Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Think for Yourself, Schmuck! => Topic started by: Verbal Mike on September 07, 2012, 02:53:27 PM

Title: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Verbal Mike on September 07, 2012, 02:53:27 PM
Just a quick thought I've been having on the backdrop of our recent discussions of feminism etc.

Before I start, let me note that I will be making some generalizations about people, people whose experience I have barely a glimpse of, and I feel kind of uncomfortable doing so. Hence, a lot of attempts at e-prime. And I'm eager to hear the take of people who are more intimately familiar with what I'm talking about, meaning mainly anyone who's not a cis male. (It's not that my opinion is a-priori invalid, it's that I don't have some crucially relevant perspectives.)

It seems that with patriarchy, as with any other form of oppression (or, any other part of The MachineTM), the dominant group and the memes that justify its dominance have an ally in something probably related to Stockholm Syndrome (you know, the thing where people who are kidnapped start identifying with their captor and feeling positive and dependent about them.)

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.

Women who conform to patriarchy, who constantly make huge efforts to be perfect decoration and "playmates" for the men around them, seem to actually want the kind of validation the patriarchy offers them, and look down on women who do not conform as much. And women who are conscious of the patriarchy tend to refuse to conform, at least in some ways, and to look down on women who do conform.

Because patriarchy is still a dominant part of The Machine – which implies that most people carry a bunch of patriarchal memes – and because of the principle that communication can only take place between equals, a majority of society looks down on those individuals who are aware and critical of the patriarchy. Because they look down on them (us), communication is impossible. And so The Machine lives on, and like any attempt to change it, feminism can at most hope to slowly shift the balance away from patriarchy, but never to dismantle The Machine as a whole.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Verbal Mike on September 07, 2012, 03:45:49 PM
Hmm, this thread should probably be moved to TFY,S.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 04:25:27 PM
Done.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 04:37:59 PM
Hey, if I'm not qualified to have an opinion on feminism then neither are you. So you just take your penis and SHUT UP.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Verbal Mike on September 07, 2012, 04:46:00 PM
WELL I LIKE MY PENIS SO YES I WILL TAKE IT.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Juana on September 07, 2012, 05:15:23 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 04:37:59 PM
Hey, if I'm not qualified to have an opinion on feminism then neither are you. So you just take your penis and SHUT UP.
This is really, really tired, ECH. The one and only thing men are not allowed to do is dictate what feminism means. That does not forbid you from having opinions or ideas about the subject.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 05:45:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:15:23 PM
The one and only thing men are not allowed to do is dictate what feminism means.

Is there someone who is allowed to do that?
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Juana on September 07, 2012, 05:47:23 PM
Women, as a group.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:47:23 PM
Women, as a group.

Okay, so it's a special pleading thing.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Juana on September 07, 2012, 05:54:57 PM
No, it's not. Why would men get to decide what feminism means?
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 07, 2012, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:47:23 PM
Women, as a group.

Hmmm. I don't agree with this. Men can't dictate what feminism means to women, any more than men can dictate women's experiences. Women, on the other hand, are not the only people affected by patriarchy or the only people impacted by feminism, so everyone who participates in feminism dictates what it means for them.

Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Juana on September 07, 2012, 05:58:19 PM
Okay, I can see that. The "to women" was largely what I meant, but I hadn't thought much about the latter part for some reason.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 05:58:39 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:54:57 PM
No, it's not. Why would men get to decide what feminism means?

Well, let's review:

WE may have an opinion, YOU dictate.

That's not egilatarianism...I want nothing to do with it.  You dictate all you like, I'm going to decide what feminism means to me.  If that's offensive or something, too fucking bad, because my definition of feminism applies to all genders, and boils down to "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME". 

So, yeah, I refuse to acknowledge your authority on this subject.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: LMNO on September 07, 2012, 05:59:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 05:45:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:15:23 PM
The one and only thing men are not allowed to do is dictate what feminism means.

Is there someone who is allowed to do that?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:47:23 PM
Women, as a group.

You know when you were asking for examples of when it seemed like you were alienating men?

We've already agreed that people who have not experienced institutional sexism haven't experienced how that feels, and shouldn't tell those who have what they should be feeling. But to say that men can't have a say in something that was once defined on this forum as "the idea that women and men should be treated equally" really feels exclusionary to me.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Verbal Mike on September 07, 2012, 06:04:43 PM
Is anyone going to say anything about the OP or is this now the official thread about men having a say in feminism?
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Juana on September 07, 2012, 06:05:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 05:58:39 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:54:57 PM
No, it's not. Why would men get to decide what feminism means?

Well, let's review:

WE may have an opinion, YOU dictate.

That's not egilatarianism...I want nothing to do with it.  You dictate all you like, I'm going to decide what feminism means to me.  If that's offensive or something, too fucking bad, because my definition of feminism applies to all genders, and boils down to "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME". 

So, yeah, I refuse to acknowledge your authority on this subject.
I wasn't trying to be antagonistic. Sorry if it came off that way. I clarified and ceded in my previous post.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 07, 2012, 05:59:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 05:45:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:15:23 PM
The one and only thing men are not allowed to do is dictate what feminism means.

Is there someone who is allowed to do that?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:47:23 PM
Women, as a group.

You know when you were asking for examples of when it seemed like you were alienating men?

We've already agreed that people who have not experienced institutional sexism haven't experienced how that feels, and shouldn't tell those who have what they should be feeling. But to say that men can't have a say in something that was once defined on this forum as "the idea that women and me should be treated equally" really feels exclusionary to me.
Thank you for pointing that out. I did clarify and cede that there were things I hadn't thought about before (thanks, PD!).


Quote from: VERBL on September 07, 2012, 06:04:43 PM
Is anyone going to say anything about the OP or is this now the official thread about men having a say in feminism?
Sorry. :lulz: Next post.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Juana on September 07, 2012, 06:08:08 PM
Quote from: VERBL on September 07, 2012, 02:53:27 PM
Just a quick thought I've been having on the backdrop of our recent discussions of feminism etc.

Before I start, let me note that I will be making some generalizations about people, people whose experience I have barely a glimpse of, and I feel kind of uncomfortable doing so. Hence, a lot of attempts at e-prime. And I'm eager to hear the take of people who are more intimately familiar with what I'm talking about, meaning mainly anyone who's not a cis male. (It's not that my opinion is a-priori invalid, it's that I don't have some crucially relevant perspectives.)

It seems that with patriarchy, as with any other form of oppression (or, any other part of The MachineTM), the dominant group and the memes that justify its dominance have an ally in something probably related to Stockholm Syndrome (you know, the thing where people who are kidnapped start identifying with their captor and feeling positive and dependent about them.)

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.

Women who conform to patriarchy, who constantly make huge efforts to be perfect decoration and "playmates" for the men around them, seem to actually want the kind of validation the patriarchy offers them, and look down on women who do not conform as much. And women who are conscious of the patriarchy tend to refuse to conform, at least in some ways, and to look down on women who do conform.

Because patriarchy is still a dominant part of The Machine – which implies that most people carry a bunch of patriarchal memes – and because of the principle that communication can only take place between equals, a majority of society looks down on those individuals who are aware and critical of the patriarchy. Because they look down on them (us), communication is impossible. And so The Machine lives on, and like any attempt to change it, feminism can at most hope to slowly shift the balance away from patriarchy, but never to dismantle The Machine as a whole.
This is pretty much spot on, I think!
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 07, 2012, 06:09:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:15:23 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 04:37:59 PM
Hey, if I'm not qualified to have an opinion on feminism then neither are you. So you just take your penis and SHUT UP.
This is really, really tired, ECH. The one and only thing men are not allowed to do is dictate what feminism means. That does not forbid you from having opinions or ideas about the subject.

I don't necessarily agree with that either, though it's not a point I feel inclined to argue. But I was told yet again last night that my opinion isn't as valid since I have a penis.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:18:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 05:58:39 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:54:57 PM
No, it's not. Why would men get to decide what feminism means?

Well, let's review:

WE may have an opinion, YOU dictate.

That's not egilatarianism...I want nothing to do with it.  You dictate all you like, I'm going to decide what feminism means to me.  If that's offensive or something, too fucking bad, because my definition of feminism applies to all genders, and boils down to "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME". 

So, yeah, I refuse to acknowledge your authority on this subject.

This.

And..

Quote from: VERBL on September 07, 2012, 06:04:43 PM
Is anyone going to say anything about the OP or is this now the official thread about men having a say in feminism?

Sorry for letting my snarky one-liner jack the thread. I liked the OP, but I have to admit that I don't really have anything useful to add to it.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 06:59:26 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:09:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Faust on September 07, 2012, 07:02:21 PM
I will never accept a dictonomy. Ideology, to be truly accepted is not a spectator sport. Under this definition I will never be a feminist. Shame, I thought I was. I thought the discussions I had with my future wife about what it means would be enlightening. Guess I'll write that off now.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Verbal Mike on September 07, 2012, 07:17:02 PM
Which dichotomy exactly are you talking about, Faust?
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Faust on September 07, 2012, 07:21:08 PM
Quote from: VERBL on September 07, 2012, 07:17:02 PM
Which dichotomy exactly are you talking about, Faust?
Sorry autocorrect dictation, of any ideology or philosophy.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 07:26:22 PM
Here's the fucking disconnect:  I am male.  I cannot possibly understand the problems females face, and vice-versa.  This does NOT mean that I cannot form my own definition for feminism, or that I can't be a "FULL MEMBER" of the feminist community.  The two things ("Being male" and "being a feminist") are two entirely separate things.

And if that means to you that I am saying "FUCK YOU FOR EXCLUDING ME", then you're not fucking paying attention because it's easier to simply respond with a pat phrase, so FUCK YOU.

Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 07, 2012, 07:42:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 07:26:22 PM
Here's the fucking disconnect:  I am male.  I cannot possibly understand the problems females face, and vice-versa.  This does NOT mean that I cannot form my own definition for feminism, or that I can't be a "FULL MEMBER" of the feminist community.  The two things ("Being male" and "being a feminist") are two entirely separate things.

And if that means to you that I am saying "FUCK YOU FOR EXCLUDING ME", then you're not fucking paying attention because it's easier to simply respond with a pat phrase, so FUCK YOU.

It seems like somewhere along the line, these separate ideas got conflated.

1. In order to support people who are getting the shitty end of the stick, you have to listen to their experiences and not try to tell them what they are/should be experiencing or feeling, because no one knows their experiences as well as they know them and correcting/overriding them is not supportive or helpful.

2. Men can't be "in charge" of feminism any more than white people could be "in charge" of the Civil Rights movement, for reasons that I hope are obvious. If a movement has as a core value the empowerment of a disempowered group, it's critical that the movement reflect that internally, or it's useless. However, ultimately, all participants must benefit, or the movement is useless.

3. Every participant in a social movement defines that movement for themselves, and contributes their own perspective and experience to the movement as a whole.

4. 1 and 2 do not invalidate 3.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 07:47:15 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 07:42:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 07:26:22 PM
Here's the fucking disconnect:  I am male.  I cannot possibly understand the problems females face, and vice-versa.  This does NOT mean that I cannot form my own definition for feminism, or that I can't be a "FULL MEMBER" of the feminist community.  The two things ("Being male" and "being a feminist") are two entirely separate things.

And if that means to you that I am saying "FUCK YOU FOR EXCLUDING ME", then you're not fucking paying attention because it's easier to simply respond with a pat phrase, so FUCK YOU.

It seems like somewhere along the line, these separate ideas got conflated.

1. In order to support people who are getting the shitty end of the stick, you have to listen to their experiences and not try to tell them what they are/should be experiencing or feeling, because no one knows their experiences as well as they know them and correcting/overriding them is not supportive or helpful.

2. Men can't be "in charge" of feminism any more than white people could be "in charge" of the Civil Rights movement, for reasons that I hope are obvious. If a movement has as a core value the empowerment of a disempowered group, it's critical that the movement reflect that internally, or it's useless.

3. Every participant in a social movement defines that movement for themselves, and contributes their own perspective and experience to the movement as a whole.

4. 1 and 2 do not invalidate 3.

I see no problem with the above.  I don't want ANYONE to be in charge.  I am only in charge of what *I* do.  Same goes for Garbo, you, anyone.  I am responsible for the part that I am in charge of (my own actions or inactions) and nothing else.  Same with you.  You are responsible for what all the Nigels do, not for stupid shit Susan Brownmiller said.  This is the part that the general public doesn't understand, and the part that the reactionary element (Pat Robertson, etc) capitalize on.

I was just excising a boil...I've been a little hot under the collar since SP posted the "FUCK YOU FOR EXCLUDING ME" thing, though I'm not sure she was the first one that said it.  I wasn't sure WHY at the time, but now I've figured it out.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Cain on September 07, 2012, 07:50:42 PM
QuoteIn order to support people who are getting the shitty end of the stick, you have to listen to their experiences and not try to tell them what they are/should be experiencing or feeling, because no one knows their experiences as well as they know them and correcting/overriding them is not supportive or helpful.

This is a far better way of framing it.

For instance, I would not say it is impossible for a male to understand what a female is going through.  Many men are subject to arbitrary and discriminatory systems of control too...as such, they can understand why this is such an important and heated topic.  While they may never have themselves suffered from the particulars of the situations women have, and so cannot discuss particular situations in the way you outlined in your post, men can certainly empathize with the overall feminist position from their own experiences of discrimination.

Because, really, I would say only a very few people have never suffered some kind of discrimination, injustice or basic unfairness which is at the heart of what feminism is trying to combat.  Certainly they may have suffered less, and certainly different kinds of discrimination, but I think it is perfectly possible for someone with even a half-decent imagination and some basic life experiences to empathize with the feminist position, if it is framed correctly to them.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 07, 2012, 07:58:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 07, 2012, 07:50:42 PM
QuoteIn order to support people who are getting the shitty end of the stick, you have to listen to their experiences and not try to tell them what they are/should be experiencing or feeling, because no one knows their experiences as well as they know them and correcting/overriding them is not supportive or helpful.

This is a far better way of framing it.

For instance, I would not say it is impossible for a male to understand what a female is going through.  Many men are subject to arbitrary and discriminatory systems of control too...as such, they can understand why this is such an important and heated topic.  While they may never have themselves suffered from the particulars of the situations women have, and so cannot discuss particular situations in the way you outlined in your post, men can certainly empathize with the overall feminist position from their own experiences of discrimination.

Because, really, I would say only a very few people have never suffered some kind of discrimination, injustice or basic unfairness which is at the heart of what feminism is trying to combat.  Certainly they may have suffered less, and certainly different kinds of discrimination, but I think it is perfectly possible for someone with even a half-decent imagination and some basic life experiences to empathize with the feminist position, if it is framed correctly to them.

Yes, I think that's true. At the same time, rarely is a story of a totally commonplace shitty encounter told without someone (and usually several people) trying to minimize or override it, which tells me that there are a lot of people out there who believe that if an experience doesn't have an analog in their own lives, then it must be exaggerated, made-up, or an exception.

Look at all the white people in the South (or better yet, those who have merely visited) who don't think racism is much of a problem because they rarely see it, despite what black people in the South have to say about their experiences.

So there's this problem when people who haven't seen or experienced a particular scenario look the people who have experienced it right in the face, and deny that it happens. That creates a lot of resentment, and usually conflict, and the conflict often escalates until it's not even accurately reflecting the original point anymore.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: LMNO on September 07, 2012, 08:01:53 PM
I agree with Cain and all the Nigels.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 09:22:09 PM
I'm going to thank Nigel at this point, for at least responding to my concern, even if she apparently misunderstood me.

Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on September 07, 2012, 11:33:03 PM
Quote from: VERBL on September 07, 2012, 02:53:27 PM

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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 06:59:26 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:09:13 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Salty on September 08, 2012, 12:57:08 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:54:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 08, 2012, 01:35:09 AM
Quote from: Alty on September 08, 2012, 12:57:08 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:54:57 PM
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!
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Freeky on September 08, 2012, 09:34:11 AM
Alty, serving up another plate of hot, steaming Holy Truth.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Verbal Mike on September 08, 2012, 12:06:37 PM
Nigel, Cain, Joseph, and Alty look like a Correct Motorcycle Gang to me right now!
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 07, 2012, 11:33:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on September 09, 2012, 01:43:46 PM
Quote from: VERBL on September 08, 2012, 12:06:37 PM
Nigel, Cain, Joseph, and Alty look like a Correct Motorcycle Gang to me right now!
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 07, 2012, 11:33:03 PM
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.



Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Verbal Mike on September 09, 2012, 02:18:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on September 09, 2012, 02:35:57 PM
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!
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2012, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 09, 2012, 01:43:46 PM

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.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on September 09, 2012, 05:32:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2012, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 09, 2012, 01:43:46 PM

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.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 13, 2012, 10:35:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on September 13, 2012, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 13, 2012, 10:35:35 AM

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.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Verbal Mike on September 13, 2012, 02:14:39 PM
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.)
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on September 13, 2012, 02:57:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Machine, Stockholm Syndrome, and marginalization – feminist edition
Post by: Honey on September 24, 2012, 10:37:30 PM
I enjoyed reading the OP & responses to this thread!  The concept of 'Stockholm Syndrome' is very interesting to me.  I've thought of this phenomenon more & more in recent times.  Fr'instance its relationship to the global financial imbroglio.  We've seen various supposedly sovereign Countries & Governments held captive by the global financial sector.  Seemingly unaware of their kidnapped state, they bail out the same sector with no strings attached.  Ensuring the same scenario to be played out again - the only question is when?  Mussolini said "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate & government power."  It's not really fascism though because the various Governments are clearly submissive to the financial sector.