A few thoughts on the big feminism discussion blowup.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I've still been mulling this over...Not the contents of the discussion, but how the discussion went.  In a word, it went "poorly", and I think I know why.

All communication of ideas follows three steps:

1.  You have to impart an understanding of your idea in the other person.  The recipient, on the other hand, must make the effort to understand your position.  You may think you have communicated your idea, only to find that it's not sinking in...And if you move on to the next stages, you wind up shouting past each other.

2.  You have to acknowledge the importance of the issue to the other person, once you understand their position.  If you don't understand their position, how can you possibly acknowledge it?  Acknowlegement, by the way, is the easiest thing to fuck up.  A witticism, for example, may SEEM funny to you...But to the other person it says "I have no respect for your position on this subject, and in fact I have no respect for you at all."  That may not be accurate, but that is what the other person will take away from the situation.

3.  Argue or concede the point, based on your beliefs or the data available.  Be aware that many people (myself included) are walking around with a bad mess of truisms in their head, and that the only method of counteracting truisms is solid data.

Now, what happened over the last 3 weeks was this (in my case):  Nigel and Garbo were at step 3, and I was still at step 1.  Everyone was trying to do step 2, but if someone's still at step 1, it's impossible for the sender of the acknowledgement to convey respect for the other person's beliefs.  For example, I was trying to acknowledge the importance of their position, but I didn't understand what their position WAS.  Likewise, Nigel & Garbo were trying to argue their point to me, but I was listening to the argument with filters imposed by my misunderstanding of their concerns.

With a fundamental breakdown in communications like that, is there any wonder that tempers flared?  Also, it is possible that there can be humor in any conversation, but it is really important to know when that humor may be offensive.

Lastly, the recipient must try to understand.  A few people showed up to the conversation and skipped the understanding bit at all...They were there to preach their position or even preach about themselves.  This is common, damn near everyone does it, but it's not communication.

Examples (note: this isn't an attack, just an observation): 

1.  Signora Paesor was arguing the rape issue on the males/patriarchy thread instead of the rape thread.  This eliminated the entire conversation, and we then had two rape threads (preaching position).

2.  Carved Wood was desperate to show how tough she was (same thread), and how nobody should show any concern for anyone else's feelings on a subject (preaching self).

Step 1 failure in both cases.  Step 2 is now impossible.

In addition, at least 3 people (P3nt, Garbo, V3x) attempted humor or showed anger at step 2.  Sneering disregard for the other person's position, attacks made out of anger, or witty comments all make moving to step 3 utterly impossible, and lead to a great deal of butthurt or even long-lasting ill will.

Step 2 failure.  No argument or concession is possible.

Lastly, I was trying to argue when I knew I didn't have a complete understanding of the topic.  This is not a step 3 failure, it's a step 1 failure.  It took several days for me to understand that I wasn't actually listening.  If I HAD been listening, and still disagreed, that would be one thing (you can't, after all, convince everyone of anything), but I was arguing apples in response to Nigel & Garbo's position of oranges.

So there you have it.  The only question is, do we learn anything from what happened, or do we merely write another topic off as a "PD forbidden subject" and wander off all butthurt?

Just my thoughts on the subject.

[LMNO]

Personally, I found those several days to be extremely educational.  While there were misunderstandings, arguments, and some hollering, the content (information/unexpected signal) that was generated was impressive, and really gave me a richer understanding of the subject.  I discovered previously unknown privlege in me that was fucking up signal, and I was able to see past my biases and (just a little bit) into the minds of some very strong, very smart women.

So, butthurt, yes; but I still found it to be productive.

[East Coast Hustle]

I like this, but I have to disagree with the bit about understanding when other people find humor offensive. IMO, if someone else finds humor offensive, that is completely 100% their problem. There may be times when trying to inject humor into a conversation is not particularly appropriate, but the humor itself is not and should not be the problem.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I like this, but I have to disagree with the bit about understanding when other people find humor offensive. IMO, if someone else finds humor offensive, that is completely 100% their problem. There may be times when trying to inject humor into a conversation is not particularly appropriate, but the humor itself is not and should not be the problem.

I'm not saying humor in general.  I'm saying that when someone makes a point they've obviously put a lot of thought into, it's humiliating as hell to have it appear to be dismissed with a one-liner.  It's not the JOKE that's offensive, it's the casual or seemingly casual dismissal of their effort.

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's unfortunate that some of the best, informative, self-analytical threads on this board come at the expense of lots of people blowing the fuck up at each other. Mostly the butthurt is gotten over, through time, but some of it no doubt lingers. I'm pretty sure if everyone can absorb your (spectacularly insightful, BTW) OP, then maybe we can go some way to sidestepping the hooting and hollering and projectile excrement stage  of some of these discussions. I'm pretty sure this would be a good thing.

One other thing I noticed. Sometimes an argument will reach a genuine impasse. I found that what was happening in the feminism threads, especially was like that for me. Whether we understood each other's positions clearly or not, aside. I don't think you'd have swayed my opinion on the bigger picture, just as I don't think I'd have swayed my opponents. Does this make one side or other bad people? I don't think so, however, when we meet an impasse in a heated debate, demonisation does seem to be the road most travelled. Perhaps having the gumption to say "okay I don't agree with you, lets leave it at that" might help. And I am including myself in this, as one of the worst perpetrators.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Personally, I found those several days to be extremely educational.  While there were misunderstandings, arguments, and some hollering, the content (information/unexpected signal) that was generated was impressive, and really gave me a richer understanding of the subject.  I discovered previously unknown privlege in me that was fucking up signal, and I was able to see past my biases and (just a little bit) into the minds of some very strong, very smart women.

So, butthurt, yes; but I still found it to be productive.

So did I, but it shouldn't have taken 3 weeks for me to get there, and it shouldn't have resulted in that much butthurt.  Looking back at it, there was very little actual disagreement:  there was a lack of understanding and people loudly agreeing at each other, if you catch my drift.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's unfortunate that some of the best, informative, self-analytical threads on this board come at the expense of lots of people blowing the fuck up at each other. Mostly the butthurt is gotten over, through time, but some of it no doubt lingers. I'm pretty sure if everyone can absorb your (spectacularly insightful, BTW) OP, then maybe we can go some way to sidestepping the hooting and hollering and projectile excrement stage  of some of these discussions. I'm pretty sure this would be a good thing.

One other thing I noticed. Sometimes an argument will reach a genuine impasse. I found that what was happening in the feminism threads, especially was like that for me. Whether we understood each other's positions clearly or not, aside. I don't think you'd have swayed my opinion on the bigger picture, just as I don't think I'd have swayed my opponents. Does this one side or other bad people? I don't think so, however, when we meet an impasse in a heated debate, demonisation does seem to be the road most travelled. Perhaps having the gumption to say "okay I don't agree with you, lets leave it at that" might help. And I am including myself in this, as one of the worst perpetrators.

An impasse reached because neither side can in good conscience concede is one thing, and doesn't mean anyone's necessarily a bad guy.  My position is that for almost 3 weeks, we weren't even arguing each other's points...We were arguing bad signal.  Your points were dismissed out of hand, and you did a bit of that yourself.

At no point during the big blow up in the middle did anyone seem to understand the points the other side was making.

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's unfortunate that some of the best, informative, self-analytical threads on this board come at the expense of lots of people blowing the fuck up at each other. Mostly the butthurt is gotten over, through time, but some of it no doubt lingers. I'm pretty sure if everyone can absorb your (spectacularly insightful, BTW) OP, then maybe we can go some way to sidestepping the hooting and hollering and projectile excrement stage  of some of these discussions. I'm pretty sure this would be a good thing.

One other thing I noticed. Sometimes an argument will reach a genuine impasse. I found that what was happening in the feminism threads, especially was like that for me. Whether we understood each other's positions clearly or not, aside. I don't think you'd have swayed my opinion on the bigger picture, just as I don't think I'd have swayed my opponents. Does this one side or other bad people? I don't think so, however, when we meet an impasse in a heated debate, demonisation does seem to be the road most travelled. Perhaps having the gumption to say "okay I don't agree with you, lets leave it at that" might help. And I am including myself in this, as one of the worst perpetrators.

An impasse reached because neither side can in good conscience concede is one thing, and doesn't mean anyone's necessarily a bad guy.  My position is that for almost 3 weeks, we weren't even arguing each other's points...We were arguing bad signal.  Your points were dismissed out of hand, and you did a bit of that yourself.

At no point during the big blow up in the middle did anyone seem to understand the points the other side was making.

We'd left the debate behind and gotten fixated on the chew toy

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Great insights... I think it may well apply to most of the 'explosive' topics around here.

I also agree with P3nt's point... disagreement doesn't have to devolve into demonization. We're a group that tends to pride itself on TFY,S! and TFY doesn't always mean that we'll all end up on the same page, and it doesn't mean that ending up on different pages somehow means the person is evil, broken, psychologically ill or anything else.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's unfortunate that some of the best, informative, self-analytical threads on this board come at the expense of lots of people blowing the fuck up at each other. Mostly the butthurt is gotten over, through time, but some of it no doubt lingers. I'm pretty sure if everyone can absorb your (spectacularly insightful, BTW) OP, then maybe we can go some way to sidestepping the hooting and hollering and projectile excrement stage  of some of these discussions. I'm pretty sure this would be a good thing.

One other thing I noticed. Sometimes an argument will reach a genuine impasse. I found that what was happening in the feminism threads, especially was like that for me. Whether we understood each other's positions clearly or not, aside. I don't think you'd have swayed my opinion on the bigger picture, just as I don't think I'd have swayed my opponents. Does this one side or other bad people? I don't think so, however, when we meet an impasse in a heated debate, demonisation does seem to be the road most travelled. Perhaps having the gumption to say "okay I don't agree with you, lets leave it at that" might help. And I am including myself in this, as one of the worst perpetrators.

An impasse reached because neither side can in good conscience concede is one thing, and doesn't mean anyone's necessarily a bad guy.  My position is that for almost 3 weeks, we weren't even arguing each other's points...We were arguing bad signal.  Your points were dismissed out of hand, and you did a bit of that yourself.

At no point during the big blow up in the middle did anyone seem to understand the points the other side was making.

We'd left the debate behind and gotten fixated on the chew toy

Not even that, really.  I didn't see any deliberate, premeditated malice on anyone's part.

I think it's just that both sides THOUGHT they'd made their points clearly, when the other side wasn't grasping what they said.

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's unfortunate that some of the best, informative, self-analytical threads on this board come at the expense of lots of people blowing the fuck up at each other. Mostly the butthurt is gotten over, through time, but some of it no doubt lingers. I'm pretty sure if everyone can absorb your (spectacularly insightful, BTW) OP, then maybe we can go some way to sidestepping the hooting and hollering and projectile excrement stage  of some of these discussions. I'm pretty sure this would be a good thing.

One other thing I noticed. Sometimes an argument will reach a genuine impasse. I found that what was happening in the feminism threads, especially was like that for me. Whether we understood each other's positions clearly or not, aside. I don't think you'd have swayed my opinion on the bigger picture, just as I don't think I'd have swayed my opponents. Does this one side or other bad people? I don't think so, however, when we meet an impasse in a heated debate, demonisation does seem to be the road most travelled. Perhaps having the gumption to say "okay I don't agree with you, lets leave it at that" might help. And I am including myself in this, as one of the worst perpetrators.

An impasse reached because neither side can in good conscience concede is one thing, and doesn't mean anyone's necessarily a bad guy.  My position is that for almost 3 weeks, we weren't even arguing each other's points...We were arguing bad signal.  Your points were dismissed out of hand, and you did a bit of that yourself.

At no point during the big blow up in the middle did anyone seem to understand the points the other side was making.

We'd left the debate behind and gotten fixated on the chew toy

Not even that, really.  I didn't see any deliberate, premeditated malice on anyone's part.

I think it's just that both sides THOUGHT they'd made their points clearly, when the other side wasn't grasping what they said.

Yeah. I tend to get ultra fucking glib when that happens. It's a serious character flaw and one that I'm really fucking good at to boot 

[Luna]

Good analysis, here...  Something to keep in mind in the future.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Good analysis, here...  Something to keep in mind in the future.

Something to act on in the future.

When someone presents an argument, determine if you understand it (restate/ask/etc).

When someone isn't understanding you, be patient.  Who is at fault for the misunderstanding is irrelevant...The idea didn't get through.

Important note:  Once they DO seem to understand and decide to argue the point, try to find out if they don't understand your point, or if they honestly DO understand it, but disagree.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Good analysis, here...  Something to keep in mind in the future.

It is. 

Everybody has a slightly different grid, too, of course. If some guy pushes my boundaries, I think "fucking pervert". I figure he sees the world as his jackrag and if his orientation was different, he'd be harrassing a guy. Feminism doesn't enter into the equation for me, I just glass the fucker.  It doesn't occur to me to think "fucking patriachy" or "fucking male priviledge", but it's all valid.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Good analysis, here...  Something to keep in mind in the future.

It is. 

Everybody has a slightly different grid, too, of course. If some guy pushes my boundaries, I think "fucking pervert". I figure he sees the world as his jackrag and if his orientation was different, he'd be harrassing a guy. Feminism doesn't enter into the equation for me, I just glass the fucker.  It doesn't occur to me to think "fucking patriachy" or "fucking male priviledge", but it's all valid.

Same stream, different boats, Stella!


I tried my hardest not to screech in that whole thing... I also got some of my best writing evar in the Rape Culture thread...