It's one of those stories that's too neat to be true, but it's still a useful way to think of things.
For example, the torturer I linked above, Donna Hylton, is an advocate for prisoners. Now, this is a good thing to do, as many prisoners have unfair conditions, and are not given a fair chance after release. Nonetheless, her advocating for prisoners is essentially her advocating for herself. We would be more convinced of her remorse if she were an advocate not for criminals but for the victims of crime.
That's an interesting example you bring up, and it shows how important context is in the discussion of forgiveness. I think that we can all agree that her murder/torture of the man who tortured her for years is on a different level than someone who randomly follows someone home and murders/tortures them. The former is certainly not a desirable outcome . . . but somewhat understandable. Letting her go free produces minimal risk for the general population, as she acted in response to a very unusual event.
-
Letting her go free produces minimal risk for the general population, as she acted in response to a very unusual event.
I'm wavering on this one. If your defense of this lady is "she tortured someone only because she herself was tortured" then that doesn't seem too different from all of the pedophiles who were themselves molested as children, or the prison rapists who were themselves raped.
In her specific case, this lady served 27 years of a prison sentence for 2nd degree murder even though there is basically no evidence she participated in any torture or murder. She was arrested for knowing the the people who committed this crime, and for agreeing to deliver a ransom note, not for kidnapping or torture or murder.
-
Letting her go free produces minimal risk for the general population, as she acted in response to a very unusual event.
I'm wavering on this one. If your defense of this lady is "she tortured someone only because she herself was tortured" then that doesn't seem too different from all of the pedophiles who were themselves molested as children, or the prison rapists who were themselves raped.
In her specific case, this lady served 27 years of a prison sentence for 2nd degree murder even though there is basically no evidence she participated in any torture or murder. She was arrested for knowing the the people who committed this crime, and for agreeing to deliver a ransom note, not for kidnapping or torture or murder.
I thought that she tortured and killed the person who had been torturing her. This is quite different from a person who was molested molesting someone new, as one is an action in retaliation for harm done and the other is doing new harm on someone innocent.
-
My husband was killed by a drunk driver in 2007. In early 2008 when the sentencing trial occurred, I gave the reccommeded Victim Impact Statement, outlining the irreparable harm he had caused my family.I have one child who would remember her father very well, one who would have only very hazy memories and the youngest would have none at all. The driver was allowed a moment after sentencing to give an apology. While it was clear he regretted the incident and was truly sorry for his actions, the prison sentence was set at the allowable 10 year period in California, starting at that date. Due to his prior DUI convictions, no time was given for the prior jail time. During this period, his wife divorced him and removed any claim he might have on their child. There were parole hearings at several junctures during the next 10 years which I attended, and resulted in his continued stay in prison system.
Finally last year the mandated sentenced was served in full. I was made aware of this by the DA and the hardworking advocates that tracked this every step of the way (they're fabulous).
Forgiveness is a very, very tricky thing. I certainly can't forget this, nor will I ever fully forgive it. But I do know that obsessing over it and fostering bitterness is ugly. The deal I made with myself is to make peace with it, and truly some days are easier than others. It will always be a work in progress.
-
Criminal actions are complicated.
But call out culture seems to me more about accusers signaling their virtue than the accused or offense committed. Offering forgiveness or even reasonable conditions to forgiveness is not an option if it might make you look less than virtuous inside your chosen hothouse admiration society.
It hasn’t gotten to the point where they’ll burn you at the stake. But you can almost see it from here.
-
For those looking for an example of a decent public-figure apology (not for sex crimes): https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/james-gunn-exits-guardians-galaxy-vol-3-1128786
Paraphrased: "I sucked before, I really did. I have been trying to do better and think I'm succeeding, but I still said those things and they sucked and reflected my sucky personality at the time. I totally get why I was fired and I respect that. I'll continue trying to be a better person anyway."
I don't think I'd mind seeing him direct another movie after that, though I'm not at all saying they should have taken him back right away or anything. But that was a legit apology (for a celeb/public figure, anyway).
I do hope as internet communication and social media becomes more ubiquitous, we will become better at being good people online, but also not holding the occasional regrettable statement or joke against someone 20+ years later.
However, a pattern of behavior (bullying), or physical misbehavior or crimes, including property damage, physical assault, sexual harassment and assault, etc I think are more serious and more indicative of character flaws. Consent is not that hard; many dudes manage to figure it out: https://twitter.com/behindyourback/status/1045864179171766272
I don't know what it would take for someone to make amends for these crimes and demonstrate a turnaround. But it would have to be in the form of actions as well as words. I would have a hard time believing Sir Patrick Stewart or President Jimmy Carter had assaulted women, given the activism and work they do against domestic violence and advocating for women's rights.
-
Criminal actions are complicated.
But call out culture seems to me more about accusers signaling their virtue than the accused or offense committed. Offering forgiveness or even reasonable conditions to forgiveness is not an option if it might make you look less than virtuous inside your chosen hothouse admiration society.
It hasn’t gotten to the point where they’ll burn you at the stake. But you can almost see it from here.
"Accusers signalling their virtue"? Don't you mean "victims stating their pain"? And why should victims give a flying fuck about the perpetrator?
(These are rhetorical questions, by the way, EricL. Because the tone of your post is so completely tone deaf I think you need that stated directly.)
-
That's an interesting example you bring up, and it shows how important context is in the discussion of forgiveness. I think that we can all agree that her murder/torture of the man who tortured her for years is on a different level than someone who randomly follows someone home and murders/tortures them.
What? This guy hadn't tortured her, and in fact she'd never met him before participating in his unlawful imprisonment, torture and murder. She joined in because she was promised $9,000. She claims a history of having been abused as a child, but this no person writing articles about or interviewing her has mentioned making any effort to confirm this (she says reports were made, etc), and in any case her victim was completely unrelated to the man she helped kill.
Read the articles properly. She got 25 years for a reason.
-
That's an interesting example you bring up, and it shows how important context is in the discussion of forgiveness. I think that we can all agree that her murder/torture of the man who tortured her for years is on a different level than someone who randomly follows someone home and murders/tortures them.
What? This guy hadn't tortured her, and in fact she'd never met him before participating in his unlawful imprisonment, torture and murder. She joined in because she was promised $9,000. She claims a history of having been abused as a child, but this no person writing articles about or interviewing her has mentioned making any effort to confirm this (she says reports were made, etc), and in any case her victim was completely unrelated to the man she helped kill.
Yeah, I skimmed some stuff over and misunderstood the facts of her case when I posted that.
Read the articles properly. She got 25 years for a reason.
-
One example is Christian Picciolini. You can read about his history on Wikipedia or in Romantic Violence: Memoirs of an American Skinhead.
The short summary is that he was a high ranking skinhead, leader in the white power movement, and did some truly appalling things. He completely renounced his past and has been working to pull people out of hate groups for the past two decades and has done a tremendous amount of good in that time. I think part of what has helped him overcome his horrific past is that he fully admits to what he did and doesn't shy away from it at all. In addition he's dedicated his life to exactly the opposite of his skinhead beliefs. I have to go to work so I can't write more, but - wow, his life has been crazy and I think it would be hard to find many people who put themselves right in the middle of dangerous situations to pull people out of the violent white power movement.
Different guy - good listen: https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2018/09/24/651011229?showDate=2018-09-24
-
Criminal actions are complicated.
But call out culture seems to me more about accusers signaling their virtue than the accused or offense committed. Offering forgiveness or even reasonable conditions to forgiveness is not an option if it might make you look less than virtuous inside your chosen hothouse admiration society.
It hasn’t gotten to the point where they’ll burn you at the stake. But you can almost see it from here.
"Accusers signalling their virtue"? Don't you mean "victims stating their pain"? And why should victims give a flying fuck about the perpetrator?
(These are rhetorical questions, by the way, EricL. Because the tone of your post is so completely tone deaf I think you need that stated directly.)
No actually. I don't need you to restate it for me. That's fucking rude and condescending. I'm not talking about actual victims - unless it's those that wear their victimhood like a crown. I'm talking about the accusers who do it on their behalf and the jump on the band wagon types. Actual victims are often more forgiving to actual perpetrators trying to make amends than the "I have to signal my virtue because my entire identity is in question if I don't" set.
Going OT, so OK to skip:
I will say that I used a right wing term because I honestly don't know another way to describe it. At first I thought it was just a Facebook thing where you had to assert you were pro-diversity/pro-gay rights etc. just in case someone caught your feed for the first time and didn't know. But I made some friends who are proudly "woke" as fuck and they virtue signal in their own conversation with their own set at least once a minute. They mean well and they're genuinely good people. It appears fear based and can't be a good thing. And while I don't have as many conservative friends, I've noted that online they're prone to their own virtue signaling. But the whole thing is perplexing as fuck. Why do you have to repeatedly state your beliefs to your own friends and ideological fellow travelers? Didn't you do it a long time ago? I'm very careful interacting with them online for the same reason I don't kick in the front doors of friends who are gun nuts.
Edit: PM me your virtue signals so we don't derail the threat. If I get enough I'll start a new topic and we'll virtue signal the whole board.
-
Criminal actions are complicated.
But call out culture seems to me more about accusers signaling their virtue than the accused or offense committed. Offering forgiveness or even reasonable conditions to forgiveness is not an option if it might make you look less than virtuous inside your chosen hothouse admiration society.
It hasn’t gotten to the point where they’ll burn you at the stake. But you can almost see it from here.
"Accusers signalling their virtue"? Don't you mean "victims stating their pain"? And why should victims give a flying fuck about the perpetrator?
(These are rhetorical questions, by the way, EricL. Because the tone of your post is so completely tone deaf I think you need that stated directly.)
No actually. I don't need you to restate it for me. That's fucking rude and condescending. I'm not talking about actual victims - unless it's those that wear their victimhood like a crown. I'm talking about the accusers who do it on their behalf and the jump on the band wagon types. Actual victims are often more forgiving to actual perpetrators trying to make amends than the "I have to signal my virtue because my entire identity is in question if I don't" set.
Going OT, so OK to skip:
I will say that I used a right wing term because I honestly don't know another way to describe it. At first I thought it was just a Facebook thing where you had to assert you were pro-diversity/pro-gay rights etc. just in case someone caught your feed for the first time and didn't know. But I made some friends who are proudly "woke" as fuck and they virtue signal in their own conversation with their own set at least once a minute. They mean well and they're genuinely good people. It appears fear based and can't be a good thing. And while I don't have as many conservative friends, I've noted that online they're prone to their own virtue signaling. But the whole thing is perplexing as fuck. Why do you have to repeatedly state your beliefs to your own friends and ideological fellow travelers? Didn't you do it a long time ago? I'm very careful interacting with them online for the same reason I don't kick in the front doors of friends who are gun nuts.
Edit: PM me your virtue signals so we don't derail the threat. If I get enough I'll start a new topic and we'll virtue signal the whole board.
Right. I don't understand how you can say your "virtue signallers" are not the victims when you are talking about those virtue signallers not offering forgiveness - it would have to be only the victims who would offer forgiveness, not their allies. So of course I think you are talking about actual victims when you use that phrase.
Why do people reinforce their views to each other? Possibly to reinforce community in the face of threats to it? Have you listened to the Republican senators taking turns at the microphone reinforcing each others views on the need to confirm Kavanaugh and the "injustice" of the accusations against him? Repeatedly stating their views about how well Dr Ford has been treated, but that at the same time implying that she is a partisan party political liar? Do please apply your judgements against them, the old white men in power who are determined to signal the virtue of their own community.
-
Criminal actions are complicated.
But call out culture seems to me more about accusers signaling their virtue than the accused or offense committed. Offering forgiveness or even reasonable conditions to forgiveness is not an option if it might make you look less than virtuous inside your chosen hothouse admiration society.
It hasn’t gotten to the point where they’ll burn you at the stake. But you can almost see it from here.
"Accusers signalling their virtue"? Don't you mean "victims stating their pain"? And why should victims give a flying fuck about the perpetrator?
(These are rhetorical questions, by the way, EricL. Because the tone of your post is so completely tone deaf I think you need that stated directly.)
No actually. I don't need you to restate it for me. That's fucking rude and condescending. I'm not talking about actual victims - unless it's those that wear their victimhood like a crown. I'm talking about the accusers who do it on their behalf and the jump on the band wagon types. Actual victims are often more forgiving to actual perpetrators trying to make amends than the "I have to signal my virtue because my entire identity is in question if I don't" set.
Going OT, so OK to skip:
I will say that I used a right wing term because I honestly don't know another way to describe it. At first I thought it was just a Facebook thing where you had to assert you were pro-diversity/pro-gay rights etc. just in case someone caught your feed for the first time and didn't know. But I made some friends who are proudly "woke" as fuck and they virtue signal in their own conversation with their own set at least once a minute. They mean well and they're genuinely good people. It appears fear based and can't be a good thing. And while I don't have as many conservative friends, I've noted that online they're prone to their own virtue signaling. But the whole thing is perplexing as fuck. Why do you have to repeatedly state your beliefs to your own friends and ideological fellow travelers? Didn't you do it a long time ago? I'm very careful interacting with them online for the same reason I don't kick in the front doors of friends who are gun nuts.
Edit: PM me your virtue signals so we don't derail the threat. If I get enough I'll start a new topic and we'll virtue signal the whole board.
Right. I don't understand how you can say your "virtue signallers" are not the victims when you are talking about those virtue signallers not offering forgiveness - it would have to be only the victims who would offer forgiveness, not their allies. So of course I think you are talking about actual victims when you use that phrase.
Why do people reinforce their views to each other? Possibly to reinforce community in the face of threats to it? Have you listened to the Republican senators taking turns at the microphone reinforcing each others views on the need to confirm Kavanaugh and the "injustice" of the accusations against him? Repeatedly stating their views about how well Dr Ford has been treated, but that at the same time implying that she is a partisan party political liar? Do please apply your judgements against them, the old white men in power who are determined to signal the virtue of their own community.
In the “good ol’ days” if you affirmed yourself a Republican, Democrat, Communist, Fascist you were OK until you said actually something implicitly or explicitly different. Like I noted, at both sides act the same online. I just don’t know if conservatives do offline. I know liberals do. Now you’re constantly re-affirmating online. Which means it’s fear based. So the allegiance is always suspect because of potential consequences. Much like Robespierre‘s “Society of Virtue”. Say something incorrect or it’s the guillotine. Both sides do it at least online. Terror reigns and what you don’t want is a the result. It means that’s what you ultimately get. I’m not racist enough to bitch about what old white men say on a logical basis. I do take issue with what they say if it doesn’t make sense logically. And a shit load doesn’t. But It’s getting to the point it’s only a valid point if some black, asian, trans, gay person says it. And according to some hierarchy people haven’t figured out yet. I weep for where conservativism is. But liberalism is near as bad if not worse. If you doubt me, say something conservative to your set. If you dare....
-
EricL, I'm glad you've moved from a one-sided snark to acknowledging a perceived perception problem on both sides.
-
This is a similar question to the one faced by many addicts in recovery. They know in their heart they are done drinking (gmabling, shooting up, whatever-ing) and often grow frustrated that those around them, especially those most hurt by the addiction and resulting behaviors, are still cautious, skeptical, or even downright mistrusting.
The thing is, when you do the Bad Thing, you don't get to decide how others feel about it. They forgive and move on in their own time, in their own way. Or maybe even not at all.
And part of doing Bad Stuff is living with the consequences. Sometimes those consequences are irreversible, and that's not something the Bad-Doer can control. So some people may never trust you again. Some people may never hire (or vote to confirm ;)) you. Some people may never trust you with their car or in their house alone or with their kids or to keep a secret. And so what? You still have to move forward the same way. if we are talking about addition, that means you still move forward in sobriety. If people don't forgive you past Bad Acts, are you going to just throw up your hands and start drinking again, committing more Bad Acts because the first round can't just be erased? If so, then you clearly don't deserve real forgiveness anyway because you haven't changed much or grown much or understood much about the implications of what you did. And if you aren't, then you have to tolerate the fact that maybe some things you destroyed can't be undestroyed and while that's sad, once you've atoned and apologized and fixed yourself, you just have to live in this new world in which walks people who don't forgive you.
And if we aren't talking about an addict, the same thing pretty much applies. Many audiences no longer will pay to see your movies, and maybe that never changes. Does that mean you go back to assaulting women or going on racist rants? Because if you can't have your life back exactly as it was and exactly as you wanted it, then screw it--you might as well continue to be an assaulter or a rapist? if so, then you don't deserve forgiveness or a restoration of anything. And if not, then you find a way to move forward in your new reality where you are no longer a working actor, comic, SCOTUS justice, politician, Youtube star, Instagram influencer. You find a way to live--decently and respectfully and not-begrudingly--in the new world into which your own actions cast you.
So, when is an apology enough? It depends, but more importantly, it doesn't matter. Do better, be better, and people will forgive and move on, or not. But either way, you still need to do better and be better.
-
I do hope as internet communication and social media becomes more ubiquitous, we will become better at being good people online, but also not holding the occasional regrettable statement or joke against someone 20+ years later.
However, a pattern of behavior (bullying), or physical misbehavior or crimes, including property damage, physical assault, sexual harassment and assault, etc I think are more serious and more indicative of character flaws. Consent is not that hard; many dudes manage to figure it out: https://twitter.com/behindyourback/status/1045864179171766272
I don't know what it would take for someone to make amends for these crimes and demonstrate a turnaround. But it would have to be in the form of actions as well as words. I would have a hard time believing Sir Patrick Stewart or President Jimmy Carter had assaulted women, given the activism and work they do against domestic violence and advocating for women's rights.
That twitter thread is a comforting read, thanks.
This is a little OT, but it's my thread, and I can't find another thread in which to post it, so...
I've apparently run into the problem that my husband just doesn't believe that this shit is nearly as big of a problem as people say it is. I have no idea what to do about this. I've personally (luckily and thankfully) never been assaulted, so I can't use personal experience as an example.
He's falling more on the side of "people should be innocent until proven guilty, and there's no proof in a bunch of these cases" and "If you don't have to prove anything, women CAN just lie for [x reason] if they want to." I've told him that according to multiple studies, statistically, only ~2-8% of rape accusations are proven false. I told him about that case in Alaska - a guy offered to drop a woman off at her boyfriend's house, took her somewhere else, choked her until she passed out, masturbated on her, left her on the side of the road, was tried, CONFESSED, and received basically no sentence - and he actually said "Are you sure? That sounds like something some reditt user made up, how would he not get any punishment?" I had to look up the CNN story and read the entire thing to him, then bring up multiple multiple other examples of limited/nonexistent jail time or punishment in cases WITH EVIDENCE. That lead to a "huh, that sounds like something is effed up in that court system. Was there a mistrial or something?". He's on occasion even said "well, some people just have really bad social skills and mis-read cues from other people, what about if that happens? Do you just punish people for not learning quickly?" I'm like "YES, YES YOU DO, IF THEY TRY TO RAPE SOMEONE!"
Written down, this makes him look like a terrible skeeze. He's not, and he'd never do anything like that himself, but I had no idea this is what his brain looked like. It's kind of freaking me out. I've looked around in the forums a little, but does anyone have any suggestions for how to continue these discussions somewhat civilly and actually get through to him? I want to understand where this is coming from and how to combat it. We've got a 2 year old son, and I DO NOT want any of this mindset getting passed on inadvertently.
Sorry this is full of caps shouting. Like I said, I'm freaking out a little.
-
I think that many men just find it really hard to see a woman's perspective on this. Many of them can only do it after hearing or reading many women's accounts of their assaults, or even just our experiences of cat-calling, or walking alone at night. They have not had the the years of conditioning we have had in rape-prevention. "Be careful, don't go there, don't wear that, don't talk to him, don't be alone, watch your drink, look after your friends, don't lead someone on, be aware of strangers" and on and on and on. And, of course, women are even less comfortable discussing their assaults with men than they are with their female friends, so it's unlikely that he will hear many of those conversations.
I found this blog post (http://iambeggingmymothernottoreadthisblog.com/2018/09/30/on-sons-and-daughters/) a really powerful response to the 'but women make things up' argument, as well as including some pointers for the parents of sons.
-
I do hope as internet communication and social media becomes more ubiquitous, we will become better at being good people online, but also not holding the occasional regrettable statement or joke against someone 20+ years later.
However, a pattern of behavior (bullying), or physical misbehavior or crimes, including property damage, physical assault, sexual harassment and assault, etc I think are more serious and more indicative of character flaws. Consent is not that hard; many dudes manage to figure it out: https://twitter.com/behindyourback/status/1045864179171766272
I don't know what it would take for someone to make amends for these crimes and demonstrate a turnaround. But it would have to be in the form of actions as well as words. I would have a hard time believing Sir Patrick Stewart or President Jimmy Carter had assaulted women, given the activism and work they do against domestic violence and advocating for women's rights.
That twitter thread is a comforting read, thanks.
This is a little OT, but it's my thread, and I can't find another thread in which to post it, so...
I've apparently run into the problem that my husband just doesn't believe that this shit is nearly as big of a problem as people say it is. I have no idea what to do about this. I've personally (luckily and thankfully) never been assaulted, so I can't use personal experience as an example.
He's falling more on the side of "people should be innocent until proven guilty, and there's no proof in a bunch of these cases" and "If you don't have to prove anything, women CAN just lie for [x reason] if they want to." I've told him that according to multiple studies, statistically, only ~2-8% of rape accusations are proven false. I told him about that case in Alaska - a guy offered to drop a woman off at her boyfriend's house, took her somewhere else, choked her until she passed out, masturbated on her, left her on the side of the road, was tried, CONFESSED, and received basically no sentence - and he actually said "Are you sure? That sounds like something some reditt user made up, how would he not get any punishment?" I had to look up the CNN story and read the entire thing to him, then bring up multiple multiple other examples of limited/nonexistent jail time or punishment in cases WITH EVIDENCE. That lead to a "huh, that sounds like something is effed up in that court system. Was there a mistrial or something?". He's on occasion even said "well, some people just have really bad social skills and mis-read cues from other people, what about if that happens? Do you just punish people for not learning quickly?" I'm like "YES, YES YOU DO, IF THEY TRY TO RAPE SOMEONE!"
Written down, this makes him look like a terrible skeeze. He's not, and he'd never do anything like that himself, but I had no idea this is what his brain looked like. It's kind of freaking me out. I've looked around in the forums a little, but does anyone have any suggestions for how to continue these discussions somewhat civilly and actually get through to him? I want to understand where this is coming from and how to combat it. We've got a 2 year old son, and I DO NOT want any of this mindset getting passed on inadvertently.
Sorry this is full of caps shouting. Like I said, I'm freaking out a little.
I agree with MarcherLady, that men have just been socialized to discount and minimize women’s thoughts, experiences and opinions. It can be freaking infuriating — but then, when you try to tell a man how irritating it is to have them just casually doubt things you say, they focus more on your frustration rather than the reality of what they are doing. Because again, they have been socialized to think that our emotions prove that we aren’t thinking rationally (and that they basically have no emotions when they think).
And of course, because of this, they will likely listen to and be receptive to a man talking about this more easily than a woman.
(Which, fellas, is why you can be allies to us in this — because men don’t listen to us. But they might to you.)
So maybe have your husband read this.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/damon-young/men-just-dont-trust-women_b_6714280.html
-
Forgiveness is a different concept from "enough."
For actions which are crimes, if you are accused and convicted, sent to prison and serve your time, and then released, we generally consider that you have been punished "enough." That doesn't mean some (or many) doors won't still be closed to you, because people will judge your likelihood to commit bad actions to be higher based on your history of having done so in the past. But we generally don't seek to continue to punish ex-cons for the sake of punishment after they have served their time.
The ostracism which is the central punishment dished out by callout culture lacks a mechanism to decide when someone accused of abuse or misconduct has been punished enough. Pointing this out is not the same as saying people shouldn't be punished for misdeeds. One of the points made in that invisiblia podcast is that we're just starting to understand just how stringent a punishment being ostracized from your "tribe" can be,* in terms of the amount of perceived suffering it produces in the intended target, acting through the same neural pathways which handle experiences of physical pain, to the point that researchers can and do use tylenol to reduce the pain produced by social rejection experienced as part of phycological psychological studies. Since most of us (myself included) didn't think it was a particularly strong punishment, it seems like it would need to be applied for an extremely long time for even minor crimes. That may ultimately prove to be incorrect.
We certainly cannot, and should not, try to make societal decisions about when or if victims should forgive the people who harmed them. However, at the same time we should be seriously thinking about how we make societal decisions about how we decide the just amount of punishment in cases where the traditional legal system is not in play.
*Unfortunately, one consequence of this is that the current set of societal punishments being dished out has a much larger effect on people who see (or saw) themselves as belonging to the liberal democratic "tribe" than those who do not. While Al Franken and Ray Moore are both not US Senators, I'm guessing Franken is experiencing a significant ongoing punishment through ostracism, while Ray Moore is not having the same experience because he didn't belong to the tribe in the first place.
-
I agree with MarcherLady, that men have just been socialized to discount and minimize women’s thoughts, experiences and opinions.
How? Where were these men socialized this way? In public schools? From messages in the movies? On network television? Since you're asserting that men have been socialized to "discount and minimize women's thoughts, experiences and opinions," -- which includes all the men on this forum -- I'd like to believe you will have some explanation for where this pervasive socialization was implemented.
Interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks.
You know what, Tom?
It turns out, I have had enough of explaining things to combative men lately. So, no, I have decided that it is not my job to explain this to you. In fact, I believe there are a number of awesome men on this forum who are allies of women who will understand and agree that male socialization tends to teach them to discount women’s voices. And there are likely lots of resources you can find by googling or doing an Amazon search.
My response was to Chaskavitch. Feel free to read the article I linked for her if you’d like.
Have a nice day.
-
How? Where were these men socialized this way? In public schools? From messages in the movies? On network television? Since you're asserting that men have been socialized to "discount and minimize women's thoughts, experiences and opinions," -- which includes all the men on this forum -- I'd like to believe you will have some explanation for where this pervasive socialization was implemented.
Interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks.
Don't take it personally, Tom. People who are upset, rightfully or not, often lash out against entire groups as if they were a homogeneous whole, without thinking about how this sort of stereotyping is not very different from the type they're upset about. They don't mean you.
Unless you're one of those, in which case they do mean you and so do I.
Trying to stand up for yourself in this context is entirely futile. There is no possible defense. Imagine how modern Germans feel about their country's history with starting world wars. Every single time they advocate for the use of military force they have to tiptoe around this history, and if someone accuses them of warmongering they pretty much have to apologize no matter how justified the current situation is. As a dude, you're in the same boat today. You don't get to stand up for yourself without being labelled as part of the problem. Life isn't fair, get used to it.
On the bright side you still get paid more than women do for the same work, on average, and apparently you can go back to sexually assaulting women when blackout drunk and as long as there are not other witnesses you can be safely assured of zero consequences for your crimes! So it's not all bad! Or maybe it is?
there are a number of awesome men on this forum who are allies of women who will understand and agree that male socialization tends to teach them to discount women’s voices.
Highlighting sexual inequality is fine, Kris, we just have to be careful about any statements that sound like "men do this" because it sounds like a personal attack to all men who don't do that. For example, I would suggest rephrasing your initial comment from "men have just been socialized to..." to something less stereotyping, like "society typically socializes men to..." because that makes the same point without effectively telling someone who would otherwise be on your side "Hey you're man, and this is what you personally are doing wrong because you are man, no matter what you personally are doing, because all men do this."
Changing the phrasing makes a valid argument sound less accusatory, is more effective at changing minds because it doesn't put potential allies on the defensive, and I find that it helps reminds me that men are unwilling victims in these problems too. If your son is inadvertenly socialized into a raging asshole, it's not because he was born that way and it's not an inherent fault of who he is, it's because that's the behaviors he was taught as a young man. Ditto if your son is raised correctly. We all live in a system that reinforces gender inequality, whether we like it or not, and we can all work to change it but we can't pretend we live apart from it.
I realize I'm sticking my neck out with this post. I will not be surprised if some folks are angry with me.
-
Here we go again. We have to be careful not to hurt men's ickle little feelings, or they won't condescend to listen to us. Riiiight.
Shortly after pages on this forum of men insisting that "mansplaining" is sexist because it less than complementary and has the word "man" in it. (Exactly like "manspreading" is sexist, I suppose.)
-
Here we go again. We have to be careful not to hurt men's ickle little feelings, or they won't condescend to listen to us. Riiiight.
That seemed kind of condescending, didn't it?
You can choose to treat people any way that you like, but I generally try for "nicely" regardless of gender. You don't have to be nice to men, or women, or gays, or republicans, but it might help you be a better person.
-
Perhaps we are sick and tired of the tone-policing of our complaints? Perhaps we think that allies should concentrate on fixing the crimes against us, rather than nit-picking at the terms we have used in calling out those crimes? Listen to women, hear women, read women, believe women. Stop telling us we are doing it wrong. Stop asking us to catalogue over and over again exactly what the issues are and start looking at your behaviour, and that of your colleagues and your friends and your leaders. Would you wanted to be treated the way you see women treated? Another link (https://iambeggingmymothernottoreadthisblog.com/2018/09/26/it-turns-out-i-have-more-to-say/), from the same author as my previous one
-
Here we go again. We have to be careful not to hurt men's ickle little feelings, or they won't condescend to listen to us. Riiiight.
That seemed kind of condescending, didn't it?
You can choose to treat people any way that you like, but I generally try for "nicely" regardless of gender. You don't have to be nice to men, or women, or gays, or republicans, but it might help you be a better person.
I'm fighting fire with fire, sol dear.
Frankly, it has been clearly demonstrated on this forum in the last couple of weeks that we women can be as polite and accommodating and non-confrontational as possible on this forum and the patriarchical elements here will carry on as normal.
In real life, where a more conciliatory approach might make the difference in getting a real world gain, then I will employ a more conciliatory approach. But to be told on the internet that I should moderate my voice in pushing back on sexism, on entitlement, on privilege? Fuck. That.
-
Perhaps we are sick and tired of the tone-policing of our complaints?
I'm not policing anyone's tone, I was explaining why I think Tom might have felt attacked. You get to choose any tone you like, and so do I, but then we both have to accept that other people will react accordingly.
I'm fighting fire with fire, sol dear.
Okay. I will continue to support your right to be heard, even if I disagree with the way you express yourself.
But to be told on the internet that I should moderate my voice in pushing back on sexism, on entitlement, on privilege? Fuck. That.
I'm not suggesting you moderate your voice, I'm suggesting that we all be cognizant of becoming the very things we oppose. For example, if you object to the way that people sometimes generalize an entire group of people into a singular negative stereotype, then it's kind of undermining to that legitimate argument to do the exact same thing to a different group of people. Even if you call it "fighting fire with fire" it's still gross.
-
Perhaps we are sick and tired of the tone-policing of our complaints?
I'm not policing anyone's tone, I was explaining why I think Tom might have felt attacked. You get to choose any tone you like, and so do I, but then we both have to accept that other people will react accordingly.
I'm fighting fire with fire, sol dear.
Okay. I will continue to support your right to be heard, even if I disagree with the way you express yourself.
But to be told on the internet that I should moderate my voice in pushing back on sexism, on entitlement, on privilege? Fuck. That.
I'm not suggesting you moderate your voice, I'm suggesting that we all be cognizant of becoming the very things we oppose. For example, if you object to the way that people sometimes generalize an entire group of people into a singular negative stereotype, then it's kind of undermining to that legitimate argument to do the exact same thing to a different group of people. Even if you call it "fighting fire with fire" it's still gross.
The sentence that started this off was a woman stating "men have just been socialized to discount and minimize women’s thoughts, experiences and opinions". It was immediately challenged by a man, asking a woman to justify her statement, when if he had taken it seriously he could have gone off and done his own research and come back with a reasoned argument. But when we push back against that man trying to take charge and make us subordinate to him, doing his research for him, presumably so he could then try to challenge it, you say (in effect) "oh, please don't push back, you might upset him".
So here you are, challenging the women who are pushing back against sexist presumptions but completely accepting and defending the man who is trying to put us in our place. As I said, Fuck. That.
-
So here you are, challenging the women who are pushing back against sexist presumptions but completely accepting and defending the man who is trying to put us in our place. As I said, Fuck. That.
I'm not challenging you or anyone else at all. I'm not defending Tom, either.
I am, however, regretting trying to help. As usual.
-
Maybe think about why it doesn't look like help?
-
Maybe think about why it doesn't look like help?
+1
-
Maybe think about why it doesn't look like help?
Oh I totally see it. Everyone is pissed right now, including me, because of the Kavanaugh nomination effectively reversing the past few years of social progress on sexual assault issues. We feel shocked and hopeless because of it, just like we did when Trump won the election despite being an objectively terrible human being.
But I'm not sure that legitimate anger over flagrant abuses of power by one political party is a good reason for individual Americans who are on the same side to be cruel to each other. Righteous indignation is supposed to be something you feel inside of yourself, not a justification for demeaning others.
If you want to be condescending while accusing men of being condescending, that is your right and you go right ahead. If you want to stereotype men as sexist pigs because of the way they have historically stereotyped women as overly emotional, you go right ahead. I'll be over here in the corner, quietly offering my person opinion on how best to accomplish change without being shitty about it. Feel free to ignore me, or feel free to attack me. I understand why you might feel justified in do so, even when it looks counterproductive.
-
Maybe think about why it doesn't look like help?
Oh I totally see it. Everyone is pissed right now, including me, because of the Kavanaugh nomination effectively reversing the past few years of social progress on sexual assault issues. We feel shocked and hopeless because of it, just like we did when Trump won the election despite being an objectively terrible human being.
But I'm not sure that legitimate anger over flagrant abuses of power by one political party is a good reason for individual Americans who are on the same side to be cruel to each other. Righteous indignation is supposed to be something you feel inside of yourself, not a justification for demeaning others.
If you want to be condescending while accusing men of being condescending, that is your right and you go right ahead. If you want to stereotype men as sexist pigs because of the way they have historically stereotyped women as overly emotional, you go right ahead. I'll be over here in the corner, quietly offering my person opinion on how best to accomplish change without being shitty about it. Feel free to ignore me, or feel free to attack me. I understand why you might feel justified in do so, even when it looks counterproductive.
That’s not it.
-
Perhaps we are sick and tired of the tone-policing of our complaints?
I'm not policing anyone's tone, I was explaining why I think Tom might have felt attacked. You get to choose any tone you like, and so do I, but then we both have to accept that other people will react accordingly.
I'm fighting fire with fire, sol dear.
Okay. I will continue to support your right to be heard, even if I disagree with the way you express yourself.
But to be told on the internet that I should moderate my voice in pushing back on sexism, on entitlement, on privilege? Fuck. That.
I'm not suggesting you moderate your voice, I'm suggesting that we all be cognizant of becoming the very things we oppose. For example, if you object to the way that people sometimes generalize an entire group of people into a singular negative stereotype, then it's kind of undermining to that legitimate argument to do the exact same thing to a different group of people. Even if you call it "fighting fire with fire" it's still gross.
I would normally agree with you, partly because pretending to be nice is a very efficient way to manipulate people. An older female colleague with long experience in getting old men to move in the correct direction used to call it “fur care”. Treat them like cats, never rub anyone against their fur, and you will get your way.
But you know what? Even I am getting sick of the “not all men” charade. Because by now, it is getting clear that the good men understand very well that the complaints are not about them. The only reason I can see to yell “not all men” into a conversation like this, is to derail it. And preferably change the topic to how nice guys are.
I never fight fire with fire. Fighting has never gotten anyone to change their mind*. Habermas’ rules of dialogue is the only way to go, if that is your goal. But part of Habermas is to interpret what your opponent is saying in a constructive way. “Not all men” is as far away from that as one can possibly get. And that is the frustration people are expressing above; A true dialogue can’t be one sided. Both parties have to be wanting to understand the other side. Until now, in the public discussions, women have been tasked with keeping the dialogue civil and constructive, stroking the pelt the right way, always modulating all arguments extremely carefully, while interpreting the counterparts as constructively as possible. Dr. Ford’s testimony vs Mr. Kavanaugh’s testimonies were an extreme example. And a lot of women are fed up weighing every word.
So, no; in this case, it is up to men to mentally add the modulators “some”, “most”, and “many”, while they try to listen for what the women are trying to say.
*oh, I can yell at people in my life - but only people like my OH and my closest colleague, who are able to sort of frustration from content, and who go into the heated discussions because they genuinely want to know my opinion.
-
The only reason I can see to yell “not all men” into a conversation like this, is to derail it.
I did not yell. I have no desire to derail. This started with me telling Tom to cool it, and while I was posting it Kris chimed in with another attack on Tom and I offered my take on why that attack seemed counterproductive. I am not the patriarchy and my opinion is not law. Feel free to ignore me.
I never fight fire with fire. Fighting has never gotten anyone to change their mind*. Habermas’ rules of dialogue is the only way to go, if that is your goal. But part of Habermas is to interpret what your opponent is saying in a constructive way. “Not all men” is as far away from that as one can possibly get.
I have worked hard to be calm and civil in this discussion, and to offer what I thought were better ways to make good arguments. I have been uniformly attacked for this, with some anger. I'm angry too, but I try not to attack people because of it.
Is there irony in your critique? Are you are characterizing my posts here as being insufficiently understanding of an opposing viewpoint, while I was trying to encourage people to consider the perspective of an opposing viewpoint?
And a lot of women are fed up weighing every word.
And understandably so, but that doesn't mean they (or anyone else) gets to stop. You can't just opt to be a huge dick because you're tired of being nice. Are we seriously suggesting that the way to fix these problems is for women to start acting like men?
My wife is about to pull the plug on the computer. She thinks that the content of my posts here is now totally irrelevant, and there is nothing I can say that will not infuriate people because of my identity as a straight white male. I'd like to believe that content still matters, but like so many of these discussions I suspect I am no longer welcome here no matter what I have to say.
-
The only reason I can see to yell “not all men” into a conversation like this, is to derail it.
I did not yell. I have no desire to derail. This started with me telling Tom to cool it, and while I was posting it Kris chimed in with another attack on Tom and I offered my take on why that attack seemed counterproductive. I am not the patriarchy and my opinion is not law. Feel free to ignore me.
I never fight fire with fire. Fighting has never gotten anyone to change their mind*. Habermas’ rules of dialogue is the only way to go, if that is your goal. But part of Habermas is to interpret what your opponent is saying in a constructive way. “Not all men” is as far away from that as one can possibly get.
I have worked hard to be calm and civil in this discussion, and to offer what I thought were better ways to make good arguments. I have been uniformly attacked for this, with some anger. I'm angry too, but I try not to attack people because of it.
Is there irony in your critique? Are you are characterizing my posts here as being insufficiently understanding of an opposing viewpoint, while I was trying to encourage people to consider the perspective of an opposing viewpoint?
And a lot of women are fed up weighing every word.
And understandably so, but that doesn't mean they (or anyone else) gets to stop. You can't just opt to be a huge dick because you're tired of being nice. Are we seriously suggesting that the way to fix these problems is for women to start acting like men?
My wife is about to pull the plug on the computer. She thinks that the content of my posts here is now totally irrelevant, and there is nothing I can say that will not infuriate people because of my identity as a straight white male. I'd like to believe that content still matters, but like so many of these discussions I suspect I am no longer welcome here no matter what I have to say.
Sol,
There was neither an “attack” or “another attack.”
I responded to Tom exactly once.
It was a response to his expectation that I explain myself to him.
I declined.
“Attack” is bullshit. “Another attack” is bullshit.
-
The only reason I can see to yell “not all men” into a conversation like this, is to derail it.
I did not yell. I have no desire to derail. This started with me telling Tom to cool it, and while I was posting it Kris chimed in with another attack on Tom and I offered my take on why that attack seemed counterproductive. I am not the patriarchy and my opinion is not law. Feel free to ignore me.
I never fight fire with fire. Fighting has never gotten anyone to change their mind*. Habermas’ rules of dialogue is the only way to go, if that is your goal. But part of Habermas is to interpret what your opponent is saying in a constructive way. “Not all men” is as far away from that as one can possibly get.
I have worked hard to be calm and civil in this discussion, and to offer what I thought were better ways to make good arguments. I have been uniformly attacked for this, with some anger. I'm angry too, but I try not to attack people because of it.
Is there irony in your critique? Are you are characterizing my posts here as being insufficiently understanding of an opposing viewpoint, while I was trying to encourage people to consider the perspective of an opposing viewpoint?
And a lot of women are fed up weighing every word.
And understandably so, but that doesn't mean they (or anyone else) gets to stop. You can't just opt to be a huge dick because you're tired of being nice. Are we seriously suggesting that the way to fix these problems is for women to start acting like men?
My wife is about to pull the plug on the computer. She thinks that the content of my posts here is now totally irrelevant, and there is nothing I can say that will not infuriate people because of my identity as a straight white male. I'd like to believe that content still matters, but like so many of these discussions I suspect I am no longer welcome here no matter what I have to say.
Never claimed you were the one saying/yelling “not all men”. No irony either. Simply trying to explain where the frustration comes from, and why your (honest and decent) efforts to mediate, will fail. Dialogue with different types of stakeholders, from different parts of the society, anchoring processes, and the psychological processes needed to change peoples minds, are some of my major fields of interest (and work). Unfortunately, English is my fourth language, so it is not always easy to explain clearly what I mean.
But I honestly think there sometimes has to be a line in the sand. It is not about becoming a dick/changing to male vocabulary. If I’m talking climate change with sceptics, and they pull out the “scientists out to get money” it is usually time to wrap up my efforts to have a constructive dialogue. The same goes for vaccines and autism. “Not all men” is another of these markers for me.
-
I agree with MarcherLady, that men have just been socialized to discount and minimize women’s thoughts, experiences and opinions.
It's not just men. It's all of society, women included. Women are exposed to the same toxic idea that men's thoughts and opinions are more trustworthy than a women's. We are all more likely to believe a man over a woman because of what society has taught all of us from birth. We are also more likely to believe a white person over a person of color.
This idea and how it influences us is very subconscious. And of course, the penetrance of the idea is variable. On average, the penetrance is less in women, because we have personal examples of being impacted by it, and thus recognizing the idea as crap. But there are still plenty of women who have drunk the kool-aid, just like men. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flIM3AUyQ3A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flIM3AUyQ3A) (the panel of republican women defending K)
The underlying idea is this: "Men are better than women". And this idea is repeated over and over in all of society until you just internalize it as at least somewhat true. I'll give you several examples of where you might see it.
Entertainment is full of stories in which women are portrayed as unreliable, or too emotional. And so many stories are about men, and from a man's perspective. The implicit message is that men and men's lives are more important.
On TV: look at news shows. And notice how often a woman gets interrupted. When she does, she usually stops talking, and waits until she gets a chance to speak again. Men are interrupted less frequently, and when they are, they usually pick up their volume and keep speaking. The implicit message is that men's voices are more important.
In real life: pink and purple are girl's colors. Blue is for boys. If a boy likes pink or purple, it's okay, up to a certain age, usually when they start school, but then they have to stop using it. On the other hand, if a girl likes blue, she can use it her entire life. She's never told to stop using it. The implicit message here is that boys/men are better than girls/women. If a girl wants to be or do something coded as male, that's okay, because she is improving herself. But for a boy to want to do or be something coded as female, that's a step in the wrong direction, and must be corrected.
Sure, there are exceptions to all these examples, like eddys in a stream, momentarily moving the water upstream. But the overall course, is water moves downstream. And we are all exposed to the message that men are better than women in so many tiny ways over our whole lives.
Society spreads the message, and society is made up of all of us. Society won't change until most of us change. And the first step in that change is knowledge that the problem exists.
-
Modern dialogue as engineered by certain feminists seems to presuppose that women are universally ignored and naturally right. The former I see a lot of. The latter I have serious issues with - if only because women disagree with each other on a lot of things. The end result is a often dialogue that looks like this:
Male poster: "You may be wrong about..."
Female poster: "Don't talk down to me."
Male poster: "I just want to explain..."
Female poster: "You're being condescending..."
Male poster: "I'm trying to be polite, but please recognize..."
Female poster: "Don't mansplain at me!"
Male poster: "I do strongly agree with you on..."
Female poster: "Well it's about time! Will you deign to mansplain to me something I already know - again? /s"
Male poster: "Can't disagree, can't argue, can't even AGREE - fuck off!"
Female poster: "No fuck you! I knew polite dialogue was useless!"
I look forward with great anticipation what this, combined traditional dismissive male attitudes, will do to improve things.
-
@EricL
After setting up all these nice strawmen - how did you imagine the rest of the discussion here (which would include other people than your imaginary male hero and female villain) would go? Did you expect someone to leap to your help, to de-escalate the discussion, and kindly say how much they understand your frustration, with a polite "but, maybe you could please understand that some women are angry because they have been treated badly by men who are not you"? That would of course get them back into the traditional role of modulating and tiptoeing around the male, something that not many women are willing to do anymore.
Or did you expect someone to confirm your believes by getting angry and yelling obcenities at you? That is also unlikely, since we have seen texts like this so many times before. You might get a tired "fuck you", before people move on. Is that a goal?
TLDR; Do you see any way to get a constructive discussion with basis in your post?
-
Kavanagh hasn't apologised, so I'm not sure how he's relevant.
-
Caroline covered much of it very well.
Yes, it is all men. Or at least all men raised in Western Society. And frankly, it's all or nearly all women too. If that makes you [global you] feel attacked, well... it's an uncomfortable truth. But denying it doesn't allow us to make any progress. And of course there are plenty of those who will deny it. It's hard to see ugly things about ourselves and our society, especially if we are sitting in a position where those ugly truths don't really negatively affect our own existence in a clear way. A similar thing is true about racism. I'm pretty damn caucasian so racism doesn't hurt me in my daily existence. In fact, it probably helps me, but in ways that I'm not really aware. I can deny this. I can say that most people have no racist preconceptions, that racism is a problem only for a minority (ha!) of people--the open, ugly, fervent, hate-filled Racists (with a capitol R). Or I can admit that because I have been raised and socialized in a society that does have a lot of race issues, some of that is surely inherent in my thinking. Once I admit it, then I can be aware of it and work to counteract it.
These things are everywhere. Our workplaces, our entertainment, our literature, or coffee shop conversations, our first dates and 10th dates and marriage ceremonies, our courthouses and police stations, our kitchens, our bedrooms, our school houses.
So actually it is all men (and women). That doesn't mean all men hate women or are rapists or assailants or frothing misogynists or that they are all disrespectful and contemptuous. But yes, sorry to say, there is almost zero chance that there aren't some preconceived notions about women vs men deep in all of us. And when we deny that because we assume that means we are hateful bigots and we know in our hearts that we aren't that awful, extreme thing, the problem doesn't get any better. And then we go out and buy pink dolls for our nieces and footballs and lego sets for our nephews, or we think that candidate A just somehow seems like a better fit for the Position of Power and Authority of [female] candidate B, though we can't quite put our finger on why. Or we raise an eyebrow at a woman getting drunk in public and laugh in a friendly, amused way at a man doing the same. And then yes, we are very much a part of the problem. That's what your denial does--it makes you part of the problem.
-
@EricL
After setting up all these nice strawmen - how did you imagine the rest of the discussion here (which would include other people than your imaginary male hero and female villain) would go? Did you expect someone to leap to your help, to de-escalate the discussion, and kindly say how much they understand your frustration, with a polite "but, maybe you could please understand that some women are angry because they have been treated badly by men who are not you"? That would of course get them back into the traditional role of modulating and tiptoeing around the male, something that not many women are willing to do anymore.
Or did you expect someone to confirm your believes by getting angry and yelling obcenities at you? That is also unlikely, since we have seen texts like this so many times before. You might get a tired "fuck you", before people move on. Is that a goal?
TLDR; Do you see any way to get a constructive discussion with basis in your post?
The only thing imaginary in my dialogue example was that either party was a villain or a hero.
-
My wife is about to pull the plug on the computer. She thinks that the content of my posts here is now totally irrelevant, and there is nothing I can say that will not infuriate people because of my identity as a straight white male. I'd like to believe that content still matters, but like so many of these discussions I suspect I am no longer welcome here no matter what I have to say.
Now you know how some rational moderates or conservatives feel trying to discuss a topic with the hard left. This is why we have the intellectual dark web. Identity politics is a scary thing. The leftist notion that your opinion is valuable in proportion to what minority group you belong to. Diversity of skin color, sex, and sexual preference are celebrated rather than diversity of ideas. Crazy stuff. The saying that comes from the left is "stay in your lane" if you're expressing an opinion but don't belong to the right group. Leftists are driving away rational intelligent liberals because of this attitude.
-
Now you know how some rational moderates or conservatives feel trying to discuss a topic with the hard left. This is why we have the intellectual dark web. Identity politics is a scary thing. The leftist notion that your opinion is valuable in proportion to what minority group you belong to. Diversity of skin color and sex is celebrated rather than diversity of ideas. Crazy stuff. The saying that comes from the left is "stay in your lane" if you're expressing an opinion but don't belong to the right group. Leftists are driving away rational intelligent liberals because of this attitude.
Hey, I hear you. I have also had the experience of having unpopular ideas within groups of people with whom I'm generally in agreement politically. (You should hear my rant about the importance of corporate personhood; it's been finely crafted over many years.)
I do think there's nuance about "value of opinions in proportion to minority status" though. I have seen this concepts horribly misused by folks on both extremes, but I think that there's a core of truth that reasonable people can agree on: experience and expertise.
To take an example I think folks on this board will relate to, let's look at opinions on whether FIRE is possible. Most people, including financial planners, will say that it's not possible. Risk, healthcare, long-term interest rates, "productivity", etc. etc.
If a person who has achieved FIRE says that FIRE is possible and here's how, and a person who hasn't achieved FIRE says it's not possible and here's why, most people will say that the former's experience grants them expertise on the subject, and FIRE is possible. The person who says FIRE isn't possible may have good points, and they can talk through what those are and how they can be addressed, but fundamentally the FIRE-disbeliever doesn't have the expertise in the argument.
As a white person, I have no experience with how being a person of color impacts day-to-day life. Race doesn't impact my day, most of the time. So if we're talking about the impact of race on X, I have less personal experience than a person of color. Their opinion is not more valuable than mine, but their experience is more valuable to the topic at hand.
Now, has that core idea been warped and mutated? Sure, like any other. I don't think anyone can be blamed for the people who agree with them.
-
Absolutely, 100% agree. So let's celebrate the diversity of ideas and experience rather than the superficialities of skin color, gender, and sexual preference. Focusing on these superficialities doesn't help the battle against discrimination in my view.
-
I agree with MarcherLady, that men have just been socialized to discount and minimize women’s thoughts, experiences and opinions.
How? Where were these men socialized this way? In public schools? From messages in the movies? On network television? Since you're asserting that men have been socialized to "discount and minimize women's thoughts, experiences and opinions," -- which includes all the men on this forum -- I'd like to believe you will have some explanation for where this pervasive socialization was implemented.
Interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks.
You know what, Tom?
It turns out, I have had enough of explaining things to combative men lately. So, no, I have decided that it is not my job to explain this to you. In fact, I believe there are a number of awesome men on this forum who are allies of women who will understand and agree that male socialization tends to teach them to discount women’s voices. And there are likely lots of resources you can find by googling or doing an Amazon search.
My response was to Chaskavitch. Feel free to read the article I linked for her if you’d like.
Have a nice day.
I just wanted to +1 here.
I haven't been participating much - too stressful, really. But I have been reading many of these threads, and others around the interwebs, and it makes me weary.
I'm finding a lot of argumentative, combative men here and elsewhere. And they want to put the onus on YOU to "prove it" or, whatever. When: Google works the world over.
Now, why don't they want to Google? Because they really don't want the answer. They really don't want to read anything that doesn't agree with their world view (this isn't just combative men - it's a lot of people, including many of my own female family members "oh that poor man").
And if they did happen to come across a study or an article that disagreed with their world view, they would discount it immediately.
Unfortunately, I suspect most people are like this. Because middle ground, and nuance, are hard. But it is wearying, and I finally have given up because it's just. not. worth. it. On a plus note, all this strife has turned my Facebook relaxation time into rage-cleaning my house. Not enough cute kids and puppies, too much "yay Trump", and "fuck you libtards". Okay, buh bye.
-
Absolutely, 100% agree. So let's celebrate the diversity of ideas and experience rather than the superficialities of skin color, gender, and sexual preference. Focusing on these superficialities doesn't help the battle against discrimination in my view.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. My point was that race, gender, etc. can be a pretty key part of our experiences and ideas. I don't think they're superficial at all.
-
Okay, buh bye.
Yea, I feel the exact same way. I'm done trying to be an advocate. The final straw for me wasn't the angry personal messages or the misconstrued arguments, it when I was compared to a climate change denier and anti-vaxer. I'm on your side! Telling your allies that they are your enemies is truly misguided.
I am clearly not welcome in this camp, and so will not be visiting any more. You can all solve the world's gender relation problems without me. I'm finished here, driven away by the angry responses from the very people I was trying to support. You can all celebrate your success in changing my mind, though I suspect you have not changed it in the way you had hoped.
-
Okay, buh bye.
Yea, I feel the exact same way. I'm done trying to be an advocate. The final straw for me wasn't the angry personal messages or the misconstrued arguments, it when I was compared to a climate change denier and anti-vaxer. I'm on your side! Telling your allies that they are your enemies is truly misguided.
I am clearly not welcome in this camp, and so will not be visiting any more. You can all solve the world's gender relation problems without me. I'm finished here, driven away by the angry responses from the very people I was trying to support. You can all celebrate your success in changing my mind, though I suspect you have not changed it in the way you had hoped.
I've no idea about any personal messages, and I'm not seeing the accusations of denying climate change and anti-vaxxing. Are they different threads?
-
I do hope as internet communication and social media becomes more ubiquitous, we will become better at being good people online, but also not holding the occasional regrettable statement or joke against someone 20+ years later.
However, a pattern of behavior (bullying), or physical misbehavior or crimes, including property damage, physical assault, sexual harassment and assault, etc I think are more serious and more indicative of character flaws. Consent is not that hard; many dudes manage to figure it out: https://twitter.com/behindyourback/status/1045864179171766272
I don't know what it would take for someone to make amends for these crimes and demonstrate a turnaround. But it would have to be in the form of actions as well as words. I would have a hard time believing Sir Patrick Stewart or President Jimmy Carter had assaulted women, given the activism and work they do against domestic violence and advocating for women's rights.
That twitter thread is a comforting read, thanks.
This is a little OT, but it's my thread, and I can't find another thread in which to post it, so...
I've apparently run into the problem that my husband just doesn't believe that this shit is nearly as big of a problem as people say it is. I have no idea what to do about this. I've personally (luckily and thankfully) never been assaulted, so I can't use personal experience as an example.
He's falling more on the side of "people should be innocent until proven guilty, and there's no proof in a bunch of these cases" and "If you don't have to prove anything, women CAN just lie for [x reason] if they want to." I've told him that according to multiple studies, statistically, only ~2-8% of rape accusations are proven false. I told him about that case in Alaska - a guy offered to drop a woman off at her boyfriend's house, took her somewhere else, choked her until she passed out, masturbated on her, left her on the side of the road, was tried, CONFESSED, and received basically no sentence - and he actually said "Are you sure? That sounds like something some reditt user made up, how would he not get any punishment?" I had to look up the CNN story and read the entire thing to him, then bring up multiple multiple other examples of limited/nonexistent jail time or punishment in cases WITH EVIDENCE. That lead to a "huh, that sounds like something is effed up in that court system. Was there a mistrial or something?". He's on occasion even said "well, some people just have really bad social skills and mis-read cues from other people, what about if that happens? Do you just punish people for not learning quickly?" I'm like "YES, YES YOU DO, IF THEY TRY TO RAPE SOMEONE!"
Written down, this makes him look like a terrible skeeze. He's not, and he'd never do anything like that himself, but I had no idea this is what his brain looked like. It's kind of freaking me out. I've looked around in the forums a little, but does anyone have any suggestions for how to continue these discussions somewhat civilly and actually get through to him? I want to understand where this is coming from and how to combat it. We've got a 2 year old son, and I DO NOT want any of this mindset getting passed on inadvertently.
Sorry this is full of caps shouting. Like I said, I'm freaking out a little.
Ignoring what's going on above because I don't think I can contribute without breaking forum guidelines 0:-)
I think another resource you could introduce your husband to is http://whenwomenrefuse.tumblr.com/ which collects news stories of men reacting violently to being turned down. I think it demonstrates how pervasive this behavior, this male entitlement to female attention/affect/sex/etc is, below the level of the national news. We all hear about the Big Stories, the Brock Turners and Brett Kavanaughs...but this happens to regular people in regular neighborhoods much more frequently in ways that don't necessarily ever make national news.
I still don't think one conversation, one article, one website will convince him of how pervasive and common this behavior is. I think the only way to keep going on opening his eyes is to keep bringing these stories up when you see or hear them...for example, there's also this rage-inducing example: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/us/texas-doctor-sexual-assault-probation/index.html . I think it's hard to see these stories over and over again and not feel that undercurrent of social norms that is driving them...
And on the flip side, maybe bring up things people do that help...for example, I thought this was pretty powerful: https://twitter.com/adigoesswimming/status/998227660437417985?lang=en . And it doesn't have to be boy/girl, man/woman, related to sex or romance...respecting boundaries that others set in their life is generally good practice. It's difficult and complicated, for sure: I remember seeing a story about how someone was very depressed and their friends organized to come help them unpack and move into their apartment. In retrospect they saw it as a great gift, but you could also see how it could feel like a huge violation. So...tread carefully, and even more carefully if someone's body rather than their apartment are at risk of being violated.
PS I think it's totally possible for good guys (or people generally) to have adopted a few poor habits/behaviors here and there. My bf *does* believe in the problematic and pervasive nature of sexual harrassment/assault and how it's treated both in the public eye and in the justice system. However, there are some dynamics we have one-on-one, especially when we're tired/frustrated...ok, arguing, that make me relate to the Huff Po "Men Just Don't Believe Women" article. He's been willing to work on it, but changing anyone's mind and habits is always a slow process. (I'll also add that I've had unproductive behaviors as well and the change runs both ways.) Basically, I don't think I'd be super concerned that he's been a Terrible Person all along...take a "growth mindset" about the whole thing and try to expose him to your worldview and hopefully, he is a good dude under the socially acquired biases and will eventually come around.
-
I believe that "former player" has been socialized to discount and minimize men’s thoughts, experiences and opinions.
Here is my supporting evidence for making that bold assertion, her own comment:
Here we go again. We have to be careful not to hurt men's ickle little feelings, or they won't condescend to listen to us. Riiiight.
Shortly after pages on this forum of men insisting that "mansplaining" is sexist because it less than complementary and has the word "man" in it. (Exactly like "manspreading" is sexist, I suppose.)
Essentially, when men say they are offended by something, Former Player minimizes their thoughts, experiences and opinions.
To be clear, I don't believe all women have been socialized this way; that would be a silly generalization to make since women are as different and varied as men are. But “former player”? Absolutely, based on their comments on this forum.
If you need more supporting evidence, you can pull Former Player's entire comment history and see for yourself. It’s very sad. I wouldn’t be surprised if Former Player were a paid staffer for the Trump campaign because they are creating new Trump voters every time they demonize men. Trump would LOVE for gender to be a wedge issue in this election. Not the death of the middle class, or healthcare, or the environment, or the rule of law — but gender. Former Player: Every time you demonize men, you advance Trump’s agenda. Did you not know that?
P.S. As you can see, I just made an assertion similar to the assertion that Kris made upthread, but I didn’t make it about an entire gender class, and I actually provided evidence for my assertion. I didn’t just belittle people for asking for evidence; I provided it. Even still, I don’t think it will be long before a moderator is here to warn me/ban me.
Frugal Toque, where are you? Come on down.
To be perfectly honest, calling on me in this situation might not work out the way you're hoping.
a) Men are clearly and definitely socialized to discount the voices and opinions of women. There are countless studies showing how, just in common, business conversations, women get interrupted more than men. Women's ideas are ignored until they're repeated by men (and then the men get credit). Women must carefully restrain their emotions lest they get called hysterical. When I went to school, teachers were still telling girls, to their faces, that they should stick to languages because their brains weren't wired for math.
So, pretending that each woman you come across has to give you specific examples of exact places and times where men are socialized to treat women as less-than-men? That comes across as pretty over the top for anyone raised in one of the many societies and cultures we have on this particular planet.
b) There are different meanings of "offense" here.
One, women are being ignored their entire lives and condemned as hysterical when they get angry about it.
Two, men are upset because women are announcing that they are tired of men treating them this way.
Those are actually very different levels and I'm not going to treat them as equally offensive. Yes, there is a minor offense of saying "Men are socialized to do x", in that it sweeps all men into that group. But it's not the same as, "Women get hysterical", "Women can't do math", or "She was wearing a short skirt, what did she expect?" You can't put all those things into one category.
"Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them."
I get it, though. I used to think like you, when I was about 17. When the Take Back the Night marchers would randomly point their fingers at non-rapists like me and shout out, "Don't you know that No Means No!?". But I've grown up and learned to let that go. I've heard stories from sexual assault survivors, of students subject to pervy elementary school teachers, and realized that their existence is constant low-grade fear with random spikes of high-grade terror, and that their frustrated outbursts with people who just don't get it are not a good reason to abandon trying to make things right.
Toque.
-
I think our society is quite forgiving. We have many companies that are completely willing to hire ex-convicts:
http://www.jailtojob.com/companies-hire-felons.html (http://www.jailtojob.com/companies-hire-felons.html)
11 states have completely banned private companies from asking about past convictions on job applications.
Even a state like Florida has an amendment on the ballot this year that will give most ex-cons their vote back without having to go through their current ridiculous process.
Are things perfect? No. That's life. We can only make progress one step at a time.
As for the highest levels of government, that's tough to say. A big problem is the large number of people who go from nothing to being a political leader. Voters need to respect building up a lifetime of trust instead of voting in people from the bottom straight to the top. Governors need to be either mayors or legislators first. Presidents need to have some relevant experience. Even House members should make sure to learn and practice in their own state first before going for a federal position.
I can think of several people off the top of my head from both parties that unfortunately match this description. If they were an ex-con, but they proved themselves in a series of positions involving public money and trust, then yeah I think they can be forgiven.
If they never went to jail for something they did, and their job is to send other people to jail, I think that is a level of hypocrisy that we can't have in our justice system.
-
Thanks, Toque.
I believe that "former player" has been socialized to discount and minimize men’s thoughts, experiences and opinions.
Here is my supporting evidence for making that bold assertion, her own comment:
Here we go again. We have to be careful not to hurt men's ickle little feelings, or they won't condescend to listen to us. Riiiight.
Shortly after pages on this forum of men insisting that "mansplaining" is sexist because it less than complementary and has the word "man" in it. (Exactly like "manspreading" is sexist, I suppose.)
Essentially, when men say they are offended by something, Former Player minimizes their thoughts, experiences and opinions.
To be clear, I don't believe all women have been socialized this way; that would be a silly generalization to make since women are as different and varied as men are. But “former player”? Absolutely, based on their comments on this forum.
If you need more supporting evidence, you can pull Former Player's entire comment history and see for yourself. It’s very sad. I wouldn’t be surprised if Former Player were a paid staffer for the Trump campaign because they are creating new Trump voters every time they demonize men. Trump would LOVE for gender to be a wedge issue in this election. Not the death of the middle class, or healthcare, or the environment, or the rule of law — but gender. Former Player: Every time you demonize men, you advance Trump’s agenda. Did you not know that?
P.S. As you can see, I just made an assertion similar to the assertion that Kris made upthread, but I didn’t make it about an entire gender class, and I actually provided evidence for my assertion. I didn’t just belittle people for asking for evidence; I provided it. Even still, I don’t think it will be long before a moderator is here to warn me/ban me.
Frugal Toque, where are you? Come on down.
So let's go through what happened here. Chaskavitch, MarcherLady and Kris all said in various ways that men discount women's telling of their experiences of sexual assault. Tom Smith then asked Kris in particular (it was part of her post that he quoted) to act as his unpaid volunteer research assistant and provide proof of that claim. When Kris quite rightly declined to do so, Tom Smith came back with an unproveable personal anecdote that takes the discussion nowhere and sol said women need to be careful in pointing out men's sexist attitudes to sexual assault in case those men take it personally and push back.
I'm glad I pushed back on that, in the post Tom Smith quoted. On this forum we are all equals, right? Within the forum etiquette we can say what we like, how we like. But apparently not: on this forum men are perfectly happy to take facepunches about their finances but are too delicate to be able to cope with a tiny little bit of women pushing back on sexist attitudes to sexual assault? So delicate are men's feelings, apparently, that pushing back even the little I did it is going to turn men on the forum into Trump voters, apparently.
[Mod note: let's avoid making sweeping statements about either gender/sex.]
As I said, poor ickle men with their poor ickle feelings, now so hurt that someone pointed out that they weren't perfect that they are going to take their toys and play with someone else.
-
Thanks, Toque.
...
You're welcome, but it'll probably go easier if we don't gloat.
Toque.
-
Thanks, Toque.
...
You're welcome, but it'll probably go easier if we don't gloat.
Toque.
Well, I'll say thanks for being non-combative and easily understood, Toque. And thanks to everyone who has responded to my second question. The on-topic responses have had a lot of good information/suggestions, and the more tangential responses have still been illuminating.
As far as the "men don't trust women" thing, it does happen, but I don't think it's conscious decision a lot of the time.
For another N=1 on that subject, my husband has on 3 separate occasions told me "so and so mentioned this book/movie, it looks super interesting, I think we should read/watch it!" after I've already enthusiastically suggested the same piece of media more than once. He doesn't give my recommendations as much weight as he does recommendations from his male friends. It's now a recognized issue and he's working on it :)
He's also disbelieved me at other times about whether or not construction on a road was complete (it was, but we went the long way around because he didn't believe I'd driven past it that morning), if a certain store was north or south on a main road (we turned the wrong way and again took the super long route), or how much we've spent on X in a month ("What do you mean I've spent ALL of my fun money this month. I haven't bought ANYTHING interesting!").
These examples are getting fewer and farther between, but it's a thing, and it's infuriating. And when I get mad, he laughs at me because he thinks it's "cute".
-
men are perfectly happy to take facepunches about their finances but are too delicate to be able to cope with a tiny little bit of women pushing back on sexist attitudes to sexual assault? As I said, poor ickle men with their poor ickle feelings, now so hurt that someone pointed out that they weren't perfect that they are going to take their toys and play with someone else.
You're welcome, but it'll probably go easier if we don't gloat.
This comment is condescending and sexist, and people have been banned from this forum for lesser crimes. I expected better than "you're welcome, but..."
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the sentiment behind it, this was totally unacceptable by the forum's standards of conduct.
-
Thanks, Toque.
...
You're welcome, but it'll probably go easier if we don't gloat.
Toque.
Well, I'll say thanks for being non-combative and easily understood, Toque. And thanks to everyone who has responded to my second question. The on-topic responses have had a lot of good information/suggestions, and the more tangential responses have still been illuminating.
As far as the "men don't trust women" thing, it does happen, but I don't think it's conscious decision a lot of the time.
For another N=1 on that subject, my husband has on 3 separate occasions told me "so and so mentioned this book/movie, it looks super interesting, I think we should read/watch it!" after I've already enthusiastically suggested the same piece of media more than once. He doesn't give my recommendations as much weight as he does recommendations from his male friends. It's now a recognized issue and he's working on it :)
He's also disbelieved me at other times about whether or not construction on a road was complete (it was, but we went the long way around because he didn't believe I'd driven past it that morning), if a certain store was north or south on a main road (we turned the wrong way and again took the super long route), or how much we've spent on X in a month ("What do you mean I've spent ALL of my fun money this month. I haven't bought ANYTHING interesting!").
These examples are getting fewer and farther between, but it's a thing, and it's infuriating. And when I get mad, he laughs at me because he thinks it's "cute".
Ha. My husband does stuff like that, too. And yeah, I call him on it, so now he's aware. Thankfully he doesn't laugh at me, though...
-
men are perfectly happy to take facepunches about their finances but are too delicate to be able to cope with a tiny little bit of women pushing back on sexist attitudes to sexual assault? As I said, poor ickle men with their poor ickle feelings, now so hurt that someone pointed out that they weren't perfect that they are going to take their toys and play with someone else.
You're welcome, but it'll probably go easier if we don't gloat.
This comment is condescending and sexist, and people have been banned from this forum for lesser crimes. I expected better than "you're welcome, but..."
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the sentiment behind it, this was totally unacceptable by the forum's standards of conduct.
Feel free to report me, sol.
-
Thanks, Toque.
...
You're welcome, but it'll probably go easier if we don't gloat.
Toque.
Well, I'll say thanks for being non-combative and easily understood, Toque. And thanks to everyone who has responded to my second question. The on-topic responses have had a lot of good information/suggestions, and the more tangential responses have still been illuminating.
As far as the "men don't trust women" thing, it does happen, but I don't think it's conscious decision a lot of the time.
For another N=1 on that subject, my husband has on 3 separate occasions told me "so and so mentioned this book/movie, it looks super interesting, I think we should read/watch it!" after I've already enthusiastically suggested the same piece of media more than once. He doesn't give my recommendations as much weight as he does recommendations from his male friends. It's now a recognized issue and he's working on it :)
He's also disbelieved me at other times about whether or not construction on a road was complete (it was, but we went the long way around because he didn't believe I'd driven past it that morning), if a certain store was north or south on a main road (we turned the wrong way and again took the super long route), or how much we've spent on X in a month ("What do you mean I've spent ALL of my fun money this month. I haven't bought ANYTHING interesting!").
These examples are getting fewer and farther between, but it's a thing, and it's infuriating. And when I get mad, he laughs at me because he thinks it's "cute".
When it comes to the book/movie recommendations, I think that's a pretty standard relationship problem. We tend to discount the recommendations of people that we're more comfortable with. This article isn't the best explanation, but it does explain some of the reasons.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201408/7-reasons-we-can-t-hear-the-people-closest-us
And I'm not saying it has nothing to do with the male/female dynamic but I know for a fact that I do this to my partner and she does it to me too.
The one about road construction is pretty bad, you had just used that road? How would you have forgotten something like that?
And the last anecdote I'll comment on is the spending. That definitely sounds like denial because "but I wants"
-
men are perfectly happy to take facepunches about their finances but are too delicate to be able to cope with a tiny little bit of women pushing back on sexist attitudes to sexual assault? As I said, poor ickle men with their poor ickle feelings, now so hurt that someone pointed out that they weren't perfect that they are going to take their toys and play with someone else.
You're welcome, but it'll probably go easier if we don't gloat.
This comment is condescending and sexist, and people have been banned from this forum for lesser crimes. I expected better than "you're welcome, but..."
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the sentiment behind it, this was totally unacceptable by the forum's standards of conduct.
My feeling is that we currently take a bit too long to ban people from the forums, just because we want to make sure and we realize we have a large responsibility. On the other hand, I also woke up to 28 moderator reports in the bin this morning, so it's not like I have a great desire to keep people around who are constantly trolling the forums and annoying everyone. And yet, we do give plenty of warnings.
MMM's feeling is that we take way, way too long to ban people.
That said, unless you're a white supremacist or a spammer, you generally get a lot free space and warnings before we ban you.
Toque.
-
^^^ your response didn't address Sol's point that the comment was totally unacceptable by the forum's standards of conduct.
I disagree with Sol on many things, but on this I think he is spot on.
-
Feel free to report me, sol.
I have never been a fan of forum moderation for anything other than spam. My comment was not directed at moderators, it was directed at you.
You are not helping. You are harming the cause by adopting the very behaviors you claim to oppose. You have become part of the problem. You are making gender relations worse, not better. You are aggressive, demeaning, sexist, and you pejoratively stereotype entire segments of the population in ways that are designed to inflame and anger people. You are acting like a jerk, and as long as you and people like you continue to act like jerks, the artificial divisions that promote gender inequality are only going to get worse, not better.
There was a time in American history when women agitated for the vote. They had to agitate to be heard, but ultimately they had to be awarded the right to vote by people who could already vote, i.e. by men. They needed to change enough hearts and minds to get enough men on their side to realize the change they wanted to see. You are not getting any men on your side.
There was a time in American history when black people agitated for civil rights. They had to agitate to be heard, but ultimately they had to be awarded those rights by the people who had previously oppressed them. They needed to get enough white people on their side to realize the change they wanted to see, and while some of them did that very successfully (e.g. MLK), others chose your more angry and confrontational approach (e.g. Malcom X) and as a result a lot of white people to this day carry negative stereotypes about black people being overly aggressive, angry, confrontational, even criminal. Without getting everyone on the same page, our progress on racial equality has been mixed at best.
If you really want change, you would work on finding common ground and not demeaning and belittling the people who need to change. I find your commentary here to be a deliberately inflammatory attempt to fan gender conflicts into all-out gender warfare, and I don't think that's helpful. You are pushing away the very people you need to have on your side.
As a singular example, I am definitely not on your side on this issue anymore. I think the feminist rights movement has to do some serious internal house cleaning of unhelpful (sexist) people like you before it can have any serious chance of accomplishing its goals. Men like me who believe in the cause want no part of you or your arguments, solely because you pursue them in such a wrong-headed way. I will not stand with you anymore.
But, as usual, my thoughts come from a cis white hetero dude and so identity trumps content. I don't get to tell you how to pursue your goals, and you are wholly justified in ignoring me, even hating me, regardless of my intentions. Go forth and fan the flames if you like. Just don't expect any backup from me or men like me.
-
^^^ your response didn't address Sol's point that the comment was totally unacceptable by the forum's standards of conduct.
I disagree with Sol on many things, but on this I think he is spot on.
Of course I did.
I said that, besides giving the person in question a written warning, we don't generally insta-ban people for this sort of thing. People get in-person warnings. They get public message warnings. They get strikethroughs and Mod Notes. They get a *lot* of these before we resort to a permanent ban.
Are we always perfectly on the ball in distributing these things in the proper temporal order? No. Do we always publicize them? No.
Sometimes, a truly douchey post will sit on the forums for days because all the mods are on vacation or because no one flags it to us. Sometimes a mod writes a response, correction or admonition and it doesn't post.
But we are doing our best to keep assholes from taking over this forum and turning it into the shitshow that the rest of the Internet easily descends. (i.e. every damned thread involving Trump, Kavanaugh et al)
Toque.
-
That said, unless you're a white supremacist or a spammer, you generally get a lot free space and warnings before we ban you.
I've been "warned" multiple times, with a little colored reminder next to my name in every thread. Was former player warned, or did you just mean that "don't gloat" was the warning issued in this case?
I think the little colored warning labels (10% whoohoo!) are kind of ridiculous, but they do at least provide a record of past behaviors that someone thought inappropriate. In this case, does former player's behavior rise to that threshhold?
-
^^^ your response didn't address Sol's point that the comment was totally unacceptable by the forum's standards of conduct.
I disagree with Sol on many things, but on this I think he is spot on.
Of course I did.
I didn't see you agree that the comment was unacceptable. That would be a good thing to at least acknowledge.
-
That said, unless you're a white supremacist or a spammer, you generally get a lot free space and warnings before we ban you.
I've been "warned" multiple times, with a little colored reminder next to my name in every thread. Was former player warned, or did you just mean that "don't gloat" was the warning issued in this case?
You have only ever been warned via public red notes?
I understand your confusion, as my strikethrough and red-note did not go through because I was replying at the same time. But, when you pointed it out, I backed through my browser history and made sure it posted.
Do we have that cleared up now? Because I already have several other "Oops, I multiple posted a topic" and "Spam!" notes to chase down.
Toque.
-
Do we have that cleared up now? Because I already have several other "Oops, I multiple posted a topic" and "Spam!" notes to chase down.
Of course you are free to go moderate elsewhere, and you don't need my permission.
I generally don't like it when mods alter the content of someone's posts with a red mod edit, because I would like to believe that the community can pass judgment on a person's words without an official decree. I don't think your red mod edit on the previous page is necessary, and in fact I think you're just going to anger some people. I'm counting down the seconds until we get a "how dare a man censor a woman's words" post in this thread.
-
there are a number of awesome men on this forum who are allies of women who will understand and agree that male socialization tends to teach them to discount women’s voices.
Highlighting sexual inequality is fine, Kris, we just have to be careful about any statements that sound like "men do this" because it sounds like a personal attack to all men who don't do that. For example, I would suggest rephrasing your initial comment from "men have just been socialized to..." to something less stereotyping, like "society typically socializes men to..." because that makes the same point without effectively telling someone who would otherwise be on your side "Hey you're man, and this is what you personally are doing wrong because you are man, no matter what you personally are doing, because all men do this."
Changing the phrasing makes a valid argument sound less accusatory, is more effective at changing minds because it doesn't put potential allies on the defensive, and I find that it helps reminds me that men are unwilling victims in these problems too. If your son is inadvertenly socialized into a raging asshole, it's not because he was born that way and it's not an inherent fault of who he is, it's because that's the behaviors he was taught as a young man. Ditto if your son is raised correctly. We all live in a system that reinforces gender inequality, whether we like it or not, and we can all work to change it but we can't pretend we live apart from it.
I realize I'm sticking my neck out with this post. I will not be surprised if some folks are angry with me.
Sol, not to pile on, but a couple points:
1. I agree with most of what you said. If you want people to agree with you, then the last thing you want is to put them on the defensive. When people get defensive, they stop listening.
2. That said, see all the bolded parts in your post above. You might want to take a step back and ask yourself whether you've ever criticized a male poster's tone or the way they've made an argument in the same way. Because I've seen a lot of pointedly aggressive/facepunchy male posters on the MMM forums, and I am having a hard time thinking of a single example of anyone calling them out not for the content of their posts, but for the way they phrased their arguments (until it gets down to name-calling, at which point the mods step in).
Can you see why Kris and the other female posters get upset at the tone policing, when it seems disproportionately directed at the female members of the board?
And if I'm wrong, I'd love to see examples where male posters got called out by other male posters for their tone.
-
there are a number of awesome men on this forum who are allies of women who will understand and agree that male socialization tends to teach them to discount women’s voices.
Highlighting sexual inequality is fine, Kris, we just have to be careful about any statements that sound like "men do this" because it sounds like a personal attack to all men who don't do that. For example, I would suggest rephrasing your initial comment from "men have just been socialized to..." to something less stereotyping, like "society typically socializes men to..." because that makes the same point without effectively telling someone who would otherwise be on your side "Hey you're man, and this is what you personally are doing wrong because you are man, no matter what you personally are doing, because all men do this."
Changing the phrasing makes a valid argument sound less accusatory, is more effective at changing minds because it doesn't put potential allies on the defensive, and I find that it helps reminds me that men are unwilling victims in these problems too. If your son is inadvertenly socialized into a raging asshole, it's not because he was born that way and it's not an inherent fault of who he is, it's because that's the behaviors he was taught as a young man. Ditto if your son is raised correctly. We all live in a system that reinforces gender inequality, whether we like it or not, and we can all work to change it but we can't pretend we live apart from it.
I realize I'm sticking my neck out with this post. I will not be surprised if some folks are angry with me.
Sol, not to pile on, but a couple points:
1. I agree with most of what you said. If you want people to agree with you, then the last thing you want is to put them on the defensive. When people get defensive, they stop listening.
2. That said, see all the bolded parts in your post above. You might want to take a step back and ask yourself whether you've ever criticized a male poster's tone or the way they've made an argument in the same way. Because I've seen a lot of pointedly aggressive/facepunchy male posters on the MMM forums, and I am having a hard time thinking of a single example of anyone calling them out not for the content of their posts, but for the way they phrased their arguments (until it gets down to name-calling, at which point the mods step in).
Can you see why Kris and the other female posters get upset at the tone policing, when it seems disproportionately directed at the female members of the board?
And if I'm wrong, I'd love to see examples where male posters got called out by other male posters for their tone.
+1.
I actually didn't mind the tone of Sol's comment (above), maybe because it's so ingrained to me by now to frame things in a way so that opinionated, aggressive males will listen. (I mean, I do work with a bunch of PhD engineers).
-
You might want to take a step back and ask yourself whether you've ever criticized a male poster's tone or the way they've made an argument in the same way.
...
I'd love to see examples where male posters got called out by other male posters for their tone.
Apparently, this is the point in the discussion where I'm supposed to indignantly accuse you of making me subordinate to you by forcing me to do your research for you (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/when-does-an-apologyturning-your-life-around-become-'enough'/msg2161380/#msg2161380) instead of just providing recent links (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2155907/#msg2155907)to relevant examples (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/statistics-update/) of times I have called out a male poster for being a jerk. Go ahead and read the next few pages of those threads and then come back and tell me if you think I gave a male poster a free pass for his shitty arguments or his shitty attitude.
I understand the complaint about tone policing, and I understand the complaint about unfair credence. The solution to these problems is not to adopt the worst behaviors you see, turn them around, and throw them back in the face of the people who started it. Treating sexist men in sexist ways does not help. Treating condescending men with a condescending attitude does not help. Adopting these broken modes of communication only validates the dysfunction you see.
We all need to set a better example than that.
-
You might want to take a step back and ask yourself whether you've ever criticized a male poster's tone or the way they've made an argument in the same way.
...
I'd love to see examples where male posters got called out by other male posters for their tone.
Apparently, this is the point in the discussion where I'm supposed to indignantly accuse you of making me subordinate to you by forcing me to do your research for you (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/when-does-an-apologyturning-your-life-around-become-'enough'/msg2161380/#msg2161380) instead of just providing recent links (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2155907/#msg2155907)to relevant examples (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/statistics-update/) of times I have called out a male poster for being a jerk. Go ahead and read the next few pages of those threads and then come back and tell me if you think I gave a male poster a free pass for his shitty arguments or his shitty attitude.
Well, given that I suggested you do the research to discover for yourself whether you were calling out tone in women more often than men, me doing it for you wouldn't really achieve anything productive. And hey, if my assumptions were wrong and you weren't, you get the satisfaction of knowing I was totally off base!
Thank you for your examples, however, in reading through them I could find only one example where you were criticizing tone rather than content--namely, your response to Anistropy in which you state 'because you made a lot of people very uncomfortable with your absolute insistence that sexual assault survivors are mostly liars'. But quite frankly, my assessment of the other linked posts is that you're engaging with the content of the argument, not the tone. Which is valid--quite frankly, your posts are usually very clear and well thought out and I enjoy reading them--but that just makes it all the more jarring when you turned around in this thread to criticize tone instead.
Just from my POV--looking at history, women have been using sweet words and rational, reasonable arguments for literally hundreds of years to demand recognition as human beings that have equal standing and rights as men. It doesn't seem to produce much in the way of results. Whereas when women get loud, get strident, get violent and burn their bras ... then suddenly it seems people pay attention. So IMHO, sometimes getting loud and angry (and making people uncomfortable) has its place.
-
Modern dialogue as engineered by certain feminists seems to presuppose that women are universally ignored and naturally right. The former I see a lot of. The latter I have serious issues with - if only because women disagree with each other on a lot of things. The end result is a often dialogue that looks like this:
Male poster: "You may be wrong about..."
Female poster: "Don't talk down to me."
Male poster: "I just want to explain..."
Female poster: "You're being condescending..."
Male poster: "I'm trying to be polite, but please recognize..."
Female poster: "Don't mansplain at me!"
Male poster: "I do strongly agree with you on..."
Female poster: "Well it's about time! Will you deign to mansplain to me something I already know - again? /s"
Male poster: "Can't disagree, can't argue, can't even AGREE - fuck off!"
Female poster: "No fuck you! I knew polite dialogue was useless!"
I look forward with great anticipation what this, combined traditional dismissive male attitudes, will do to improve things.
I think your dialogue might be slightly different, though, if a female poster wrote it. It would start something like:
female poster: we have to fight sexism in our institutions whenever we see it.
male poster: What? Prove sexism exists in our institutions! Where is it? When does it happen?
female poster: WTF? I have to prove sexism exists? No. Stop bothering me.
male poster: See how irrational women are? They won't even answer simple questions.
The male poster is at least *pretending* that he asked a reasonable, logical question. Whether he did so in good faith is another question.
The female poster thinks it's ridiculous to actually have to support such an obvious truth at this point.
I'm pretty sure that's where this discussion went off the rails and descended into two groups of people talking to each other.
Toque.
-
sol, you are one of my favorite posters. Even when I disagree with you about something, I admire your reasoning. I don't post a ton here, but I read a lot and your posts always stand out in a good way.
It's really painful to be called out on stuff when you are trying hard to be an ally, but sometimes it's helpful to not get self-defensive and really try to just listen. I have felt the same way when trying to be an ally for certain marginalized groups. You can learn something profound about your own prejudices when you stop putting your back up because you consider yourself an ally. Being an ally doesn't mean that you still can't learn from the people you are trying to support.
-
It's really painful to be called out on stuff
Just for the sake of clarity, what exactly am I being called out on?
Was it for asking people to be considerate? Was it for saying "be nice to people"? For trying to suggest how we can all communicate more effectively, instead of letting these conversations devolve into belittling stereotypes and name calling? For highlighting how progress requires cooperation from all sides?
I'm always willing to listen. In this case, I feel like some of our members are not listening to me, ignoring the content of my argument and solely focusing on my tone or my identity. I'm not feeling defensive, I'm feeling pissed off because women I was trying to support wrote me angry condescending messages, and compared me to a climate skeptic and anti-vaxxer even though I was already on their side. I don't need to rationalize my position as an ally. They need to rationalize their position as jerks. This is not how you treat people, regardless of their positions, not in real life and not on the internet. It's shameful, and counterproductive to their stated goals.
Being an ally doesn't mean that you still can't learn from the people you are trying to support.
As I have tried to make clear, I am done supporting people like this. Why am I the only one who has to learn? Pushing the right ideas in the wrong way does not make you noble. If someone wants to argue for equality by demeaning their allies, they are not really arguing for equality. Raging hypocrites have ruined my day. I hate that I'm suddenly in the position of having to say to myself, "Hey, maybe those men's rights assholes kind of have a point. There are some really shitty feminists out there."
I recognize that I'm entirely out on my own on this one. No one has come to my defense, no one agrees with me, no one has been willing to admit that anything other than angry shouting is an appropriate response to sexism. I'm supposed to learn from the people I'm trying to support? I have learned that I am an unwelcome minority at this party, as each new person shows up to pile on. I'm out!
At this point in the conversation, all I'm expecting from a few key voices is a hearty "good riddance". As I depart the equal right's movement with my jaw clenched and disillusionment in my eyes, maybe we should all take a moment to reflect on whose goals this little sideshow has really advanced. Is everyone happy with the outcome we have achieved?
-
It's really painful to be called out on stuff
Just for the sake of clarity, what exactly am I being called out on?
Was it for asking people to be considerate? Was it for saying "be nice to people"? For trying to suggest how we can all communicate more effectively, instead of letting these conversations devolve into belittling stereotypes and name calling? For highlighting how progress requires cooperation from all sides?
I'm always willing to listen. In this case, I feel like some of our members are not listening to me, ignoring the content of my argument and solely focusing on my tone or my identity. I'm not feeling defensive, I'm feeling pissed off because women I was trying to support wrote me angry condescending messages, and compared me to a climate skeptic and anti-vaxxer even though I was already on their side. I don't need to rationalize my position as an ally. They need to rationalize their position as jerks. This is not how you treat people, regardless of their positions, not in real life and not on the internet. It's shameful, and counterproductive to their stated goals.
Being an ally doesn't mean that you still can't learn from the people you are trying to support.
As I have tried to make clear, I am done supporting people like this. Why am I the only one who has to learn? Pushing the right ideas in the wrong way does not make you noble. If someone wants to argue for equality by demeaning their allies, they are not really arguing for equality. Raging hypocrites have ruined my day. I hate that I'm suddenly in the position of having to say to myself, "Hey, maybe those men's rights assholes kind of have a point. There are some really shitty feminists out there."
I recognize that I'm entirely out on my own on this one. No one has come to my defense, no one agrees with me, no one has been willing to admit that anything other than angry shouting is an appropriate response to sexism. I'm supposed to learn from the people I'm trying to support? I have learned that I am an unwelcome minority at this party, as each new person shows up to pile on. I'm out!
At this point in the conversation, all I'm expecting from a few key voices is a hearty "good riddance". As I depart the equal right's movement with my jaw clenched and disillusionment in my eyes, maybe we should all take a moment to reflect on whose goals this little sideshow has really advanced. Is everyone happy with the outcome we have achieved?
If this is what it takes for you to stop arguing for equal rights for women and men and start defending MRAs, I'm not so sure you were such an ally in the first place.
-
If this is what it takes for you to stop arguing for equal rights for women and men and start defending MRAs, I'm not so sure you were such an ally in the first place.
I'm not giving up on equal rights for women. I'm giving up on you and feminists like you who undermine feminism. You've broken it. You think you're promoting equal rights by making fun of men and comparing them to climate deniers or the anti-vax movement? Would I be promoting equal rights if I treated women the way women have treated me in this thread?
I'm not defending MRAs, I'm saying that in the case of this particular criticism of feminism, you are absolutely making them correct with your behavior. And that's sad. Why give ammunition to those people?
-
If this is what it takes for you to stop arguing for equal rights for women and men and start defending MRAs, I'm not so sure you were such an ally in the first place.
I'm not giving up on equal rights for women. I'm giving up on you and feminists like you who undermine feminism. You've broken it. You think you're promoting equal rights by making fun of men and comparing them to climate deniers or the anti-vax movement? Would I be promoting equal rights if I treated women the way women have treated me in this thread?
I'm not defending MRAs, I'm saying that in the case of this particular criticism of feminism, you are absolutely making them correct with your behavior. And that's sad. Why give ammunition to those people?
Uh-huh.
Sorry, man, you make that histrionic "as I depart the equal rights movement" comment, and then you try go back on it. Words have meaning. You said those things. If you didn't mean what you said, that's on you, but you still said them.
Also, no. I did not compare you to a climate change denier. I did not compare you to the anti-vax movement. I never PMed you. You, however, PMed me with a non-apology apology because you accused me of something in this thread further up that I did not say and I called you on it. But instead of correcting yourself here you did it in private. And because I didn't immediately accept your non-apology and praise you for it, you abruptly left the conversation.
You are lumping all of the women you have a problem with here together so you can make a self-righteous soapbox argument. Many people here, women and men, have suggested that maybe you should take a step back and re-evaluate, but you have not. Instead, you proclaim that men's rights advocates have a point, and that women have broken equal rights. It's all on us. You are right. We are wrong.
As a side note, I find it interesting and perhaps significant that you seem unable to distinguish the various women who have disagreed with you/PMed you, and instead lump them into one composite character to rail against.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a black friend of mine a while ago who was frustrated as hell because of how often she would try to convey something to a well-meaning "ally" who would get angry, and they would blame her for the misunderstanding and say that she was the problem. Her frustration grew, but she was supposed to never be anything but perfectly kind, perfectly sweet, and never say anything in a way that would potentially offend someone who thought of him/herself as an ally or put them on the defensive in any way. I remember toward the end of the conversation, she threw up her hands and said, "Girl, with allies like those, who needs enemies?"
Allies are allies. They don't threaten to leave the movement based on a conversation. They don't defend a sexist movement that actually advocates negging, sexual assault, and even rape.
Looking back at the history of your posts in the past few weeks, you have spent so much more time and argued so much more forcefully criticizing women's use of language than you have against the things that women are actually trying to point out with their language, that a pattern of your priorities seems to emerge. And your priorities seem much more aligned with being agreed with and even praised for being an "ally" than they do with actually confronting the sexist behaviors that have angered us so much in the first place.
So, to repeat my friend: With allies like this...
-
Quod erat demonstrandum.
I'd just like to add, given that I have been moderated in this discussion, that like Kris I have not PM'd sol and have not compared him to a climate change denier or anti-vaxxer.
-
Words have meaning.
Yes they do. I wish you would take ownership of yours.
You know what else has meaning? Deafening silence.
Also, no. I did not compare you to a climate change denier. I did not compare you to the anti-vax movement.
No, gaja did that, right after your angry and condescending PM. And the timing of those two things together suddenly opened my eyes. I'm not welcome, I get it.
But instead of correcting yourself here you did it in private.
I didn't mean to correct myself. If I had meant to correct something I had said here, I would have done so publicly by editing a post or making a new one. You should try it.
you abruptly left the conversation.
Funny, I feel like I'm totally unable to leave this conversation.
Many people here, women and men, have suggested that maybe you should take a step back and re-evaluate, but you have not.
You think I have not taken a step back to re-evaluate?
This isn't about me, it's never been about me, and you can stop trying to make it about me. I said I thought your post to Tom was not the best way to approach this problem, and you immediately pivoted to criticisms of me instead of ever engaging that point, or re-evaluating your approach.
I freely admit that you and others have uniformly found my contributions to be inappropriate. Message received. Are you also listening?
Instead, you proclaim that men's rights advocates have a point
And I stand by that assessment. For all of the ugly vitriol that comes from that group, the criticism that some women have embraced truly ugly behaviors in pursuit of feminism appears to be a valid one.
Allies are allies. They don't threaten to leave the movement based on a conversation.
I think I have been pretty clear that I still support the movement, I just strongly disagree with the tactics adopted by some of the participants. I will attempt to stay out of future forum debates on this topic, because I don't want to be associated with people who behave like that.
And your priorities seem much more aligned with being agreed with and even praised for being an "ally" than they do with actually confronting the sexist behaviors that have angered us so much in the first place.
Still not about me, but about how to make change happen. I think you're changing things in the wrong direction.
Are you now suggesting that I have not been an ally, have not argued for equal rights on the forum for the past six years, have not supported you and your views against other members for all of that time?
I understand that you are angry, and with good reason. I'm probably the wrong target for your anger, though.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
At the moment, I am also pretty content with the way this has unfolded. I think readers can review the discussion and draw their own conclusions, and maybe we should stop cluttering up chaskavitch's thread with infighting. Some people will conclude I am a sexist asshole because I asked for a more positive and less aggressive discussion of how to improve gender relations, and I hope that those people too will step up and add their voices to future forum debates about these topics. I suppose it takes all kinds.
Except me. It definitely doesn't need me.
-
Wow Sol,
You are normally really level headed, but you are being super defensive here. Maybe you want to, when you calm down a bit, examine why that is? You are acting completely irrationally, in my view.
I agree with others here, if this conversation is all that it takes to make you identify with MRA’s, then I don’t think you approached the conversation with good intentions in the first place. Just that one statement basically writes you off in most women’s eyes. It is the equivalent of making a racist joke or throwing around the N-word in mixed company. It’s very disrespectful. Why would you say something so deliberately inflammatory? Maybe you should rethink your approach if you want to get your point across more effectively. ;P
This isn’t about you, or your pride. I don’t know what is going on in your life, but maybe take a little time off the forums and chill.
-
So, if I'm reading this correctly . . . this is largely an argument that came out of this exchange:
I agree with MarcherLady, that men have just been socialized to discount and minimize women’s thoughts, experiences and opinions.
How? Where were these men socialized this way? In public schools? From messages in the movies? On network television? Since you're asserting that men have been socialized to "discount and minimize women's thoughts, experiences and opinions," -- which includes all the men on this forum -- I'd like to believe you will have some explanation for where this pervasive socialization was implemented.
Interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks.
And then Sol's following response:
How? Where were these men socialized this way? In public schools? From messages in the movies? On network television? Since you're asserting that men have been socialized to "discount and minimize women's thoughts, experiences and opinions," -- which includes all the men on this forum -- I'd like to believe you will have some explanation for where this pervasive socialization was implemented.
Interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks.
Don't take it personally, Tom. People who are upset, rightfully or not, often lash out against entire groups as if they were a homogeneous whole, without thinking about how this sort of stereotyping is not very different from the type they're upset about. They don't mean you.
Unless you're one of those, in which case they do mean you and so do I.
Trying to stand up for yourself in this context is entirely futile. There is no possible defense. Imagine how modern Germans feel about their country's history with starting world wars. Every single time they advocate for the use of military force they have to tiptoe around this history, and if someone accuses them of warmongering they pretty much have to apologize no matter how justified the current situation is. As a dude, you're in the same boat today. You don't get to stand up for yourself without being labelled as part of the problem. Life isn't fair, get used to it.
On the bright side you still get paid more than women do for the same work, on average, and apparently you can go back to sexually assaulting women when blackout drunk and as long as there are not other witnesses you can be safely assured of zero consequences for your crimes! So it's not all bad! Or maybe it is?
there are a number of awesome men on this forum who are allies of women who will understand and agree that male socialization tends to teach them to discount women’s voices.
Highlighting sexual inequality is fine, Kris, we just have to be careful about any statements that sound like "men do this" because it sounds like a personal attack to all men who don't do that. For example, I would suggest rephrasing your initial comment from "men have just been socialized to..." to something less stereotyping, like "society typically socializes men to..." because that makes the same point without effectively telling someone who would otherwise be on your side "Hey you're man, and this is what you personally are doing wrong because you are man, no matter what you personally are doing, because all men do this."
Changing the phrasing makes a valid argument sound less accusatory, is more effective at changing minds because it doesn't put potential allies on the defensive, and I find that it helps reminds me that men are unwilling victims in these problems too. If your son is inadvertenly socialized into a raging asshole, it's not because he was born that way and it's not an inherent fault of who he is, it's because that's the behaviors he was taught as a young man. Ditto if your son is raised correctly. We all live in a system that reinforces gender inequality, whether we like it or not, and we can all work to change it but we can't pretend we live apart from it.
I realize I'm sticking my neck out with this post. I will not be surprised if some folks are angry with me.
Fundamentally we're asking the question 'Is it fair to lump together most men with all men when discussing an issue?' The answer is no - just as it's not OK to say that black people are involved in more crime in the US, therefore are criminals. Talking about people in generalities is obviously going to be unfair to those people to whom the generalities don't apply.
At the same time though for this instance I'm not entirely sure why it bothers some men when sweeping generalizations are made. I read them myself, think "Meh. Doesn't apply to me, they must be talking about other men." and go about my day. It's fair and valid to have some feelings of resentment to an oppressing class of people even if not everyone in that group is wholly guilty. (Oscar Schindler helped Jewish people and was a Nazi party member - does it make you angry when someone says that members of the Nazi party were evil to Jews? Would Schindler be angry at you for saying that?) Last I checked, most stats indicate that although things have become much better for women than say in the 1900s, men are still much more often in positions of power, get paid more, get away with rape more, and appear to be overly concerned with the reproductive rights of women. There's a lot to be upset about, and we're pretty far from equality.
-
I also find it chilling that you want to silence a long time poster who doesn’t support your views. I thought you were stronger than that. Every comment here is about you, you, you, you. Your anger, your feelings, you being offended.
I honestly think the root of so many of these type of disagreements (and many disagreements in politics these days) is cultural narcissism. Everyone is so focused on how much they are hurting, they are grieving, they are being attacked. It sucks and it means that no one is happy and everyone is a victim. It devistates your self-esteem and simultaneously wounds the self esteem of others. Whole movements and political parties are being built around victimization.
-
I'm probably a big idiot for even stepping into this, but...
I am a queer disabled woman (which shouldn't even matter, but here we are). I used to be squarely in social justice camp a couple of years ago. However, I have gradually been drifting away from it.
I still agree 100% with feminism and affiliated movements' stated goals of achieving equality for everyone, including women, POC, LGBTQIA+, etc. However, the reason I moved away from the whole thing a bit was because of how many people seemed to me to be campaigning for equality in a way which was objectively a bad strategy.
Women, and other traditionally disadvantaged groups, absolutely have the right to be loud and angry, the same as anyone. Sometimes loud and angry is even a good choice. It's a good tone for venting to people and similar, and if someone wants to be angry at people all over the place, that's up to them.
However, I personally reckon that people in general are more likely to be persuaded to someone's point of view if that person listens to their point of view respectfully and THEN explains, still respectfully, why they disagree. This holds whether either person is a man or a woman. Rather than treating everyone who even potentially might not agree as an enemy, why not see them as an ally you haven't made yet?
Just my two cents. As far as I can see, both Sol AND everyone arguing against him have good points.
-
I agree with MarcherLady, that men have just been socialized to discount and minimize women’s thoughts, experiences and opinions.
How? Where were these men socialized this way? In public schools? From messages in the movies? On network television? Since you're asserting that men have been socialized to "discount and minimize women's thoughts, experiences and opinions," -- which includes all the men on this forum -- I'd like to believe you will have some explanation for where this pervasive socialization was implemented.
Interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks.
You know what, Tom?
It turns out, I have had enough of explaining things to combative men lately. So, no, I have decided that it is not my job to explain this to you. In fact, I believe there are a number of awesome men on this forum who are allies of women who will understand and agree that male socialization tends to teach them to discount women’s voices. And there are likely lots of resources you can find by googling or doing an Amazon search.
My response was to Chaskavitch. Feel free to read the article I linked for her if you’d like.
Have a nice day.
You're all wrong :) Here's what really happened.
Kris said men are socialized to be x. I don't see that as a generalization against men but rather a generalization against society. In fact, to the man that overcomes this "socialization" and forms his own worldviews independently it's almost a compliment.
Then Tom Smith questioned that idea and asked for evidence. I think that's a completely reasonable request and pretty normal in these discussions if it was sincere. It didn't really come off as sincere, which I assume is why Kris's response was combative.
Then sol dropped in with what I think is actually a fair argument, it just wasn't the right time to bring it up. It clearly sounded like an accusation directed at Kris which I don't think was fair at that moment. I've seen real examples of what sol is describing but I didn't think this was one of them.
Then, just to make sure the embers didn't peter out, former player threw in some tinder with the "ickle little feelings" comment thus ensuring enough fire and smoke to signal firefighter* Toque.
*It's OK to say fireman because he is in fact a man, but I'm treading lightly here.
-
I agree with MarcherLady, that men have just been socialized to discount and minimize women’s thoughts, experiences and opinions.
How? Where were these men socialized this way? In public schools? From messages in the movies? On network television? Since you're asserting that men have been socialized to "discount and minimize women's thoughts, experiences and opinions," -- which includes all the men on this forum -- I'd like to believe you will have some explanation for where this pervasive socialization was implemented.
Interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks.
You know what, Tom?
It turns out, I have had enough of explaining things to combative men lately. So, no, I have decided that it is not my job to explain this to you. In fact, I believe there are a number of awesome men on this forum who are allies of women who will understand and agree that male socialization tends to teach them to discount women’s voices. And there are likely lots of resources you can find by googling or doing an Amazon search.
My response was to Chaskavitch. Feel free to read the article I linked for her if you’d like.
Have a nice day.
You're all wrong :) Here's what really happened.
Kris said men are socialized to be x. I don't see that as a generalization against men but rather a generalization against society. In fact, to the man that overcomes this "socialization" and forms his own worldviews independently it's almost a compliment.
Then Tom Smith questioned that idea and asked for evidence. I think that's a completely reasonable request and pretty normal in these discussions if it was sincere. It didn't really come off as sincere, which I assume is why Kris's response was combative.
Then sol dropped in with what I think is actually a fair argument, it just wasn't the right time to bring it up. It clearly sounded like an accusation directed at Kris which I don't think was fair at that moment. I've seen real examples of what sol is describing but I didn't think this was one of them.
Then, just to make sure the embers didn't peter out, former player threw in some tinder with the "ickle little feelings" comment thus ensuring enough fire and smoke to signal firefighter* Toque.
*It's OK to say fireman because he is in fact a man, but I'm treading lightly here.
I'd say that's a reasonable assessment, at least as far as my part.
-
I'm conflict averse by nature. I like it when everyone stays calm, and my temptation when things get heated is to step away from a conversation. But it's not my place to dictate the terms of this conversation, and though I can walk away that is only because I can go back to my white guy life and not deal with this if I don't want to. Others don't have that same choice.
Golden1 said they think part of the problem is that everyone is thinking about their own hurt, and I agree that that is happening. But I am not a victim of sexism. And you aren't either Sol. So our job is to put aside our issues on this.
I'm confident that former player and Kris (and others) would rather live in a world where they didn't have to get angry-- where it didn't matter if it was "all men" because it was "no men". But try to understand that they didn't arrive where they are in a vacuum. This is where their life has brought them, and you and I don't know what that was like.
Sol, I've read a lot of your posts. You are incredibly bright, and (from what I know of you) you are a good person. I hope you take some time to review what has been discussed and try to understand what a number of people are saying to you.
-
I'm conflict averse by nature. I like it when everyone stays calm, and my temptation when things get heated is to step away from a conversation. But it's not my place to dictate the terms of this conversation, and though I can walk away that is only because I can go back to my white guy life and not deal with this if I don't want to. Others don't have that same choice.
Golden1 said they think part of the problem is that everyone is thinking about their own hurt, and I agree that that is happening. But I am not a victim of sexism. And you aren't either Sol. So our job is to put aside our issues on this.
I'm confident that former player and Kris (and others) would rather live in a world where they didn't have to get angry-- where it didn't matter if it was "all men" because it was "no men". But try to understand that they didn't arrive where they are in a vacuum. This is where their life has brought them, and you and I don't know what that was like.
Sol, I've read a lot of your posts. You are incredibly bright, and (from what I know of you) you are a good person. I hope you take some time to review what has been discussed and try to understand what a number of people are saying to you.
Thank you, Watchmaker. That was well-said, and very appreciated.
-
Words have meaning.
Yes they do. I wish you would take ownership of yours.
You know what else has meaning? Deafening silence.
Also, no. I did not compare you to a climate change denier. I did not compare you to the anti-vax movement.
No, gaja did that, right after your angry and condescending PM. And the timing of those two things together suddenly opened my eyes. I'm not welcome, I get it.
But instead of correcting yourself here you did it in private.
I didn't mean to correct myself. If I had meant to correct something I had said here, I would have done so publicly by editing a post or making a new one. You should try it.
you abruptly left the conversation.
Funny, I feel like I'm totally unable to leave this conversation.
Many people here, women and men, have suggested that maybe you should take a step back and re-evaluate, but you have not.
You think I have not taken a step back to re-evaluate?
This isn't about me, it's never been about me, and you can stop trying to make it about me. I said I thought your post to Tom was not the best way to approach this problem, and you immediately pivoted to criticisms of me instead of ever engaging that point, or re-evaluating your approach.
I freely admit that you and others have uniformly found my contributions to be inappropriate. Message received. Are you also listening?
Instead, you proclaim that men's rights advocates have a point
And I stand by that assessment. For all of the ugly vitriol that comes from that group, the criticism that some women have embraced truly ugly behaviors in pursuit of feminism appears to be a valid one.
Allies are allies. They don't threaten to leave the movement based on a conversation.
I think I have been pretty clear that I still support the movement, I just strongly disagree with the tactics adopted by some of the participants. I will attempt to stay out of future forum debates on this topic, because I don't want to be associated with people who behave like that.
And your priorities seem much more aligned with being agreed with and even praised for being an "ally" than they do with actually confronting the sexist behaviors that have angered us so much in the first place.
Still not about me, but about how to make change happen. I think you're changing things in the wrong direction.
Are you now suggesting that I have not been an ally, have not argued for equal rights on the forum for the past six years, have not supported you and your views against other members for all of that time?
I understand that you are angry, and with good reason. I'm probably the wrong target for your anger, though.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
At the moment, I am also pretty content with the way this has unfolded. I think readers can review the discussion and draw their own conclusions, and maybe we should stop cluttering up chaskavitch's thread with infighting. Some people will conclude I am a sexist asshole because I asked for a more positive and less aggressive discussion of how to improve gender relations, and I hope that those people too will step up and add their voices to future forum debates about these topics. I suppose it takes all kinds.
Except me. It definitely doesn't need me.
No. I did not. I can understand that you could read it like that, if you skipped through my posts because you already were angry. But no.
I wrote a couple of posts trying to discuss the merits of different modes of communication and types of arguments. You apparently read my posts as personal criticism.
Oh, the joys of written internet communication.
-
You are normally really level headed, but you are being super defensive here.
Maybe you want to, when you calm down a bit, examine why that is? You are acting completely irrationally, in my view.
I have spent the last few days struggling with this topic, and ultimately I'm upset because I feel like I've been cast out of my tribe, and forced to consider if I ever belonged there in the first place. It wouldn't bother me so much if some random people were jerks on the internet, especially if they were jerks I happen to agree with. But in this case, those people have notified me that not only am I not helping, I'm actually at fault for trying and it looks like I will not be allowed to help because of who I am.
Normally I would find that argument easy to discard as silly, because of course anyone can be an ally. But then more and more people started to show up to reinforce it, and nobody showed up to oppose it, and now it looks like that is in fact the consensus of the tribe to which I thought I belonged. It's an unfolding crisis of identity. This is the group I embraced? They really feel this much animosity, this much irrational fear, that they think this behavior is acceptable even though it so clearly conflicts with everything they claim to believe?
Now I'm homeless, and not happy about it.
I agree with others here, if this conversation is all that it takes to make you identify with MRA’s
I defintely don't identify with MRAs, but I now have a finer appreciation of one specific argument I have heard from that community. It's an argument I had previous discarded as unfounded, but this thread supports the idea that they're on to something in this one narrow instance. I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that there are bad people on all sides of the divide.
It’s very disrespectful. Why would you say something so deliberately inflammatory?
Was it as disrespectful and inflammatory as gaja and former player have been in this thread? I thought I was clear (e.g. calling them assholes when I first brought it up) that the men's rights people are gross, but that this discussion was validating at least one of their points. Specifically, there are some feminists out there who are shitty human beings. MRAs blow that argument way out of proportion and then use it as cover for their own shitty behavior, which isn't helping either, but the point remains that they're not exactly wrong with the underlying observation. They use it to drive a wedge between men and women, and now I'm learning that women are using it in the same way. Yes, I still feel icky even saying it and I wish it hadn't come to this.
I don't think you are ever going to move anyone towards gender equality by driving wedges between people. Even when your anger is justified, this is the wrong approach. Advocates who so eagerly use the tools of the MRA movement are in danger of having their stink rub off on them.
At the same time though for this instance I'm not entirely sure why it bothers some men when sweeping generalizations are made. I read them myself, think "Meh. Doesn't apply to me, they must be talking about other men." and go about my day.
That doesn't bother me. In fact I started out my reply to Tom with the "don't let it bother you, they don't mean you."
What bothers me is the total preponderance of participants here who seem fine with being demeaning towards men who are trying to help. We need to come together on this issue, and I think it's counterproductive to push people away. When I tried to raise that point, I was met with much more pushing and zero engagement on the substance.
Okay, I'm listening. My contributions here are widely considered unhelpful, even insulting. That was not my intention, but intentions don't matter much in this case. Since the majority of contributors here seem to think that I'm the one being a jerk here, I'll stop. That was my plan two days ago anyway, when it first became clear my views on this topic were unwelcome.
And you aren't either Sol.
That's a bold statement, and one I disagree with. You don't know me or my story.
I hope you take some time to review what has been discussed and try to understand what a number of people are saying to you.
Let's review what a number of people are saying to me!
1. I spoke out of turn by suggesting we treat each other with dignity and respect when I should have been validating a woman's feelings of persecution. (I agree)
2. It's okay to condescend and insult people you disagree with as long as you are part of the justifiably upset minority. (I disagree)
3. Men have been bad forever and they need to be punished for it. (agree with the first part, not so much the second)
4. I should shut up and review my life choices because the community agrees I'm out of line. (heard and embraced, thanks)
Did I miss any of the high points? I welcome edits and/or additions to this list.
-
No. I did not. I can understand that you could read it like that, if you skipped through my posts because you already were angry. But no.
Let's review!
If I’m talking climate change with sceptics, and they pull out the “scientists out to get money” it is usually time to wrap up my efforts to have a constructive dialogue. The same goes for vaccines and autism. “Not all men” is another of these markers for me.
-
Taking my life in my hands by intervening again.
sol, would it help you if you changed your words to Kris in reply #65 from talking about sexism to talking about racism? For instance, as a white person would you really have told a person of colour "white people are unwilling victims in these problems too"?
-
sol, would it help you if you changed your words to Kris in reply #65 from talking about sexism to talking about racism? For instance, as a white person would you really have told a person of colour "white people are unwilling victims in these problems too"?
In the context of that discussion? Yes, absolutely, and I have done so on numerous occasions on this very forum. My grandfather was a raging bigot and I have often talked about the conflict this caused in my family, and how I eventually came to forgive his vile behavior as he came to forgive himself. He was a product of his generation, raised in a society that taught children from birth to treat minorities as inferior, and he didn't move past that problem until well into his 80s. When he died at 93, he was busily teaching adult filipino immigrants to read through his church. If you can blame him for his behavior as a young man, it has to be faulting him for lacking the character to stand against everything he was ever taught or experienced.
I specifically mentioned this problem in the post you referenced, and then several other posters, like Caroline PF, came along to make the exact same point. Women are also biased against women, through no fault of their own, because that is how they are socialized. It takes work to overcome these biases, and one of the important early steps is recognizing just how pervasive they are, effecting everyone in ways both obvious and subtle. Men aren't born wanting to be chauvinists, they are raised that way. White people aren't born racists, either. They have these ugly ideas thrust upon them at a time when they still wholeheartedly believe in Santa Clause, and I'm not sure you can blame them for it. Racism, like sexism, is a systemic problem built into the fabric of our world and it has to be fought on person by person basis. Some racists, like some sexists, openly embrace their evil side for personal benefit. Others, though, only embrace it because they don't know any better and those are the people you lose when you act like you have in this thread. They are potential allies and you're driving them away, and I just need to stop helping you do it.
We all live in a system that reinforces gender inequality, whether we like it or not, and we can all work to change it but we can't pretend we live apart from it.
-
I have spent the last few days struggling with this topic, and ultimately I'm upset because I feel like I've been cast out of my tribe, and forced to consider if I ever belonged there in the first place.
@sol, you belong. Please don't leave us. Our society desperately needs feminism, as both men and women are hurt by the effects of patriarchy, and women need male allies.
For what it's worth, your post was not wrong. Tone matters, and the wrong tone can drive people away. And the feminists' reactions were also not completely wrong. To explain, let me use racism as an analogy.
As you are probably aware, black men are pulled over by cops on an alarmingly regular basis, even if they weren't doing anything wrong. Sometimes the black driver gets angry and confrontative with the police officer. Sometimes those situations end badly for the black man. And when everyone discusses it after the fact, you always hear someone say, 'why did he talk back? If he had just been polite, nothing bad would've happened. I am always polite in my interactions with the police."
Well, it's easy to be polite when you can count the number of police interactions in your life on one hand. And when you have never been pulled over for no reason. But many of these individuals have been pulled over 50 or 100 times or more. And they were probably polite for the first 40 or 80 times. But everyone has a breaking point.
So do we blame the black man who reached his breaking point, or do we blame the society/systemic racism for driving him to his breaking point? Is the answer that black people need to better control themselves, or do we instead need to change society?
It's similar for women. We are socialized and taught very early that we have to control not only our emotions, but the emotions of the men around us. It is dangerous to make men angry, and if a man is angry or sad, it is our job to make him feel better. Well, we all have a breaking point, where we no longer care about soothing others' feelings. And I think Kris, and former player, and others reached that breaking point in this thread.
So is the solution for Kris and the others to control their emotions better? Or do we need to instead work on changing society so as to not push women to their breaking points?
So, yes, you are right that we need to control our tone, and not piss off men. But sometimes we won't have any spoons left, and we're going to end up pissing off men.
I'm sorry that you were the target, Sol. Even though you were right, the appropriate response after being told you weren't being helpful* was "I'm sorry that I made things worse", instead of getting defensive.
After all, it is possible to be right, and still not helpful.
* This applies to men trying to help women, whites trying to help POC, straight trying to help the LGBTQ, and the able trying to help differently abled. If you're told that what you're doing isn't helpful, just stop. And apologize.
-
Call me insane, but to me Sol is the only person making logical sense in this thread. And I disagree with him often. I think others agree with this but are afraid to express it here. He's rational, level headed (in my view), and not afraid to express an unpopular stance in this crowd. And he's getting mobbed for it. Much easier to just go along with the crowd and appeal to raw emotion. Seems to me we should appreciate those willing to debate on reason rather than emotion.
-
I have spent the last few days struggling with this topic, and ultimately I'm upset because I feel like I've been cast out of my tribe, and forced to consider if I ever belonged there in the first place.
@sol, you belong. Please don't leave us. Our society desperately needs feminism, as both men and women are hurt by the effects of patriarchy, and women need male allies.
For what it's worth, your post was not wrong. Tone matters, and the wrong tone can drive people away. And the feminists' reactions were also not completely wrong. To explain, let me use racism as an analogy.
I had a decently long reply typed out, but Caroline PF has done a better job of saying it that I was.
I should only speak for myself, but I am on record hoping your stay in the conversation. I don't find your original position offensive either: I think it can be a valid topic of conversation. But "not all men" has been used to derail many conversations, in the same way "all lives matter" is used, and so I can understand that many women just don't want to hear that. And if Kris and former player are angrier than you are, it may be because they have more reason to be.
And you aren't either Sol.
That's a bold statement, and one I disagree with. You don't know me or my story.
Of course I can't know that in the same way I know I am not the victim of racism, but I believe what I said to be true. Are you a cis white male? If you are, then I believe you have benefited (unintentionally) from sexism more than you could possible been hurt by it.
-
No. I did not. I can understand that you could read it like that, if you skipped through my posts because you already were angry. But no.
Let's review!
If I’m talking climate change with sceptics, and they pull out the “scientists out to get money” it is usually time to wrap up my efforts to have a constructive dialogue. The same goes for vaccines and autism. “Not all men” is another of these markers for me.
Yes. Let us review. But maybe we could include the first part of that post, where I clearly state that my opinions regarding the phrase “not all men” are not related to you personally:
“Never claimed you were the one saying/yelling “not all men”. No irony either. Simply trying to explain where the frustration comes from, and why your (honest and decent) efforts to mediate, will fail. Dialogue with different types of stakeholders, from different parts of the society, anchoring processes, and the psychological processes needed to change peoples minds, are some of my major fields of interest (and work). Unfortunately, English is my fourth language, so it is not always easy to explain clearly what I mean.”
Feel free to continue to be angry at a stranger that might not be communicating clearly enough in a foreign language. Just be aware that the malintent is something that you are reading, not something I knowingly wrote.
-
Not to be an apologist for men who find it hard to believe that when another man is credibly accused of rape, to maybe take the woman at her word.
Us females of a certain age, grew up with certain attitudes. My household while a free for all for the male sons (sexually active at a young age, doing drugs and not obeying any kind of curfew) and parents looked the other way, otoh the female daughters were not supposed to even date in HS. yep no prom for me. While "boys will be boys", there were "good" girls, and "bad" girls. The implication is that bad things don't happen to "good girls" while "bad girls" get what is coming to them and deserve no sympathy or compassion. It's basically superstitious behavior. So some women yes, since perhaps they WERE able to avoid a sexual assault, now feel comfortable in their superstitious behavior that it could not happen to them and only happens to those that deserve it. No such comments about boy's behavior (and when I say boys I mean high school age male's behavior). Who knows? Maybe I could have become one of those type of women, if I had been sufficiently insulated.
Then you go out in the world, are a young adult, and as a female you can be walking across the street and have things yelled at you. You can be walking on the street and have a guy motion to you, pull out their dick and start masturbating to get a response. You can be at a bar, having a beer with your boyfriend, surrounded by people, and when your boyfriend leaves for a minute the guy next to you says something obscene to you. When you start to work, if you are lucky, you get tips at what places are "cool" to work at and what places to avoid, because of - stories. The common ground, there was no outrage, ever at what the men did. Instead it was always to look inside ourselves for what we did to deserve that behavior. What we needed to do better to avoid those situations in the future. And to be relentlessly critical towards women, questioning their morals, behavior, and motivations if they got in trouble.
Anyways it's not just men. Women get brainwashed too.
-
Call me insane, but to me Sol is the only person making logical sense in this thread. And I disagree with him often. I think others agree with this but are afraid to express it here. He's rational, level headed (in my view), and not afraid to express an unpopular stance in this crowd. And he's getting mobbed for it. Much easier to just go along with the crowd and appeal to raw emotion. Seems to me we should appreciate those willing to debate on reason rather than emotion.
I don't feel like Sol is being mobbed. Things got a bit intense there, but lots of us are still respectfully engaging, including Kris, former player, gaja, Caroline Pf, and Sol himself.
-
Things got a bit intense there, but lots of us are still respectfully engaging, including Kris, former player, gaja, Caroline Pf, and Sol himself.
I disagree, based on what I've read in this thread.
-
* This applies to men trying to help women, whites trying to help POC, straight trying to help the LGBTQ, and the able trying to help differently abled. If you're told that what you're doing isn't helpful, just stop. And apologize.
In the interest of trying to show Sol that I'm not trying to attack or vilify him, I'd like to add that I've struggled with this type of thing.
By my nature, I tend to give people my opinion. And I am conflict-avoidant. I've been in exact situation Caroline PF uses above, where I said to a black man that the only correct way to deal with the police is politely and obediently. I've been embarrassed by being corrected to use they pronouns for someone I was discussing with a third party. I've doubted my SO when she's told me of some sexist comment a mutual friend made (because he doesn't say those things in front of me).
It happens. You live and you learn.
-
Another vote for Sol belonging.
Sol, you're a good thinker and a good person. You apply reason and rationality to everything, and that got you into trouble here.
I think the dilemma here is that you can't be both an ally of marginalized groups and have the mental clarity of an independent minded impartial observer. There's a conflict of interest there. If you're an ally, you direct your intellect towards the interests of that group when thinking about the subject.
To me, identifying as an ally seems like little more than uploading someone else's thoughts into your brain and parroting them out to people who look like you. That and identifying microaggressions and subtle instances of bigotry that you can call out. Think about how often that happens here. Why the hell do we do this? What kind of points are we scoring when we catch someone saying something we shoehorn into the category of sexist? Who benefits? To Sol's point, this doesn't educate, it infuriates and alienates.
I think we can all agree, even those of us who are religious, that it's super annoying being evangelized to and doubly annoying if the evangelizer is telling you that you're sinning. Calling out microaggressions is just the modern version of street preaching for the modern religion of a progressive society.
-
sol, would it help you if you changed your words to Kris in reply #65 from talking about sexism to talking about racism? For instance, as a white person would you really have told a person of colour "white people are unwilling victims in these problems too"?
In the context of that discussion? Yes, absolutely,
Well, in the context of the discussion you were doing the equivalent of being a white person telling a black person who had been attacked by a white person that they should consider the feelings of the white person when responding because the white person was a victim too.
As an academic discussion at the right time and place the point could be an interesting starting point. In context, as many people have now tried to tell you, then no.
-
I think the dilemma here is that you can't be both an ally of marginalized groups and have the mental clarity of an independent minded impartial observer. There's a conflict of interest there. If you're an ally, you direct your intellect towards the interests of that group when thinking about the subject.
To me, identifying as an ally seems like little more than uploading someone else's thoughts into your brain and parroting them out to people who look like you. That and identifying microaggressions and subtle instances of bigotry that you can call out.
I don't agree with this part at all, except perhaps to say that might be what allyship looks like when done wrongly.
The purpose of being an ally is not to subjugate your thoughts to someone else (or to some group consensus). The purpose is to help. When you try to help someone, you should help in the way they want help. And when you are trying to help, you shouldn't bring them new burdens to carry-- you should relieve them of burdens.
It doesn't mean you have to agree with them on everything, and it doesn't mean you can't offer your own opinions, but you should do so in a thoughtful way.
-
Calling out microaggressions is just the modern version of street preaching for the modern religion of a progressive society.
Well said. How ironic that a leftist group that is largely non-religious has taken on some of the very same characteristics of the religious hard right.
-
I think the dilemma here is that you can't be both an ally of marginalized groups and have the mental clarity of an independent minded impartial observer. There's a conflict of interest there. If you're an ally, you direct your intellect towards the interests of that group when thinking about the subject.
To me, identifying as an ally seems like little more than uploading someone else's thoughts into your brain and parroting them out to people who look like you. That and identifying microaggressions and subtle instances of bigotry that you can call out.
I don't agree with this part at all, except perhaps to say that might be what allyship looks like when done wrongly.
The purpose of being an ally is not to subjugate your thoughts to someone else (or to some group consensus). The purpose is to help. When you try to help someone, you should help in the way they want help. And when you are trying to help, you shouldn't bring them new burdens to carry-- you should relieve them of burdens.
It doesn't mean you have to agree with them on everything, and it doesn't mean you can't offer your own opinions, but you should do so in a thoughtful way.
Do you agree with the other part? That being an ally and being a impartial observer are incompatible?
I guess what you're proposing would depend on the open mindedness and objectivity of the group that an ally sought to engage with (as well as the aforementioned tact of the ally).
I have seen far more insistence on accepting dogma, recognizing white and male privilege and atoning for it, and far less interest in rational thought and exploring.
Might just be what I read on internet forums though :)
-
What Carolyn PF said, exactly.
Sol, we know you are a good guy and an ally, and we appreciate that and don't want you to stop being one. I will admit that my jaw hit my keyboard when I read your responses in this thread because I don't think they reflect what I've seen of you before.
When you get accused of being shrill or hysterical or pre-menstrual every time you express anger or frustration or get chastised by strange men for not smiling enough it gets old. Really old.
-
At the same time though for this instance I'm not entirely sure why it bothers some men when sweeping generalizations are made. I read them myself, think "Meh. Doesn't apply to me, they must be talking about other men." and go about my day.
That doesn't bother me. In fact I started out my reply to Tom with the "don't let it bother you, they don't mean you."
What bothers me is the total preponderance of participants here who seem fine with being demeaning towards men who are trying to help. We need to come together on this issue, and I think it's counterproductive to push people away. When I tried to raise that point, I was met with much more pushing and zero engagement on the substance.
Okay, I'm listening. My contributions here are widely considered unhelpful, even insulting. That was not my intention, but intentions don't matter much in this case. Since the majority of contributors here seem to think that I'm the one being a jerk here, I'll stop. That was my plan two days ago anyway, when it first became clear my views on this topic were unwelcome.
Was the comment really demeaning towards men who are trying to help? I get how theoretically one could take offense . . . As mentioned though, I didn't feel demeaned by it. I don't think you're being a jerk . . . but am still somewhat confused by the level of concern raised over an overly broad (and indeed even mildly sexist) but relatively innocuous statement. I figure that most women put up with far worse on a daily basis without complaint.
-
Cautiously dipping in toe, did not read through the whole thread.
If I were you "good guys" I'd lay low for a while. From what I'm hearing in real life and in the virtual world, women are simply fed up with behaviors that we've put up with for a long time. And unfortunately we're lashing out at our nearest and dearest.
For instance, a few days ago I got into an argument (unusually) with my husband about my statement that 100% of women I know have been subject to unwanted sexual touching from men. He simply could not, would not, believe it. I wasn't saying that in every case it caused lifelong scarring, but it's just a fact of life for women. And we're done with it.
I was angry and ranting, and he just wanted me to calm down, so he was saying that I had to see this, and I ought to admit that. And of course the first part of active listening is that discounting the feelings of another person just doesn't work; acknowledge the feelings because they exist and cannot be changed immediately; the best you can do is suggest a strategy to deal with the issue. He failed to do this; told me how I should feel. I probably shouldn't have lost my temper, but it was upsetting to see him discount my experiences and those told to me by my friends over the last weeks.
We are in the process of moving to another level.
Example:When slavery was illegal, all you had to do to be an ally was to not support slavery; you could believe that African ancestry meant lower intelligence, you could be in favor of segregation. Later, an ally could oppose segregation, but might not support affirmative action. Over time the bar has moved, so that it's not enough to simply expect that Black Americans should have equal opportunities; being an ally means acknowledging that they still have a considerable distance to go especially in terms of getting harassed, jailed, and shot by police.
Similarly, for women, once you could simply be in favor of women voting or being able to have their own credit card (that just happened in 1974), and be an ally. Later, an ally supported women in their push for equal rights. The bar has moved. Now, an ally needs to believe us when we tell you how common molestation by men is, and how we are held to a sterner standard for comportment and speech than men.
It's a positive thing that the bar is moving. But it's hard on people who previously were in good conscience with themselves and know that they are much better than average, to be told that they have to adjust their thinking.
I do think that good guys like sol should be celebrated, maybe once decency is restored to our government. https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/10/4/17933530/sexual-assault-me-too
Anyway, to answer the first question: an apology/turning your life around becomes enough when you show true regret and work to prevent further harm of the type you originally caused. Like this guy: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/18/578745514/a-former-neo-nazi-explains-why-hate-drew-him-in-and-how-he-got-out
-
Do you agree with the other part? That being an ally and being a impartial observer are incompatible?
I guess I'm not entirely clear what is meant by impartial observer. The very definition of an ally is that I agree with them-- I'm not impartial and I'm trying to do more than just observe-- I'm trying to help.
If it just means do I form my own opinions about things, do I sometimes disagree with the tactics used, and do I voice those opinions (when I think it is helpful)? Then sure, that's what I do.
-
Can't we all just get along ( :
I think we can all agree the top was just in!
-
To address the original question of the thread--
I don't think there needs to be any kind of societal rule for this. Everyone makes their own personal judgement, and that is that. Some people will never forgive (that is their right). Others will move on rapidly (also up to them).
But for me personally, an apology is necessary but not sufficient. They have to show real change in their life. Derek Black (former white supremacist mentioned above) is a good example of someone committing to offset the bad they had done in whatever way possible.
If you do something truly horrible (kill someone, rape, white supremacist, etc) I don't believe you should ever be able to go back to a "normal" life.
-
Do you agree with the other part? That being an ally and being a impartial observer are incompatible?
I guess I'm not entirely clear what is meant by impartial observer. The very definition of an ally is that I agree with them-- I'm not impartial and I'm trying to do more than just observe-- I'm trying to help.
If it just means do I form my own opinions about things, do I sometimes disagree with the tactics used, and do I voice those opinions (when I think it is helpful)? Then sure, that's what I do.
I'll give a few examples of an impartial observer (from my perspective, which unsurprisingly cannot be completely impartial - but that's my goal). Bear with me, as I'm not just looking to answer but further illustrate what I'm getting at.
An impartial observer's first interest is in being truthful. They would reject the phrase "believe women" because on its face it is not interested in the truth. It's a reaction to womens' claims of abuse being dismissed, and seeks to turn the tables.
I would say an impartial observer would be able to see, for example, the recent police shooting of Thurman Blevins in Minneapolis and understand that force was justified and racism was not the reason they shot him. This impartial observer would not be a very useful ally to Black Lives Matter who gathered at a press conference to chant "Black Lives Matter" as the Hennepin Co Attorney announced charges would not be filed against the officers.
An impartial observer might side with BLM ~50% of the time, as many of these shootings have been unjustified. However as an ally, your advice to sit this one out would not be welcome.
Or maybe an impartial observer would be skeptical of Serena Williams' claim of sexism against Carlos Ramos. (Feminists and allies generally point to the fact that her penalties cost her a match, which is exceedingly rare. However it is not rare to get warnings for coaching, penalties for racket breaking and penalties for harassing the umpire - Ramos has doled out all of these, plentifully. It's just rare that a tennis player continues their behavior once they've accrued multiple penalties to the point where it costs them a match).
Atheists have a phrase "God of the gaps" which means that theists tend to insert God wherever they find something that hasn't been well understood yet.
I think in many cases we're seeing a "Bigotry of the gaps" which reduces complex situations that ask for a more nuanced approach and chalk things up to bigotry.
I believe there is a large group that might have once identified as allies, and have voiced their opinions, and have found their opinions to be dismissed and received reprimands for offering them. And so they've given up on that type of allyship. They don't need to be validated as sufficiently progressive, and they feel insulted by the fact that people like Kris will refer to guys as awesome because they share her views. It feels like there's a carrot and a stick. Accept and embrace the ideology, and you get the carrot. You are regarded as an awesome ally. Question it, you get the stick.
I mean no offense to Kris and other feminists here. I am writing just to give you an idea of how this thread comes off to a (mostly) impartial observer. I value and have valued your perspectives.
-
Do you agree with the other part? That being an ally and being a impartial observer are incompatible?
I guess I'm not entirely clear what is meant by impartial observer. The very definition of an ally is that I agree with them-- I'm not impartial and I'm trying to do more than just observe-- I'm trying to help.
If it just means do I form my own opinions about things, do I sometimes disagree with the tactics used, and do I voice those opinions (when I think it is helpful)? Then sure, that's what I do.
I'll give a few examples of an impartial observer (from my perspective, which unsurprisingly cannot be completely impartial - but that's my goal). Bear with me, as I'm not just looking to answer but further illustrate what I'm getting at.
An impartial observer's first interest is in being truthful. They would reject the phrase "believe women" because on its face it is not interested in the truth. It's a reaction to womens' claims of abuse being dismissed, and seeks to turn the tables.
I would say an impartial observer would be able to see, for example, the recent police shooting of Thurman Blevins in Minneapolis and understand that force was justified and racism was not the reason they shot him. This impartial observer would not be a very useful ally to Black Lives Matter who gathered at a press conference to chant "Black Lives Matter" as the Hennepin Co Attorney announced charges would not be filed against the officers.
An impartial observer might side with BLM ~50% of the time, as many of these shootings have been unjustified. However as an ally, your advice to sit this one out would not be welcome.
Or maybe an impartial observer would be skeptical of Serena Williams' claim of sexism against Carlos Ramos. (Feminists and allies generally point to the fact that her penalties cost her a match, which is exceedingly rare. However it is not rare to get warnings for coaching, penalties for racket breaking and penalties for harassing the umpire - Ramos has doled out all of these, plentifully. It's just rare that a tennis player continues their behavior once they've accrued multiple penalties to the point where it costs them a match).
Atheists have a phrase "God of the gaps" which means that theists tend to insert God wherever they find something that hasn't been well understood yet.
I think in many cases we're seeing a "Bigotry of the gaps" which reduces complex situations that ask for a more nuanced approach and chalk things up to bigotry.
I believe there is a large group that might have once identified as allies, and have voiced their opinions, and have found their opinions to be dismissed and received reprimands for offering them. And so they've given up on that type of allyship. They don't need to be validated as sufficiently progressive, and they feel insulted by the fact that people like Kris will refer to guys as awesome because they share her views. It feels like there's a carrot and a stick. Accept and embrace the ideology, and you get the carrot. You are regarded as an awesome ally. Question it, you get the stick.
I mean no offense to Kris and other feminists here. I am writing just to give you an idea of how this thread comes off to a (mostly) impartial observer. I value and have valued your perspectives.
I disagree with the bolded. I think believing women* actually makes sense from an objective standpoint. Our judicial system is biased towards the defendant for very good reasons, but those reasons are not applicable to the evaluation by common citizens of competing claims to truth. I think that a lot of people are carrying these biases into their "objective" evaluation because these biases are held up as sacrosanct in American society. But we forget that they are in fact biases that we choose to apply in the judicial system because individual liberty is one of our core values, so we want to be very certain that it is necessary before we take that away from someone.
I think an objective observer should realistically start from the position that a sexual harassment/assault accusation is at least about 70% likely to be true, based on the fact that the known false accusation rate is only about 10%. Which is, I think, what is being communicated with the phrase "believe women".
*More accurately, sexual harassment/assault survivors, whether male or female.
-
Really fantastic post, J Boogie. I wish I could write and articulate 80% as well as you do.
Even taking these statistics mentioned above by shenlong55 into account (90% of sexual assault accusations are accurate) -- which by the way applies to the general population, not to a political environment where the statistics could easily be different due to ends justifying the means mentality (will also be interesting to observe if the statistics change over time after the #metoo movement).
How does one expect to apply this information in real life? I'm not willing to assume someone is guilty based on this probability, 10% is still a massive number and it could mean destroying a person's life. It's always important to look at the evidence in my view, even if we're not talking about an actual criminal trial. Even 1% statistically is not a small number when it comes to a serious allegation. 10% is enormous. We should remember history, this is a very dangerous mentality. We cannot start making dangerous assumptions based on such broad probabilities. There is an enormous difference between respecting/taking an allegation seriously, and assuming its accurate.
-
Really fantastic post, J Boogie. I wish I could write and articulate 80% as well as you do.
Even taking these statistics mentioned above by shenlong55 into account (90% of sexual assault accusations are accurate) -- which by the way applies to the general population, not to a political environment where the statistics could easily be different due to ends justifying the means mentality (will also be interesting to observe if the statistics change over time after the #metoo movement).
How does one expect to apply this information in real life? I'm not willing to assume someone is guilty based on this probability, 10% is still a massive number and it could mean destroying a person's life. It's always important to look at the evidence in my view, even if we're not talking about an actual criminal trial. Even 1% statistically is not a small number when it comes to a serious allegation. 10% is enormous. We should remember history, this is a very dangerous mentality. We cannot start making dangerous assumptions based on such broad probabilities. There is an enormous difference between respecting/taking an allegation seriously, and assuming its accurate.
I'm talking about the objective evaluation of competing truth claims by individual citizens. How and why would you destroy someone's life based on your individual objective evaluation?
-
I think an objective observer should realistically start from the position that a sexual harassment/assault accusation is at least about 70% likely to be true, based on the fact that the known false accusation rate is only about 10%. Which is, I think, what is being communicated with the phrase "believe women".
I agree with your recommendation as well as the stats. To give you an idea of where I stand, I wouldn't have voted for Kavanaugh (perjured himself and displayed rude, combative behavior) and I would have voted for Sotomayor, Kagan, Garland, and Gorsych. And I actually am a pretty big fan of the phrase/name of the movement "Black Lives Matter" for various reasons, even if I disagree with them on many protests.
I do however disagree that "believe women" communicates that a sexual assault accusation is at least 70% likely to be true. It takes quite a bit of parsing to arrive at that. What it communicates seems pretty straightforward - that we should believe women when they claim they have been sexually assaulted. And that's fine in a personal relationship context, but not in a legal or public one. I acknowledge a more nuanced phrase would be hard to come up with and even harder to gain traction with as a movement, so I'll try to be open minded about what this phrase in meant to communicate.
-
Really fantastic post, J Boogie. I wish I could write and articulate 80% as well as you do.
That's high praise Dustin, thank you.
-
I'll give a few examples of an impartial observer (from my perspective, which unsurprisingly cannot be completely impartial - but that's my goal). Bear with me, as I'm not just looking to answer but further illustrate what I'm getting at.
An impartial observer's first interest is in being truthful. They would reject the phrase "believe women" because on its face it is not interested in the truth. It's a reaction to womens' claims of abuse being dismissed, and seeks to turn the tables.
I would say an impartial observer would be able to see, for example, the recent police shooting of Thurman Blevins in Minneapolis and understand that force was justified and racism was not the reason they shot him. This impartial observer would not be a very useful ally to Black Lives Matter who gathered at a press conference to chant "Black Lives Matter" as the Hennepin Co Attorney announced charges would not be filed against the officers.
An impartial observer might side with BLM ~50% of the time, as many of these shootings have been unjustified. However as an ally, your advice to sit this one out would not be welcome.
Or maybe an impartial observer would be skeptical of Serena Williams' claim of sexism against Carlos Ramos. (Feminists and allies generally point to the fact that her penalties cost her a match, which is exceedingly rare. However it is not rare to get warnings for coaching, penalties for racket breaking and penalties for harassing the umpire - Ramos has doled out all of these, plentifully. It's just rare that a tennis player continues their behavior once they've accrued multiple penalties to the point where it costs them a match).
Atheists have a phrase "God of the gaps" which means that theists tend to insert God wherever they find something that hasn't been well understood yet.
I think in many cases we're seeing a "Bigotry of the gaps" which reduces complex situations that ask for a more nuanced approach and chalk things up to bigotry.
I believe there is a large group that might have once identified as allies, and have voiced their opinions, and have found their opinions to be dismissed and received reprimands for offering them. And so they've given up on that type of allyship. They don't need to be validated as sufficiently progressive, and they feel insulted by the fact that people like Kris will refer to guys as awesome because they share her views. It feels like there's a carrot and a stick. Accept and embrace the ideology, and you get the carrot. You are regarded as an awesome ally. Question it, you get the stick.
I mean no offense to Kris and other feminists here. I am writing just to give you an idea of how this thread comes off to a (mostly) impartial observer. I value and have valued your perspectives.
Thank you for the explanation, I'm going abstract my response somewhat rather then address your actual examples, because I don't want to get dragged into discussion of those particular incidents. I also want to respond to a couple different points, so this might be a bit all over the place.
I believe it is certainly possible to look at the details of an individual police shooting of a black man and come to the conclusion that it was justified. But there are cultural forces at work that influence every police shooting, and I believe that racism often has played a role in putting that black man into the position where the police can justifiably shoot him. So I may not believe the police officer has done anything wrong in some particular case, but I don't absolve society for it's share of the blame in creating the situation (nor do I absolve the man).
On the subject of reasonableness-- lets look at the way women's rights have been pursued. Generations of politeness didn't do them any good-- it took agitation and protest. And yet they are still told to manage their emotions despite the fact that (at least some evidence suggests) people listen to them more when they stop managing their emotions. If white men didn't have the vote, we wouldn't be polite, we wouldn't protest peacefully. We would start a fucking war. (And in this country, that's precisely what we did). We should be relieved women have been more patient than men would have been.
On the carrot and stick thing-- isn't that what we all do all the time? A few posts back dustin22 wrote "well said" to a post of yours. While I'm writing this he's added "really fantastic post" and you've replied with a "I agree with your recommendation". You two are doing the same thing Kris did when she agreed with me, so I don't really see the issue.
I certainly agree that there are people on the left who take "call out" culture too far, but my experience hasn't been anything like what you take about. Perhaps that's because I largely don't engage in politics online; most of my interactions are in person. Have you found a difference in your interactions with people on the left in person and online? The internet may not be the place for nuance.
I don't agree with what you say when you talk about "Believe women", largely because I don't agree with you on what the phrase means and the context it is meant to be used in. I don't think it means "believe every woman regardless of the truth", I think it means "Believe women when they tell you how bad it is, how much unwanted solicitation, unwanted touching, fear, and assault they live with". I also believe it is meant as a cultural tool, not a legal one. I do not think anyone is proposing we do away with criminal trials and lock men up on a women's word.
*edited for clarity*
-
I'm talking about the objective evaluation of competing truth claims by individual citizens. How and why would you destroy someone's life based on your individual objective evaluation?
I'm asking how one should practically apply these statistics. To make any assumptions based on such broad probabilities on such a serious matter can be quite dangerous.
-
I just believe everyone, men, women, or nonbinary people, until/unless they prove themselves on an individual basis to be untrustworthy. I don't abandon my critical thinking skills - I just assume as my default that they, at least, believe that what they are saying is true, and have some reason for that.
-
I think an objective observer should realistically start from the position that a sexual harassment/assault accusation is at least about 70% likely to be true, based on the fact that the known false accusation rate is only about 10%. Which is, I think, what is being communicated with the phrase "believe women".
I agree with your recommendation as well as the stats. To give you an idea of where I stand, I wouldn't have voted for Kavanaugh (perjured himself and displayed rude, combative behavior) and I would have voted for Sotomayor, Kagan, Garland, and Gorsych. And I actually am a pretty big fan of the phrase/name of the movement "Black Lives Matter" for various reasons, even if I disagree with them on many protests.
I do however disagree that "believe women" communicates that a sexual assault accusation is at least 70% likely to be true. It takes quite a bit of parsing to arrive at that. What it communicates seems pretty straightforward - that we should believe women when they claim they have been sexually assaulted. And that's fine in a personal relationship context, but not in a legal or public one. I acknowledge a more nuanced phrase would be hard to come up with and even harder to gain traction with as a movement, so I'll try to be open minded about what this phrase in meant to communicate.
I understand that a lot of these political "slogans" are being misunderstood by people because they get a bit too simplified. But I have a hard time giving people a pass for reflexively getting upset by them instead of just looking into them to find out the message that they're actually trying to communicate. I think that it's common enough knowledge at this point that slogans are necessarily simplified forms of the actual message being sent. So I do think the receiver of the message has a responsibility to at least try to understand the actual message behind the slogan before getting indignant about it.
-
There appears to be a conflation of two different issues here.
The first is when a woman (or any sexual assault victim) says they has been sexually assaulted, do you believe that statement? It seems to me that this the essence of the #metoo movement. The question that occurs to me is: why would you not believe such a statement? Particularly when we know the harm that has historically been done by not believing such statements - look at the problems of the Catholic Church, for starters, and the acknowledged gross underreporting of sexual assault crimes generally.
The second issue is: when a woman (or any sexual assault victim) accuses a specific person of sexually assault, do you believe that accusation? There is a secondary question here of context: an accusation to law enforcement authorities and in court is different from an accusation among peers, and a private accusation different from a public one. Even in a law enforcement setting the statistics show that an accusation is more likely to be true than not. Which suggests to me, absent any other information, that in ordinary conversation between peers one should as a minimum take an accusation of sexual assault against a specific person seriously, and absent any contradicting information tend to believe that it is true.
-
I'm talking about the objective evaluation of competing truth claims by individual citizens. How and why would you destroy someone's life based on your individual objective evaluation?
I'm asking how one should practically apply these statistics. To make any assumptions based on such broad probabilities on such a serious matter can be quite dangerous.
Well, this is essentially how I was thinking about the Kavanaugh nomination. And yes, I applied a modifier due to it being highly political and I also try to be as generous as possible to the accused with most numbers. But then I also apply lots of other modifiers including ones that mostly offset that first modifier based on the polygraph, the therapists notes and sworn statements from friends and family. So my math looks something like this.
Resolved cases - False: 10%
Resolved cases - True: 20%
Percentage of resolved cases that are false: 33%
Base chance that an accusation is true: 67%
Modifier for political circumstances: -20%
Modifier for polygraph: +1%
Modifier for therapist notes: +2%
Modifier for sworn statements: +2%
Modifier for deceptive behavior by the accused: +3%
Modifier for additional credible accusations: +5% per
Final evaluated likelihood of accusation being true: ~55-65%
You may not agree with some of these numbers, I may have missed some modifiers and some of them are just complete guesses on my part. But as I said, I've tried to be as generous as possible to the accused especially on the parts where I'm guessing at probabilities. For example, I used the highest current estimate for false accusation rates, I assume that the false accusation rate is the same for unresolved cases as resolved cases and I think a 20% increase in the chance of a false accusation for political circumstances is kind of high. But even still, without being overly generous I find it difficult to get below a 50% likelihood of the accusation being true and that's easily enough for me to think that he should not be elevated to the Supreme Court.
Since the most I can do is express my opinion to my Senators and the most I would advocate to them is to not elevate him to an even higher position than he already holds I think this is a fair method of assessing that situation. I would never advocate taking his life, liberty or property or ostracizing him from society based on this evaluation.
-
Thank you for the explanation, I'm going abstract my response somewhat rather then address your actual examples, because I don't want to get dragged into discussion of those particular incidents. I also want to respond to a couple different points, so this might be a bit all over the place.
I believe it is certainly possible to look at the details of an individual police shooting of a black man and come to the conclusion that it was justified. But there are cultural forces at work that influence every police shooting, and I believe that racism often has played a role in putting that black man into the position where the police can justifiably shoot him. So I may not believe the police officer has done anything wrong in some particular case, but I don't absolve society for it's share of the blame in creating the situation (nor do I absolve the man).
I don't disagree there. I just disagree with protesting the lack of prison time given to police officers who haven't broken the law.
On the subject of reasonableness-- lets look at the way women's rights have been pursued. Generations of politeness didn't do them any good-- it took agitation and protest. And yet they are still told to manage their emotions despite the fact that (at least some evidence suggests) people listen to them more when they stop managing their emotions. If white men didn't have the vote, we wouldn't be polite, we wouldn't protest peacefully. We would start a fucking war. (And in this country, that's precisely what we did). We should be relieved women have been more patient than men would have been.
I'm not opposed to assertive protest, and I agree it is effective. It's the abandonment of critical thinking and contempt displayed to those who engage in it on these issues. Think of those who argue that racism = power + prejudice. Racism already has a definition, and this new definition has simply been created to let racists of historically oppressed groups off the hook. That actually hurts the cause by turning off all of the fair minded people who might otherwise by sympathetic to their cause.
On the carrot and stick thing-- isn't that what we all do all the time? A few posts back dustin22 wrote "well said" to a post of yours. While I'm writing this he's added "really fantastic post" and you've replied with a "I agree with your recommendation". You two are doing the same thing Kris did when she agreed with me, so I don't really see the issue.
There's a slight difference, but an important one. It's fine to compliment folks you agree with and hold them in high esteem if they are fair minded thinkers. I think it's messed up to base your judgment of a person based on how closely they adhere to your ideology and publicize that. I'm not saying Kris intended to communicate to everyone that unless they agree that male socializing leads to misogyny, she doesn't hold them in high esteem, but that's what I think can be reasonably inferred from her statement. It falls into the vein of the "If you voted for Trump, unfriend me now" facebook status. It's a positively framed version of that.
I certainly agree that there are people on the left who take "call out" culture too far, but my experience hasn't been anything like what you take about. Perhaps that's because I largely don't engage in politics online; most of my interactions are in person. Have you found a difference in your interactions with people on the left in person and online? The internet may not be the place for nuance.
I don't agree with what you say when you talk about "Believe women", largely because I don't agree with you on what the phrase means and the context it is meant to be used in. I don't think it means "believe every woman regardless of the truth", I think it means "Believe women when they tell you how bad it is, how much unwanted solicitation, unwanted touching, fear, and assault they live with". I also believe it is meant as a cultural tool, not a legal one. I do not think anyone is proposing we do away with criminal trials and lock men up on a women's word.
*edited for clarity*
While I have many friends on the left, I only have a few that are far left - and they're more sympathetic to far left ideology than aggressively promoting it in person. All of my in person interactions have been pretty respectful and fair minded when politics come up. I haven't used facebook in a couple years, so my sources of this bad behavior of the far left I'm reporting are mostly based on what I read in the news, hear in podcasts, read in this forum, etc. I think the internet is a place full of nuance if you look in the right corners of it. NPR, good podcasts, long form articles from Atlantic, Quillette, NYT, etc.
Good perspective on believe women. Thanks for sharing it, I tend to agree with what you've mentioned although it originally struck me as dangerously oversimplified.
-
Thank you for the explanation, I'm going abstract my response somewhat rather then address your actual examples, because I don't want to get dragged into discussion of those particular incidents. I also want to respond to a couple different points, so this might be a bit all over the place.
I believe it is certainly possible to look at the details of an individual police shooting of a black man and come to the conclusion that it was justified. But there are cultural forces at work that influence every police shooting, and I believe that racism often has played a role in putting that black man into the position where the police can justifiably shoot him. So I may not believe the police officer has done anything wrong in some particular case, but I don't absolve society for it's share of the blame in creating the situation (nor do I absolve the man).
I don't disagree there. I just disagree with protesting the lack of prison time given to police officers who haven't broken the law.
There are some situations where I don't believe a reasonable person could believe the police officer wasn't justified. In those cases, if someone protests I assume they are knowingly prioritizing politics over justice, and I don't like that. In other cases, I may not think the police did anything wrong (and they may have been found not guilty, or not charged with anything) but I still see enough ambiguity that I can understand why someone would protest. If some people chose to protest something which I disagree with (the protest), it has no effect on my opinion about the situation. So I'll continue to believe black men are unfairly and unlawfully targeted by police, even if sometimes BLM protests what I would consider a justifiable (though still lamentable) shooting, and I will continue to try to be an ally to that movement. I don't think we differ much on this, but if you'd like to expand where you disagree, that would be appreciated.
On the subject of reasonableness-- lets look at the way women's rights have been pursued. Generations of politeness didn't do them any good-- it took agitation and protest. And yet they are still told to manage their emotions despite the fact that (at least some evidence suggests) people listen to them more when they stop managing their emotions. If white men didn't have the vote, we wouldn't be polite, we wouldn't protest peacefully. We would start a fucking war. (And in this country, that's precisely what we did). We should be relieved women have been more patient than men would have been.
I'm not opposed to assertive protest, and I agree it is effective. It's the abandonment of critical thinking and contempt displayed to those who engage in it on these issues. Think of those who argue that racism = power + prejudice. Racism already has a definition, and this new definition has simply been created to let racists of historically oppressed groups off the hook. That actually hurts the cause by turning off all of the fair minded people who might otherwise by sympathetic to their cause.
This part wasn't even necessarily in response to your post, just something I wanted to say. I think I understand the point your making about racism, though do you mean historically un-opressed groups?. You are saying that it bothers you when people say you can't be racist towards white people, because you have to have the power to oppress to be racist. Do I have you right?
If that's the case, I think it's not a fruitful subject to argue. Because we're not discussing the underlying actions, we're discussing what arbitrary label we apply to those actions. If the left had started saying opressism to mean when a group in power is prejudiced towards a group not in power, rather that modifying the use of racism, nothing would be any different, but you'd presumably be okay with this word. The words we use are meaningless in isolation, it's the action that they point to that matters. No one is harmed by this new definition of racism (we still have the word prejudice to refer to actions against white people).
On the carrot and stick thing-- isn't that what we all do all the time? A few posts back dustin22 wrote "well said" to a post of yours. While I'm writing this he's added "really fantastic post" and you've replied with a "I agree with your recommendation". You two are doing the same thing Kris did when she agreed with me, so I don't really see the issue.
There's a slight difference, but an important one. It's fine to compliment folks you agree with and hold them in high esteem if they are fair minded thinkers. I think it's messed up to base your judgment of a person based on how closely they adhere to your ideology and publicize that. I'm not saying Kris intended to communicate to everyone that unless they agree that male socializing leads to misogyny, she doesn't hold them in high esteem, but that's what I think can be reasonably inferred from her statement. It falls into the vein of the "If you voted for Trump, unfriend me now" facebook status. It's a positively framed version of that.
I don't know, this still feels like Russell's conjugation: I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.
Or to offer an updated version: I am complimentary, you are virtue signalling, they are enforcing an ideology.
You are reading a different meaning into someone else's action than you do your own, despite the fact the the actual actions are quite similar.
While I have many friends on the left, I only have a few that are far left - and they're more sympathetic to far left ideology than aggressively promoting it in person. All of my in person interactions have been pretty respectful and fair minded when politics come up. I haven't used facebook in a couple years, so my sources of this bad behavior of the far left I'm reporting are mostly based on what I read in the news, hear in podcasts, read in this forum, etc. I think the internet is a place full of nuance if you look in the right corners of it. NPR, good podcasts, long form articles from Atlantic, Quillette, NYT, etc.
Good perspective on believe women. Thanks for sharing it, I tend to agree with what you've mentioned although it originally struck me as dangerously oversimplified.
My language was sloppy. I agree that there are plenty of places on the internet where nuance can thrive (including here, hopefully). Rather, I suppose I meant to say whatever corner of the internet that is bothering you might not be an accurate reflection of people on the whole.
*edited for clarity*
-
If that's the case, I think it's not a fruitful subject to argue. Because we're not discussing the underlying actions, we're discussing what arbitrary label we apply to those actions. If the left had started saying opressism to mean when a group in power is prejudiced towards a group not in power, rather that modifying the use of racism, nothing would be any different, but you'd presumably be okay with this word. The words we use are meaningless in isolation, it's the action that they point to that matters. No one is harmed by this new definition of racism (we still have the word prejudice to refer to actions against white people).
Watchmaker is it clear you are taking the time to thoughtfully consider these issues, and I appreciate that. Particularly on a topic like this one where it is very easy to give up and either disengage or just retreat to shouting the same slogans back and forth at each other without having a real conversation.
However, in this particular post, I disagree with your bolded assertion. The advantage of a new word like "opressism" is that it does not collide with an existing word with an existing widely understood definition. So while not everyone will know the meaning of the new word, they will now that they need to seek out the definition, or ask a question of the person they are speaking to, if it comes up.
Taking an existing word (racism) and using it in a way that excludes a part of the meaning it is understood to have by the vast majority of current english speakers harms the people who are mislead by hearing you use the word, assuming you're intending to use it with the widespread definition, and are mislead as a result. This is particularly true when it is a word like racism, which describes a bad and dangerous thing.
Consider the word poison. If for whatever reason I decided I wanted to redefine the word poison so that it includes "a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed, except hemotoxins (toxins which damage red blood cells." If I tell someone who doesn't share my non-standard definition "hey that snake isn't poisonous" and I don't include a disclaimer that I'm using a non-standard definition of poisonous, and what my definition is, most of the time everything is fine, and occasionally a person is mislead and ends up sick or dead.
-
If that's the case, I think it's not a fruitful subject to argue. Because we're not discussing the underlying actions, we're discussing what arbitrary label we apply to those actions. If the left had started saying opressism to mean when a group in power is prejudiced towards a group not in power, rather that modifying the use of racism, nothing would be any different, but you'd presumably be okay with this word. The words we use are meaningless in isolation, it's the action that they point to that matters. No one is harmed by this new definition of racism (we still have the word prejudice to refer to actions against white people).
Watchmaker is it clear you are taking the time to thoughtfully consider these issues, and I appreciate that. Particularly on a topic like this one where it is very easy to give up and either disengage or just retreat to shouting the same slogans back and forth at each other without having a real conversation.
However, in this particular post, I disagree with your bolded assertion. The advantage of a new word like "opressism" is that it does not collide with an existing word with an existing widely understood definition. So while not everyone will know the meaning of the new word, they will now that they need to seek out the definition, or ask a question of the person they are speaking to, if it comes up.
Taking an existing word (racism) and using it in a way that excludes a part of the meaning it is understood to have by the vast majority of current english speakers harms the people who are mislead by hearing you use the word, assuming you're intending to use it with the widespread definition, and are mislead as a result. This is particularly true when it is a word like racism, which describes a bad and dangerous thing.
Consider the word poison. If for whatever reason I decided I wanted to redefine the word poison so that it includes "a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed, except hemotoxins (toxins which damage red blood cells." If I tell someone who doesn't share my non-standard definition "hey that snake isn't poisonous" and I don't include a disclaimer that I'm using a non-standard definition of poisonous, and what my definition is, most of the time everything is fine, and occasionally a person is mislead and ends up sick or dead.
I appreciate you disagreeing with me but but engaging in real discussion.
I've thought about what you've said, and I'll agree that saying "no one is harmed" was taking things a bit too far. Obviously if a new term had been adopted then we might have saved all the time people have spent discussing this new use of the word racism, if nothing else.
I know when I first realized that people were using the word to mean something slightly more specific than the definition I understood, it caused some confusion. I probably also bristled at the idea of being told what the word should be used to refer to. So I do understand your complaint.
If I was in charge of the language, I would have preferred a new term. But languages change all the time and I'm not in charge of how they do (nobody is). So we adapt. Literally literally means both literally and not literally. This is not the decision I would have made.
Language is actually a subject near to my heart, and I'd love to discuss this subject more. But what I've heard from many people in minority groups is that when white people get hung up on this subject, it looks like we're 1) trying to derail the conversation 2) reduce our ownership of the problems in society. So that's why I say I don't think it's a fruitful topic. It may not be ideal, but there are bigger things to discuss.
-
At the end of the last post, it sounds like I'm saying we shouldn't discuss that subject any further, or even that I'm saying my fear of the opinion of the "left" is stifling me.
That's not how I meant it to come out, so let me try again: I have no problem discussing subjects like that (in fact I'd like to), I just think it's important to do so in a way that doesn't distract from discussing the actual things behind the words.
If anyone wants to go continue with the language discussion, I could start a new thread specifically for that.
-
There are some situations where I don't believe a reasonable person could believe the police officer wasn't justified. In those cases, if someone protests I assume they are knowingly prioritizing politics over justice, and I don't like that. In other cases, I may not think the police did anything wrong (and they may have been found not guilty, or not charged with anything) but I still see enough ambiguity that I can understand why someone would protest. If some people chose to protest something which I disagree with (the protest), it has no effect on my opinion about the situation. So I'll continue to believe black men are unfairly and unlawfully targeted by police, even if sometimes BLM protests what I would consider a justifiable (though still lamentable) shooting, and I will continue to try to be an ally to that movement. I don't think we differ much on this, but if you'd like to expand where you disagree, that would be appreciated.
I don't think we differ much either. I sympathize with the movement, as I agree with the premise of black lives matter, but I find these protests intellectually dishonest. I see less ambiguity in the justified killings. I think it's an unrealistic expectation to have a of a police officer that they would have the diplomatic skills of Kofi Annan and the patience of Job for $55k/yr. However we both agree it's not too much to expect that a police officer refrain from killing someone who does not threaten their safety.
This part wasn't even necessarily in response to your post, just something I wanted to say. I think I understand the point your making about racism, though do you mean historically un-opressed groups?. You are saying that it bothers you when people say you can't be racist towards white people, because you have to have the power to oppress to be racist. Do I have you right?
If that's the case, I think it's not a fruitful subject to argue. Because we're not discussing the underlying actions, we're discussing what arbitrary label we apply to those actions. If the left had started saying opressism to mean when a group in power is prejudiced towards a group not in power, rather that modifying the use of racism, nothing would be any different, but you'd presumably be okay with this word. The words we use are meaningless in isolation, it's the action that they point to that matters. No one is harmed by this new definition of racism (we still have the word prejudice to refer to actions against white people).
Yes, you have me right - I was referring to racism committed against white people by historically oppressed groups.
It bothers me not as a white person fearing open season has been declared on me, but as a matter of intellectual consistency. I have a distaste for moving the goalposts to accommodate or excuse behaviors we don't want to admit are harmful because we might sound like Sean Hannity.
I know what you mean when you say it's not a fruitful subject to argue. It's a bad look. GuitarStv more or less agreed with Sol about blanket statements about men - no need to get offended, not a big deal, etc. But I think most of us acknowledge that racism against white people is still racism, and blanket negative statements about men are sexist. Pointing out these truths causes others to suspect our motive is to derail the conversation about overarching issues of white supremacy or misogyny. But that's not my motive, I agree that minorities and women have and continue to face unfair treatment. I and others with the same type A personality notice unneeded hyperbole and blatant hypocrisy (even if it's mostly theoretical and not a current threat to anyone) wherever I see it, and to censor myself only for minorities/women in a way is kind of bigoted. It's the soft bigotry of low expectations. I get that its a bit of a sidebar to a bigger conversation, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless or unimportant.
I would grant that there's a blurry line between having lower expectations and exercising empathy. I listened to an NPR story not long ago demonstrating that students of color did far better when they had a black teacher. One of the main factors was that the black teachers had higher expectations and many of the white teachers were more accommodating and forgiving of these students who they assume are likely to deal with poverty, difficult situations at home etc. I'm no expert in this realm, but I find it fascinating to listen to people like Coleman Hughes/John McWhorter on one hand and Ta-Nehisi Coates on the other.
-
I think it's an unrealistic expectation to have a of a police officer that they would have the diplomatic skills of Kofi Annan and the patience of Job for $55k/yr.
I agree with a lot of what you have said (and not quoted), and I sort of agree with the statement I have quoted too. Except (and it's a big "except") I do think it is incumbent on police authorities to provide appropriate training to their police officers, not just anti-racist training but also mental health training: mental health problems are present disproportionately in minority populations in general and even more so in the part of minority populations which comes into contact with police.
Another excellent initiative for reducing police confrontations generally and with minority populations in particular is for police to have mental health professionals readily available to them, and even riding round on patrol with them. A mental health nurse can much better identify a member of the public who is suffering from mental health problems and implement the proper approach to de-escalate a situation.
-
There are some situations where I don't believe a reasonable person could believe the police officer wasn't justified. In those cases, if someone protests I assume they are knowingly prioritizing politics over justice, and I don't like that. In other cases, I may not think the police did anything wrong (and they may have been found not guilty, or not charged with anything) but I still see enough ambiguity that I can understand why someone would protest. If some people chose to protest something which I disagree with (the protest), it has no effect on my opinion about the situation. So I'll continue to believe black men are unfairly and unlawfully targeted by police, even if sometimes BLM protests what I would consider a justifiable (though still lamentable) shooting, and I will continue to try to be an ally to that movement. I don't think we differ much on this, but if you'd like to expand where you disagree, that would be appreciated.
I don't think we differ much either. I sympathize with the movement, as I agree with the premise of black lives matter, but I find these protests intellectually dishonest. I see less ambiguity in the justified killings. I think it's an unrealistic expectation to have a of a police officer that they would have the diplomatic skills of Kofi Annan and the patience of Job for $55k/yr. However we both agree it's not too much to expect that a police officer refrain from killing someone who does not threaten their safety.
I think we hold police to too low a standard and provide them with inappropriate and inadequate training, so yes, I have doubts about many shootings which are cleared. (I see former player has just said something about this as well)
This part wasn't even necessarily in response to your post, just something I wanted to say. I think I understand the point your making about racism, though do you mean historically un-opressed groups?. You are saying that it bothers you when people say you can't be racist towards white people, because you have to have the power to oppress to be racist. Do I have you right?
If that's the case, I think it's not a fruitful subject to argue. Because we're not discussing the underlying actions, we're discussing what arbitrary label we apply to those actions. If the left had started saying opressism to mean when a group in power is prejudiced towards a group not in power, rather that modifying the use of racism, nothing would be any different, but you'd presumably be okay with this word. The words we use are meaningless in isolation, it's the action that they point to that matters. No one is harmed by this new definition of racism (we still have the word prejudice to refer to actions against white people).
Yes, you have me right - I was referring to racism committed against white people by historically oppressed groups.
It bothers me not as a white person fearing open season has been declared on me, but as a matter of intellectual consistency. I have a distaste for moving the goalposts to accommodate or excuse behaviors we don't want to admit are harmful because we might sound like Sean Hannity.
I know what you mean when you say it's not a fruitful subject to argue. It's a bad look. GuitarStv more or less agreed with Sol about blanket statements about men - no need to get offended, not a big deal, etc. But I think most of us acknowledge that racism against white people is still racism, and blanket negative statements about men are sexist. Pointing out these truths causes others to suspect our motive is to derail the conversation about overarching issues of white supremacy or misogyny. But that's not my motive, I agree that minorities and women have and continue to face unfair treatment. I and others with the same type A personality notice unneeded hyperbole and blatant hypocrisy (even if it's mostly theoretical and not a current threat to anyone) wherever I see it, and to censor myself only for minorities/women in a way is kind of bigoted. It's the soft bigotry of low expectations. I get that its a bit of a sidebar to a bigger conversation, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless or unimportant.
I would grant that there's a blurry line between having lower expectations and exercising empathy. I listened to an NPR story not long ago demonstrating that students of color did far better when they had a black teacher. One of the main factors was that the black teachers had higher expectations and many of the white teachers were more accommodating and forgiving of these students who they assume are likely to deal with poverty, difficult situations at home etc. I'm no expert in this realm, but I find it fascinating to listen to people like Coleman Hughes/John McWhorter on one hand and Ta-Nehisi Coates on the other.
"Racism against white people is still racism."
Someone in the BLM movement might tell you that you are wrong, you can't be racist against white people. But they'd normally agree that:
"Prejudice against white people is still prejudice."
And you'd be talking about the same thing, you'd just have a different word that you want to use. You'd both have your reasons why you prefer your language, but that feels like a secondary issue to me.
Pointing this out "causes others to suspect our motive" because it is very common for white people to use this kind of argument to deflect. I work with some racist people and every day I hear them do this--deflect and derail conversations about racism by nitpicking language. I also see it all over the internet. I'm certain that's not what you are doing, but unless they already know you, what are they going to think? And so it's incumbent upon you and me to pick the right times and right ways to discuss these secondary issues, so as not to take space away from the bigger conversation.
-
Language and the brain is funny. When I was writing my last post, I saw former player had commented, quickly glanced at her comment to see if there was anything I should respond to (planning to actually read it later), and then finished writing my post.
My brain obviously picked up the word "incumbent" from her post, because it's not a word I would typically use, but I did in the very next sentence I wrote.
-
Policing isn't something that you can look at in isolation. There are many factors that will change how an officer will respond to a scenario.
This includes subtle things like gun laws of a country - an officer in a country where anyone can easily buy a handgun will respond very differently to someone reaching into a pocket than an officer in a country where it's very hard to buy a firearm. The level of risk to the officer is different. There are issues like the problem of reduced funding for mental health . . . which doesn't mean that mental health problems go away, just that they're handled by police more often than social workers and health care professionals. Police don't have much training regarding handling mental health because it shouldn't be a large part of their job. Are the laws that police enforce fair across races? This includes obvious and overt problems . . . like the tendency of the legal system to protect bad police officers, the tendency of police departments to protect their own. Institutional/cultural problems . . . do the officers of a governing police force look like the members of the community? An example would be an all white police force in a black neighborhood.
Race is certainly one of these factors, but it doesn't exist in isolation. It's important to hold police accountable, but it's also important to create an environment where safety and accountability is fostered.
-
But wow. I’m racking my brain trying to think of one of those anytime recently.
I thought Al Franken taking responsibility for what was a relatively minor incident and stepping down was a fairly respectable example. It was a potentially 'survivable' scandal, but he just apologized and resigned.
-
But wow. I’m racking my brain trying to think of one of those anytime recently.
I thought Al Franken taking responsibility for what was a relatively minor incident and stepping down was a fairly respectable example. It was a potentially 'survivable' scandal, but he just apologized and resigned.
Yeah, but the politics were easy. DFL governor appointed a DFL interim senator, who now is running as an incumbent (because she is), and the whole thing keeps the seat safer than if he had run against a GOP challenger with that over his head.
I doubt he would've resigned had doing so meant one more GOP seat in the senate.
-
Sol, I've read a lot of your posts. You are incredibly bright, and (from what I know of you) you are a good person. I hope you take some time to review what has been discussed and try to understand what a number of people are saying to you.
I just read all these posts. My take is that Sol is a genuine advocate for feminism who has tried to help and tried understand what people said to him ... and succeeded. But some reciprocity is missing. You may recall this exchange from Jane Austin/Pride and Prejudice:
Elizabeth: "And your defect is to hate everybody."
Darcy: "And yours," he replied with a smile, "is willfully to misunderstand them."
-
Sol, I've read a lot of your posts. You are incredibly bright, and (from what I know of you) you are a good person. I hope you take some time to review what has been discussed and try to understand what a number of people are saying to you.
I just read all these posts. My take is that Sol is a genuine advocate for feminism who has tried to help and tried understand what people said to him ... and succeeded. But some reciprocity is missing. You may recall this exchange from Jane Austin/Pride and Prejudice:
Elizabeth: "And your defect is to hate everybody."
Darcy: "And yours," he replied with a smile, "is willfully to misunderstand them."
Amusing that the example you take is from a book with as one of its central themes institutionalized sexism toward women, who as a result must make themselves agreeable to men and subjugate their own opinions in order to have a hope of a future. :D