Feminist Theory & "Women's Issues" Discussion Thread: All Gender Identities Are Encouraged To Participate

or that sociopaths arent the outliers we might think they are (and of course everything is to a degree), but most sexists dont actually think they are sexist! they just 'dont see it' when pointed out

That whole "sexists are sociopaths" and therefore outliers thing is a wrong-headed line to pursue for many reasons. For the reasons that 1staethyr has outlined, but following on from that, it's painting it as a problem with the failings of individuals. It's misguided to see it as something that only specific individuals indulge in, when really it's more like this constant soup we're all floating in; a tide or current that everyone is pulled by (some to their benefit, some to their detriment.) It's easy not to notice the current when it's working in your favour. In fact, it takes some effort to even notice there *is* a current when it is working for you.

But these things are patterns, they are taught, they are reinforced, they are inculcated at a group level, though it may display most pronouncedly at the individual level.

Men are taught at every step of the journey, women are objects, women are not people, women's experiences are not real and anyway women are not people so their experiences do not matter. Men are taught by example that women exist only to provide validation to male actions and male sentiments. When men react badly to being denied the attention of women, either as individuals or as groups (and we had a pretty flagrant example of this yesterday!) it is *not* down to ~sociopathy~, it is down to entitlement. It is not a lack; it is a failure.

yup. also i forgot the other value of associating sociopathy w/ bigotry, which is further stigmatizing ppl w/ mental illnesses and/or personality disorders

Im not saying i think "sexists are sociopaths" - in fact im not sure what im saying yet, just thoughts that have been formulating. Obviously sexism is a system and obviously children are taught this system - and definitely at the group level - which is why some people can unlearn this thinking and behaviour too!

I definitely dont want to say the two are the same thing, but im also not really even quite sure what i am saying.. (wasnt really sure whether to put it here or the check your priviledge thread instead, or somewhere else again!),

pretty much everything bad looks like sociopathy cuz it's an empathy disorder and so is pretty much everything bad

― difficult listening hour, Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Men are taught at every step of the journey, women are objects, women are not people, women's experiences are not real and anyway women are not people so their experiences do not matter. Men are taught by example that women exist only to provide validation to male actions and male sentiments. When men react badly to being denied the attention of women, either as individuals or as groups (and we had a pretty flagrant example of this yesterday!) it is *not* down to ~sociopathy~, it is down to entitlement. It is not a lack; it is a failure.

― Branwell with an N, Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:05 AM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You can teach sociopathy, or at least something very like it. What you end up with is bigotry (and Republicans).

yup. also i forgot the other value of associating sociopathy w/ bigotry, which is further stigmatizing ppl w/ mental illnesses and/or personality disorders

― 1staethyr, Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:15 AM (43 minutes ago

DING DING DING DING DING

Thing is, even for neurotypical people, empathy is work, it is emotional labour. Empathising, especially with someone who is *not* like you, is something that has to be learned, and often, more importantly, has to be modelled*. But it is still something that requires effort.

*And learned/modelled as a 2-stage process. 1) learning that other human beings are also people, just like you, with needs and emotions! 2) That other people can also be *unlike* you, and may have had different experiences which have produced different needs and emotions. Many people never seem to make it to that second step.

For people who are marginalised (or to use the more old fashioned word, oppressed), learning to empathise with "people who are not like them" is a survival skill, that *has* to be learned. People of Colour are forced to learn to empathise with White People. Women generally *have* to empathise with men. Because on one level, those are the only stories that get told. But on another level, you *have* to learn to empathise with an Other to help predict their behaviour when they may be violent towards you. If you are an African American walking across a parking lot full of white cops, or a woman trying to negotiate a street full of lairy drunken dudes (or even an office full of hostile men) the ability to empathise with, and predict the actions of and smooth the reactions of the Other is pretty crucial.

It seems pretty salient in a lot of the discussion recently that has been happening here and all over the web, which has been grouped here under the telling phrase "creepy liberalism" and things get tossed around like the idea that "you can't legislate empathy, maaan!"

Whenever I hear that phrase, what comes through to me is that *they* want to control who it is that they do or don't empathise with. There's a lot of reactions which just read like people refusing to be *forced* to empathise with the experiences or needs of the other. Like, the idea that "empathy" is something which you can choose to extend or deny. Which on one level, I understand, because why the fuck should I be forced to empathise with misogynists? (Except, I have to, because there have been many, many situations in my life, where the ability to do so has kept me alive, or even just kept my employed.) But when you look at the list of who, exactly, people want to deny their empathy to, and you see the familiar list includes women, survivors of sexual violence, people of colour, people who suffer from mental illness, especially poorly understood mental illnesses like PTSD - yeah, it start to look a little bit like "I want to reserve the right to deny my empathy" and a little bit more like "I reserve the right to deny some people their humanity."

So I am very suspicious, when talking about these things, and the idea of "empathy" when it's genuinely a question of "can't" and when it is just a simple "won't".

yup. also i forgot the other value of associating sociopathy w/ bigotry, which is further stigmatizing ppl w/ mental illnesses and/or personality disorders
― 1staethyr,

Yes, I have run into problems with this in a previous post - it is something I'd like to explore thinking about more - especially in terms of power relations, but I also see that its problematic. The difference between thinking about something, and thinking outloud as well to an extent

http://m.vice.com/read/i-watched-the-guys-choice-awards-and-all-i-got-was-this-pesky-reminder-of-the-patriarchy

https://twitter.com/AvoidComments

http://m.vice.com/read/i-watched-the-guys-choice-awards-and-all-i-got-was-this-pesky-reminder-of-the-patriarchy

― christmas candy bar (al leong), Friday, June 13, 2014 10:57 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It interests me how stuff like this operates not only to objectify women but to attempt to enforce and police what is supposed to be proper "guy" behavior, like guys get the message that they SHOULD act MORE like this in order to prove that they have testicles or something.

cf yr performances on the other thread?

that's come out flatter than it was Mmeant, sorry- but aren't there parallels?

If there are, so what? Peer-pressuring others into treating other people decently is probably the best, most desirable use of peer pressure and it seems borderline insane for me to feel like this is a statement that actually needs to be made.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/06/i-was-raped-its-not-a-coveted-status.html

cf yr performances on the other thread?

― dn/ac (darraghmac), Friday, June 13, 2014 1:04 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I mean, maybe? But I don't think pressuring men not to be assholes is the same thing as pressuring them to be assholes?

lol/not lol: http://feminist-phone-intervention.tumblr.com

as long as everyone agrees on when's it's ok I spose. that should be a short and easy process to decide, right?

everyone doesn't agree, of course, but we're still allowed to push back where it seems appropriate, right? i felt bad for piling on mordy (having too often been on the bottom of such clusters), but it seemed clear to me that he was going about things in a notably ass-backward manner. and was, more to the point, p much demanding engagement.

Sincere good-faith question from an overpriveleged middle-aged white guy: if I am walking out and about with a female friend who is verbally harassed by asshole men, should I speak up and risk looking like I'm swooping in to protect the damsel in distress, or be quiet and let the female friend take the lead in the situation, which risks looking like tacit approval of the harassment? Is there a one-size-fits-all answer to this?

I would say no, because women/harassed ppl are all different and harassers and different situations where SH happens are different, and what mostly matters is her safety (also for inst she may have to walk down that street a lot in her daily life and you might only be visiting, so maybe she feels safer keeping her head down for now, that kind of thing). The first time it happens: ask her to talk about it, let her tell you what she's comfortable with. Don't worry, it'll happen again. :/

Thank you, IO! That's kinda where my instinct was leading me.

Thing is, even for neurotypical people, empathy is work, it is emotional labour. Empathising, especially with someone who is *not* like you, is something that has to be learned, and often, more importantly, has to be modelled*. But it is still something that requires effort.

*And learned/modelled as a 2-stage process. 1) learning that other human beings are also people, just like you, with needs and emotions! 2) That other people can also be *unlike* you, and may have had different experiences which have produced different needs and emotions. Many people never seem to make it to that second step.

For people who are marginalised (or to use the more old fashioned word, oppressed), learning to empathise with "people who are not like them" is a survival skill, that *has* to be learned. People of Colour are forced to learn to empathise with White People. Women generally *have* to empathise with men. Because on one level, those are the only stories that get told. But on another level, you *have* to learn to empathise with an Other to help predict their behaviour when they may be violent towards you. If you are an African American walking across a parking lot full of white cops, or a woman trying to negotiate a street full of lairy drunken dudes (or even an office full of hostile men) the ability to empathise with, and predict the actions of and smooth the reactions of the Other is pretty crucial.

It seems pretty salient in a lot of the discussion recently that has been happening here and all over the web, which has been grouped here under the telling phrase "creepy liberalism" and things get tossed around like the idea that "you can't legislate empathy, maaan!"

Whenever I hear that phrase, what comes through to me is that *they* want to control who it is that they do or don't empathise with. There's a lot of reactions which just read like people refusing to be *forced* to empathise with the experiences or needs of the other. Like, the idea that "empathy" is something which you can choose to extend or deny. Which on one level, I understand, because why the fuck should I be forced to empathise with misogynists? (Except, I have to, because there have been many, many situations in my life, where the ability to do so has kept me alive, or even just kept my employed.) But when you look at the list of who, exactly, people want to deny their empathy to, and you see the familiar list includes women, survivors of sexual violence, people of colour, people who suffer from mental illness, especially poorly understood mental illnesses like PTSD - yeah, it start to look a little bit like "I want to reserve the right to deny my empathy" and a little bit more like "I reserve the right to deny some people their humanity."

So I am very suspicious, when talking about these things, and the idea of "empathy" when it's genuinely a question of "can't" and when it is just a simple "won't".

― Branwell with an N, Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:25 AM Bookmark

booming post

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/26/infant_gender_assignment_unnecessary_and_potentially_harmful.html

we'll need to reform naming conventions

I thought that article was quite bad.

https://medium.com/matter/speaking-up-every-fucking-time-a61a24aa7629

I saw the 'setting the record straight' post about that last month when the authors were in the middle of it.
I don't feel I know that much more after reading that article, except that the main difference between 'unacceptable angry woman' and 'acceptable angry man' is the latter uses greater levels of *snark*

wait who is the acceptable angry man in the article

we are all the acceptable angry man

The bit about how her anger would be perceived if she were a man. The men in the tech community that I follow on Twitter etc get angry but always express it through snark and 'right guys??' or feigned resignation
whereas I don't really see many tech women express anger other than through more careful reasoning or like 'this is wrong, isn't it?' (not saying it doesn't happen, just my experience of it) so someone of her level just raging in the way outlined in the article seems unusual

People whine all the time about how mean Glenn Greenwald is on Twitter

this picture from that article is something else

have we not discussed esquire's ode to 42yo women

Their what?!

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/42-year-old-women

decent responses

http://thehairpin.com/2014/07/42

http://gawker.com/esquire-writers-were-willing-to-fuck-early-middle-aged-1602918511

I clicked on the Esquire and immediately sussed that "the 42 year old woman" is typified by a few successful movie actresses and supermodels.

did the huge photos of successful movie actresses and supermodels tip you off?

btw that article reminds me of dudes who pride themselves as liking "real women," i.e. women with some body fat.

i guess we shouldn't expect any more from a "men's magazine" as we would a "men's television network"

And then they reference Kate Winslet or someone similarly sized as one of the "real women" they go for.

Is a machine writing this copy?

Lots of x-posts now, but OK, yeah, there are still a lot of interesting arguments to be had about the way that "female anger" vs "male anger" is constructed.

And I think this is not only gendered, but is, in general, about the way that power and privilege (of all kinds) legitimise anger, and anger legitimises power and privilege.

That men can express anger, without losing others' perception of their sanity, their rationality/reason, their legitimacy.

While women, expressing anger (even if their anger is totally justified) usually lose being viewed as all three.

However, when I read this long profile of this woman, and the things she is trying to do, the accomplishments she has already achieved, being aware of the levels of sexism and erasure of women in the tech industries, and this whole article and the reactions to it, about what she's up against and the endless war, all seem to boil down to... "is she an ~angry~ person?" My reaction to that is a heartfelt FUUUUUCCCCCKKKK YOOOOUUUUUU, as well.

But important work gets done every day by flawed people, sometimes even by assholes. No one should be more aware of that than people who work in the tech industry, where many of the vaunted innovators and revolutionaries were not warm, fuzzy people. Ultimately, they’re judged by their work. (The unspoken coda always added onto that statement always seems to be "...unless they are women."

re: shanley

https://twitter.com/shanley/status/489837214109429760

BOOM <3

see also http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/it-s-not-you-it-s-the-system

Not sure where else to put this but after seeing how ILM reacted to criticism of weird Al, I don't know that I'm cut out for most boys clubs anymore

...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

idg how gender was involved in the weird al thing

lots of men on ilx find lex very "annoying"

It's not directly, just a pattern,I notice here and elsewhere of defensiveness around humor and it's almost exclusively male.

I find his routine hilarious, best comic we've got around here

xp