The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm going to thank Nigel at this point, for at least responding to my concern, even if she apparently misunderstood me.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Sticking to the feminist issue, what I have in mind is this: women, as part of a (relatively) oppressed group, are basically forced to choose, consciously or otherwise, between two lame options. Either they conform with the wishes of their oppressors (not all men, but an abstract The Man), in which case they are giving up on some potential individuality in favor of the comfort of being agreeable to the people in charge; or they refuse to conform, refuse to look and act the way they're expected to, and as a result can maintain individuality, but are both likelier to suffer abuse (from oppressors and conformists alike) and are likely to be stamped off as crazy/weird/bitter/ugly/etc., enabling oppressors and conformists to easily disregard their perspective. "You're just angry because guys don't want you", "don't listen to her, she's just crazy", etc.

This seems to be a pattern so prevalent that it might be useful to think of it as the essence of oppression. Either conform, or be marginalized. The more you conform, the less easy you are to marginalize. But this is where the Stockholmy stuff comes into play. It seems almost obvious, but it's worth pointing out that conformists tend to be the least likely people to realize they are taking part in oppression. I don't know what direction the causality goes in, but everywhere I look, I see conformists who are fine with things as they are and get angry when someone suggests they're part of oppression, and non-conformists who see the oppression and are fucking pissed off for being marginalized by it.

I seems that the problem is that these positions are seen as absolutes instead of something that you can move between.  Conformity is no more useful than non-conformity, but no less.  The ability to move between such states consciously gives a person a bit of leverage over the machine(which is simply the influences and norms of other people IMO).  Conform where it is useful, non-conform where it is going to truly express something you feel you must express. Not to be glib, but THAT IS ALL!

Non-conformity, obviously, simply becomes conformity when it is no longer in motion and has become a fixed part of the machine in your head. Conversely conformity can allow a person opportunity to exert influence much like how the pointy end of a pry-bar can slip into an otherwise unleveragable crease.

Your OP makes a lot of really good points and I don't have much to say about it other than that I agree with it.

In the end, I don't think the Machine CAN be dismantled; it can, however, be rebuild to function differently, by replacing a cog here and a wheel there.

This is absolute fact.  NO part of the Machine can be dismantled, and even if it could, we'd just build another one, because that's what people DO.  What we CAN do is make changes to the existing Machine, as you pointed out.

In the above I have attempted to illustrate one means to do so.  What would some others be?

[Alty]

No, it's not. Why would men get to decide what feminism means?

Ah HA! This is exactly why I have always shied away from calling my self a feminist, and why I've avoided anything that bears the label.

Men do not get to decide what feminism is to women.
They absolutely get a say in what it means to them and what they are going to do about.

Furthermore, you are grossly oversimplifying things when you ask a question like that

The "enemy" of feminists don't care if you're male or female. What if you're male and gay? Or sexually male but your gender is fluid? Or female in gender?

Is The Man going to give a fuck men like that don't actually have a vagina? No, they care about the threat to their way of life. Does The Man give a fuck that I am marrying a woman? If he does I will be sure to find that very comforting when I walk into the wrong bar on the wrong night and get my ass beat for seeming queer. Should I not say what feminism means to me?

You can circle-jerk and isolate and wear pretty t-shirts all you want, The Man does not care. You do the fight a disservice when you focus on isolating men from women.

Yes, white straight "heternormative" (my god I hate that word. It's clunkly) men cannot take the lead and tell women how to be empowered. But how do you tell that they are actually your enemy? Is the way they dress, who they vote for, or their mannerisms? No. It's because they are WRONG.

If the main tactic of feminism is education, and it should be, then educate. For this you will need patience.

The secondary tactic feminism should use is stomping assholes in the face when they step out of line.

That's it.

[M. Nigel Salt]

No, it's not. Why would men get to decide what feminism means?

Ah HA! This is exactly why I have always shied away from calling my self a feminist, and why I've avoided anything that bears the label.

Men do not get to decide what feminism is to women.
They absolutely get a say in what it means to them and what they are going to do about.

Furthermore, you are grossly oversimplifying things when you ask a question like that

The "enemy" of feminists don't care if you're male or female. What if you're male and gay? Or sexually male but your gender is fluid? Or female in gender?

Is The Man going to give a fuck men like that don't actually have a vagina? No, they care about the threat to their way of life. Does The Man give a fuck that I am marrying a woman? If he does I will be sure to find that very comforting when I walk into the wrong bar on the wrong night and get my ass beat for seeming queer. Should I not say what feminism means to me?

You can circle-jerk and isolate and wear pretty t-shirts all you want, The Man does not care. You do the fight a disservice when you focus on isolating men from women.

Yes, white straight "heternormative" (my god I hate that word. It's clunkly) men cannot take the lead and tell women how to be empowered. But how do you tell that they are actually your enemy? Is the way they dress, who they vote for, or their mannerisms? No. It's because they are WRONG.

If the main tactic of feminism is education, and it should be, then educate. For this you will need patience.

The secondary tactic feminism should use is stomping assholes in the face when they step out of line.

That's it.

I like this post!

[Freeky Queen of DERP]

Alty, serving up another plate of hot, steaming Holy Truth.

[Verbal Mike]

Nigel, Cain, Joseph, and Alty look like a Correct Motorcycle Gang to me right now!

I seems that the problem is that these positions are seen as absolutes instead of something that you can move between.  Conformity is no more useful than non-conformity, but no less.  The ability to move between such states consciously gives a person a bit of leverage over the machine(which is simply the influences and norms of other people IMO).  Conform where it is useful, non-conform where it is going to truly express something you feel you must express. Not to be glib, but THAT IS ALL!

Non-conformity, obviously, simply becomes conformity when it is no longer in motion and has become a fixed part of the machine in your head. Conversely conformity can allow a person opportunity to exert influence much like how the pointy end of a pry-bar can slip into an otherwise unleveragable crease.

Exactly. This is how I see things. I project a conformist image, in the way I look and behave, which opens a lot of doors. But I disconform regularly on all kinds of dimensions when it's useful or just feels right. I think this is probably true of many people here, and this is definitely an attitude I learned from this forum. Before that, like most people, I felt I have to find my spot on the conformity spectrum and stick to it. But that just helps people pidgeonhole you, and either oppress or ignore you.

But what makes The Machine so powerful in its oppression is that, while it oppresses most effectively when people stick to one point on the spectrum, even us weirdoes who oscillate all the time and conform or disconform only to a degree at any given time on any given dimension are still always stuck with the one-dimensional choice between submission and marginalization. If I oscillate towards nonconformity in some situation, those people who think in a similarly nonconformist way will have no problem, nor will they learn anything new, and those who are relatively conformist will write me off to a degree. It's only when the conformity gap is relatively small, in either direction, that we learn something from each other, and if there's any gap then one person or the other is still exercising submission (to dominant memes/norms) in some way, to some degree.

In other words, while I worded my post as though conformity were a simple binary, the point holds (imho) just as well when it's multiple gradient dimensions between two extremes.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Nigel, Cain, Joseph, and Alty look like a Correct Motorcycle Gang to me right now!

I seems that the problem is that these positions are seen as absolutes instead of something that you can move between.  Conformity is no more useful than non-conformity, but no less.  The ability to move between such states consciously gives a person a bit of leverage over the machine(which is simply the influences and norms of other people IMO).  Conform where it is useful, non-conform where it is going to truly express something you feel you must express. Not to be glib, but THAT IS ALL!

Non-conformity, obviously, simply becomes conformity when it is no longer in motion and has become a fixed part of the machine in your head. Conversely conformity can allow a person opportunity to exert influence much like how the pointy end of a pry-bar can slip into an otherwise unleveragable crease.

Exactly. This is how I see things. I project a conformist image, in the way I look and behave, which opens a lot of doors. But I disconform regularly on all kinds of dimensions when it's useful or just feels right. I think this is probably true of many people here, and this is definitely an attitude I learned from this forum. Before that, like most people, I felt I have to find my spot on the conformity spectrum and stick to it. But that just helps people pidgeonhole you, and either oppress or ignore you.

But what makes The Machine so powerful in its oppression is that, while it oppresses most effectively when people stick to one point on the spectrum, even us weirdoes who oscillate all the time and conform or disconform only to a degree at any given time on any given dimension are still always stuck with the one-dimensional choice between submission and marginalization. If I oscillate towards nonconformity in some situation, those people who think in a similarly nonconformist way will have no problem, nor will they learn anything new, and those who are relatively conformist will write me off to a degree. It's only when the conformity gap is relatively small, in either direction, that we learn something from each other, and if there's any gap then one person or the other is still exercising submission (to dominant memes/norms) in some way, to some degree.

In other words, while I worded my post as though conformity were a simple binary, the point holds (imho) just as well when it's multiple gradient dimensions between two extremes.

Verbl, I am at best a somewhat mouthy prospect fit to get coffee, find stuff, and hand over tools. Maybe one day I'll have chopped enough wood and carried enough water to get patched in. After that I'd still be chopping wood and carrying water. Thanks for the compliment though!

It's one thing to have a pry bar, another to be proficient with it's use, and still another to know where to use it to improve something rather than simply cause damage. (to yourself and others most likely, the machine is not really going to slow down for one silly monkey with a pry bar) It is another yet to have the strength, if you will, to be effective in a perfect set up of the other 3 things.  I gotta try to cut back on the metaphors here.

Submission has it's uses and it seems to me that you consider it and marginalization to be inherently negative. I am uncertain that I am correct in this seeming. I consider such things to be neither good nor bad inherently, but simply a set of attributes. A display of submission can present opportunity if you are patient and flexible.  Nobody that hasn't totally given up can truly be completely marginalized. Even in death.  Many obscure people still exert influence on those that have come across their works and writings.

Your second statement here seems to rest on the supposition that you know already what effect you will have on conformists and non-c folks. It also seems to indicate a certainty that the result will be ineffective.  Try anyway, you can't know the full effect of your actions on people over time. If you are very fortunate they will tell you.  The statement of the effect is inaccurate only in the absoluteness of the statement.  It may be accurate in most such hypothetical circumstances, but results will vary. Try, check result, try again... perhaps differently.

[Verbal Mike]

Submission isn't necessarily always awful, nor is marginalization. But in a perfect world there would be a way to avoid both completely, and in this world there is not.

As for the other stuff, yes, I meant it all relatively, not absolutely. And displaying nonconformity is one of my favorite ways of discovering whether people I know are really cool. I just tend to dispense nonconformity carefully, so it's more difficult people to pigeonhole me as a crazy.

As for posthumous influence, that's a whole other bag of beans. I'm talking about the interaction we have with the world and the people we interact with in life.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Right on, you seem quite savvy about it, so I figured that it was likely no really a statement of absolutes.
I gotta do a bit of thinking before I'll be able to post something practically useful related to this topic, but I'm gonna stay interested. Thanks for opening this!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Submission has it's uses and it seems to me that you consider it and marginalization to be inherently negative. I am uncertain that I am correct in this seeming. I consider such things to be neither good nor bad inherently, but simply a set of attributes.

That is foolishness.  Submitting gives control over your life to others.  Marginalism removes your own control over your own life to large degree.  At that point, you're left hoping that said control over your life is not abused by the controller.  It almost invariably is, eventually.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Submission has it's uses and it seems to me that you consider it and marginalization to be inherently negative. I am uncertain that I am correct in this seeming. I consider such things to be neither good nor bad inherently, but simply a set of attributes.

That is foolishness.  Submitting gives control over your life to others.  Marginalism removes your own control over your own life to large degree.  At that point, you're left hoping that said control over your life is not abused by the controller.  It almost invariably is, eventually.

Hm, At the extremes of the spectrum I agree about the submitting. People always have some form of submission or another on the table to achieve a goal however. You are a parent. If submitting to the agenda of one person, like an employer, assists in the more important goal of providing for one's children is it not worthwhile even though you give considerable control of your life to others for 8+ hours per day? I think it would definitely be foolish to do so if there is no reasonable short or long term benefit to yourself or others.
Submission and counter-submission is the basis for real negotiation. That and the ability to recognize a deal breaker and walk if the other party refuses to budge on the point to accommodate the greater deal.

I do find almost no real benefit to marginalization. I wholeheartedly agree that it almost inevitably leads to powerlessness and potential abuse.

I think that I need to think on this more before I'll be able to give a more meaningful response.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I used to think that submission was a good way to 'compromise'. I spent a large chunk of my life submitting to the group think of a religion... then submitting to the 'standards' of an employer. In my new job, I've eschewed all compromise, I tell everyone from my co-worker to the CEO exactly what I think, while having hair past my shoulders, a beard and occasional references to psychedelics. I suddenly found out they consider me irreplacable, more than half of them use psychedelics during their downtime and all of them appreciate real, honest action, rather than meek compromise.

Hell, I'm sitting in Turkey, getting ready to fly to Zurich, planning a trip to Paris and we'll be moving to the UK before long... which will be a base of operations for wandering all around Europe... and these people are paying me more than any other employer ever.

Sincerity and honesty trump submission and marginalism and if they don't... well Fuck Them.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Sincerity and honesty trump submission and marginalism and if they don't... well Fuck Them.

I agree sir, especially with this statement.

I must have a different definition in my head of what submission is than what seems to be the case from discussion here. To me it is an act of giving in  for sure, but I think of it as flexibility and courtesy. It is temporary. When I speak of it I do NOT mean being spineless and broken.

[Verbal Mike]

To me it's a question of picking your fights. I like to wear button-up shirts because I look good in them and they're conformist, easing a lot of day-to-day interactions. If people around me were more into the mix of black and colorful that "alternatives" (the punk-hippie spectrum) around here wear, I'd probably conform to that, since I like that look too. I don't confuse this blatant self-labeling with anything to do with who I am or what I believe. The costs of projecting a visual label more in line with the way I think and the things I care about would outweigh its benefits. (But when I get a chance to buy organic fair-trade clothing that fits my conformist visual style, I do, since I actually care about sustainability and fair trade a great deal.)

On the other hand, if I'm discussing something with someone, and I have the time and energy, and they say something that's normally socially acceptable but I consider somehow intolerant, racist, sexist, etc., I call them out on it. They may marginalize me in the future for it, but on the off chance that I can make a difference, that risk is worthwhile.

Of course, all of this is easier said than done, but the above is how I like to think about it, even if it doesn't match my behavior 100% of the time (e.g., I'm usually too poor to expand my wardrobe, and I'm often too lazy to call people out.)

[The Wizard Joseph]

I have found that the way a person presents them self is often the difference between conflict or not. I wear whatever I feel is appropriate to a given set of circumstances. This is often "plainclothes" due to budget and other considerations, but when I feel like dressing up for a situation I go all out and wear whatever I feel like.  I have a knack for showing people the person in the clothes and have had extremely pleasant and fruitful conversations with folks far above my "station" wearing the crappiest stuff. 

PD has taken some getting used to in no small part because I cannot look folks in the eye, easily get a feel for their mood and tone when they say something, and express on those non-verbal levels that are so important to communication. The machine here is weird as fuck, but I have learned to adapt somewhat.  It's still a bit taxing for me. This is my first and only forum other than a very small amount of roleplay forum exploration back when I was a teen.  It was dumb and did not keep my interest for more than a week.